Why is it that no amount of failure can dissuade tax-and-spend types from faith in large government as the route to prosperity? Lately, former NDP finance minister Paul Ramsey and Seth Klein (whose Policy Alternatives group received much government, i.e., taxpayer funding courtesy of New Democrats in the 1990s) have argued in opinion pieces across the province that British Columbia chugged along nicely in the last decade. Moreover, they insist, B.C.'s spending and taxes were not out of line with the rest of Canada.

Well, there is so much historical revisionism here that one hardly knows where to begin, but let's try.

Myth # 1: "British Columbia's taxes were not out of line with the rest of the country in the 1990s." Wrong. At the end of the 1990s, and when one includes all taxes and doesn't just cherry-pick, Tax Freedom Day in B.C. arrived on July 1, later than any other province except Quebec. Yes, I realize that tax-and-spend types dislike the Fraser Institute's measurements, but even Mr. Klein's past criticism of that Institute's measurements is about moving provincial tax freedom days earlier in the year, not about changing the ranking order of each province.

Myth #2: "Spending was not high relative to other provinces." Also false. When New Democrats left office in 2001, B.C. government expenditures amounted to 21 per cent of the provincial economy. BC government spending was thus higher than Alberta (14.5%), Ontario (15.6%) and even NDP-led Saskatchewan (20.5%). And remember that none of those figures include federal, municipal or Crown corporation expenditures.

Some might yet argue that fourth lowest is not bad. But that misses a key point: Of course the six other provincial governments are bigger relative to their respective economies: federal tax dollars from British Columbia (along with Alberta and Ontario) make such large governments possible. Expressed differently: Despite our recent addition to the have-not club, B.C. taxpayers fund other provincial governments in addition to our own.

Myth #3: "More government spending will help the B.C. economy." You'd think a decade where the province's debt doubled would be enough to kill this canard, but apparently the spending addiction is difficult drug to kick.

Sure, B.C. could imitate Japan, where U.S.$1.1 trillion was sunk into public works since 1993. Inconveniently though, that spending binge did not help their economy; it's still in the dumps. Moreover, the spend-more experiment also failed here. Paul Ramsey and others practiced the incantation that more government spending will lift the economy and the result was a $1,700 drop in per person income over the decade. Oops. Given that real per capita income rose in other provinces, and the economies of our major trading partners boomed during most of the Nineties, B.C. should have been more prosperous than ever. To sink per person income in B.C. when it rose elsewhere wasn't an easy task, but government policy in the Nineties was more than up to the task.

And then there is Myth #4: "B.C.'s job creation record was superb in the 1990s." True, the unemployment rate dropped to seven percent by 2001. But B.C.'s relatively low unemployment rate had much to do with a dramatic net outflow of British Columbians to other provinces, a trend that started in earnest in mid-1996 right after New Democrats were re-elected, and one full year before the mid-1997 Asian economic flu. As David Baxter of the Urban Futures Institute has argued elsewhere, the reason for B.C.'s lower unemployment is similar to the explanation as to why Saskatchewan and Manitoba had a relatively low unemployment rate over the last five years: a flood of workers that moved to Alberta and Ontario.

Lastly, some argue that British Columbia is an open economy and highly dependent on trade, and thus reduced taxes and other measures to improve incentives to work, save and invest will never have much of an effect. Nonsense. Hong Kong and Singapore are two of the most open economies in the world. And over the past 40 years, they catapulted to first world status from shantytowns. And they advanced precisely because moderate tax levels and limited government intervention are key ingredients for investment, long-term growth, better and more plentiful jobs, rising incomes and improved living standards for all.

Instead of repeating what New Democrats did to British Columbia in the 1990s - which put B.C. into a have-not category - the current provincial government should look at what works. For starters, it wasn't B.C. in the 1990s.