It was widely expected that last Tuesday鈥檚 federal budget would be more about politics than finance. With a general election in the offing, this was the last chance for Stephen Harper鈥檚 Tories to tilt the playing field before the campaign gets underway.
And Finance Minister Joe Oliver certainly delivered. His budget was carefully crafted to woo key voting blocks 鈥� working families, seniors and the business community.
Oliver also laid a trap for the opposition parties. With tax cuts and other goodies, he made sure to empty the coffers. That left only a razor-thin surplus. If the NDP or Liberals win the election, the cupboard they inherit will be bare.
But political shenanigans were only a sideshow. The really striking feature of this budget is the picture it portrays of a rapidly shrinking government.
Buried in one of the data tables is this remarkable fact: Government revenues, as a proportion of GDP, have fallen to their lowest level in more than half a century.
Throughout most of the postwar period, federal revenues averaged between 16 and 18 per cent of GDP. But over the past four years, they have declined to 14 per cent.
The last time Ottawa brought in so little money was during the 1950s. But in those days, there was no universal health service to pay for, no sa国际传媒 Pension Program, no child tax credit. Indeed, hardly any of the social safety net, at least as we know it today, existed back then.
Part of the revenue drop-off can be traced to tax cuts. Families today pay $37 billion less in income tax and GST, as a result of measures enacted by the Tories since they came to power in 2006.
Part of the contraction was caused by the 2008 recession, which hammered revenues across all levels of government.
But the larger question is where this downward path leads us. Those declining revenues have been matched by a comparable cut in spending. Is a shrinking central government in sa国际传媒鈥檚 best interest?
It depends, perhaps, on where the cuts have been made. Debt-servicing costs are down due to very low interest rates. No one would quarrel with that.
And it doesn鈥檛 appear that Ottawa cut transfer payments to the provinces. Most of the reduction has occurred in government departments. There鈥檚 been a significant scale-back in sa国际传媒鈥檚 military budget. And hiring is down across the federal public service.
The Conservatives make no apologies for this. Smaller government is part of their general world view.
They could also argue that taxpayers across the country are struggling. Median family incomes in sa国际传媒, adjusted for inflation, have actually declined over the past three decades. If voters have to pull in their belt, why shouldn鈥檛 government do the same?
Fair enough. There is a legitimate case for some degree of economy.
What should concern us, however, is how these spending cuts are made. The government hasn鈥檛 been up front with us 鈥� or with Parliament.
We鈥檙e rarely told, for example, that program X or Y is being eliminated, or that a service has been trimmed back. Instead, it鈥檚 done by stealth.
Between 2010 and 2014, the federal government methodically underspent its budget by a total of nearly $24 billion.
These were expenditures that Parliament approved, and that were presented to the public in successive annual budgets.
But they never took place. The Tories quietly froze those monies and allowed the related service areas to wither away, conveniently out of sight.
This makes a mockery of the budget. The whole process has become, in effect, a mere public-relations exercise.
A political party proud of its record would have no need for such flummery. Instead, we have a governing philosophy that, apparently, dare not speak its name.
