No new tax cuts were announced in April's budget. The reason is simple: Alberta government spending is back in the same range it was 10 years ago under Don Getty.

But what if spending for 2001-02 had been kept at last year's levels If spending had gone up with inflation plus population growth (staying the same in real terms), Albertans could have kept $2 billion more of their own money. A $2 billion tax cut could mean lowering Alberta's single rate income tax from 10% to 5%. Or school property taxes could have been eliminated ($1 billion per year), plus income tax reduced to 7.5%.

Think that sounds good What if the Alberta government had kept its spending down to 1999-2000 levels, allowing an increase only for inflation plus population growth Now the potential tax cut grows to $3 billion! That would mean cutting provincial income tax from 10% down to 2.5%. Or eliminating school property taxes plus cutting the income tax rate to 5%.

Other tax cut options include fuel taxes ($581 million), business taxes ($2 billion per year), lottery revenues ($1 billion per year), the hotel room tax ($47 million), $670 in health care premiums, and $208 million in motor vehicle licences.

What if the government had kept its spending down to 1998-99 levels, but still allowed for increases for inflation plus population growth The picture is sweeter still: $4.5 billion in tax cuts! Enough to eliminate Alberta's personal income tax completely, plus another $500 million in the area of your choice.

And now for the ultimate tax cut scenario: spending per person at the same level it was in 1996-97. If spending in the past five years had grown at the rate of inflation plus population growth, it would be $15.5 billion today instead of $20.8 billion. That's $5.3 billion less in personal income tax, school property tax, fuel tax, business taxes, lottery revenues, health care premiums, etc.

Some say that tax cuts are irresponsible and unsustainable. But what about government spending Is it not irresponsible and unsustainable Whose money is it to begin with: the taxpayers' or the government's Alberta taxpayers should not have to make a case for keeping more of their own money. The onus is on the government to justify why, after inflation and population growth are factored in, it spends 34% more than it did five years ago.

Like the 2001-02 budget, the tax cut scenarios described above depend on high prices for oil and gas. Therefore, a $5.3 billion tax cut is not realistic - but neither is the high level of government spending.

As the highest-spending provincial government in Canada, Alberta desperately needs new legislation to rein in excessive spending. Unless and until the government stops simply spending more, there is little incentive to spend better, spend wiser, and spend smarter.

Why bother trying to get more bang for the buck when you keep getting more and more bucks

In the state of Washington in 1993, the majority voted for a citizens' initiative to index growth in government spending to inflation plus population growth. For Alberta, that's a model worth considering.