Liberal Budget - Financial Data Released

[Rosemary1]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pbo-bud ... -1.3531050

Finally the financial data has been released and it seems to raise more questions on the budget and insight as to underlying thinking (or not) in its development -

A budget seemingly not so transparent, built on assumptions that are more based on 'hope' than substantive analysis, financial and economic data and projections, and a budget largely driven by a PM with no financial background.

However it all turns out over the next year and to end of the government's mandate is anyone's guess which at this point may be in keeping with the way the budget was largely put together.

[rustled]

LOL.

Almost as soon as the budget landed, the Parliamentary Budget Office concluded the document not only rested on an absurdly low assumption of economic growth, it omitted data crucial to assessing the government's long-term claims.

The PBO demanded the missing data, and received a puzzling reply: We'll only give it to you if you promise to keep it confidential.

Muzzling the PBO? Surely not.

The data made public on Friday, he says, only deepens the budget's murkiness. Yes, the government provided funding projections going out to 2020-21, but it is impossible to assess them because the government has refused to provide the underlying spreadsheets. And, according to the finance official, it will continue to refuse.

Muzzled finance officials? Surely not.

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[Omnitheo]

Well the difference is that Trudeau has an entire cabinet of individuals who do have those sorts of backgrounds. He has the same financial advisors as Martin who has previously fixed the Canadian economy and budget before the conservative government ripped it to shreds. And as opposed to Harper, who also had very little real world experience in most subjects government has responsibility over, Trudeau isn't attempting to force his cabinet to submit to his iron fisted rule.

A team of experts working together for a common goal is a much better approach than 1 man forcing submission upon his party and rejecting their advice.

[hobbyguy]

All budgets are scientific guesses. The farther ahead you budget, the "scientific" part gets weaker exponentially, and the reverse is true of the "guesses" part.

My own personal financial plan is run out 25 years. Odds of that plan being correct in year 25? About zero. But having a plan is better than not having one.

When looking ahead, all that can be done is take historical figures and extrapolate them. That is a monumental task given the size of government. Not too bad on the direct cost side, for example the size of the bureaucracy and estimated cost should be fairly close. Where the costs, such as the example of the child tax credit, are subject to volatility from things like the unemployment rate, number of full time versus part time jobs etc., it gets fuzzier. The revenue side gets more difficult - any guess where oil prices will be in 3 years? Even the "experts" are $50/bbl apart.

There have been complaints about the budget being too pessimistic in its revenue projections. Personally, when extrapolating forward, I think being at least a little pessimistic is a sound idea. There are so many volatile factors that are unpredictable. That said, there are some trends that are pretty soundly predictable - for example that Canada will face a demographic shift as "boomers" retire.

In the end, budgets are bean counting, and bean counting with any precision is a backward looking activity. But it is good that the PBO will keep the pressure on the Liberals to provide detailed and best possible estimates going forward. After all, "failing to plan is planning to fail".

[rustled]

Sure, there's a certain amount of guesswork. But:

I asked Peter DeVries, a former senior official at finance who co-writes the authoritative blog 3D Policy, what he makes of all this.

"It's not very transparent at all," he replied. "In previous budgets, the fiscal chapters were quite a bit more detailed."

The data made public on Friday, he says, only deepens the budget's murkiness. Yes, the government provided funding projections going out to 2020-21, but it is impossible to assess them because the government has refused to provide the underlying spreadsheets. And, according to the finance official, it will continue to refuse.

What do you make of it, this refusal to provide information previously provided?

And what do you make of this?

DeVries reckons "the Prime Minister's Office had a heavy hand in drafting this budget, and that Finance was left largely on the sidelines, just as it was for so many years under Stephen Harper."

That makes sense. The initial effort to suppress budget data could only have come from the political echelon.

This is the CBC questioning what's going on. As they should. Are you comfortable with this heavy handedness, this lack of transparency, this suppression of information?

Ultimately:

... governments can only juggle numbers and move the shells around for so long. In the end, as Paul Martin used to say, when he ran the finance department, it boils down to "irreducible mathematics."

[The Green Barbarian]

Well the difference is that Trudeau has an entire cabinet of individuals who do have those sorts of backgrounds. .

LOL - and the apologists just keep the excuse-generator machine rolling. If this cabinet of individuals was actually doing their job, this entire mess with the budget might have been avoided.

[The Green Barbarian]

Are you comfortable with this heavy handedness, this lack of transparency, this suppression of information?

Of course the Liberal sheep are comfortable with this. They are massive hypocrites. Right now they are desperately searching for any means whatsoever to blame this entire debacle on Harper. It's worked for every other Justin screw-up, why not this time too?

[K_teela]

Some of you may find this interesting:

IMF cuts growth estimates for 2016/2017 http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/imf-cuts-canada-s-growth-estimates-for-2016-2017-1.2855383

The project the economy to grow by 1.5% this year, and 1.9% next year. (Morneau used a private sector estimate of 1.4% for 2016, and 2.2% in 2017).

So the PBO was arguing the Libs were using absurdly low growth estimates, and according to the IMF they’re not quite low enough (though more in-line with Morneaus estimates).

[The Green Barbarian]

So the PBO was arguing the Libs were using absurdly low growth estimates, and according to the IMF they’re not quite low enough (though more in-line with Morneaus estimates).

The bigger issue for me is why were these numbers suppressed? I thought JT and gang were going to be "open and transparent"?

[Donald G]

Another upcoming debacle from the Trudeau Government in trying to make their liberal theory fit reality. Like the ongoing refugee mess but this time in finance. Perhaps the reason they identified up to a 25 billion dollar deficit per year is that, no matter how much of a mess they make of it, they can always tell the Canadian voters that "because of our wise fiscal management we did better than expected". Absolute hypocrites with little knowledge of what they are doing.

[rustled]

So the PBO was arguing the Libs were using absurdly low growth estimates, and according to the IMF they’re not quite low enough (though more in-line with Morneaus estimates).

The bigger issue for me is why were these numbers suppressed? I thought JT and gang were going to be "open and transparent"?

I understand the government wants to control the narrative. Just as IH won't allow their employees to be interviewed without permission and screening of the subject matter, and I bet the same holds true for most corporations and organizations. There's an official spokesperson who controls how information is released, and how it's spun.

But with the last government, controlling the narrative in the face of uncertainty was cast as "muzzling". The former administration was cast as "too controlling", and full blame was always placed on a single person: the PM.

Here we have a government controlling the narrative in what should be less uncertainty, and while I'm rather indifferent to them controlling the narrative, information previously available is being withheld.

Frankly, I'm glad I never got my knickers in a twist about all those muzzled scientists since they've had so very little to say now that their muzzles have come off. My impression is there was little being withheld from us to begin with.

Perhaps that's the case here, too, but I rather suspect it isn't. This looks more like incompetence to me.

[Rosemary1]

In reply to some of the 'apologists'.

If one actually looks at background of Cabinet ministers including finance, it is pretty shallow on the economics and finance side

The CBC itself (surprise),- if one reads article noted the PM had a "heavy hand" in its development. The PM has a Bachelor of Arts .

Harper, had a Masters degree in Economics and considerable background in policy - regardless of take anyone may have on his record as PM.

[hobbyguy]

Ooops... better do some reading about Bill Morneau.

A couple of highlights:

Holds a masters in economics partly obtained at the London School of Economics...and MBA from INSEAD (Grenoble).

Built his business up from 200 to 4,000 employees....

Was chair of the CD Howe institute...

etc. etc.

Arguably a much better resume than Harper, and with real world experience.