Charles Arlinghaus: I wish we could be more like CanadaCHARLES ARLINGHAUS
June 17. 2014 8:25PM
THE RETURN of warm weather to our state seems the right time for me to wax poetic about Canada again. To the chagrin of many, I hold up “the true North proud and free” as an example to be emulated south of the border. Bear with me and see if you don’t agree that the United States should be more like Canada.
Let me begin by saying that I don’t suggest for a minute that everything Canadian is superior to everything American. Those of you familiar with the English language will understand that. But invariably on this topic some yahoo writes me a long diatribe about “socialized medicine” despite my disclaimer about not preferring their health model. In that yahoo’s defense, this column will run a good 750 words, and it’s a lot to expect a reader to make it through all of them.
So let’s begin with the disclaimer: I’m not a fan of the Canadian health care decisions undertaken over the last 60 years. I suggest merely that we emulate their sense of fiscal responsibility. Also, I like curling. I want to further suggest that if the Canadians can accomplish restraint, we could too if only the will existed here (which it plainly does not).
Canada in the mid-1990s was a fiscal basket case on the same order as the current United States. Debt had risen to 70 percent of GDP, which was considered intolerable. By contrast, most denizens of our Congress are unworried about debt and quite content to let it skyrocket. The Liberal Party, a center-left party and long the dominant party in Canada, decided to do something about it.
They decided to stop spending money they didn’t have. In the two years from 95-97 they actually cut spending. This is weird, goofy, and unheard of in Washington but Canadian spending declined by 5 percent — they actually spent fewer dollars, not an adjustment to some potential growth rate.
Coupled with the cuts, restrained growth over the next few years meant that spending declined as a percentage of the economy — from 53 percent to 39 percent in about a decade. As a result, their burdensome debt shrank from a scary 70 percent of the economy to a more manageable 32 percent.
American politicians believe that what the Canadians did is not actually possible. I think some of them don’t understand that Canada is a real country and not a made up kingdom like Ruritania.
Interestingly, our Congress has done something of a reverse Canada. After bottoming out at 31 percent of GDP in 2001 (when the budget was last balanced), the U.S. public debt has skyrocketed to about 74 percent of the economy, with total debt now over 100 percent (which I don’t need to tell you is insane).
Worse, current congressional plans are to try and make things as bad as possible. Rather than be alarmed by total debt over 100 percent of our economy (think the happy thought: hey, we’re like Greece), we’re going to double down.
If nothing changes, we will spend $48.2 trillion over 10 years and add another $7.6 trillion to our debt. But why can’t we be more like Canada?
Canada had to impose an actual spending cut to reach discipline. We just have to let up on the throttle. Current plans for the next decade would increase spending by 5.3 percent each year — from $3,523 billion to $5,920 billion. If we still increased spending each and every year but merely reduced the rate to 3.4% we would balance the budget in 10 years.
This sort of modest restraint is referred to in Washington as draconian spending cuts or an austerity program. Yet, does anyone really believe that asking government to merely slow its pace a bit is draconian?
Opponents object that “austerity” is bad for the economy and will inhibit growth. While that may be true of massive cuts of 20 and 30 percent, in Canada even a 5 percent reduction was coupled with 3.2 percent GDP growth. In the U.S., we’re not talking about cuts or even a freeze, but rather significant growth of 3.4 percent each year. It’s hard to believe that 5 percent spending growth is great but 3 percent is cataclysmic.
What’s more likely is that politicians who don’t have to balance a budget today don’t want to make decisions. It is much easier to turn on the auto pilot rather than having to say no once in a while. I don’t think Canadian politicians of the 1990s were any more noble than the lot we’re stuck with but they chose to act like adults. I wish we could be more Canadian.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.