If most people had to reduce their personal spending by 11 percent over three years, chances are they could do it. Not without inconvenience in some cases and difficulty in others, but it would be possible. And, as it happens, using constant 1992 dollars, real disposable income in BC dropped from $18,265 in 1992 to $16,700 by 1999 - an 8.5 percent reduction.

The private sector in British Columbia caught a nasty flu in the 1990s and that bug is soon to be transferred to the public sector in almost equal measure. The provincial government has now announced its intention to cut spending by 11.3 percent over three years: $2.7 billion less than the $23.9 billion now spent. (The government release says ten percent but I'm subtracting interest costs and focusing exclusively at where program spending is headed.)

Comparatively, Alberta's mid-1990s spending cuts over three years added up to 21 percent. Ontario cut spending by 2.3 percent in one year after which program spending resumed its upward trajectory. (Mike Harris was never the wild-eyed slasher some labeled him to be.) At the federal level, expenditures dropped by 14.5 percent over four years between 1993 and 1997. Thus, BC's aim to cut expenditures by 11.3 percent puts its attempt squarely in the middle of the pack in terms of what the rest of the country experienced in the 1990s.

Is this likely to induce a recession or make deeper one that might occur anyway given recent economic and world events? Not likely, and here's why: The size of the provincial economy next year is forecast to be about $130 billion compared to this year's $125 billion economy. Even if that estimate proves to be high and the economy stays in idle, a $2.7 billion reduction in government spending spread over three years is a reduction of $900 million per year. Annually, that equals seven-tenths of one percentage point of current provincial gross domestic product - hardly a body blow to the provincial economy. It might not even be noticed depending on where overall economic growth ends up.

Moreover, where do the critics of the tax cuts and spending reductions think the money for government comes from anyway? From a money tree in the Finance Minister's office? It comes from the private sector. And while the government could theoretically reverse and delay tax cuts, those who think cuts to public sector income would deepen an expected recession miss the point, perhaps deliberately. If the private sector is asked to go without income, that is just as likely to deepen any recession or weaken economic growth over the longer term. The other pertinent point is that BC's competitive situation was lousy during the past decade precisely because the government of the day kept taxes high and undermined investment. That led to declining real incomes and anemic job creation, a lose-lose-scenario for everyone. Anyone really want to repeat the 1990s?

Of course, the public sector could volunteer back the secret wage increases it obtained between 1998 and 2001, when the supposed zero, zero, and two wage guidelines were in effect. (Don't hold your breath.) That little secret deal cost $1 billion extra last year, an amount that will only grow with time. Instead, the critics of general tax relief want the private sector alone to continue to bear the brunt of the dumb economic and regulatory policies enacted during the 1990s, no matter how one-sided and no matter the damage that would do to BC's long-term prospects.