Scare Stories about High BC Spending Are False
Province's outlays compared to GDP aren't up, but the Sun wants us to believe otherwise.
Their case for cuts is riddled with errors.
-
'Hangover Budget' Pleases Few
Housing spending up, but Libs draw fire from health, education, environment sectors.
-
In Tight Times, Campbell Gov't Chooses to Help Big Banks
Inept budgeters axed $100 million yearly tax revenue from fat financial institutions. And it gets worse.
-
Budget Hits Will 'Basically Gut' AIDS Vancouver
Lower Mainland HIV service groups say government funding cuts will end up costing public more.
Anybody who ever has given serious study to British Columbia's finances knows that the Campbell government has overseen a significant decline in Victoria's annual expenditures since their election to government in 2001.
And yet, for reasons that aren't clear -- probably ideology, possibly ignorance -- certain editors and columnists at the Vancouver Sun frequently and loudly assert the opposite. Provincial spending, they claim, is out of control.
The newspaper, moreover, regularly provides space for those who adhere to and proclaim this dubious view. Take Maureen Bader, B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who makes frequent appearances on the Sun's op-ed page. At the beginning of this year, she published a piece which asserted her belief that "the B.C. government has a spending addiction." No empirical evidence was offered.
A month later, days after the Campbell government's throne speech, Bader wrote another missive with a similar theme. "This government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem," she declared. "Under this government, spending has spiraled far higher than anything seen under the NDP and brought us back into a deficit."
And on Feb. 22 she had yet another column, and again repeated the claim. "Liberal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem," screamed the headline. Again, no facts or figures were provided to buttress those false and misleading claims.
Fraser Institute, Sun editors agree
Nels Veldhuis of Vancouver's Fraser Institute is another frequent Sun contributor. On Feb. 8, Veldhuis and a colleague had a column on the op-ed page which offered a confessedly "rather simple" solution to Victoria's fiscal situation: "The government must reduce spending."
The column was remarkably similar to one Veldhuis lead editorial blared: "The key to a balanced budget is curbing spending."
But, like the opinion pieces written by Bader and Veldhuis, the editorial offered no empirical evidence to show that the province's spending has risen significantly -- or even at all -- under the Campbell Liberals.
Cayo's first big error
So, it was surprising last week to see a post-budget analysis by Don Cayo, a Sun business columnist, which specifically addressed B.C.'s alleged soaring expenditures. The headline, of course, was what one has come to expect in the Sun: "Big spending rolls on in tough times." But then Cayo provided empirical evidence to back his thesis.
The columnist looked at a NDP government budget from a decade ago in fiscal 2000/01, and noted that estimated expenditures added up to $22.3 billion. To his credit, he re-calculated those expenditures in current dollars (to address inflation), and came up with an adjusted total of $27.4 billion.
Cayo then noted the estimated expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year of 2010/11, which Colin Hansen's latest budget puts at $40.6 billion.
That's quite a jump -- from $27.4 billion to $40.6 billion in just the last 11 years. Not surprisingly, Cayo succinctly summarized his findings thusly: "Provincial spending is up hugely over the past decade."
Except it's not. And a closer examination of Cayo's calculations reveals two fundamental errors that demolish his presentation of B.C.'s finances.
First, while Cayo deserves credit for adjusting the 2000/01 expenditures to address inflation over the last decade, he failed to acknowledge the province's population growth over the same period. A decade ago, in July 2000, according to BC Stats, the province was home to 4.039 million people. Hansen's latest budget [see p. 122 here] puts our estimated population as of next July at 4.524 million.
That's an increase of 485,000 people over the last decade -- the equivalent of adding a new Burnaby, Victoria, Kelowna and Prince George (combined) to the provincial population in the space of a single decade.
So, B.C. has gained nearly a half-million new taxpayers since 2000 -- and that same number of people now need government services such as more doctors and nurses, educators, police officers and so on. Is it surprising that both revenues and expenditures have increased as a result?
So, it's great that Cayo adjusted B.C.'s spending for inflation over the last decade, but he also had to account for the province's 12 percent increase in population over the same period.
Whopping oversight number two
But that's a minor quibble when one considers Cayo's second -- and most egregious -- error. He totally ignored the fact that in 2004 the Campbell Liberals instituted a new accounting system called GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).
The expenditures in Ramsey's 2000/01 budget that Cayo used for his analysis were those from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) alone [see p. 3 and p. 5 at this link], while the expenditures in Hansen's latest budget were based on GAAP.
The latter includes the CRF, plus the SUCH sector (schools, universities, colleges and health agencies), plus net income from B.C.'s Crown corporations. Not surprisingly, GAAP expenditures (and revenues) are much larger than the CRF by itself.
To draw an accurate comparison between government spending in 2000/01 and 2010/11, Cayo should have examined either the CRF or GAAP for both fiscal periods, and then adjusted for inflation, population growth and miscellaneous accounting changes.
The government's real numbers
Fortunately for those who want an objective view of B.C.'s fiscal situation, the Ministry of Finance publishes those historical calculations every year in the province's Financial and Economic Review.
With regards to CRF expenditures, we can see [see p. 106 at link here] that in 2001/01 they totalled $22.444 billion, while for the upcoming fiscal year, Hansen puts CRF spending at $33.782 [see p. 206 here]. The latter figure is more than $6.8 billion less than the $40.6 billion cited by Cayo in his comparison.
Again, the Finance Ministry's Financial and Economic Review allows us to compare year-over-year spending adjusted for inflation, population growth and accounting changes by showing CRF expenditures as a percentage of B.C.'s gross domestic product (see p. 107).
In 2000/01, CRF spending was 17.1 percent of GDP -- its lowest point in a dozen years -- and then, after a slight increase, it went into a lengthy decline. By fiscal 2006/07, for example, expenditures dropped to just 15.4 percent of GDP.
We can do similar calculations for the current and upcoming fiscal years -- 2009/10 and 2010/11 -- by using data provided in Hansen's budget [see current dollar GDP on p. 121 here].
Not surprisingly, because B.C.'s economy has stalled in the current global recession -- with GDP dropping from $197.9 billion in 2008 to an estimated $188.0 billion and $196.3 billion in 2009 and 2010 respectively -- CRF expenditures have increased as a proportion thereof.
From its nadir four years ago, CRF spending can be estimated at 17.1 percent in 2009/10 and 17.2 percent in 2010/11. That's virtually identical to the 17.1 percent in 2000/01 under the New Democrats. Does this look like out-of-control spending to anyone?
Moreover, with above-average economic growth forecast for the foreseeable future, current spending cuts will ensure that CRF expenditures as a proportion of GDP in coming years will once again go into decline.
Getting it 180 degrees wrong
We can do the same comparison with GAAP -- using calculations either made by, or with data from, Hansen's finance ministry.
In 2000/01, GAAP spending totalled $28.439 billion, or 21.7 percent of B.C.'s GDP [see p. 89 at link here]. By 2006/07, GAAP expenditures sunk as low as 18.7 percent of GDP, and then rose slightly over the next two years.
In the current year which is just ending, 2009/10, GAAP spending is expected to come in at $39.7 billion -- next year, 2010/11, it's budgeted for $40.6 billion. The former number is 21.1 percent of GDP -- and the latter, 20.6 percent.
Clearly, the validity of the assertion of a wild rise in B.C.'s GAAP spending disappears upon objective analysis.
To repeat findings from the previous paragraph, Victoria's GAAP outlays a decade ago under the NDP came to 21.7 percent of GDP, and in the upcoming fiscal period with the Campbell Liberals will be just 20.6 percent.
That's not an increase in expenditure. It's an obvious decline.
And, to reiterate another point made earlier, once economic recovery takes hold, Victoria's annual expenditures once again can be expected to fall as a proportion of the provincial economy. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- French farmer wins case against Monsanto
- Judge rejects cameras in court for Stanley Cup riot sentencing
- Vancouver police recommend more riot charges, ask for info about officer assault
- Appeal court upholds ruling on protection of orca habitat
- Foreign takeover score is 14,218 to two calculates Mel Hurtig, who speaks Saturday
- Abbott blames teachers' union, hints at legislation
- Greens exaggerating fracking fears 'to control you': Santorum
- Prime Minister Harper mixes oil with human rights on visit to China
- 'The Kids Are All Right'
- 'Leave Your Shoes On'
- Glaciers, BC Hydro's Melting 'Batteries'
- Frankie Rose Makes Life Tougher for Journalists
- Becoming the Ethical Hunter
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Could SOPA Pervade Canadian Copyright Law?
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Bill Rees' Last Lecture
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Is Canada Ignoring Signs of a Coming Economic Collapse?
- Harper in China
- How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway
- Eleven Oily Questions for Every MP
- Remembering Lloyd Dykk's Wit, Generosity and Superb Prose
- BC Child Care Advocates in Geneva to Complain to UN
- BC, You Love You
- Who Pays Huge Power Bills for Clark's Gas Plants?
- Make It the Canadian Webcasting Corporation
- Harper in China
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Time to Zip John Baird's Loose Lips
- Why Can't Vancouver Keep Its Start-ups Here?
- Glaciers, BC Hydro's Melting 'Batteries'
- 'Leave Your Shoes On'
- Expert on Healthy Democracy Takes BC's Pulse
- Board, BC mayors make the case for Vancouver transit audit
- Tensions flare over Vancouver-owned mine in Oaxaca
- Osoyoos Times editor apologizes for comments on RCMP
- BC premier delivers talk show 'throne speech'
- NDP leadership: Thomas Mulcair ahead on first ballot, internal poll suggests
- Sky is the limit for use of mini, unmanned planes
- Prime Minister by day, oil exec by night
- Animal-made 'art' challenges human monopoly on creativity
57
Login or register to post comments
Tangler
1 year ago
She Doesn't Represent Me
Speaking of Maureen Bader and the so-called "Canadian Taxpayers Federation" ... how is it that any crackpot can claim to represent a group (taxpayers, for instance) when members of that group have never consented to such representation?
Sure, the CTF boasts of having "60,000 supporters nationwide", but that is somewhat shy of a majority of taxpayers. In fact, it's a pathetically small base upon which to build an organization that claims to represent "taxpayers".
Frauds, all of them.
Whiskey River
1 year ago
Cayo
No respect for Cayo....Will McMartin,fascinating read...You are the numbers king...BAR NONE!
And I will point this out.
Kevin Falcon/Gordon Campbell,even John Macolm from CKNW on Friday..
They are all beating the drum that health care spending is unsustainable..
A totally FALSE statement, from Will McMartin`s own numbers,health care as a percentage of GDP is no higher today than that of a decade ago...
In fact I believe it`s less!
Will McMartin, you have not theorized why this drum beating is going on, two words...PRIVATE HEALTH
That is the sole purpose of the drum beating,and or justifying major health spending cuts..
A thought from outside of the box.
Well done Will.
G West
1 year ago
Well done
Once again you take the ginger out of the critics - most of whom subscribe to the Grover Norquist school of political philosophy.
Anyone who wonders why the health and education sectors - not to mention the forestry sector - are in such a mess need only consider what else has gone on during the past decade.
During a time when the logical and humane approach to preserving a decent society where all citizens can expect some kind of fundamental equity of treatment should have been easy this government has been busy 'creating' the impression that they've been throwing money at problems. In fact, they've been nickel and dime-ing them to death - all the while transferring the productive assets to foreign firms and handcuffing the capacity of crown corporations like Hydro and local municipalities and school boards to address the province's real needs.
Surely the public has a right to expect more from the so-called independent business press – from the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation not so much.
Excellent work Will McMartin
blackie
1 year ago
apples and oranges
OK, I've read this three times now -- and I've read Cayo's piece. Maybe I'm just stupid (hold the applause) but I don't see the point. You're trying to parlay the argument that spending per GDP hasn't changed much into an indefensible argument that overall spending has declined. But it hasn't -- it's gone from (using your GAAP numbers) $28 billion in 2001 to $40.6 billion in 2010/11. I'd like to see my income decline like that.
And a minor niggle -- an increase of 500,000 in population isn't an increase of 500,000 taxpayers. I'd be surprised if the taxpayer component of that is more than about 60%. Some of that increase has to be kids.
And if we're doing so well on the spending side (despite the health/education bottomless pit), why are we in deficit? Must be the Olympics. Oops -- that's out-of-control spending, so it can't be that, right? Tax cuts? Nope -- revenues are going up too. Bottom line: we're spending more than we're taking in.
You think an upcoming "above average recovery for the forseeable future" is going to solve all our problems? Get real, it's going to be painfully slow if it happens at all. All those folks forecasting that recovery are the same folks who missed the near-depression that just whacked us. And I'm waiting for someone to honestly assess the revenue/cost impact of that huge slug of boomers on the system as they retire and start draining the health care system of its lifeblood.
Sorry, but I like Cayo's version of economic reality better than this one. Guess that makes me an imperialist corporate lackey (key applause now).
Van Isle
1 year ago
Again, we see a common theme
Again, we see a common theme in which the Government creates confusion by false stories which creates fear. Ya gotta give the Liberals credit for knowing how to manipulate the ordinary folks who normally don't pay attention; I'm sorry to say that is a majority of the people.
Takuan
1 year ago
who
reads the Sun?
freebear
1 year ago
Mis-direction
THey pitch the over spending scenario to justify further cuts.
It is a simple as that!
And then private sector will arrive and 'save' healthcare!
And the sheeple ............... keep chew'n grass!
G West
1 year ago
Deficits - not just revenue shortfalls or spending
Two reasons, at least.
1. Because, from the first months of the Campbell administration the operative word was tax cuts - especially for corporations and upper income taxpayers. The province went deep into deficit because of that initial action and the effects, ever since, have rippled through the economy;
2. Future contractual obligations necessitated because of Campbell fascination with P3 boondoggles.
Even the fact-challenged Vaughn Palmer wrote about this before the last election - EDITED FOR PERSONAL INSULTS. PLEASE DROP THE DISPARAGING REMARKS. -- TYEE EDITOR
I'll give you a quick review: These bills for future considerations amount to contractual obligations of, wait for it, some $55 billion mostly related to public private partnerships and Run of River IPP obligations.
And that's only up to 2007/08 for which figures are available...furthermore, these obligations stretch into the future - about $35 billion beyond 2014 - so get used to red ink, asset sell-offs and more lies in the future.
As for your other quibble - the formula is GDP per person - it's an average after all - and the fact that some new immigrants are children doesn't mean diddly-squat. That's what an average is all about - some of them are wealthy retirees from Alberta. They all both ‘cost’ and contribute to the fiscal picture. GOT IT NOW?
EDITED FOR INSULTS
And, if you're looking for confirmation of my numbers please check the chart in the 'notes' to the public accounts. You won't find it in anything Colin Hansen says - especially if it's for public consumption.
Thank God for the auditor general.
blackie
1 year ago
Taxpayers
"That's what an average is all about - some of them are wealthy retirees from Alberta. They all both ‘cost’ and contribute to the fiscal picture. GOT IT NOW?"
I made no comment about the GDP average and how it is calculated. He said 500,000 taxpayers. I pointed out (and you just confirmed it) that they're not all taxpayers. GOT IT NOW?
Interesting that in your rush to trash the so-called pirate power commitments and P3s as a leading contributor to the deficit, you made no mention of the similarly significant contribution of ongoing public sector union contracts (particularly in health care), and related pension obligations, right across the board. And in the absence of all those future-related IPPs and P3s, those are projects that would otherwise be paid directly by the public purse. You may think that would be cheaper; I don't. But the effect on long term budgeting would be about the same, and the NDP would be facing exactly the same issues.
And yes, I had a point. My point was that it is disingenuous to argue, with a GDP comparison, that there has been a spending decline, when the absolute numbers, adjusted for inflation, show otherwise. That was my point.
Whiskey River
1 year ago
Blackie
You seem confused..
1)University students pay more money to the Province in tuition than all corporate taxes paid to the BC Government...FACT
Wealthy companies like Ecana gas/Telus/ Teck Comenco/...
Campbell lowered their taxes ..They promised jobs,the latter didn`t happen..
Not to mention the massive income tax cuts to the wealthy..Tens of billions in lost revenue.
Gordon Campbell couldn`t run a lemonade stand.
Population up 20% range...it`s not children moving here...
Take in account inflation and spending on services is no higher,period, less in fact according to my calculations.
sdgreen
1 year ago
Maybe, But...
I find it difficult to believe that Heath-care and Education costs have not increased. They have. but where has the money come from? In the last ten years or so my Property Tax has increased almost three fold. This largely to do with the so-called Community Charter and the changes to the Local Government Act. Further, the Province has downloaded also sorts of costs to the local elitist local governments. I would submit, that these financial changes, even though the Province lowered the tax rates, have really increased the overall tax burden to British Colombians. Health-care and Education costs are sky rocketing and the Province is still pouring in hundreds of millions of tax dollars to those activities, and yet they are still inadequate. Social Services is again causing huge issues.
Revenues have been reduced significantly as a result of the US caused financial crisis. Further, certainly in the Forest sector and fishing industries major revenues have been lost. There is noting on the large industrial side producing tax revenues with the exception of some minor mineral and oil/gas royalties. Will this continue?
Canada's economy is advancing to the positive side faster than most other industrial nations. So the question is, will the forest industry recover? Will the massive tax breaks provided to industry bring in new industries? Will the demand for external purchase of BC's resources increase? If the answer is 'no', then BC will be in big trouble.
Will the HST put the brakes on consumer purchases, in the short or long term? Will the same demand for service increase in health/education/social services increase at a rate greater than inflation? If the answer to these is 'yes', then BC will be in deep trouble.
While BCs economy might rebound a bit, given the overall financial issues around the world, I think we are still in for a rocky ride.
No one, much less the politicians, it seems, have any idea on what to do!
greengreen
1 year ago
Looking at the whole picture
Spending as a ratio of GDP is a much more accurate way to look at financial spending than is just looking at basic numbers. Of course, spending in health care, in actual dollars, is more in 2010 than in 1992. (is that a surprise?) However, revenues, in actual dollars, are more in 2010 than in 1992. (is that a surprise?) Ratio of spending to revenues is a more sensible way to view the picture.
Campbell etc. would rather have us look at increased spending as out of control to facilitate his ongoing incremental road to privatization. Hiding the "ratio thing" is a trick to achieve his aims.
G West
1 year ago
The point is EDITED FOR INSULTS
The fact you're lighting your hair on fire about McMartin's use of the word 'taxpayers' is just silly.
Why do you think I pointed out what was wrong with your reasoning? Averages, like GDP per person are arrived at by dividing the total value of goods and services by the total population.
Your fixation on the term 'taxpayers' tells EDITED FOR INSULTS.[/b] Taxes are the price we pay for civilization – and lately this place isn’t very civilized.
There has been a reduction in spending - especially if you consider the proportion of total expenditures now which is committed to servicing the p3 'debt'. A category entirely 'created' by Gordon's desire to pay off his friends with contracts while killing the public sector and social services and rewarding private - frequently foreign 'rip-off' investors.
Have a look at the figures - you DON'T have a points and it has dick all to do with union contracts - none of which have a sunset as far in the future as Campbell's sweetheart deals with IPP rip-offs and sweetheart contracts for things like the Canada Line and Gordo's highway builder buddies.
Perhaps you’ll give us your ‘insights’ on the private insurance reach around from Gordo that ICBC is being forced to provide in a time of so-called tight money and budgetary restraint. How’s that little wrinkle seem to your ‘taxpayer’s’ sensibility?
Will McMartin
1 year ago
Blackie
In 1872, the first full-fiscal year after B.C. joined Confederation, the provincial government's annual expenditures totalled $432,083. And today, as we both know, the province intends to spend $40.6 billion.
Holy smokes ... spending really is out of control! From just over $400,000 to more than $40 billion in just 138 years — why, you're right, it's outrageous and clearly can't continue forever.
And we know the culprits: Education costs have skyrocketed from $25,436 annually to $10.8 billion, while Health (then known as Hospitals and Charities) has soared from $11,720 to nearly $16.5 billion.
Oh, Lord, what are we doing to ourselves?
Except that, gee whiz, in 1872 B.C. was home to only 40,000 people, and today there are 4.5 million of us. I wonder if the explosion in the numbers both of taxpayers and of those who utilize government services has had any impact on the huge growth in government revenues and expenditures. Hmmmm.
Golly, if only there was a way to take into account population growth, inflation and frequent accounting changes, to determine the actual growth of government spending over a period of time?
Oh, there is: it's to compare Victoria's yearly expenditures as a proportion of the provincial economy — that is, GDP — from one fiscal period to another. At least, that's the method I used (with figures provided by the ministry of finance) for the above story.
If you think there's a better way -- per capita expenditures adjusted for inflation? -- then please show us your calculcations.
I bet you'll be surprised at the result.
G West
1 year ago
Hmm.... Thanks Will.
But editors: It's an 'insult' to tell someone they don't have a clue about economics when they clearly don't?
The concept of GDP is fundamental to an understanding of the way economic results are analyzed and compared - otherwise we'd never 'settle' anything. Surely, intelligent debate requires some fundamental agreement and undrstanding on the meaning and application of basic terms.
Now, the redaction in my subject line was probably reasonable - and I wouldn't quibble if you'd caviled at 'lighting hair on fire' but the point about whether or not my interlocutor understands economics?
Hardly.
David Beers
1 year ago
yes it is an insult
Make your case and don't make it personal, please. If you do, it shuts down the tone of open exploration that is a Tyee thread at its best. We are receiving many complaints about your tendency to personalize and attack people by questioning their intelligence, or sincerity, etc. As I say, stick to making your case without such tactics, please, GWest -- which of course is a request meant for every participant in Tyee threads as well.
RickW
1 year ago
Holy (Blackie) Smokers!
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/774654--daw-ontario-unveils-auto-insurance-reforms
Welcome to the jungle
We got fun 'n' games
We got everything you want
Honey we know the names
We are the people that can find
Whatever you may need
If you got the money honey
We got your disease
- Guns 'n' Roses
Mrrk
1 year ago
Maybe I am missing something here
Please don’t crap down my neck, I am a bit confused here.
Will does a good job in adjusting the numbers in the Don Cayo piece for accounting differences and acknowledging the inflation adjustments.
He seems to get to a point where current value of CRF spending from 2000/01 is $27.4 billion today. He adjusts the Don Cayo reported spending down to $33.782 billion today. These numbers are presented as being comparable from an accounting point of view; they just at this point need to consider different levels of population.
Adjusting for population the 27.4 billion / 4 million population = $6850 spend per head
Today 33.782 billion / 4.5 million population = $7507 spend per head
Therefore inflation and population adjusted spending per head has increased significantly over the decade. All of these numbers come from this piece so I am not questioning any of the sources.
Comparing spending to GDP can tell you some interesting things I don’t think it is applicable to this discussion.
G West
1 year ago
Mrrk
With respect.
The 27.4 Billion is the inflation adjusted figure not the population adjusted figure.
N.B. ref. para.10:
Pls refer to para 23 of Will's column. I'll quote it for you:
But, in the end, all this mathematical gymnastics isn’t really necessary because we have the ability to compare apples and apples right now – simply by comparing the ratio of Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures as a percentage of GDP then (2001) – as opposed to now. Which is what McMartin explains here: (paras 25, 27, 28)
And which is, in the end, the single point he’s trying to make – that the province is not living under a Campbell administration that can be characterized as out-of–control spending.
khed67
1 year ago
Re: Blackie and P3's vs unions/pensions
Blackie said:
"Interesting that in your rush to trash the so-called pirate power commitments and P3s as a leading contributor to the deficit, you made no mention of the similarly significant contribution of ongoing public sector union contracts (particularly in health care), and related pension obligations, right across the board."
Seems to me the difference here is that money paid to private sector for-profit businesses benefits the people of BC far less than money paid to union workers and pension recipients.
Adding a for-profit middleman just siphons public money into private (and often foreign) pockets. Paying BC's workers and pensioners is a better way to spend public money in my opinion.
The motive behind getting rid of union contracts is to reduce wages. Shouldn't we all want every worker, union or not, to get more instead of less?
Mrrk
1 year ago
G West
Thanks for your comments. I believe I did account for population differences when I divided the inflation adjusted 2000/01 spending by the 2000/01 population, and divided the spending today by today’s population.
If the discussion is spending then it feels to me like the discussion should stay on spending. Comparing to GDP provides a number that is a relationship, and thus has more factors that could distort analysis and these additional factors (GDP in this case) have nothing to do with spending. I think this is an “apples to apples” relationship to the extent that you can understand the composition of the apple.
I am not going to venture an opinion on what level of spending growth is “out-of-control”, but I will agree with the others in saying this does not seem like it.
I would think the test would be how valuable is the additional spending, and clearly that is an entirely different matter.
G West
1 year ago
Not arguing that point
But, again with respect, the title of the article is:
Scare stories about high spending are False.
I think that's demonstrably true - and all you have to do is look at Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures as a portion of total GDP then and compare them to Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures as a portion of GDP now.
As I pointed out earlier - there is absolutely nothing which requires anyone to light their hair on fire over that point.
I agree we have to compare apples to apples and that's why McMartin made the points he does about other observers and experts who haven't made the necessary adjustments BEFORE drawing what seems very likely to me to be the conclusion they WANTED to draw.
McMartin is no left-winger. I've seen nothing about any of his work at Tyee which indicates he's anything but a disinterested analyst.
Now, if you want to get into a discussion about whether or not we are getting the kind of 'outcomes' from our expenditures today as opposed to the 'outcomes' we experienced as a society 10 years or more ago then I agree that is another discussion.
Whiskey River
1 year ago
HST Shell Game continues
everything about Colin Hansen and Gordon Campbell is a bullshit con job.....
HST CON GAME CONTINUES!!!!
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2010/03/hst-shell-game-continues.html
zalm
1 year ago
Huh??? What gives, David?
"We are receiving many complaints about your tendency to personalize and attack people by questioning their intelligence, or sincerity, etc."
So if I complain loud and long many times about BC Boy's appalling grasp of economics, politics, rhetoric and argument, in addition to his opinion of me, will you administer a swift kick in the goolies to him too? Let me know so I can get started.
Sheesh! I didn't know this site was a popularity contest.
The DELETE button shouldn't become a time-release opinion feature. It's there for the egregious stuff. Throw the puck back out there and let the teams go at it. Call the misconducts and majors, and leave the minors to the minor leagues - like Canvas Goebbels.
David Beers
1 year ago
Zalm
consistently levelling personal insults at other commenters is a 'major' on Tyee threads, as stated in our commenting guidelines. BC Boy has been told the same. Have a good day.
realisticman
1 year ago
Good to see the facts
Will Martin has laid out some clear stats that will hopefully bring closure to the claims by a small clique that have gone on about the Olympics being unaffordable. The recent Budget also came in without any huge Olympic deficit either. As Andrew MacLeod writes on another Tyee story, (although for some reason he does include the Whistler highway, and the Vancouver rail line to the airport, maybe even the F18 jets and the navy ships) the costs will be picked up by all Canadians.
G West
1 year ago
And, zalm
As you know, G West has never been guilty of 'consistently' levelling personal insults at anyone - he has, reluctantly (and in the absence of intervention by editors) responded to provocation.
That's all.
Furthermore, G West has undertaken, in a letter to David Beers, to permanently refrain from responding to personal insults in kind at all, so long as there is a fair, equitable, reasonably prompt and moderately consistent effort to enforce the commenting guidelines on EVERYONE.
In fact, since editor Beers has seen fit to comment on the subject again I think I'm entirely justified in posting the text of my message to him:
David,
I guess that depends upon whom the complaints are coming from - you have to look at what they're saying and who's making the complaint - I'd wager G West has far more friends at Tyee than enemies.
I don't believe I've ever done anything at Tyee but respond to what I took to be a 'personalized' and offensive insult -usually only after having waited for some response from you or your editors to clicking the 'offensive' button. Further, I've been pleading with you and your editors for weeks to make an example of comments where that sort of thing is commonplace - both in emails and in messages posted on the site.
I'll make you a promise though: If you'll make an honest attempt to step in when there are clear examples of someone doing what you've accused me of doing then you'll NEVER have to worry about G West doing it again...all I'm asking for is at least an approximation of fairness and equity.
I know perfectly well I can hold my own in any argument that's allowed to proceed on the merits.
G West
1 year ago
Umm! Not Quite
In fact, the last real accounting - the one from the Auditor General - showed that BC's total debt was $55 billion as of 2007. When you take into consideration the total debt hidden in Hansen's contractual obligation file - which includes all the Olympic costs - including the 'unknown' amount of the provincial 'share' of security costs - the total provincial debt - and the interest expense which is going to be incurred because these obligations stretch over several cycles - there is no doubt that our total debt right now is at least double what the provincial government wants it's citizens to think it is.
And most of the bills for the Olympic party aren't in yet....
realisticman
1 year ago
GWest, it was Unknown, no longer
Perhaps you didn't catch last weeks story.
"Vancouver Province March 3, 2010
VICTORIA -- The federal and B.C. governments have agreed to split the security tab for the 2010 Winter Olympics.
Budget documents released Tuesday reveal that B.C. has agreed to pay $252.5 million of the Games' $900-million security bill."
Not too bad eh? Considering that nothing has so far gone wrong and everyone had such a great time.
G West
1 year ago
Is that something like the 'agreement'
Which covered how the 1.9 billion dollars from the Feds for HST will be dispersed?
I suggest you read Will McMartin's other column here at Tyee - and remember I wasn't just talking about security costs. You'll also not be pleased to know that the RCMP has gone way over its budget for this year too because of the strains of meeting the security needs associated with policing what Christy Blatchdford calls the 'river of vomit'.
Stephanie T
1 year ago
Lies and Damned Lies
Yeah, not bad at all considering the original lie,er quote was 175 million. Besides that, having neither the money nor the desire to attend, I had a shitty time.
zalm
1 year ago
Splitting what tab?
"Budget documents released Tuesday reveal that B.C. has agreed to pay $252.5 million of the Games' $900-million security bill."
And which taxpayer is it that's going to pick up the other share of the bill?
Go on - I want to hear your answer in print.
realisticman
1 year ago
Stephanie
Too bad, there were literally hundreds of free arts, music and cultural events.
G West, I certainly don't begrudge any RCMP or other policing salaries. These people should be well paid, especially considering the excellent job they do and did.
Zalm; It will be paid from Canadian federal tax receipts. ie. Corporate, Energy royalties and individual taxpayers.
G West
1 year ago
The point simply was
That the 'final' security bill isn't - final that is.
It isn't final because the RCMP has now overshot its own budget too and will be asking parliament (you and me) for 'more please sir'....which expenses won't be charged to the proper tab but will still have to be paid. It won't be accounted for as an Olympic expense - but it is an Olympic expense even though the accounting is done in Regina and Ottawa and it makes a mockery of the accounting you've referenced.
I'm glad you like being overcharged for a drunken party - I don't. Perhaps you should have a look at what Sean Gregory wrote in Time magazine - oh wait, I have the highlights here:
“Let’s face it: if public intoxication were an Olympic sport, Vancouver and Whistler would own the podium. These are the fourth Olympics I’ve covered, and Vancouver drinks Athens, Torino and Beijing under the table. And all of that drinking has led to a lot of public urinating. The city has had to force liquor stores to close at 7 p.m. on the nights the Canadian hockey teams played. Vancouver appears to have more morons per square foot than TV’s Jersey Shore house.”
NICE!
Have you been out of the country?
realisticman
1 year ago
Poo Eee
Doesn't sound like fun, does it? I was downtown a few times during the Olympics, Granville, Coal Harbour, Waterfront Station, Robson Square, Yaletown, Georgia Street and the Art Gallery, I must have missed what you refer to because all I encountered were enthusiastic and friendly people that started conversations as though we were all invited to a friend's party and that includes youths one would associate with excess drinking. There was never a feeling of fear or danger or the need to be extra alert. Like Brian Williams of NBC (http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/02/26/2213393.aspx) it was a very rewarding and comfortable experience. It was amusing to see the tourists amazement at the splendor of the casual dining and wine sipping in t-shirts on the café terraces in the warm sunshine.
Are you an abolitionist? Personally, I wouldn't want too great a restriction on sensible alcohol consumption but I know there are some religious prudes out there. The answer lies in a strong police presence and that's what we had. They did an excellent job.
There were almost certainly some drunks, I will grant you that. I didn't encounter any and neither did I hear any stories of nasty fights or tourists having any troubles. There was the unfortunate incident with a few vandals but everyone denounced them including the East Side monitors of such incidences and they faded away after their 15 minutes in the spotlight.
I expect history will show that the Vancouver Olympics were an overwhelming success on many levels. All facilities were on time and on budget. There were more free cultural and festive events in Vancouver than ever before, the challenge all seem to be discussing now is how the positive 'buzz' can be sustained.
The security cost was high but it was worthwhile insurance, far better to overspend than to have have underspent and an unfortunate incident to have arisen. I can only imagine how you would have criticized that.
G West
1 year ago
I'm not referring to it - no need to 'grant' me anything
I'm simply repeating what other disinterested reporters from Time Magazine and the Globe and Mail have said...and there's more of the same around if you want to look for it...which clearly you don't.
And there's a good deal of it which points out exactly how costly and pointless as an economic driver such spectacles really are. Again, a good deal of it from the business pages of the Globe.
The suggestion that all facilities were on budget is unsustainable - without enormous expenditures on trucked and flown in snow there would have been no Olympic events at Cypress - without an extremely costly bailout of the Olympic Village the athletes would have had to be put up in SRO hotels.
Without an insane fixation on speed and a complete dereliction of the need for safety and proper design (something we now know was pointed out numerous times long before the games) a Georgian luger might still be alive; without a craven attempt to blame that 'accident' on its victim we might still have some pride in our athletic officials and Canadian Olympic bureaucracy.
As for the free cultural stuff, there certainly were some of those things but, and this I do know for a fact, almost all of them entailed lengthy line-ups and long waits after which my correspondents - people whose opinions I trust implicitly - said they were nearly always disappointed in the actual event.
I think the Vancouver Olympics are as big a success right now as they will ever be. As the bills come in and the pervasive effects of neglect and under funding of the really important things in this society - things which have been sorely and purposely neglected in order to finance this mess - come more and more to light that these Games will go down in history with every other iteration of this serial insanity as just another huge waste of money, time and effort.
It isn't me, or my criticisms, which have created this appalling spectacle of mindless selfishness and irrational jingoism - the suggestion that we needed almost a billion dollars in pointless security to ride herd on a few thousand drunk 20 year olds is simply laughable. The notion that it was money well spent is, frankly, offensive.
realisticman
1 year ago
I've underestimated you
"my correspondents - people whose opinions I trust implicitly - "
With around 200 events your league of 'correspondents' are more superabundant than I could have imagined.
http://www.vancouver2010.com/more-2010-information/cultural-festivals-and-events/event-listings/
I don't think that the CF18s were around for a few drunk 20 year olds. Do you?
The Olympic Village was of course not subject to a bailout but a shift in financing responsibility. Do you think they should drop the social housing and sell the whole shebang?
The luge track was built to IOC specifications.
No question about the first Canadian Golds at a Canadian Olympics and the most ever gold medals for a host country.
I do read the Globe;
Globe and Mail, March 2, 2010
"The unprecedented performances of our athletes and Vancouver's unquestioned success at hosting the Winter Games have left the country with a contact high of epic proportions. Canadians everywhere are feeling the intangible benefits: the shared pride, the heightened unity, the inspiration, the sense of accomplishment."
You're probably right though, it was a complete disaster and nobody really enjoyed it, they were just pretending to. That wasn't even really a proper hockey game was it? No blood and guts, no fights and helmets ripped off. Oh well, thanks anyway for your financial support. Too bad you missed out.
sicntired
1 year ago
How does one become head of the Canadian Taxpayers federation?
What do they do?I know what Maureen does because I've had the unfortunate luck to have read some of her rants and they all say the same thing.All I know is that we have the highest child poverty for the 6th year in a row and the homeless issue only improves in the mind of Rich Coleman.What does improve is the bottom line of every person who bought and then resold hotels to the Liberals in their unaccustomed outpouring of gravitas re homelessness.As usual,the poor get crumbs while mr Campbell and his friends get rich.All while selling off any and everything that should be our children's legacy.Meanwhile,the headlines in the Province trumpet our governments saving of the social safety net.That is the saddest and sickest thing I've heard in a long while.
G West
1 year ago
You need to look into your impressions about that luge track
I think you'll find you're misinformed - the designer was quite explicit about how and for what reason his designs were altered....think speed and think marketing.
The CF 18s and bivouacked troops up behind Whistler - not to mention many of the drunken cops on the cruise ship (among other things) were entirely useless and unnecessary.
I predicted right here at Tyee months before the games that there was no need for the level of security enlisted to ride herd on Vancouver. And there wasn’t. It was totally wasted – their effort would have been better put trying to explain to Helena Guergis why she needed to take her shoes off to clear airport security in Charlottetown. She and her husband Rahim Jaffer are bigge terrorist threats than anyone on the streets of Vancouver.
I'm pleased to call in that wager right now.
Most of the revelers were simply over-imbibing locals anyway - there were very few actual visitors from outside the country - many of those, like columnists from England and the States were, as I've shown, more impressed with Canadians ability to demolish 40 beers than anything else.
That crap was old hat with the engineers at UBC – What do you expect will happen when you give a bunch of students two weeks off in the middle of term - WHOO HA...as for the 'value' of the Olympics to the economy - this is the article I was referring to:
http://tinyurl.com/yjsrwj5
Apparently you've been spending too much time on the Sports pages.
It was a decent hockey game - Canada was very lucky to win..fast, competitive and almost penalty-free.
And, that bit about financial support - I'm not subscribing, snert has taken care of my share of the bill - he had a 'great' time. Only fair that he should pay for it.
And remember this about intangibles, they don't pay the bills.
I do agree there were a number of young Canadians seething up and down the streets of both Whistler and Vancouver who were quite obviously epically 'high' all right.
G West
1 year ago
But now
Can we please get back to discussing the actual subject of Will McMartin's article.
I'm much more interested in helping my fellow British Columbians understand the ways in which so-called 'experts' and columnists work to deceive voters and 'create' - from whole cloth - the impression that program spending in this province is 'out of control'.
Although, truth to tell, spending on wasteful parties and jingoistic patriotism is certainly something we should be careful never to countenance again.
The poor, the children the homeless, the sick, the old and the disabled of British Columbia don't need any more stupid parties.
EVER.
zalm
1 year ago
fast dancing - not fast enough!
R'man sez:
"Zalm; It will be paid from Canadian federal tax receipts. ie. Corporate, Energy royalties and individual taxpayers."
Don't be obtuse. Your vaunted Taxpayer's Federation insists that corprorate taxes are only passed along to the consumer, so we pay again. Corporate taxes are only 33 billion out of the total tax take as against $106 billion in personal taxes anyway.
Energy royalties? Don't make me laugh - those are provincial resources only - the feds don't collect a single one of them. Every dime the province collects in royalties goes into roadbuilding for the gas and oil industry - that and more, what with nearly a $1 billion in roads built in 2008 and nearly an equal amount in 2007, there's no hope that royalties would ever even pay for the roads, never mind anything else. And with the royalty holiday this year, we'll be losing money this year big-time.
Not that you mentioned it, but I will....Sales on drilling rights? A paltry billion in 2007 and a quarter of that since and prior. And all that chewed up by resources roadbuilding and maintenance in the hinterlands, not to Owe-limp-ics.
And once again - where do royalty payments end up coming from? Canadian consumers - exported gas lands less than a quarter of income due to royalties than Canadian prices do.
Canadian taxpayers pick up nearly the whole cost of taxation one way or another, and you are mealy-mouthed to suggest otherwise.
realisticman
1 year ago
Quite
In our peaceful and well run country the terrorist threat is low but there was still the need for the expenditure on military defenses as previous Olympics have shown, as well as policing on the streets.
My Globe quote was not from the sports pages, rather an editorial which gathered all thoughts.
Zalm. quote: "Energy royalties? Don't make me laugh - those are provincial resources only - the feds don't collect a single one of them."
Perhaps you don't know how your country works.
"The CERI study shows the largest percentage of the
government revenue (taxes and royalties) accrues to
the Federal Government, not Alberta. Over the 20-year
study period, CERI estimates the total government
revenues at $123 billion dollars (income tax, royalties, corporate tax, provincial sales tax, GST, property tax, etc.) as a result of investment and development in oil sands.
The government shares of the revenues are: federal
41%, Alberta 36%, and other governments and
municipalities combined 23%."
www.capp.ca/GetDoc.aspx?DocID=141879 -
From where did you think federal equalization funds derive? I presume you know what they are. It's a bit embarrassing.
jimorsheryl
1 year ago
High Spending
I am not certainly as intelligent as the author, but when you spend $7 Billion you don't have, how can you say you are not spending too much??
G West
1 year ago
An "Editoral" gathers all thoughts?
Now that really IS funny - you should have stuck to the sports pages.
Bwwwwhahahahahahaha!
G West
1 year ago
Almost as funny as Thomas Friedman in the Times this morning.
Where he headlines his OpEd on the Iraqi elections with this: It’s Up to Iraqis Now. Good Luck.
realisticman
1 year ago
You'll like this one
The Ottawa Citizen
March 10, 2010
"Canada's Task Force on Financial Literacy has opened its website, and will begin town hall meetings next month, to hear suggestions on how to make Canadians smarter about money.
...Its discussion paper paints Joe Canadian as a bit of a doofus. "
G West
1 year ago
I guess they'd agree with Sean Gregory
"When I asked a reveler if there was too much public intoxication in Vancouver, he responded, "There should be more." A roofer by day, he told me he had just consumed 8 to 10 beers — and he looked like it. "The police are too strict," he said. "One of them poured out my beer — and I wasn't even drunk yet." At 2 a.m., Granville Street was still packed, and there were plenty of drunks wandering about. Vancouver appeared to have more morons per square foot than the Jersey Shore house."
Yep, doofus just about covers it...however, when asked to account for the mess this country and province are in, not everyone can plead they were simply too drunk to notice. Joe Canadian would be a lot less likely to drink himself into an early grave if the society he lives in were a lot more equitable.
realisticman
1 year ago
Low GINI doesn't help
Sweden has a slightly lower GINI than Canada and they too have problems with binge drinking, Australia really has a large binge drinking problem too.
G West
1 year ago
GINI has little to do with it - those are 'national' averages
Vancouver is the least affordable place to live in the world - that's certainly enough to create an attitude of helpless ennui among working class young people which morphs into the kind of mindless self destructiveness Gregory describes and anyone in Vancouver can see most weekends and after Canuck games - exactly the kind behavior typical of soccer hooligan louts who drink themselves into oblivion every time England plays footie on the Continent.
You're a Limey, you should know that already.
But really, I’d like to hear your reaction to the holes Will McMartin has poked in the conventional wisdom about government expenditures being out of control.
The Olympics, as they say, are so ‘yesterday’!
realisticman
1 year ago
I already covered that
see above.
Interesting to see that Chantal thinks that the Vancouver Olympics might have helped national unity.
http://olympics.thestar.com/2010/article/777565--h-eacute-bert-will-olympics-change-minds-in-quebec
realisticman
1 year ago
GINI no good
I thought that was your talisman for, "if the society he lives in were a lot more equitable.".
Now you say, "GINI has little to do with it". What is the new measure, cheap bungalows with a white picket fences? How are we going to make Vancouver property cheaper? Provincial subsidies for Vancouver homeowners? Lower taxes for Vancouver residents? Taller high-rises and more density with consequently lower square foot costs? Building residences on the ALR? Abolishing the Property Transfer Tax? Subsidizing Vancouver employers so they pay higher salaries?
G West
1 year ago
Please re-read
Pay special attention to:
Vancouver is the least affordable place to live in the world Now, think about how that would affect its GINI? ...then move on to:
...that's certainly enough to create an attitude of helpless ennui among working class young people which morphs into the kind of mindless self destructiveness Gregory describes and anyone in Vancouver can see most weekends and after Canuck games - exactly the kind behavior typical of soccer hooligan louts who drink themselves into oblivion every time England plays footie on the Continent.
The place YOU left, remember?
I don't care what levels of inequality obtain, on average, in the macro Canadian environment. The micro world in which non-elitist Vancouverites live and work it is a very unequal and hopeless place - (we even have thousands of homeless people - remember) and that kind of thing produces drunken behavior and hopelessness.
As far as the change needed - old stuff that we've talked about a hundred times.
As I wrote above, I'm bored playing with you realisticman - if you don't want to actually discuss the question this thread is addressing that's fine with me...It isn’t just the Olympics that are passé.
Remember?
But really, I’d like to hear your reaction to the holes Will McMartin has poked in the conventional wisdom about government expenditures being out of control.
zalm
1 year ago
Realisticman, you're prevaricating
The CERI study (whatever that is) notwithstanding, I defy you to show me a single oil or gas royalty that's paid to the feds! Go head. Betcha can't find even one!
I'm waiting.... (foot tapping impatiently before scorching you for prevaricating yet again).
I'm not going to accuse the CERI study of "not knowing how your government works" but I'm certainly going to accuse you!
realisticman
1 year ago
More Study Needed
GWest;"I don't care what levels of inequality obtain, on average, in the macro Canadian environment. "
How should governments formulate policy if statistics are subjected to an "I don't care" attitude?
I still don't see any comment at all as to how the real estate market can be more accessible to middle-class buyers. Should we do like Norway and drill offshore? Norway is, after all, the lowest GINI country.
G West
1 year ago
Still ignoring the reality
I'm tired wasting my time discussing anything with someone who doesn't actually want to discuss either the issue at hand (media lies and obfuscation) or the reality of the economic bind of young people in Vancouver..you know perfectly well I don't have an 'I don't care attitude' - that's your bailiwick my friend.
realisticman
1 year ago
GWest the Spinner
Quite, "I don't care" was, of course, quoting you. You pose issues but will not comment on them when asked and your response is that you won't waste time on them. I was perfectly prepared to listen to and discuss any ideas but, as I suspected, you do not have the answers, nor any ideas.
Just like the warm luxury of a 19th Century coffee house the yapping went on and on and on until they became too tired. Such was their amusement.
G West
1 year ago
Quoting - but painfully out of context - as you well know
A habit you simply cannot, apparently, foreswear.
Have you 'read' the other comments here? - or perhaps Mr. McMartin's article? You ‘seem’ to have no knowledge or interest in either – why?
As it happens, I have, and commented upon them both - you, with respect, have done neither, and, in fact, you well know what my prescription is for this failing experiment called Canada. God knows I've written about it often enough - surely you can't have forgotten.
You don't much like that sort of medicine and would prefer, apparently, to have a jovial conversation about parties and games the joys of public exhibitions of bottled patriotism and jingoistic celebration.
I have both answers and ideas - but no interlocutor willing to engage.
And, if you don't know what I mean - or if you can't comprehend the context - which I suppose is possible, then there's little point in pursuing this any further.
I wanted to discuss media lies and obfuscation - additionally I thought it was interesting to explore how some so-called experts are more than willing to manipulate their calculations to massage the message as it were. I can only assume you simply don't care - or, alternatively, that you're perfectly happy with a deceptive situation so long as it suits your own 'philosophy' and self-interest.
By the way my forebears in 19th century 'Jolly Old' weren't the type for coffee houses or for yapping...neither am I.