Bruce Guenter's Thoughts

Random musings about stuff that crosses my path.

Home
Archives
Subscribe via RSSXML Icon


My favorite blogs:


Valid XHTML 1.0!

Powered By Greymatter

Home » Archives » December 2006 » Letter to the Editor on program cuts

[Previous entry: "Gay marriage defeat?"] [Next entry: "Vista will create new jobs?"]

12/08/2006: "Letter to the Editor on program cuts"


In the Editorial section of the Saskatoon StarPhoenix on Monday December 4, 2006, Alex Thumm of Saskatoon wrote a rather misguided missive complaining against recent budget changes by the Conservative government.

Program cuts short signted way to retire Canada's debt


The recent announcement by the conservative government that it wants to fully pay off the national debt by 2021 will not benefit the majority of Canadians.


This is false. Eliminating the debt will in fact benefit all Canadians. Simply having a debt means that we are obligated to pay the lenders interest on that debt. That interest must be paid through taxes, which are paid by all of society, both rich and poor. Lower debt means lower taxes, which means more money in your pocket.

Of course, I believe that having low or no debt is preferable, but it matters on how you reach that goal. "Canada's New Government" has significantly cut programs in the short time it has been in power, just so it can lower the debt.

These were programs that benefited Canadians' quality of life and our economy, because you need educated and healthy people to have a strong economy.


Contrary to the claim that the Conservatives have "significantly cut programs", they have actually increased spending in a number of areas and, as was stated, are committed to increasing expenditures on programs. Many of the most visible budget cuts involved funding conferences and advocacy groups. In other words, parts of the programs that had nothing to do with educating people or helping them to health.

On the Department of Finance's own website, it states that, "The government is committed to keeping the growth of program expenses below the growth of the economy over the medium term."


Committing to keeping the growth of program expenditures below that of the growth of the economy should be applauded. To see why, consider the opposite. If program expenses grow faster than the economy, eventually we will reach a point where our economy cannot produce enough to pay for the programs. This requires taking on debt, which means paying more in future years, producing a vicious cycle of paying more to achieve less.

How can we accept that our government is "committed" to cutting programs for Canadians, for the sole purpose of lowering the debt? Parents don't cut piano lessons or quality of food for their children so they can pay off their line of credit.


Families with expenditures larger than their income have to make hard choices of where they want to end up in the future. Money doesn't simply come from nowhere. If parents want to provide "programs" for their children, we have to produce the money to pay for those programs from somewhere. We can choose to do so by taking on more work to increase our income, by cutting other expenditures, or by borrowing money. The latter will get increasingly difficult as the debt load increases, since there will be less collateral to use to base the load on and more interest to pay. Finally, when the children leave, the parents will be left with hard to pay loans, and migrate into the classes of the impoverished elderly, and the children will be given a lesson in misguided priorities.

Much of the above applies to governments equally when too much is being spent. They can choose to increase taxes, cut expenses, or borrow money. The former and the latter choices are not sustainable, especially in the light of increasing numbers of society who are inelegible or unable to pay taxes. The approaching retirement of millions of so-called baby-boomers will put a large strain on our existing programs, as they start to take more out of government programs than they put in.

If Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was in Saskatoon, I'd like to tell him one thing: A government is supposed to do what will benefit the vulnerable and average Canadians.


If Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was in Saskatoon, I'd like to congratulate him on making a small step of progress benefiting all Canadians. There is still a long way to go, and many more hard choices to make along the road.

New Comment
Name:
E-Mail:
Homepage:
What is my last name?
Smilies:
smile shocked sad
big grin razz *wink wink* hey baby
angry, grr blush confused
cool crazy cry
sleepy hehe LOL
plain jane rolls eyes satisfied
 
Please note, I employ some fairly aggressive spam filters to kill bad comments and even ban posters. I do however receive copies of all comments posted, even if you get blocked. Any valid post that is blocked will be reinstated as soon as I can, and I will send the poster an email (if possible).