Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION
Posted: 01/18/2013 2:56 PM | Comments: 0
TORONTO — "I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today," Wimpy would say.
You name it, and somewhere in this country, a politician has probably made the same promise. And like Popeye’s portly friend, politicians never explain why.
Almost none of those promises have come with a bigger picture that situates them within a set of choices that are being made.
Governing is about making choices — choices about how to raise money and where to spend it.
Politicians are more than willing to concentrate on the spending and not the making.
There are good reasons to spend money in the public sector—and this is not a rant on taxes and spending.
Trusting the private sector to handle provisioning of a public good or service or asking that it be provided publicly to ensure it is done reasonably (if not always as well as it could have been: equity comes at a price, too) is a choice we can make.
Taking money from private hands — yours, mine, or the business on the corner — to pay for public goods has effects in the broader community. We can choose whether to pay the piper here or there, that’s all.
There are even good times to have our public sector run a deficit, just as businesses sometime take on debt to improve their future prospects, or families borrow to grow their possibilities.
There are also bad times and reasons to take on debt in a business or family. It’s about choices.
Right now the media is full of bad news coming from Canada’s governments. Balancing the budget is a receding goal. Cutbacks, zero-per cent increases, pension benefit changes are the order of the day.
Meanwhile, roads decay, transit systems are not built, community and social housing languish, those on social assistance remain impoverished; there’s a long list of things to fix and apparently no money for any of it.
What we’re not getting from any of our governments or their official oppositions is a comprehensive vision of how we get from where we are to where they want us to be.
Oh, we get grab bags of promises. We get small bits and pieces here and there. But we don’t get a big picture.
On health care, we don’t get a picture of how shifting money from acute care (paying hospitals) to long-term care, home care, etc. might make the system work better for an aging population — death and the route there (aging) is that other certainty.
On transportation, we don’t get a picture of how we make our city regions function better, how to integrate across boundaries, how we cut travel times to make more opportunities available to more people. We don’t get a discussion of the options and tradeoffs in paying for it, either, or in how speeding the city up might require that some modes of transportation be favoured over others.
On social care, we don’t get a realistic discussion of how to run the system of housing supports, social housing, home care, etc. to ensure the disabled are cared for and the poor get a leg up while ensuring that the money that is spent gets to those who need it.
Every $1 of deficit spending (no matter how noble the purpose) burdens the future with about $3 to be paid off by the time the principal is paid back and the interest covered. Already, interest is often one of the top four spending lines in a provincial budget—and that’s with interest rates at their lowest in a generation or more. They can only go up and the accumulated burden will have to come out of programs.
Telling us the big picture, pulling the pieces together, and making choices so that our grandchildren aren’t paying for our errors is what we as citizens should be insisting that our politicians do.
Simply protesting and demanding more, more, more won’t cut it any longer. We need to be spared the Wimpy promises. We have to choose and we have to know why we choose — tell us the big picture.
Bruce Stewart is a Toronto management consultant.
Having problems with the form?Contact Us Directly
Missteps prove Putin is no master strategist
American intelligence lacks smarts
False comparisons don't serve health-care analysis
Cynical Egypt unlikely to mediate Israel conflict
Proposal to split up California stupid, self-serving
Time for West to stand up against Russian president
Council ripe for third-party rule?
PST court challenge was risky political ruse
Cut the bull on animal treatment rationalizations
Fear drives young Central American migrants
Difficult to get true picture of crash site
Time for open discussion of nanoparticles in our food
Gun deaths overtaking vehicle deaths south of border
Hope in short supply around Lake Manitoba
Downing of jet makes Ukraine conflict uglier, unavoidable
Impossible to argue away collateral damage
Tsilhqot'in ruling raises questions in Atlantic Canada
One-child policy casts long shadow
Carbon tax fight politically costly down under
Big oil gambles on high prices, lack of regulation
Merchants of death facing hard times
Prospects for independence
Tightly controlled Morocco turmoil-free, for now
Israel, Hamas: perversely codependent
Clinton book-tour missteps could point to weaknesses
'Blood of martyrs' the only endgame for nihilistic Hamas
Flood recovery initiatives need better oversight
Young radicals wooed by false picture of jihad
Sanctions against Russia are toothless
Russian propaganda machine struggling
Chinese crash would dwarf 2008 collapse
Northern band says 'no' to nuclear waste
No military solution for Gaza
It's time to scrap provincial trade barriers
Pallister's pricey political theatre won't pay off for anyone
Obama shouldn’t just pick political theatre that suits him
No escaping Koch brothers in U.S. politics
‘Mission match’ a dangerous fantasy in Iraq