Jack Layton cries for the news again.
The headline of the article reads "NDP warns government of election", but the foul comes in this quote from NDP Leader Jack Layton:
[Prime Minister] Harper used to believe in democracy. He used to believe in accountability. ... Now he believes in doing what the Liberals did: pile up the money in surprise surpluses, and pay down the debt without any consultation with Canadians about their priorities.
Once again, Mr. Layton gets it wrong on just about all his talking points (and the one point where it isn't incorrect is probably not nearly the bad thing he's making it out to be). Let's start at the top.
Democracy, as we have come to understand it, is a system of government where people are ruled by a group elected by the majority of the people. By implying that Mr. Harper no longer believes in democracy, Mr. Layton is really saying that the people have changed their minds. See, Mr. Harper is following his election platform on this issue.
Accountability is "
an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions" according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The decision to use all of the surplus for debt reduction seems to me to be highly accountable. The Conservatives campaigned on debt reduction, tax reduction, and less of the government largesse that characterized former governments. To do spend the surplus on anything but debt reduction would be dodging that promise.
I will agree that he is doing similar to the Liberals by lowballing the income forcast and overestimating the expense (if that's possible -- expenditures have a habit of growing to meet the budget, especially in a large bureaucracy like the government). This is a good practice for a country that is massively in debt, as long as the surplus is used wisely.
Canada's debt, as of the
2007 budget stood at roughly $469 billion. The entire budget was only $233 billion, making the debt twice the size of the entire budget. While this might not sound like much, especially for those of us holding mortgages, this debt was largely not incurred buying any objects of lasting value. I would compare to having a credit card debt of twice your annual salary. Fortunately, the interest rates are better for the government, or else we'd go bankrupt. Incidentally at the budgeted debt reduction of $3.0 billion per year, we would still have the debt in 2163. Instead, at $14.0 billion per year it will
only take until 2041.
By Mr. Layton's own words, though, Mr. Harper is diverging significantly from what the previous government did with surplusses, in particular toward the end of their terms. The Liberals did put part of the surplus towards paying down the debt, but that was only part of the picture. The surplus was also used for spending on social programs and other items, apparently completely at their own discretion. No budget, little debate, and little accountability.
As for doing this without consultation with Canadians, paying down the debt was part of their election campaign, and was part of the budget. Not only that, but the article itself indicates that the government, by the laws enacted to pass their budget, are required to pay any surplus
against the debt. It's a little late now to be complaining that this was done without consultation.
Besides which, the debt is money that past governments (of both political stripes) have already spent. Its the past governments who decided, with or without consultation, to spend more money instead of balancing the budget. We're just catching up with the payments. Does Mr. Layton really expect that we can keep spending forever and just forget about the debt stone hanging around our necks? Or worse yet, print extra money to pay it off?
Fortunately, by paying extra on the debt the government has committed
by legislation to let us keep more of our money next year from the interest savings, and that's the best news of all.
Bruce on 10.01.07 @ 04:40 PM CST [
link] [
No Comments]
