Budget 2015: A tale of austerity past, present and future
Cross-posted from my blog.
I’ve been banging the drum of “slow-motion austerity” for a while and little in the 2015 federal budget suggests any change from the pattern of death by a thousand cuts. This budget is another is a series of unspectacular austerity budgets. Taken together, however, the cuts rapidly add up and budgets become more remarkable for the tenacity with they’ve made us pay to get to the present.
A long-term view focused on austerity is very different from much of the mainstream coverage of the budget with a tawdry focusÂ on “goodies” for this group or that. While the media should be criticized for too easily swallowing government talking points and dividing people into opposed special interest groups, it would be naive to think of this budget outsideÂ the context of electioneering to carved up demographics.Â On the one hand, this reinforces a neoliberal narrative of each for themselves; on the other, this is also the reality of the on-going neoliberal transformation.
So while this budget may beÂ more politicized than average in light of the fall election, I won’t write about goodies for groups. Instead, I’ll take the opposite tack: look at the election year budget as a continuity of slow-motion austerity past, present and future.
In myÂ pieceÂ on the balanced budget law, I argued against engaging in horse-trading over how the books wereÂ reallyÂ balanced or who did it better previously. After two decades of almost continuous austerity, focusing on this argument plays into and further cements the right’s frame. Of course, the hypocrisy of the balanced budget isÂ blatant. Raiding the EI surplus, decreasing the contingency fund, and selling GM shares gave Joe Oliver $6 billion more in wiggle room but the balance was largely achieved through years of consistent austerity.
The recession following the global financial crisis and the one-time Keynesian stimulus in the 2009 budget to prop up the crisis-hit economy left a deficit that the Conservatives have spent the past five years consistently reducing, almost entirely through cuts to direct government spending. Spending has actually fallen in nominal terms. This means that it kept up with neither inflation nor population growth. The public sector has effectively shrunk. The specific cuts are familiar by now: everything from veterans’ affairs to food safety to environmental science has been hit.
The spending freeze has meant cuts to and reductions in services for the public and bad news for federal public service workers with over 35,000 jobs cut (or nearly 10%).Â Â This year’s budget claims that the federal government has saved $40 billion since 2010. Of this, $9 billion is thanks to more efficient tax collection and a whopping $31 billion is due to austerity measures â€“ “spending restraint.” TheÂ sectionÂ of the 2015 budget document where these figures come from in fact reads likeÂ a paean to austerity.
Tax cuts only compounded the push to cut spending. Some like the Working Income Tax Benefit (really a new transfer rather than a tax cut) introduced in 2006 were targetedÂ low down the income spectrum. Changes like this softened the blow of a falling social wage in the form of public services with a cash benefit and served to boost the consumption spending driving the last pre-crisis cycle of economic growth.Â There were also universal tax reductions, so-called boutique tax creditsÂ aimed at particular groups drawn largely from the wealthier end of the spectrumÂ and business tax cuts. All encouraged austerity by slashing revenues.
While the Liberals in the 90s pulled the two-step of cutting spending to reduce deficits and then cutting taxes with the even-greater “savings”; the Conservatives have reversed the order since elected in 2006: largely cutting taxes first and then cutting spending to reduce the ensuing deficits. The $6 billion accounting trick to force a balanced budget this year would not have been possible with the many billions more in austerity over the past five years.
Note: I’ve focused on Conservative austerity here but Canada has seen two decades of persistent austerity â€“Â a longer article on this forthcoming.
For the coming year, the budget maintains the same harsh direct spending discipline that has been imposed for the past five. For example, it appears that the government has already factored in $900 million in savings from cutting public service sick days that are supposed to be the subject of contract negotiations later this year. The heading is budget item is appropriately Orwellian: “Ensuring a Healthier and More ProductiveÂ Public Service” (table here).
Most of the spending announcements â€“Â whether the unnecessary increase in military, surveillance and police spending or very necessary and far too small increase in public transit infrastructure spending â€“Â are back-loaded, truly coming into effect only in several years. Additional tax cuts, such as income-splitting or the increase in the TFSA limit (“theÂ endÂ of investment income taxation in Canada”) are, however,Â immediate. The difference is that the new tax cuts are a revenue drain going back almost entirely into the pockets of wealthy, but need to be offset by more of the same austerity to get projected future surpluses.
The spending announcements are largely election year grandstanding signalling a future with slightly less austerity. Given the Conservatives’ commitment to budget balance and their optimistic projection ofÂ oil pricesÂ and growth, even these modest announcements may need to be let go under future right-wing governments.
What would the future hold if the projections and plans in this budget came to fruition? Direct program spending is expected to start growing again next year (table here); however, growing at an average rate of 2.5% per year, it most likely won’t keep up with population growth and inflation, nevermind the growth of the economy. SoÂ even with the dollar amounts rising, direct spending will keep falling as a percentage of GDP, driving a slower but still present austerity.
Transfers to provinces and individuals are expected to keep growing roughly with the economy, but they too will undergo more or less austere changes. Take, for example, the Canada Health Transfer, slated to slow its annual growth from 6% to 3% in 2017.Â Given projections of roughly 1% annual population growth and the 2% inflation target,Â this lower growth rate will keep health spending constant in real per capita terms. Health spending will lag behind the overall economy, despite good reasons for it being expanded:Â an aging population, opportunities to implement new technologies and treatments or new services like public pharmacare and dental care.
Overall, then, this budget assumes that the public sector’s role in the economy will continue to shrink, albeit slowly: aÂ slightly slower-motion austerity. Despite this, the 2015 budget does not only forecast a lesser role for the state, but a changing one. The neoliberal state doesn’t just recede, it transforms.
While health transfers, unemployment insurance and public safety departments are to undergo austerity, the military will expand.Â Or take infrastructure: the federal government will help municipal governments invest in infrastructure but will do so partly by paying the difference between municipal borrowing costs and the lower costs the federal government would have paid to borrow (rather than simply borrowing the money itself up front!). Other infrastructure projects will be supported only as public-private partnerships. Both measures integrate public provision further into the market.
Austerity has been a constant if shifting theme of the post-crisis budgets. The current budget is only the latest in a long series unremarkable for itsÂ similarity, remarkable for their dogged tenacity. The catalog of aÂ slow-motion austerityÂ past, present and futureÂ givesÂ a full accounting of how we got here beyond this year’s surplus acrobatics. Time to devise an acrobaticsÂ of our own to get out of the austerity vise grip.
Corporatocracy stinks – for the majority. The racist rule-breakers come to dominate everywhere. They have a long tradition of choosing to believe in inequality. But it was never just a purely racist (and innocent) attitude. It was convenient. Southern racist industrialists liked the idea of paying a large segment of the workforce paltry wages. White supremacy was the ticket. Today, The racism isn’t so overt, but it’s there, directed at First Nations people who are always the first victims in capitalist expansion. But the basic willingness to maintain an unequal society, at the core of the old Southern Conservative white democracy, is alive and well.
You have to admire the chutzpah. Chomsky does, in his discussion of David Hume in Deterring Democracy. We are the majority, but here we are enslaved by a malevolent master who chortles that everything he does for us is beneficence. Rex Tillerson exemplifies that perverse stance. See Michael Klare’s TomDispatch article titled “Carbon Counterattack,” in which he discusses Rex’s idea of ‘carbon humanitarianism’.
“Meeting in New Orleans in April 1945, SSIC [Southern States Industrial Council] members worried aloud that a permanent FEPC [Fair Employment Practices Commission] “would destroy white supremacy in the South, and upset completely the amicable working arrangements which now exist between the races.” – pg 82 of “Defending White Democracy” by Jason Morgan Ward
“In considering the Firs Principles of Government, Hume found “nothing more suprising” than “to see the easiness with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is brought about, we shall find, that as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. ‘Tis therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.”” -pages 351, 351 of “Deterring Democracy” by Noam Chomsky
How do we get out of the austerity vice grip? But I have to caution folks (who are smarter than I am); We are outgunned. That’s what you should take away from Edward Snowden’s payload and from revealing reports like Michael Hudson’s “Ukraine Denoument,” in which he explains, basically, how those who dominate just toss the game – break the rules – and use force to get their way when they find that they are losing the game. Michael ponders whether, for example, the IMF will stiff Russia. This is a US-led corporatocracy that preaches rules and law and order, but then jettisons law and order when it’s dominance (euphemistically called ‘leadership’) is threatened, as we saw when CNOOC’s $18.5 billion bid for Unocal went nowhere. So, When we the people get our act together and somehow re-capture the electoral system – which is the answer to Michal’s question about how we can perform a stunning acrobatic move that will help us to gain the advantage – I think what we will discover is that the Benefactors in power will just completely drop the “No we aren’t Nazis” charade and put us in our place, by force. It will take more than the imperfect, mostly compromised (ruined, mentally and spiritually), 99% to save us.