The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
In an election campaign where our economic future is shaping up to be the ballot question, each party should cost their platform. To their credit, the Liberals have done just that. The platform offers an accumulated four-year projection of how a majority Liberal government would introduce new taxes, cut existing taxes, and spend billions on a wide array of people, projects, and programs, all while balancing the books. The plan hinges on one big assumption. The LiberalsÕ projections assume annual revenue growth of 4.5 per cent for each of the next four years. ThatÕs higher than what the department of finance presently projects and likely doesnÕt take into account the adverse impact of events south of the 49th. Consider, for example, the impact if their growth projections are off by a single percentage point. A still optimistic 3.5 percent annual growth in revenues creates a shortfall of $60-billion. Subtract their platformÕs allowance of a $20-billion ÒcushionÓ and suddenly thereÕs a $40-billion hole in the plan. Would a Stphane Dion government post $10-billion annual deficits to fund their ambitious spending agenda under this scenario? Dion says no. He has committed repeatedly during the campaign to run balanced budgets. Would a Stphane Dion government raise taxes to the tune of $10-billion per year to fund any shortfalls in his ambitious spending agenda? Again, Dion says no. But on this front it should be noted that Mr. Dion has also repeatedly claimed that his partyÕs central plank in this campaign Ð the Green Shift Ð would not impose new burdens on taxpayers. Clearly this is false. There is one final option for Mr. Dion should his plan meet a shortfall: cut spending. On this point Mr. Dion says Òfiscal discipline is now part of the Liberal DNA,Ó harkening back to 1997-98 when Jean Chrtien balanced the books for the first time in nearly 30 years. How did he do it? He cut spending. Is this something Mr. Dion would do to keep the books balanced? Consider the platform Ð without questioning any of its revenue assumptions Ð says it will reallocate $12-billion in current spending and find a further $5-billion in ÒefficiencyÓ savingsÓ as part of their plan to balance the budget. Yet, not a single penny under this category of Òexpenditure disciplineÓ is detailed. If Mr. Dion canÕt detail committed-to spending restraint in an arguably rosy platform document, what confidence is there they could do it in the event of a not-so-unlikely economic downturn?
