, 03.29.2023 01:44 PM

My latest: what if they gave a budget, and no one cared?

Budgets? Who cares.

These days, voters mostly don’t. 

Polls consistently show distrust about everything government does and says – including budgets like the one released by the Trudeau government earlier this week. It’s the boy-cries-wolf effect on a grand, fiscal scale: citizens have been lied to so many times, they increasingly tune budgets out.

It’ll be noteworthy, in fact, if details about Chrystia Freeland’s 2023 budget are remembered by most folks by this time next week. If a majority of voters can recall a single salient factoid about this week’s federal budget – Freeland making some cuts, Freeland raising taxes (she actually did both) – it’ll be a political miracle.

Why? Because citizens simply don’t believe budgetary statements anymore. And not just in Canada. In Western democracies, everywhere, budgets are falling victims to what experts call the “fiscal illusion.” 

Keynesian types say “fiscal illusion” is created by some governments, and how they deal with ballooning debt. The creation of too much debt – and the Trudeau regime are recognized experts at that – can, sometimes, stimulate the economy. Yes. But that’s all short-term.  

The Trudeau approach creates a momentary illusion of prosperity, and thereby boosts consumer spending. But, sooner or later, the debt has to be paid – and that’s why Trudeau-style budgets are a fiscal illusion.

There are other reasons why Freeland’s budget won’t instill confidence. Here’s five.

  1. What’s in a billion? A pollster once told this writer 40 per cent of Canadians don’t know how many million are in a billion. Even if that’s an exaggeration – and it may not be, by much – one thing is true: most of us have never held a billion of anything. Which tells you that governments (and corporations) are literally expressing debts, deficits and dollars in a way that most folks don’t comprehend. So they tune it out.
  2. It’s never right. Going back to the Jean Chrétien/Paul Martin era – which was the last time, notably, that Ottawa actually made the cuts that needed to be made – the numbers that seep out of the Department of Finance, pre-budget, are often wrong. Martin turned this strategy into an art form – ensuring his budget day numbers would look better than the pre-budget leaks. After a few years of this sleight-of-hand, however, media and citizens tended not to believe any of the figures coming out of Finance.
  3. Too much, too often. For years, federal budgets have tried to reach too many different audiences too often. And when you have 1,000 different messages, you don’t have any messages at all. It’s simply too much for the average voter to comprehend. So, voters regard all of it as data smog and carry on with their day.  Simplicity, repetition and volume work (ask Donald Trump). But too many federal budgets are too complex and convoluted.
  4. Consensus is gone.  During the pandemic, many bad things happened.One of them was the collapse of consensus about certain basic truths – ie., public health is good, vaccines work, etc. The same phenomenon is at work with budgets: there too many opinions being offered, too often, by too many “experts” that are completely contradictory. Post-budget media coverage accordingly becomes a communications traffic jam. So, citizens choose not to believe any of it.  
  5. It’s all B.S. As noted above – that Trudeaupian economics is based on a fiscal illusion – the one unassailable truth about budgets is this: there is no truth in budgets. Voters have been spun, or flat-out lied to, so many times that the budgetary credibility gap is bigger than Canada’s debt – by the time you read this, about $1,215,000,000,000 according to the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation. It doesn’t matter which party is in power anymore: an estimated 75 per cent of Canadian voters say they don’t believe in what governments say or do.

And that is the biggest problem of all: truth. For most of us, we don’t think budgets contain much. Debt and deficits, yes. Truth? Not so much.

Sorry, Chrystia Freeland. But it’s the truth.

Kinsella was Special Assistant to Jean Chretien

 

52 Comments

  1. Martin Dixon says:

    Apparently the interim ethics commissioner is related to someone in cabinet that has been busted by her office?

    https://twitter.com/EthicsCanada/status/1640718553203769346?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Escreen-name%3AEthicsCanada%7Ctwcon%5Es1

  2. Peter Williams says:

    How much interest do we pay each year on the federal debt? Take a guess.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/sunlorrie/status/1640884285765832704

    Let’s borrow more money.

  3. The Doctor says:

    The depressing thing is this is 1972-74 all over again. Liberal Minority, propped up by NDP, so Liberals feel they have to spend spend spend, otherwise the NDP will bail on them. Back then it was Trudeau’s Dad and David Lewis. Now it’s Selfie Boy and Jagmeet.

    And the result was out of control spending and deficits, which subsequent generations had to pay for (see Martin, Paul). In this respect, JT is no different from his father. Just no sense of fiscal responsibility whatsoever. He couldn’t care less.

    We repair the damage his father did, only to have the son royally fuck things up all over again.

  4. Warren,

    What’s that thing about us getting the government we so richly deserve?

  5. EsterHazyWasALoser says:

    As the cartoonist Walt Kelly had his comic strip character Pogo put it, “We have met the enemy, and he is us”. On the local Toronto news today, all I heard about the budget was how “short changed Toronto was” (as if other cities in Canada don’t also face fiscal pressures). Any sense that all levels of government (municipal, provincial and federal) should live within their means seems to be considered quaint and old fashioned.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      That’s hilarious. Jack up property taxes on everyone that won the lottery on their houses there. Maybe a city tax on their gains on sales of their houses. You’re welcome.

      • EsterHazyWasALoser says:

        For better or worse, property taxes are the main way the cities pay for things. Since there are far more residential voters than business owning voters, business property taxes are through the roof, and residential taxes (in Toronto IMHO) are articifiacially low. It aggravates me to no end that Toronto politicians think charging visitors to the cities “a tax to pay for services” is somehow justifiable (which is why the province won’t let them do it).

  6. Robert White says:

    The Jean Chretien Liberal Government was the last government to act fiscally responsible and I, for one, agree wholeheartedly.

    Points for that, Warren. Harper never even came close to behaving as Chretien did vis-a-vis reducing debt overhang. Chretien placed Canada on an excellent footing ahead of Harper’s outsized margin betting on Athabasca Oil Sands.

    Chretien was greatness personified as PM. No complaints here on that government.

    RW

  7. Peter Williams says:

    On April 1, Justin gets a $10,000/year raise.

  8. Martin Dixon says:

    Amanda Alvaro was on the CBC on P and P putting lipstick on this budget pig. Can’t they find a pundit that hasn’t been involved in one of the many ethics violations of this government? It just makes the network look even more ridiculous.

  9. Douglas W says:

    Machiavellians’ Gerry + Katie have pulled it off: getting people to shrug.

  10. Peter Williams says:

    Rumour has it that Liberals are delighted to see the new interim ethics commissioner. They’re quite sure she’ll enable the Liberal Party to regain their position as the most ethical party in Parliament.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      It literally boggles the mind that they would offer this to her and that she would accept. They had to know how it would be received. Isn’t everyone involved a lawyer? So, they are either morons or, like Coyne said, trolling us.

  11. Curious V says:

    How much would a 2/3 percent increase in the GST generate?

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Lots from the people that can’t afford it. It is a regressive tax. All the one percenter/Toronto types would love it. Be great for me too but I am self-aware enough to know that does not make it right.

  12. Curious V says:

    There’s a surge in folks who doubt leadership/experts on a lot of issues – covid-19 is the obvious one where conspiracy theorists cast doubt regarding the virus’s severity, and the effectiveness of vaccines. How much of this is due to leadership, or experts, and how much is due to social media acting as a conduit, or medium that spreads conspiracy theory. It seems obvious to me that people doubt politicians, but why has so much doubt regarding the opinions of experts emerged? We all doubt the honesty of politicians, corporations etc – but why is so much targeted towards health professionals, or other professionals?

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Actually the surprise, to me, is how much the average person TRUSTED big pharma throughout this whole thing. We are talking about an industry that paid doctors to over-medicate us and has created a massive addiction problem which has led to a massive crime problem.

      • Gilbert says:

        I agree. Do people really think the pharmaceutical industry loves them and wants to cure them all so that they never need another drug? Do they think they would need immunity from prosecution if all their products were safe and effective? Madde De Garay, a girl who was twelve when she took part in a Pfizer Clinical Trial, is now in a wheelchair and needs a feeding tube to eat.

        • Gilbert,

          That’s capitalism. Like I previously said, taking an ASA tablet is theoretically unsafe, if not fatal, for some people. Goes with the territory, unless you never swallow a single pill or receive a vaccination in your life. We need pills to extend lives in so many cases. Vaccines save lives by far, but in isolated cases, they can take lives or lead to terrible health outcomes. But vaccine opponents never have the percentages because they know ahead of time that those percentages are within medically and scientifically acceptable parameters. That in no way lessens the tragic nature of this case and all those other cases that have occurred around the world. Someone needs to help these families. If you are going to exempt Big Pharma from lawsuits, then the government should be obligated to at least make financial redress to the extent that money can do that.

    • Curious V,

      This is an easy one: far too many people view doctors and other medical professionals as Gods who are supposed to be infallible. But in all sciences, like medicine, facts on the ground change en cours de route so medical opinions necessarily change or adapt to new circumstances on the ground. That’s why so many piss on Fauci and Tam. They didn’t have all the “right” answers from Day One and therefore made mistakes. Stupid people consider that as a mortal or cardinal sin.

      • And the latest story making the rounds is about how supposedly 300,000 people worldwide were “killed” by vaccines. In other words, a direct causal relationship. Is this credible? I wonder.

    • Peter Williams says:

      Curious

      Which experts?

      The WHO experts who said there was no evidence of human to human transmission?

      The experts who said if you get vaccinated you won’t catch COVID?

      The experts who said masks don’t work, then recommend everyone mask up?

      Who defines who is an expert?

      COVID is an excellent example of how political leaders and the media weaponize experts. Like lawyers at a trial, they find so called expert opinions that agree with the politicians’ view or agenda,. But unlike a trial, dissenting views are muzzled or even censored.

      A non-COVID.example: Remember the old treatment for stomach ulcers? Medical experts were emphatic on the cause and treatment of ulcers. An Australian doctor was ridiculed by medical experts when he proposed a different cause and treatment.

      Barry Marshall was eventually awarded a Nobel Prize. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall

      I remember this very well. My brother and I got into a shouting match with my mother’s doctor in the hospital re old versus new ulcer treatment. The doctor yelled, “I’m the expert here, you’re not,” and stomped off. At that point two other doctors came up to us, said we were right, and their colleague was wrong to use the old treatment. They saw my mom got the right treatment.

      Science advances via debate. Sure there are whack jobs on social media, but I would submit that many of the so called expert viewpoints advanced by politicians and the media are wrong.

      • Curious V says:

        Well, that’s the point – science advances, so don’t people realize that. They’re experts in that they spent a lifetime trying to understand disease – realizing it’s an evolving field. Don’t people realize that? It’s an evolving field – doesn’t make them quacks, just that expertise evolves with new research.

        • Peter Williams says:

          A big problem; the so called COVID experts, politicians, and media, shut down/censored most if not all opposition to the ‘expert’ consensus.

        • Curious V says:

          I do understand your point about your mother – I had a similar experience with my dad. It took them a year to diagnose a pituitary tumor. With my cancer, however, it took no time at all. I went to emergency, pissing blood, with severe pain in my side – In the emergency room the doctor said it looks like lymphoma, and I was eventually diagnosed with stage 4 Hodgkin’s – the doctors at the cancer treatment center were fantastic. They started treatment immediately, and I owe them my life – I’ll be eternally grateful.

          • Peter Williams says:

            Curious, delighted to hear you had a prompt and successful treatment from your medical professionals.

            I question my doctors a lot. One once told me, I’m the doctor not you (similar to my mum’s experience). I gently asked my doctor, “If you make a mistake, who pays for it?” I then reminded my doctor of a prescription he wrote out for me. I pointed out I was allergic to that medicine. It’s in my file:

            A doctor’s mistake killed my grandma. A doctor’s mistake missed my dad’s cancer, which shortly thereafter killed him.

            I go back to your original point of lack of trust in experts. The media, politicians, and many so-called experts are often wrong.

            I’ll go so far to say that any time you hear “The science is settled” we should immediately start asking questions. Often it isn’t settled.

            The scientific method involves looking at data. forming a hypothesis, and then testing that hypothesis via experiments, and or collecting more data. After enough successful experiments, we have established a theory. This theory may let us make all kinds of useful predictions and perhaps yield benefits. It doesn’t mean we can’t question the theory.

            Along comes another scientist (professional or amateur) who does another experiment. Oops; different results. The theory is wrong.

            History is full of such cases.

            And we find that many results in published scientific papers are not replicable.

            It’s not surprising to me that people doubt experts.

            And who defines an expert? The media? Ha, ha, ha.

  13. Sean says:

    The public dental component of this budget is a big, big deal. I’m fortunate enough that it doesn’t effect me, but this is indeed a big, big deal. It matters for Joe and Jane frontporch who we always imagine as being the soft middle of Canadian voters who make all the difference.

    It’s such a big deal, I honestly don’t care what party proposes or passes it. I’d be unhappy if any subsequent government tries to undo it. This is long overdue and it is sad that it is getting lost in the noise.

    • Sean,

      This is Jagmeet’s thing. Without him, we wouldn’t have that. But forget about national pharmacare because provinces that already have their own version, like Quebec, will never cede their jurisdiction, nor fold their program into a pan-Canadian system.

    • Curious V says:

      I agree Sean. It didn’t make a lot of sense to have publicly funded health care excluding dental.

  14. Peter Williams says:

    I’m a multi-millionaire, but you suckers get to pay for my $6000 a night hotel room.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/1641473696471629824?

    And you also paid for my eight boats.

    And you pay for my organic vegetable garden.

    And you pay for my indoor swimming pool.

  15. Peter Williams says:

    Today the carbon tax increased to $65/tonne, on its way to $170/tonne.

    This is a 225% increase from its initial value. And we’ll eventually see it rise 750% from its initial value.

    Remember when the Lieberals said there were no plans to rise beyond $50/tonne?

    Now the team Trudeau stated purpose for the carbon tax is to get us to switch to something else. But according to Trudeau et al, we get more in carbon tax rebates than we pay in carbon tax. If true, then there is no need to change behaviour.

    And rich Canadians who don’t get the rebate, can afford to keep spending on carbon intensive activities as before.

    Just look at Justin. Has he stopped flying?

  16. Peter,

    Personally, I take no position on a carbon tax. I simply don’t have the expertise to properly understand it. I know we need to transition away from fossil fuels worldwide but the devil is in the details: I highly doubt we will see an all-electric car fleet for at least thirty years. And then we still have to work out the kinks in solar and wind. What do we do when there is no sun or wind for a protracted period of time? Maybe geothermal is part of the answer. Nuclear certainly is.

    • Curious V says:

      The carbon tax makes sense to me, but like Ronald, I don’t have the expertise to unravel the details – it especially makes sense in that it refunds lower income Canadians for their lack of consumption, use of public transit etc.

  17. Curious V says:

    My point isn’t that every professional is unfillable. Of course, professionals are people with an array of personalities and qualities seen throughout the population, and they aren’t all perfect. My point is that, recently, maybe not recently, but more pronounced of late, is a push to diminish all experts, and expert opinion. Regarding climate change, medicine, vaccines etc. , there’s a thrust to diminish them with propaganda that travels through social media and YouTube. A surge in propaganda designed to diminish expert opinion. Corporations aren’t usually run by medical experts, and they aren’t held to the same standard as professions with oversight bodies, so to mistrust a pharmaceutical company is reasonable, but the push is to diminish the scientists who publish in Academic Journals, to diminish the science behind vaccines, and to make claims regarding their safety. The same is true of climate change, like happened with tobacco use – the thrust to diminish the expert opinion behind the warnings that come from experts who publish in academic journals – the point is a segment of the society is being overwhelmed with propaganda that counters said experts with propaganda to diminish them, their research – and public policy born of said research and expert opinion, like happened with climate change, and tobacco use.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Wait a minutes, aren’t you the guy that keeps saying that no one got their jobs on merit? I am confused.

      • Curious V says:

        There’s plenty of nepotism, and certain fields are worse than others –

        • Martin Dixon says:

          Right-so how do you know those experts you are betting your life on didn’t get their jobs because they knew someone and for no other reason. You are just picking and choosing to listen to those “experts” if you agree with them not because they got their jobs on merit(you keep maintaining that few have). So you are really no different than those very people you are criticizing.

Leave a Reply to Peter Williams Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.