The Deficit Made Me Do It

By April D'Aubin

(COPOH’s Research Analyst recounts how one affiliate spent a few mad moments after its annual pre-conference banquet.)

Have you ever caught yourself thinking, "Yeah, the government should cut that program. It would help the deficit. After all, isn’t government spending on social programs out of control?"

Before you jump on the deficit bandwagon, remember -- the deficit is one component in the government budgetary process. Government budgets are class and social instruments which give to one group and take away from another. A government’s budget reveals who pays taxes and who benefits from government expenditures.

While there are a varying number of ways to budget for our nation, the public has been led to believe that there is only one, one which focuses on debt reduction. "Budgets are not so much technical things as they are ideological statements," stated Dr. John Loxley, a University of Manitoba economics professor, guest-speaking at a Manitoba League of the Physically Handicapped awards dinner on the eve of its 1993 annual conference. "The way budgets are put together reflect their architect’s value judgments and world views. In recent times, the deficit has been used as a sledgehammer on social programs," stated Loxley.

In terms of Loxley’s analysis, neo-conservatives advocate the rule of marketplace forces over public policy decision making. Social spending is viewed as an impediment to economic development. Words like "deficit reduction," "competiveness" and "globalization" star in the neo-conservative lexicon. A budget-slashing mentality has so pervaded mass consciousness that elected officials of all political stripes routinely spout debt reduction rhetoric. Opposition parties criticize governments by denouncing their debt reduction strategies as weak; hence, a growing pressure for even more cutbacks.

All our politicians seem to be mesmerized by the American social spending model, which is minimalist in its approach to social welfare. The U.S. devotes only 11.5% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to social spending.

Loxley contrasted the American model to the one developed by several European countries, which takes a holistic approach, viewing social welfare as a tool to promote national well-being. It facilitates access to health services, education and income security for all citizens. European countries allocate from 18 to 29% of the GDP on social spending. Loxley also pointed out that, despite its high social spending, Europe’s productivity outstripped both Canada’s and the United States’ throughout the ’80s.

Poverty rates in various countries provide an interesting indicator of national well-being: U.S. 18.1%, Canada 13.9%, France 9.9%, Sweden 8.6% and Germany 6.8%. For now, Canadian social spending means that our rate of poverty falls somewhere between that of the U.S. and Europe. However, it is rapidly moving toward greater alignment with the American model. That system has given its citizens a society where women do not get paid maternity leave, 35 million people do not have health insurance and there is almost no public day care.

Throughout Canada, citizens’ groups are challenging the neo-conservative ideology and its particular conceptualization of Canada’s most pressing problems. They suggest that the country’s energy be directed toward addressing unemployment and poverty. The public policies promoted to address these problems are: universal social programs; aggressive measures to eradicate unemployment; a fairer tax system; and budgetary policies designed to pave the way for a post-recession economic turnaround. Such policies are the essential underpinnings of a society which equitably distributes resources and opportunities among all citizens. "Community groups must begin to develop alternative visions of the way a sharing, equitable society ought to be run," stated Loxley.

While challenging the dominant ideology may seem like a scary proposition, the alternative can prove to be just as painful. "I remember meeting a couple of years ago with representatives of the community of people with disabilities to get them to join CHOICES [a Manitoba coalition advancing a full-employment strategy for the province]. The majority of them were scared to death of losing government funding; they did not work with us. Since then, they have lost government funding. A number of groups sought to put ’well-connected’ people on their boards. They too have lost good chunks of their funding." Those who ignore history are forced to relive it, as the old adage goes.

Much of the rhetoric in today’s political arena suggests that there are no options other than a public policy which pursues debt reduction via reductions in social spending. But other options do exist, and governments in Europe are pursuing them. Canadian citizens must not be deluded into viewing the deficit as Canada’s only problem.