Connect with us

Business

Prime minister rejects ‘austerity’ despite massive debt and dismal economic growth

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Grady Munro and Jake Fuss

Adjusting for population growth and inflation, the Trudeau government has recorded the five-highest years (2018-2022) of per-person spending in Canadian history, and is on track to record a sixth.

This week, at the Liberal cabinet retreat in Montreal, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters he’s against “austerity and cuts” and believes his government must “invest” to “create greater growth” in the economy, thus dashing hopes for any meaningful spending restraint in the upcoming federal budget.

But evidence shows the government’s current plan has not helped the economy despite the prime minister’s claims. Rather than double-down on a failed strategy of higher spending, taxes and borrowing, the Trudeau government should change direction immediately.

Let’s look at the evidence.

According to its latest fiscal projections, the federal government will spend $449.8 billion on programs and services in 2023/24—up 75.5 per cent (nominally) from 2014/15 when program spending was $256.2 billion. Adjusting for population growth and inflation, the Trudeau government has recorded the five-highest years (2018-2022) of per-person spending in Canadian history, and is on track to record a sixth. But have we seen a corresponding increase in economic growth?

No, in fact Canada has experienced an economic growth crisis for the last decade.

One of the best ways to measure economic growth is to use inflation-adjusted per-person gross domestic product (GDP), which provides the broadest measure of living standards for Canadians. According to a recent study by Philip Cross, former chief economic analyst at Statistics Canada, between 2013 and 2022 Canada’s per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) grew at its slowest pace since the 1930s. Moreover, economic growth in Canada has fallen well behind growth in the United States, showing that Canada’s stagnation was not inevitable.

And there’s little room for optimism. According to OECD estimates, Canada will have the slowest growth in per-person GDP among advanced economies from 2020 to 2030 and 2030 to 2060.

Simply put, the data show that increased government spending has not produced greater prosperity for Canadians.

Indeed, rather than “invest” in Canadians, the Trudeau government has burdened Canadians with mountains of debt. The Trudeau government has yet to balance the budget, despite campaign promises, and this year will likely run its ninth consecutive deficit. Nearly a decade of uninterrupted deficits has increased the federal debt by $941.9 billion. This not only imposes costs on Canadians today—primarily through higher debt interest costs—but also increases the tax burden on future generations who are ultimately responsible for paying off today’s debt.

If the Trudeau government needs a blueprint for reform, it can find it within its own party, which has a history of spending reductions and strong economic growth.

During the mid-1990s, the Chrétien Liberal government introduced meaningful spending reductions that ultimately balanced the federal budget in 1997, marking the first federal budget surplus in nearly 30 years. In addition to spending reductions, the Chrétien government also introduced tax relief and other growth-enhancing policies. And the results were immediate.

Between 1997 and 2007, Canada’s average annual increase in per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) was 2.2 per cent, which was higher than the OECD average. During the same time period, Canada’s average rate of employment growth was nearly double the average in the OECD and the United States. And the national poverty rate fell from 7.8 per cent in 1996 to 4.9 per cent in 2004. Overall, the Canadian economy outperformed many other industrialized economies during this time and living standards improved for Canadians—despite reductions in government spending.

Despite claims by Prime Minister Trudeau, less government spending (not more) is necessary to help reverse the trend of stagnant economic growth. The Trudeau government should recognize that the current plan isn’t working and change course in its upcoming budget.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Automotive

Red States Sue California and the Biden Administration to Halt Electric Truck Mandates

Published on

From Heartland Daily News

By Nick Pope

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country”

Large coalitions of red states are suing regulators in Washington, D.C., and California over rules designed to effectively require increases in electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Nebraska is leading a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a 17-state coalition suing the state of California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California over its Advanced Clean Fleet rules. Both regulations would increase the number of heavy-duty EVs on the road, a development that could cause serious disruptions and cost increases across the U.S. economy, as supply chain and trucking sector experts have previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country,” Republican Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement. “Neither California nor the EPA has the constitutional power to dictate these nationwide rules to Americans. I am proud to lead our efforts to stop these unconstitutional attempts to remake our economy and am grateful to our sister states for joining our coalitions.”

(RELATED: New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business)

While specifics vary depending on the type of heavy-duty vehicle, EPA’s emissions standards will effectively mandate that EVs make up 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractors sold by 2032, according to The Wall Street Journal. The agency has also pushed aggressive emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles that will similarly force an increase in EVs’ share of new car sales over the next decade.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleet rules, meanwhile, will require that 100% of trucks sold in the state will be zero-emissions models starting in 2036, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While not federal, the California rules are of importance to other states because there are numerous other states who follow California’s emissions standards, which can be tighter than those required by the EPA and other federal agencies.

Critics fear that this dynamic will effectively enable California to set national policies and nudge manufacturers in the direction of EVs at a greater rate and scale than the Biden administration is pursuing.

Trucking industry and supply chain experts have previously told the DCNF that both regulations threaten to cause serious problems for the country’s supply chains and wider economy given that the technology for electric and zero-emissions trucks is simply not yet ready to be mandated at scale, among other issues.

Neither CARB nor the EPA responded immediately to requests for comment.

Nick Pope is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Service.

Originally published by The Daily Caller. Republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Automotive

New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By WILL KESSLER

 

Converting America’s medium- and heavy-duty trucks to electric vehicles (EV) in accordance with goals from the Biden administration would add massive costs to commercial truckingaccording to a new analysis released Wednesday.

The cost to switch over to light-duty EVs like a transit van would equate to a 5% increase in costs per year while switching over medium- and heavy-duty trucks would add up to 114% in costs per year to already struggling businesses, according to a report from transportation and logistics company Ryder Systems. The Biden administration, in an effort to facilitate a transition to EVs, finalized new emission standards in March that would require a huge number of heavy-duty vehicles to be electric or zero-emission by 2032 and has created a plan to roll out charging infrastructure across the country.

“There are specific applications where EV adoption makes sense today, but the use cases are still limited,” Karen Jones, executive vice president at Ryder, said in an accompanying press release. “Yet we’re facing regulations aimed at accelerating broader EV adoption when the technology and infrastructure are still developing. Until the gap in TCT for heavier-duty vehicles is narrowed or closed, we cannot expect many companies to make the transition, and, if required to convert in today’s market, we face more supply chain disruptions, transportation cost increases, and additional inflationary pressure.”

Due to the increase in costs for businesses, the potential inflationary impact on the entire economy per year is between 0.5% and 1%, according to the report. Inflation is already elevated, measuring 3.5% year-over-year in March, far from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Increased expense projections differ by state, with class 8 heavy-duty trucks costing 94% more per year in California compared to traditional trucks, due largely to a 501% increase in equipment costs, while cost savings on fuel only amounted to 52%. In Georgia, costs would be 114% higher due to higher equipment costs, labor costs, a smaller payload capacity and more.

The EPA also recently finalized rules mandating that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric or hybrid. Around $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act has already been designated to be used by subnational governments in the U.S. to replace some heavy-duty vehicles with EVs, like delivery trucks or school buses.

The Biden administration has also had trouble expanding EV charging infrastructure across the country, despite allotting $7.5 billion for chargers in 2021. Current charging infrastructure frequently has issues operating properly, adding to fears of “range anxiety,” where EV owners worry they will become stranded without a charger.

Continue Reading

Trending

X