No end in sight to massive NDP deficits

- September 28th, 2012

Well, it’s confirmed. The Selinger government posted a $910 million deficit in 2011-12, according to the province’s public accounts released Friday.
The government spent a staggering $910 million more in core government spending than it took in from taxes, fees, government transfers and other revenues, including liquor and gambling profits.
It’s not good. The NDP have tried to convince the public that a big chunk of this record deficit was due to last year’s severe flooding.
But according to the public accounts report, only about one-third of the deficit is from flooding expenditures.
The rest is from regular over-spending in government, including bloated bureaucracies in departments like health care and education.
Remember those 11 vice-presidents and seven high-paid spin doctors that work at the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority? Their salaries eventually make it on to these financial statements.
What’s worse is last year’s deficit — excluding flood spending — is almost double what it was the year before. In 2010-11, the Selinger government posted a $340-million deficit. So instead of getting core government spending under control, the NDP has made the problem worse.
Naturally they have to borrow money to pay for these cumulative deficits. And our grandchildren and their grandchildren will have to pick up the tab.
Virtually every level of debt that’s measured by the province is up this year. And provincial government debt as a percentage of the economy continues to grow and now sits at 26% of GDP, up from 23% the year before.
It’s a pretty bleak picture.

Categories: Politics

Subscribe to the post

10 comments

  1. martin shmigelsky says:

    not a premiers fan but are you possessed by the provincial ndp?

  2. ohreally says:

    How about King Stephen and his forcasted $21 Billion federal budget deficit?

  3. Brad Isbister says:

    Unfortunately,you’re right Tom. One needs to look no further than Greece to see what will inevitably happen to Manitoba in the very near future. And there’s no political party that will be able to fix what is about to happen. The best they will be able to muster is tell the average voter what they want to hear, and simply kick the can a little further down the road. The damage I’m afraid, has already been done.

  4. Ghostlytrio says:

    Generations of greed have bankrupted our future and dreams.

  5. Brad Isbister says:

    We’ve almost reached the point of inversion to where the government can do pretty much whatever it pleases while the citizens have to ask permission for everything. History repeats itself over and over

  6. sailor says:

    The trouble with NDP is that eventually they run out of other people`s money. I do not think they wanted to win the last election. The dippers wanted the Conservatives to come in and do the hard slogging of cleaning up the mess

  7. ctb says:

    It amazes me that with the growth this province has experienced in recent years that it’s still doom and gloom for some people. Wake up, Tom! Manitoba didn’t have a recession! Manitoba is welcoming private industry that other provinces and other countries would love to see right now. With all the housing developments underway or completed in the city, I’m lead to believe that Manitoba is booming for newcomers and returnees.

    The question we should all be asking is, what if? What if the PCs with Hugh McFadyen would have won the last election. Sure, there’d be some money in the bank after selling the province off and after dropping health and education costs leaving nurse, doctors and teachers running for their professional lives. Even after Hugh lined his pockets and secured a future for himself in the newly privatized Hydro building downtown there might still be some money left over. Then, once reality kicked in and we wake up with nothing, I’m sure the NDP would still be at fault.

  8. tom.brodbeck says:

    ctb,

    If that were true, then why does Manitoba still collect equalization payments from Ottawa? If we were a relatively wealthy province within Canada, we would be net contributers to the federation — like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland — not net beneficiaries.

    Also, if Manitoba was as economically healthy as you imply, why do we continue to lose a net 2,500 to 8,000 people a year to other provinces? If we were as economically robust as you say, why do we keep bleeding people to other provinces?

    Finally, this particular blog post was about debt-financing. Do you agree with the current administration’s growing reliance on debt financing to pay the bills —debt that your grandchildren and their grandchildren will have to repay one day?

  9. Brad Isbister says:

    I think the term “I’m lead to believe that Manitoba is booming for newcomers and returnees.” pretty much sums it up. The performance record of the NDP since it came to power speaks for itself in pure black and white numbers. The debt that this province has amassed is frightful period. And there will be a painful day of reckoning for that, it’s simply unavoidable. Spin and rhetoric from the government is effective in satisfying the average voter but if you dig around and see what’s really going on, it’s utterly appalling.
    I have looked, but have never been able to find an actual quote that Hydro would be a guaranteed sell off if the PC’s ever came into power. I know from a very painful personal experience that our Health care system in this province is not anywhere near the quality that people think it is. We have bureaucratic empire building entities that pose as leaders in health care, nothing more.
    There is a significant number of young people in rural areas of the province who have left for better opportunities in other provinces, I know this from first hand experience.
    Do we have some great things going for us in Manitoba? Of course we do. But to run a province financially into the ground is foolish and that is what has happened.

  10. James (no, not Jim) says:

    What I find disheartening is two things…

    (1) that people can’t understand simple math; if you take in $1000 a month in revenue, you can’t spend more than $1000 every and every month on expenses. Somewhere, something has to eventually give. It’s true for my family, it’s true for the government. You either have to (a) cut expenses, or (b) raise your income.

    (2) that there are massive amounts of people that just don’t understand point (1), and sadly, their vote counts for the same as mine come election time. It reminds me of the cartoon where four people are standing at the edge of a volcano, and three say to the fourth, “sorry, we voted democratically and we won 3-1. so we all have to jump into the lava”.

Leave a comment

 characters available