Prune Spending, Encourage Growth & Sell Assets
Author:
Mark Milke
2001/07/22
VICTORIA: The BC division of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) today responded to the release of the British Columbia Fiscal Review Panel, and noted that CTF supporters want both tax cuts and a balanced budget as soon as possible, and support spending cuts in order to achieve those twin objectives.
"Multi-billion dollar deficits have become normal in British Columbia over the past decade along with a large size of government vis-à-vis other "have provinces," said CTF-BC director Mark Milke. "Governments in B.C. have been overspending ever since the last three years of the Social Credit government. That must stop, and it's time the interests of the private sector took priority." Milke noted that BC was the only province where the total public sector wage bill rose in the 1990s, in comparison to every other province where the public sector wage bill declined.
Given the Fiscal Review Report, the Federation recommended several major changes that the government should implement including:
Policy changes which promote overall economic growth;
Cost containment and cuts in the public sector;
Reduced capital expenditures in the short-term and;
Asset sales including privatization where appropriate.
Milke noted that in a recent survey of CTF British Columbia supporters, 81 percent of those supporters wanted the government to make cutting taxes and balancing the budget a twin priority. 12 percent identified balancing the budget (only) as their top priority while five percent wanted tax cuts (only) as their top priority. 98 percent favoured cutting spending in order to achieve those twin goals.
"CTF members want lower taxes and smaller government. Their message is that the taxpayer-financed public sector must take a back seat to private sector wealth creation - the engine of the economy and the one that ultimately provides for all job creation, wage growth, and improved living standards."
On a separate matter, Milke noted that the Report, while it did indicate taxpayer-supported debt figures, did not provide total provincial debt figures, as has been customary in past government statements.