Duncan's proposal not as great as it sounds
Editorial

At first glance, Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan offered up some good news last week when he announced that legislation is being proposed that would see a portion of future government surpluses go to municipalities to address infrastructure needs.

We're hearing a lot these days about how much of the infrastructure on which we depend is aging and in need of upgrading, if not replacement.

As well, we are forever hearing municipalities plead poverty when it comes to addressing such needs. It sounds like a win-win situation.

But is it really that great, when more thought is given to it?

Legislation currently in effect requires that government surpluses are to be applied to the provincial debt, and that is as it should be. A government does no favours for the governed when it collects billions of tax dollars every year just to pay interest on a debt. Debt, therefore, should be paid off as quickly as possible.

This announcement from Duncan also presupposes there will be surpluses.

Government should always aim to balance its books.

Granted, that is not always possible. In their basic forms, budgets are projections on what the government expects it will spend, and what revenues it will take in. Being projections, they carry a margin for error, meaning at the end of the fiscal year, there is almost certainly to be either a surplus or deficit.

Although balanced budgets are nice, there are times when budgeting for either a deficit or surplus is appropriate. Much of the government's revenue comes from taxing income and consumption (sales tax is a consumption tax). But in times of recession, incomes and consumption tend to decline, while demands on the public purse increase, especially when it comes to social services. In such situations, we can see the logic in budgeting for a deficit. And if there is a public debt, we would expect government to budget, if possible, for surpluses in order to get rid of that debt as quickly as possible. We could even go along for budgeting for a small surplus to cover the unexpected, or to set aside in case the economy goes into the tank.

But to assume there will be extra money on hand, over and above what was budgeted for, is at best a sign of bad planning on the part of the government. At worst, it's a sign of bad faith.

Duncan's plan is to wait and see if there's any excessive money, then portion it out to municipalities. The details still have to be worked out. And if there's no money available, the municipalities don't get anything extra. If there is, Duncan evidently expects municipal leaders to grovel with blubbering thanks for the table scraps they have been tossed.

Some way to govern!

Yes, municipal infrastructure needs lots of work, and yes again, municipalities simply haven't the resources to take care of it on their own. The province has an obligation to step up and help out, and there is a very easy way to do that. All Premier Dalton McGuinty, Duncan and company have to do is figure out what work needs to be done, establish a timeline for when it has to be completed, decide which projects need to be done in the first year, and set a provincial budget accordingly. The government would, of course, have to address those priorities with the other priorities for which they are responsible, such as education, health care, etc. In other words, the government would have to do the job it was elected to do. It might even mean raising taxes, or breaking campaign promises. But as we all know, neither of these items are difficult chores for McGuinty and his crowd.

Deciding what needs to be done and finding the money with which to do it is good government. Dangling the prospect of leftovers, if there are any, is game-playing.

Is that what you think governments are elected to do?