British Columbia鈥檚 main political parties are already battling over whether the budget is balanced, and the best thing voters can do is ignore the whole sideshow.
As the election nears, British Columbians have to get down to the serious business of evaluating the party positions. How the politicians plan to raise money and spend it are important questions, but after decades of budget heartbreak, we should know better than to pay any attention to the bottom line.
Just think back to the 2009 election, when the sa国际传媒 Liberals added up the numbers and promised the deficit would not exceed $495 million. By the time the accountants finished tallying the money coming in and going out, the total was $1.7 billion. That鈥檚 a big 鈥渙ops.鈥�
By the end of that year, however, voters couldn鈥檛 even see the red ink through the red fog of rage over the introduction of the harmonized sales tax. They were not fussed about deficits or surpluses; they cared about the important things that go into determining deficits and surpluses, like taxes.
Deficits matter because they pile up the provincial debt and increase the amount of money we spend servicing that debt. Constant deficit financing damages the economy and mortgages our children鈥檚 futures. After decades of deficit-be-damned budgeting, politicians of all major parties recognize that balanced budgets have to be the goal, and deficits must be justified, instead of accepted as normal operating procedure.
The Liberals say they want to balance the budget every year from now on, while the New Democrats say they want to do it over a four-year election cycle, allowing occasional deficits.
However, those voters who put a priority on slaying the deficit are educated enough to know that the number at the beginning of the year doesn鈥檛 mean anything other than good intentions and wishful thinking. The number at the end of the year is the one on which the government should be judged.
Finance Minister Mike de Jong and his army of staffers worked hard to produce the massive document that is the budget, but the province鈥檚 finances are subject to so many variables that only a mug would expect the predictions to be correct or anywhere close to it.
When the New Democrats last week unveiled their critique of the budget, it was just the flip side of the Liberal self-delusion. Where de Jong sees hope, Bruce Ralston sees sleight of hand. It鈥檚 like a political ink-blot test. Look at the blobs on the page, and the Liberals see a surplus surrounded by a halo of virtuous budgeting while the New Democrats see a deficit surrounded by room for more spending.
There is gold in the budget, and there will be gold in the New Democrats鈥� announcements to come soon. The treasure is in the details of how each party plans to raise the money it needs and spend the money it gets. That is where voters can really judge which party hews closest to their own thinking.
The governing party promises to raise $205 million by increasing the corporate tax rate to 11 per cent from 10. The New Democrats almost certainly plan to raise it another percentage point. What will that mean for provincial revenues and the economy? Does it help you make a decision between the parties?
The Liberals say they will add $2.4 billion to the health budget over three years. The NDP will likely promise more. Do either of those appeal to you?
When you head to the ballot box, judge the parties鈥� fiscal priorities, but not by a number that is almost certain to change.
