Budget officer and Flaherty differ by $10 Billion

[Tonington]

With annual spending at close to $280 billion, $10 billion doesn't really strike me as that big of a deal.

3.5% is a pretty big deal, when departments are trying to prune $5 Billion, and tens of thousands will be put out of work.

If you split the difference it's only $5 billion.

What's the rationale for splitting the difference? If you have two estimates, and one is really far off, then splitting the difference is not an improvement at all...this is why Page has been asking for more transparency in how Finance Canada produces estimates. More eyes looking at the methods can lead to improved estimates.

Is Flaherty perhaps erring on the safe side.

Erring on the safe side would be going with conservative estimates. Conservative estimates of growth would accept that we have a larger structural deficit.

Isn't Flaherty the one we would assume knows the true picture?

Why? Flaherty is a politician. Politicians lie. Kevin Page is an economist that has worked as a civil servant for over 30 years now in many different departments.

Just because Flaherty is the Finance Minister doesn't mean he knows any better. Page has far more experience with government accounting.

I bet if you got 10 different accountants to write up the financial statement, you'd get 10 different "bottom lines".

Maybe, but that doesn't mean they are all equally valid estimates...

 

[JLM]

One of the problems with estimating costs are you are shooting at a moving target, so 3% doesn't strike me as being bad. If I get an estimate for repairs for $500 and the bill comes in at $515, I'm generally quite happy with that.

 

[Tonington]

One of the problems with estimating costs are you are shooting at a moving target, so 3% doesn't strike me as being bad. If I get an estimate for repairs for $500 and the bill comes in at $515, I'm generally quite happy with that.

And if your pay check was 3% short? Relative. If the structural deficit is $10 billion, and not cyclical like the government is projecting, then that is a lot to cut. In 2010 the two estimates were actually off by $17 billion, which is even more ridiculous.

What's worse, is that if the government is choosing too optimistically it's assumptions, then that has greater consequences down the road.

 

[JLM]

And if your pay check was 3% short? Relative. If the structural deficit is $10 billion, and not cyclical like the government is projecting, then that is a lot to cut. In 2010 the two estimates were actually off by $17 billion, which is even more ridiculous.

.

That happens to scads of people who miss as little as 6 days a year while sick!

 

[Tonington]

That happens to scads of people who miss as little as 6 days a year while sick!

In which case it wasn't an estimate, they just didn't show up to work.

Imagine 3% shirked, pay check after pay check. That adds up. That's the difference. The PBO estimate has this as a structural deficit, which means 3% every budget unless it's corrected for. Not some one-off like being sick, analogous to the Finance Canada estimates of our deficit.

 

[JLM]

In which case it wasn't an estimate, they just didn't show up to work.

Imagine 3% shirked, pay check after pay check. That adds up. That's the difference. The PBO estimate has this as a structural deficit, which means 3% every budget unless it's corrected for. Not some one-off like being sick, analogous to the Finance Canada estimates of our deficit.

You remember that trip the G.G. took to Finland with an entourage of 55 for a few weeks?, well, to balance things back up you just have to cancel one or two charades like that! :lol:

 

[Tonington]

You remember that trip the G.G. took to Finland with an entourage of 55 for a few weeks?, well, to balance things back up you just have to cancel one or two charades like that! :lol:

I think not. :roll:

 

[JLM]

I think not. :roll:

Well then, expect that crap to continue on the backs of the taxpayers! :roll:

 

[Tonington]

Well then, expect that crap to continue on the backs of the taxpayers! :roll:

Oh, I do expect it to continue...No, you misunderstood. I think not, as to how much money you it would save. We don't have

I find it hilarious actually that you're so blasé about a figure like $10 billion deficit, but your blood pressure goes up because of a $5.3 million trip.

Are you a budget hawk or not? If so, a $10 billion structural deficit is far worse than a $5.3 million trip. Priorities...

 

[JLM]

Oh, I do expect it to continue...No, you misunderstood. I think not, as to how much money you it would save. We don't have

I find it hilarious actually that you're so blasé about a figure like $10 billion deficit, but your blood pressure goes up because of a $5.3 million trip.

Are you a budget hawk or not? If so, a $10 billion structural deficit is far worse than a $5.3 million trip. Priorities...

Yep, I get my dander up when $5 million is squandered, but the $10 billion? Was it put to good use or was it squandered? :smile:

 

[Tonington]

Yep, I get my dander up when $5 million is squandered, but the $10 billion? Was it put to good use or was it squandered? :smile:

How much waste do you think you could find in $280 billion? If it was all put to good use, you still need to cut $10 billion in program spending from the good stuff...

 

[JLM]

How much waste do you think you could find in $280 billion? If it was all put to good use, you still need to cut $10 billion in program spending from the good stuff...

Not quite that simple, if there was no waste then the G.D.P. might take care of it. Think of it like your house is worth $280,000 and you still owe $10,000 on it, but in the next year your house increases in value by $20,000. While it might not solve the cash problem in your wallet, it will solve it on paper.

 

[CDNBear]

Was it put to good use or was it squandered? :smile:

It hasn't even been allocated yet. It's merely a prediction.

 

[taxslave]

Govt spending is in cheques and if accountants could count, I would guess they could find a total they could agree on. I can never understand why right wing organisations like the Fraser Institute don't summarize this info for the public. They could do it for the fed and prov govts. But they don't because they are obviously in on the conspiracy of keeping up the mushroom strategy on us.

Try the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Try the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

I checked out their web page, they are clueless on budget expenditures over time. They offer nothing but the debt clock. These losers are all about taxes it seems, not expenditures. Too complex for them I guess. They have little useful information.

Like most people they are interested in looking good, getting in the media. cheerleading campaigns and making senseless noise like drunken hockey fans.

Here is the link for the deadbeats: Canadian Taxpayers Federation | The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is a citizen's advocacy group dedicated to lower taxes, less waste & accountable government.