Federal Budget Balanced - last year (without GM shares too)

[Smallc]

Oh yeah, don't the Howe bridge, which will be over a billion. I still think when an election is coming up before the Parliament is over, the seating government should have the AG put out a statement out on the bottom line of the finances of the country.

Indeed, the Department of Finance said revenues for the year were up 3.9% even as expenses climbed by 2.1%.

Moreover, the Finance Department shows spending by veterans affairs was up $121 million in fiscal 2015 or 13% and spending by aboriginal affairs was up a whopping $1.9 billion or 29% compared to fiscal 2014.

Federal transfers to individuals -- old age security, EI benefits, and so on -- were up 5.9%, well past the annual rate of inflation.

Ottawa also sent more money to provincial capitals in 2004-2015. Those transfers were up 4.4%.

All of these numbers, by the way, got the seal of approval from Auditor General Michael Ferguson before being released.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/14/surprise-surplus-lifts-tory-fortunes

[Smallc]

"The release of the annual financial report in the middle of an election campaign is suspicious enough. The fact that the Finance Department was prepared to sanction a budget that projected a $2-billion deficit last April and now turns out to be a near $2-billion surplus, suggests its integrity has been seriously compromised by the politicians."

This has been the case with almost every Conservative and Liberal government for as long as I can remember. The Reform/Alliance complained about that and they were wrong to do so then. You're wrong to complain now. What we have here is a difference of about 1.5% from what was budgeted. That isn't much at all.

[waldo]

from what was budgeted

what kind of budgeting puts false/fake/unintended program announcements and spending promises out to Canadians, hey? And does so purposely with an intent to pump a 'smoke & mirror' announcement during an election campaign?

[Canada_First]

Makes me happy that the Tory are in surplus. Such an amazing bit of news.

Keep it going!

[cybercoma]

FPTP delivered the best government in recent NB history. People with a problem with our system tend to be on the extremes...

The point is that FPTP is not representative, regardless of what you think of the government in power. Even I admit that Rachel Notley's legislature is not representative of Albertans' political intentions.

[cybercoma]

And I am betting that years from now, this will show that FPTP worked out for the people

So the ends justify the means? Or should the means be fair and just as well?

[cybercoma]

Funny then that projected expenses were only $800M less than budgeted for last year:

The difference in the two numbers can be explained by $3-billion more in revenue than was projected in April — largely because personal and corporate taxes were higher. Program expenses were also $800-million lower than forecast in the budget — the result of “higher than expected lapses in departmental spending.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-harper-hoping-surprise-surplus-will-convince-voters-the-tories-are-on-right-economic-track

Yes, but how do you feel about departments not spending their budgeted funding, particularly when it comes at the expense of military procurement?

[waldo]

Indeed, the Department of Finance said revenues for the year were up 3.9% even as expenses climbed by 2.1%.

Moreover, the Finance Department shows spending by veterans affairs was up $121 million in fiscal 2015 or 13% and spending by aboriginal affairs was up a whopping $1.9 billion or 29% compared to fiscal 2014.

Federal transfers to individuals -- old age security, EI benefits, and so on -- were up 5.9%, well past the annual rate of inflation.

Ottawa also sent more money to provincial capitals in 2004-2015. Those transfers were up 4.4%.

All of these numbers, by the way, got the seal of approval from Auditor General Michael Ferguson before being released.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/14/surprise-surplus-lifts-tory-fortunes

yes sireebob, those Sun/David Akin 'facts' are getting a lot of airplay... let's examine: Akin is somewhat creatively mixing the 2 distinct Finance Department reports... the latest 2014-2015 annual financial report and the earlier released 3-month, 1st quarter 2015 review - the so-called "June 2015 Fiscal Monitor". Of course, it is the Finance Department that cautions taking any information from the 1st quarter and extrapolating it for the whole year... notwithstanding the Sun/David Akin most certainly doesn't offer a recognizable distinction that what he writes reflects upon... just the first 3 months of the 2015/2016 fiscal year.

now... just where did the Sun/David Akin get those figures from... perhaps you can actually source the numbers you're quoting from that article you linked, particularly the veterans and aboriginal affairs references - yes? I've provided you the link to that report... and I can't find a more detailed account. You can do that, right?

[Smallc]

Yes, but how do you feel about departments not spending their budgeted funding, particularly when it comes at the expense of military procurement?

I feel that departments should always try to spend less than they have. I do it at work all the time. I feel the military should have a lager price of the pit, that's all. On a $300B, $800M isn't much.

[PIK]

Imagine a government saving money. I remember the old days when government depts had extra money ,they went on a spending spree, well, I guess no more and that is a good thing.

Edited September 15, 2015 by PIK

[Big Guy]

There appears to be some misunderstanding what a surplus is.

Lets use the example of a household budget: You sit down and estimate how much money you will be bringing in the next year. You prioritize what you want to spend this money on for the next year. You list (in priority) all of the things that you would like to spend this money on and cut the list off where the estimated spending just matches the estimated earnings.

You have a balanced budget.

Now at the end of the year you end up with a surplus. It could be because you got a raise you did not anticipate, maybe the dog died and you saved on feed and maintenance or maybe you did not move granny from that cheap nursing home to that better and more expensive one. You had promised granny that move and had budgeted for it but changed your mind. Maybe you were going to upgrade your car which is starting to fall apart but decided to delay that fix until next year even if the cost doubles next year.

You are the one who created that budget and you are the one who controlled how you stuck to it.

All a surplus or a deficit means is that you made a mistake in your estimation of how much you were going to earn or spend next year.

This example is true for all parties of all levels of government.

It is not good, bad or otherwise. It just is.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Big Guy

[Keepitsimple]

There appears to be some misunderstanding what a surplus is.

It is not good, bad or otherwise. It just is.

No, there isn't a misunderstanding. It's really a question of whether a government has honest aspirations to run their operations within the framework of a balanced budget. Here's where we stand:

1) The Conservatives have a track record which makes their "aspirations" more believable. With the Global Recession, they said, were encouraged, or forced to (depends on your point of view) inject a huge stimulus package into the economy - leading to multiple deficits. That said, they promised to balance the budget and did it one year early.....and unless the Global Economy rocks us again, they plan to live within a balanced budget. Is that good or bad? That's up to voters - but at least you know where they stand.

2) The Liberals have not put any importance on balancing the budget (it will balance itself).....and have promised to go into deficit at the rate of $10 billion each year for at least three years. By their own words, they do not aspire to living with a balanced budget. Deficit spending inevitably leads to cuts at a later date. No talk of that of course. Is deficit spending with a new party (we've been told this is NOT the same old Liberal Party) and an unproven leader the way to go? Again, that's up to the voters - but do we really know how this new Liberal Party would run things - and exactly who would run them?

3) The NDP - they "sort of" aspire to a balanced budget philosophy but heavens - there's lot of promises out there. But Mulcair said he'd balance the budget in his first year. Is he to be believed? Well, I'd feel much better if he said he aspired to balance the budget in the second - and every year (Why don't reporters ask the right questions?). Will he make it part of his governing philosophy? I think there should be a big, fat "Buyer Beware" sign around Mulcair's neck.

[Big Guy]

My point is that to use a surplus or deficit number as an evaluation of the policies of any party is pointless.

It is the party in power that creates those figures.

Where this becomes interesting, is when a party leader has budgeted for and will promise to spend money on some popular project during the year and gain a popularity "bump" on that announcement. Then the same government does not spend that money on that project during that year or postpones that project for the next year. Now that creates a "surplus" at the end of the year because that money was not spent. The government then gets another popularity "bump" because most people think that a surplus is a good thing - meanwhile, the project never got off the ground.

The devil is in the details.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Big Guy

[The_Squid]

Well said Big Guy...

This current government has the worst economic record of any gov't since WWII. That's dismal. Time for a change... ~70% of Canadians think so too, judging from the polls.

[Big Guy]

While the Harper government uses this tactic, so has every other government. It is not a coincidence that in most cases when a new government is elected, the first few years they plan for a deficit ("because of the mess the previous government left") and then have a "surprising" surplus just before an election.

[Keepitsimple]

My point is that to use a surplus or deficit number as an evaluation of the policies of any party is pointless.

It is the party in power that creates those figures.

Where this becomes interesting, is when a party leader has budgeted for and will promise to spend money on some popular project during the year and gain a popularity "bump" on that announcement. Then the same government does not spend that money on that project during that year or postpones that project for the next year. Now that creates a "surplus" at the end of the year because that money was not spent. The government then gets another popularity "bump" because most people think that a surplus is a good thing - meanwhile, the project never got, off the ground.

The devil is in the details.

What's your point. Sure - a couple of million here and there - promise this - change your mind or come up short - and then do something else. But try that with a major election promise.....try it with the $15 a day Daycare Program for example - or Income Splitting - or the TFSAs - or cutting taxes in general. You can juggle the nickles and dimes in the background but when you have an election platform - you'd better deliver on it's major components.

[cybercoma]

Let's look back on this moment when there's a left leaning government and remind you that you said "ehhh... what's a few million here or there."

[Smallc]

Well said Big Guy...

This current government has the worst economic record of any gov't since WWII. That's dismal. Time for a change... ~70% of Canadians think so too, judging from the polls.

That's true of almost every first world country in the world at this point.