What government does with a surplus
By Jim Taylor
“I don’t know what to write about this week,” I lamented to my wife.
“The provincial government just presented its budget,” Joan suggested.
“I don’t know anything about budgets,” I replied.
And then I wondered why that should disqualify me from commenting. After all, the emperor-with-no-clothes in Washington clearly knows about nothing beyond his own corporate tunnel-vision. That hasn’t stopped him.
Joan and I do not work with a strict budget. We have certain fixed expenses – utilities, insurance, charity, taxes, and services. (Thankfully, we’re past the mortgage stage.) And we have variable expenses – food, entertainment, travel, and healthcare….
Our budgeting process is simple. If we spend less than we take in, we save the surplus for times when we take in less than we spend.
Those principles might seem reasonable for government budgeting, too. A government would save a surplus to cover situations when, for reasons beyond its control, it might have to run a deficit.
Norway did that, and currently floats on a surplus about the size of the North Sea.
Bribing the voters
The B.C. Government, from what I can see, operates on a different philosophy. Instead of investing a surplus for future emergencies, it believes a surplus should be used to ensure the same government will be around to deal with those future emergencies.
In the earlier days of democracy, political factions bribed voters with cash or booze, right at the polling station. That’s now illegal. Instead, governments dole out cash earlier in the process, in the form of grants and tax reductions, lowered premiums and fees.
I consider that practice another form of bribery. And it’s worth noting, only incumbent governments can practice it. Opposition parties can’t; they can only make promises.
Any budget analysis is complicated by the fact that governments don’t actually do anything. They develop policies. They influence those policies by distributing money. But a government doesn’t actually have any money of its own. If revenues fall, it cannot subsidize the loss from its own resources. Like a sleight-of-hand magician, it simply shuffles the money already on the table into different piles.
Individuals facing tighter circumstances can look for a better job. Skip a holiday. Repair their own plumbing.
A government can’t. It contracts out most of its services. To teachers, social workers, and police, for example. Slashing a government’s internal expenses will never cover those external commitments. MLAs and civil servants cannot replace teachers in classrooms. Or inspect vessels for zebra mussels. Or monitor forest operations for safety.
The contractors have to be paid, regardless.
Free money!
In B.C., the government also controls several Crown Corporations – BC Ferries, BC Hydro, and the Insurance Corporation of B.C.
A Crown Corporation, by my somewhat jaundiced definition, is a fictional entity created so that the government can disclaim any responsibility for its management, while skimming its profits to create an equally fictional surplus.
Which can be handed out. But not, apparently, to the most needy.
B.C.’s minimum wage stays at $10.85 an hour. Even a full-time job, at that rate, leaves a single earner below the poverty line. A single parent with two children falls about $13,000 short of the poverty line.
Disabled persons will get another $50 a month. I wonder how much $1.65 a day will improve their living conditions. The new rate, $1033 a month, won’t even rent a studio apartment in most cities. Thus the budget condemns people with disabilities to rooms in boarding houses or shared accommodation.
A disabled individual would need a 60% increase just to get up to the poverty line.
And welfare recipients get no increase at all.
Finance Minister Mike de Jong explained that the province decided not to raise these rates “in terms of allocating the finite resources we have.”
Differing priorities
Premier Christy Clark mused that ordinary people will do a better job of spending their own money than the government can. I disagree. Given extra money, I’d guess, most of us will spend it on ourselves; we won’t turn it over to the homeless, the disabled, the unemployed.
If anyone is going to help the most vulnerable, it has to be the government.
In this budget, it has chosen not to.
B.C. has another election scheduled for May 9 this year. If the Liberals win, I predict, they will immediately cut back some of their pre-election generosity. If they lose, the new government will declare that the lavish surplus was a financial boondoggle, and that they inherited a mess that they will have to spend their way out of.
There – that’s what I don’t know about budgets.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
Some thoughtful responses to last week’s column on bullying.
Retired military officer Howard Hisdal took issue with my suggestion that military officers are trained to be bullies.
“I have been the course officer in command of 12 training courses, most of them recruit training courses, and so by your definition I must be a trained bully. I really do not think that I am a very well trained bully. I was taught by commissioned officers (lieutenants, captains, and majors) and Non-Commissioned Officers (master-corporals, sergeants, and warrant officers) who lead from the front and never expected anything from their soldiers that they were not prepared to do themselves. When Canadian soldiers are fed in the field the NCOs serve the food and the officers eat last. This is not a tradition that bullies have. After a hard route march officers and NCOs inspect their soldiers’ feet. This is not quite the same as Jesus washing the feet of his disciples but it is not far different.
“These are customs in the Canadian military that I do not think you know about. As a course officer, I tried to inspire my soldiers with the concepts of honour and duty.
“A quote from Canadian general Ramsey Withers sums up my leadership philosophy:
“’Reduced to its simplest form, the military ethos is rooted in caring for subordinates. This issue is core to ethical leadership. It implies caring for troops before operations by training, equipping and supporting them to have a fair chance to fight, win, and come home; caring for them during operations by professional leadership and support; and caring for them after operations by meeting their needs arising from that service, as well as honouring their deeds.’”
Eduard Hiebert shared some experiences of being bullied at school, and continued, “I have come to see bullying as simply a point along the continuum of aggression. When looked at from that perspective, in my opinion, it is rampant.
“Quirks and Quarks [CBC science program] had a piece called ‘Evidence that Torture Doesn't Work" which you might find enlightening. You can find the podcast at http://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/science-and-tech/quirks-quarks/”
Ted Wilson wrote, “Your definition of bullying is too broad. ‘Well-intentioned’ would include you. In your Jan. 22/17 Sharp Edges you criticized the conservation officers in Penticton for destroying four cougars. You were trying to use your influence to force the officers into an untenable situation. They know that when wild carnivores lose their fear of humans, sooner or later something bad happens. When it does, they are held accountable or, worse still, have to tell someone a loved one had been injured or killed. Would you want to be on either side of that equation? I suspect not. Well-intentioned people who cause suffering, or those who cannot change the ‘system’ but work within it, doing the best they can, are not bullies.”
Chris Duxbury thought “there must be some brain waves floating between Canada and Australia. On Sunday I mentioned how Trump is big on identifying the enemies, and how this can cause so much harm. We were looking at the ‘love your enemies’ reading from Matthew. Jesus advocates a non-violent resistance which is opposite to the bullies of the world!”
Tom Watson: "Is it not the case that history has shone a pretty positive light on Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi while shining a negative light on the others in your list?
“It's true, of course, that much more ink has been spilled about those on the negative list. Perhaps we would be better served to follow Plato's advice and write only about those who build up our society and world, and refuse to highlight those who tear down. We persist, of course, in doing the opposite of what Plato advised; otherwise, why would every ridiculous lie uttered by Donald Trump get endless play in the newspapers and on TV?”
Alex McGillvery “spent some time studying bullying and the various suggestions on how to stop it. As you say it is endemic in our culture. The leaders we glorify are often well connected bullies. Our culture assumes one needs to be aggressive in order to get anywhere.
“One of the things I learned from my study was that bullies are trying to fulfill a need. They haven't chosen a socially acceptable way of doing it, but it is effective, or they wouldn't continue. In order to stop bullying, we need to look at what need they are filling, and how they could fill it in a healthier manner. The only way this can happen is in the context of community. About 10% are bullies, 10% victims; the vast majority, like you, are bystanders. Only by bringing everyone together in a manner reminiscent of ‘restorative justice’ can the community address the reason why it allows bullying.”
Steve Roney liked my definition of bullying: “It makes you feel good to make someone else feel bad.”
Then he explored some implications: “People keep getting it wrong: supposing, for example, that merely having strict and enforced rules is bullying, or that it is only bullying if violence is involved, or that it has something in particular to do with gays as victims…”
Steve gave an example of a workshop where mere dissent was seen as one person trying to bully a group. He also identified some professions where he thought the natural imbalance of power could encourage people to bully others: parents in the family; teachers in school class; nurses, especially in palliative care; psychological or psychiatric therapy; social work….
“One big reason why we seem to have such trouble dealing with bullying and with even understanding the concept is that there are, in fact, a lot of bullies out there. And they are going to keep throwing out red herrings. Not as a matter of deliberate conspiracy, mind you. As you say, bullies are never going to see themselves as bullying. They will see bullying as their right, because they are special. And anyone who resists their bullying—that person is now the bully.”
Art Hildebrand: "How true, great article! Our recent trip to Iran revealed how bullying works on the international political scene. It starts with ‘the war of words’ employed by both sides. Even Obama and his boys who worked hard on achieving diplomacy were put, by some, in the bullying camp.
“Colonialism is bullying regardless where it comes from.”
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
This column comes to you using the electronic facilities of Woodlakebooks.com.
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the “Reply” button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is up and running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.ca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatso@gmail.com or twatson@sentex.net