Citizens are becoming more aware of the importance of equitable and accountable city management and development. Attendees at a recent forum organized by local non-profit and community groups expressed concerns about land development and other decisions being made by city council in Winnipeg. They noted frustrations such as difficulty accessing information, token public participation and a general concern with the culture at city hall.
Government finance
It was a welcome change to hear politicians of all stripes talking about poverty in the lead up to the 2013 provincial budget and in the analysis that followed. Unfortunately much of the chatter will serve the interests of politicians more than those most affected by government decisions.
OK, time for a reality check on BC’s deficits.
Simply put, while arguments about deficits and “who is the better fiscal manager” may make for entertaining politics, there is no compelling economic reason why BC cannot run a few years of modest deficits. And in the absence of deep cuts to services, whoever wins the May election would have to run a deficit – that’s the legacy of tax cuts that have deprived the public treasury of revenues needed to adequately fund our public services.
Both main parties in this election campaign are accusing the other of being big spenders. The BC Liberals claim the BC NDP is making election promises that are too expensive and argue the 1990s (the last time the NDP was in government) was a time of particularly high spending. The BC NDP points out that the provincial debt has grown significantly since the BC Liberals came to power in 2001.
But is too much of the public debate around this election focused on reducing the size of government?
As happens in elections, the claims and accusations are flying about “who is the better fiscal manager.” The Liberals created a “Spend-O-Meter” purporting to show the NDP’s spendthrift ways. The NDP responded with a “Debt-O-Meter” showing how the Liberals have racked up the provincial debt in their time in office. And while these gimmicks may make for entertaining politics, they oversimplify and often misrepresent the real issues.
Time for a reality check on BC’s deficits, debt and spending.
We are living in the "Age of Austerity" – or at least so says David Cameron, the U.K.'s Prime Minister. He made this announcement in 2009 at the Conservative convention just before becoming Prime Minister. This meant, he explained, that he would have to fix the errors, the folly of previous governments. He would restore the economy by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and shifting resources from the public to the private sector.
During November 2012, Europe erupted in anti-austerity demonstrations, with protestors clashing violently with police in Spain and Portugal, where general strikes were declared. Millions of EU workers participated in the demonstrations, which have spread to Italy, France, and Belgium.
Greece has also been paralyzed by many intermittent strikes over the past three years, understandably so since it is one of the countries most brutally hammered by the austerity measures imposed by the European Union.
Before there was a Parliamentary Budget Office, there was no way to independently assess the federal government's economic and fiscal forecasts.
In the late-1990s, we at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) were concerned that the Chretien government was deliberately hiding the true size of the budgetary surpluses that emerged in the wake of the Martin budget cuts.
This report demonstrates that the federal government is headed for a disaster with their plans to build Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships. The authors indicate that an urgent change of course is required, and recommend that the government: cancel the procurement of the A/OPS; to commission 6 to 8 purpose-built high-speed offshore patrol ships based on a proven design; and to rebuild the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet taking into account changing ice conditions and the need for the vessels to fulfill an additional, constabulary role.
This analysis provides new insight about which services federal departments are going to cut. The author examined over 180 departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities in order to estimate employment cuts down to the program level—finding thatcuts have disproportionately focused on service delivery. The analysis also determines the total number of federal public service jobs cut over the government's austerity period, and indicates which federal departments will experience the largest loss of positions.