I'm off to the budget lockup, where I will be without internet access until the Minister of Finance starts to give his budget speech. I'll be writing for the Globe and Mail's budget page. Here is a short summary of what I'm looking at ex ante, and I'm scheduled to be a part of the live discussion sometime after 4:00.
I'll try to find time to keep track of the day's events, and will post my notes later this afternoon/evening. Updated: Well, that was uneventful.
9:05 Made it through security, obtained docs and turned on computer. Globe table is right at the front; I guess that’s what happens when you’re the Globe and Mail.
9:20 No surprise in deficit projection: expected to go to balance by FY 14-15, surplus in 15-16. Direct program expenses expected to go from 7.8% of GDP in 09-10 to 5.9% of GDP in 15-16.
9:30 That bar chart of a deficit going gradually to zero is almost certainly taken from an old budget of Michael Wilson’s.
9:40 Presentation to the press: “No GST hike, no carbon tax” I am taking full credit for that disclaimer.
9:45 The $10b ‘adjustment for risk’ in level of GDP forecast is way too small to reflect *actual* risks associated with forecasts. Why do they bother?
9:50 Much talk of ‘savings’, but only $5b or so by 15-16. Structural deficit is around $15b. Where is the other $10b coming from?
9:55 Lots of numbers about ‘savings’, but still haven’t found what actual projections are for defence and non-defence operating expenditures. Am resisting asking myself why these numbers are so hard to find.
10:15 Okay, I’m giving up on trying to figure out what the underlying projections must be. Will ask the Finance officials later, and if they don’t have them, then will simply note that – once again – future deficits will be eliminated by yet-to-be-specified future cuts. Welcome to the 1980s.
10:30 The scale of these measures is so small that it’s hard to get interested in them. Total federal spending is $250b, and direct program expenditures is $55b. $100m is .04% of total spending, 0.2% of program spending.
11:00 This is how bad it’s getting: the corporate tax deferral measure looks to be one of the most important – in terms of money – in the budget.
11:50 I’m being drawn to the conclusion that the most controversial and interesting elements of the budget are the projections for the next few years. It’s hard to see the commitment to keep program spending growing at the rate of inflation can be credible.
1:00 The person in charge of doing the graphics is sitting next to me, and she’s putting together a pie chart (circle chart?) of the new measures. She was having a problem with what the scale should be, so I suggested the $2.3b number for total measures that I just happened to be looking at. Turns out it was a good idea. Go me!
2:15 I don’t know how regular journalists deal with deadlines measured in hours.
3:30 Just handed in my piece.
3:40 Most people in the room are now standing around and waiting to be liberated It also seems as though someone opened the doors to the building about an hour ago, and it’s actually pretty cold in here. Not that I’m complaining.
9:20 No surprise in deficit projection: expected to go to balance by FY 14-15, surplus in 15-16. Direct program expenses expected to go from 7.8% of GDP in 09-10 to 5.9% of GDP in 15-16.
9:30 That bar chart of a deficit going gradually to zero is almost certainly taken from an old budget of Michael Wilson’s.
9:40 Presentation to the press: “No GST hike, no carbon tax” I am taking full credit for that disclaimer.
9:45 The $10b ‘adjustment for risk’ in level of GDP forecast is way too small to reflect *actual* risks associated with forecasts. Why do they bother?
9:50 Much talk of ‘savings’, but only $5b or so by 15-16. Structural deficit is around $15b. Where is the other $10b coming from?
9:55 Lots of numbers about ‘savings’, but still haven’t found what actual projections are for defence and non-defence operating expenditures. Am resisting asking myself why these numbers are so hard to find.
10:15 Okay, I’m giving up on trying to figure out what the underlying projections must be. Will ask the Finance officials later, and if they don’t have them, then will simply note that – once again – future deficits will be eliminated by yet-to-be-specified future cuts. Welcome to the 1980s.
10:30 The scale of these measures is so small that it’s hard to get interested in them. Total federal spending is $250b, and direct program expenditures is $55b. $100m is .04% of total spending, 0.2% of program spending.
11:00 This is how bad it’s getting: the corporate tax deferral measure looks to be one of the most important – in terms of money – in the budget.
11:50 I’m being drawn to the conclusion that the most controversial and interesting elements of the budget are the projections for the next few years. It’s hard to see the commitment to keep program spending growing at the rate of inflation can be credible.
1:00 The person in charge of doing the graphics is sitting next to me, and she’s putting together a pie chart (circle chart?) of the new measures. She was having a problem with what the scale should be, so I suggested the $2.3b number for total measures that I just happened to be looking at. Turns out it was a good idea. Go me!
2:15 I don’t know how regular journalists deal with deadlines measured in hours.
3:30 Just handed in my piece.
3:40 Most people in the room are now standing around and waiting to be liberated It also seems as though someone opened the doors to the building about an hour ago, and it’s actually pretty cold in here. Not that I’m complaining.
4:10 I plugged the ethernet cable that has been sitting by my laptop all day, and it works!
Congrats Stephen. I always get a kick out of seeing the Parliament Buildings. I don't care how often I go to Ottawa, I never get tired of looking at them.
I watched the event on the CBC's website. I'm disappointed really; a tax credit for children's art programs, for all love!?! I'm sick and tired to retail, boutique tax credits to bribe potential middle-class Tory voters. It's pathetic. I'd gladly give up the Transit Tax Credit, and that's one I actually benefited from.
Oh well, it's not like these plans aren't subject to change. Election ho! And we'll be doing this all again in September.
Posted by: Determinant | March 22, 2011 at 09:05 PM
I appreciate your efforts to keep a carbon tax and gst hikes in the discussion.
History will favourably group you under the heading 'a few lonely voices...'
Posted by: Declan | March 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM
So, 2011 budget is:
a) Bullshit
b) Wishfull thinking
c) Both
d) others, explain in less than four words ......................................
:-)))))
Posted by: Marc Labbé | March 23, 2011 at 11:37 AM
My question is: can a $1,000 per year figure skating program be divided into a $500 per year fitness (the skating part) program and a $500 art (the balance, the line, the artistic expression) program?
Posted by: Frances Woolley | March 23, 2011 at 03:52 PM
The federal deficit in 2013-14 according to Flaherty: $9.5 billion. How much a carbon tax of $30/ton would raise in 2013-14 according to Policy Alternatives: $9.5 billion.
Posted by: Donald Hughes | March 23, 2011 at 11:50 PM