Political Will and Public Policy #nlpoli

The SIDI simulation of government spending that we’ve run this past week might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but these sort of thought exercises are always useful.

The most striking thing is the amount of money from oil and mining that the provincial government has spent in the past seven years:  $15.6 billion.  That’s enough to wipe out the entire public debt plus the unfunded pension liability and have a couple of billion left over for an unprecedented capital works program. 

It’s a staggering amount of money and the only thing more amazing than how much money there was is how easy it was to do something far more productive than just spending all the money, as the current provincial government has done.

The SIDI simulation included:

• a steady, sustainable increase in spending each year,
• an unprecedented, sustainable capital works program,
• a $3.675 billion real decrease in public debt,
• the prospect of a complete elimination of public debt within a decade, and,
• an income fund that would continue to grow with further oil money and generate new income for the provincial government for as long as the fund existed.

The only thing needed to make the simulation a reality was a political desire to do it.  Had the provincial government done any one of the elements of the SIDI approach, then the provincial government could have either avoided the current crisis altogether or significantly altered the profile of the crisis and the prospects for coping with it.

Well on the way to Debt Freedom #nlpoli

According to economist-consultant Wade Locke, the provincial government’s “Sustainability” Plan includes a debt commitment:

The long-run target is to bring the province’s net per capita debt gradually down to the all-province level within ten years.

Locke made it clear in another part of his March 25 memo to finance minister Jerome Kennedy that the purpose of any surpluses the provincial government achieves within the next decade will be to fund Muskrat Falls.

For those who haven’t figured it out yet, the Locke-Conservative plan isn’t actually to reduce public debt.  They want to book the Muskrat Falls asset and – since that’s what net debt is -  make it appear they have lowered public debt when they likely haven’t moved it down very much at all.

By contrast, the SIDI model shows that the provincial government could have reduced direct public debt by $3.675 billion.  The net debt would currently stand at $4.6 billion with a downward trend.  According to Budget 2013, the net debt is is forecast to be about $8.5 billion, continuing an upward trend.

Big difference.

Responsible Public Spending #nlpoli

You don’t need drugs or alcohol to get the feeling of dizziness or stupor like you smacked your head with a hammer. Hard. Repeatedly.

Just listen to a representative of one of the special interest groups talking about the provincial budget and public spending. It doesn’t matter which one.  As your humble e-scribbler was finishing off this post on Tuesday, a representative of the appropriately named St. John’s BOT was on television talking about how government had to cut public sector jobs and tear into public sector pension benefits because of the hideous unfunded pension liability. 

Corporate lawyer Denis Mahoney even quoted the distorted, misleading government claim about the unfunded liability as a share of only a fraction of the public debt to bolster his position. He never mentioned the billions going to subsidize his members, of course. 

In the process, Mahoney looked about as convincing as the labour mouthpieces like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives who said in 2004 that the government wasn’t spending too much.  It just didn’t have enough money.  Of course, they never mentioned that the government was outspending just about every other province on a per capita basis.

Listen to this sort of mindless crap long enough and you don’t have to wonder why people wander around in a daze.

To clear your head, take a look at a chart showing the actual government spending from 2005 to 2012 (in blue) compared to the income from sources other than oil and minerals (in red).

The Road Not Taken #nlpoli

The number is a hard one to wrap your mind around.

$15.6 billion.

That’s the amount of oil royalties and mining royalties the provincial government collected from 2005 to 2012.

Once you think you have that figure in your mind and understand what it means, think about this:  with the exception of about $1.4 billion, the money is apparently gone. 

Spent.

Never to come again.

If you want to understand how the provincial government got itself into the mess, just think about all that money.  Newfoundland and Labrador is a “have” province with a government that is laying people off and cutting programs.  Then realize that for all that cutting the government is still planning to spend upwards of a half a billion dollars a year more than it is taking in.

The idea is staggering.

Well, be prepared to be floored completely.

Damn the finances! Full spend ahead! #nlpoli

We don’t know precisely what economist Wade “the Can-Opener”  Locke is doing to earn his loonie from the Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers.

Finance minister Jerome Kennedy hired him this year to give advice on how to manage the province’s financial mess.  According to the Telegram his contract caps of his pay at $75,000 for a couple of months work.  Locke says regardless he’ll only bill a dollar.  That’s decent of him given that the university is giving him 80% of so of his usual paycheque now that he is on paid research leave from his usual job.

Locke has given the provincial government advice before on everything from Equalization to the annual budget to Muskrat Falls.  We don’t know what, if anything, he got paid for those other stints, but that’s really neither here nor there.  The thing is that Locke is closely tied to the current administration and to what they are doing.

We may not know what else he has been doing the past few weeks but Kennedy released a short memo Locke sent him on March 25, the day before the provincial budget.  It’s a telling little document in many ways.

The Public Debt #nlpoli

One of the greatest political frauds committed by the current administration and its supporters is the idea that they have lowered the public debt.

All the politicians say it.

Wade Locke, their tireless economist, talks about the same thing – net debt – in his soon-to-be-infamous memo to Jerome Kennedy.

Talk of the net debt, reducing net debt, and having a net debt reduction strategy is nothing but a monstrous deception of the public. 

The joke’s on us #nlpoli

From the current issue of Canadian Business comes this little ad that is not an April Fool’s joke from energy company currently running the provincial government:

People following the sorry recent history of energy development in the province will instantly recognize the vicious, cruel joke inherent in Nalcor promoting itself as a company interested in developing wind energy.

-srbp-

Federalism and the Newfoundlanders: 64th birthday edition #nlpoli

April 1, 2013 marks the 64th anniversary of Newfoundland’s confederation with Canada.

Here are a few older posts on the subject that stand the test of time:

• Federalism and the Newfoundlanders (2009)
• Happy Confederation Day!  (2010)
• Thunder  (2009)
• The Confederation Referendum and Humour  (2007)

-srbp-

Budget downs and ups #nlpoli

Earlier this year, our government projected a deficit for 2013-14 of $1.6 billion. 

We are now forecasting that the deficit has been significantly reduced to $563.8 million – a billion-dollar improvement to our bottom line.

That’s the way finance minister Jerome Kennedy started the 2013 budget speech in the House of Assembly on Tuesday.  He said the dramatic change to two factors:  more money coming in and “deliberate actions” by government to “rein in spending.”

One Telegram story on the 2013 budget ran with the idea of extra cash:  “Unexpected oil revenues help with deficit”.  Eight million extra barrels of oil production will bring in $265.5 million in new cash.

A CBC online story said the billion dollars came from two places:

Just over $301 million of the billion-dollar boost over recent projections is attributed to government cuts. Another $696 million came from improved expected revenues for the coming year.

Take away the money the Telegram tallied up and you get about $440 million.  The CBC story said that came from “…royalties or corporate taxes from oil and mining.”  Another news report added in a windfall in HST money from Ottawa.

All sounds wonderful.

The only problem is that the whole story doesn’t add up.

The Debt is Passed: Budget 2013 #nlpoli

[Note – see below]

The throne speech promised that the same Conservative financial management that produced the current financial mess would continue and they delivered in Tuesday’s budget.

The strategic problem remains unchanged

The Conservatives will continue to spend billions in one-time cash from oil and minerals.  That’s the structural deficit people have been talking about and the Conservatives have done nothing to change that.

Tuesday’s budget gave us the year-end cash figures for 2012 and the forecast for 2013.  Here’s the chart from Monday’s post on deficits and surpluses that shows spending and the non-oil revenue.  We’ve updated it to include the cash figures for 2012 (actual) and 2013 forecast from the 2013 Estimates.  Remember that the Estimates are presented on a cash basis.

The debt is passed #nlpoli

Monday’s throne speech was so bad that people started making fun of it almost immediately.  On Twitter a few of us tried changing lines from famous John Kennedy speeches and giving them a local twist

You could find a variation on the moon speech:  we will go into debt,  not because it is hard but because it is easy.  Another tried German:  “Ich bin ein Bauliner!”

Or this one from the inaugural:

The debt has been passed to new generation, born in oil riches, untempered by profligacy, undisciplined by debt.

None could top the corrupted Kennedyism an actual speech by the Old Man, Hisself in 2006:

I say to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians: "Ask not what we can do for our country, because we have done enough. Let's ask our country what they can do for us."

Oil Revenues, Surpluses, and Deficits #nlpoli

The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour hired the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives to issue a report on the upcoming provincial budget that basically says all the things that labour federation boss Lana Payne has been tweeting for weeks.

Here’s what the report’s author said in a news release from CCPA:

“The province’s economic fundamentals are strong. The task for the government is to ensure it doesn’t rock the boat and damage the province’s economy and social fabric with spending cuts.”

Things are looking pretty good, in other words.  The government has to be very careful because any big cuts would damage the economy.

As much as some people might think this is a challenge to the governing Conservatives, that’s not really the case. 

House of Cards (Part B) #nlpoli

Continued from Part A

Terry Lynn Karl is the author of The paradox of plenty: oil booms and petro-states., one of the best known books on the resource curse or rentierism.  Karl described the essence of rentierism in an article she originally wrote in 2007 and revised in 2009:

Oil wealth produces greater spending on patronage that, in turn, weakens existing pressures for representation and accountability. In effect, popular acquiescence is achieved through the political distribution of rents. Oil states can buy political consensus, and their access to rents facilitates the cooptation of potential opponents or dissident voices. With basic needs met by an often generous welfare state, with the absence of taxation, and with little more than demands for quiescence and loyalty in return, populations tend to be politically inactive, relatively obedient and loyal and levels of protest remain low -- at least as long as the oil state can deliver.

In the extreme, oil wealth can disconnect a state from its population.  By the same token, oil can disconnect politicians from the population, transforming them from representatives who must satisfy voters in order to get re-elected to bosses controlling subordinates.

House of Cards (Part A) #nlpoli

_______________________________________________

This is the third in a four part series on the current financial crisis the provincial government is facing.  The first instalment – “The origins of rentierism in Newfoundland and Labrador” – appeared on Tuesday and the second – “Other People’s Money”  - appeared on Wednesday.  The third instalment – “Rentierism at the national and sub-national level” -  appeared on Thursday.

_______________________________________________

Finance minister Jerome Kennedy told the Telegram’s James McLeod on Wednesday that the provincial government had a structural deficit problem.

His proof was that government spent 60% or so of its total outlay each year on the social sector.  That includes health, social services, justice, and education.  If that’s what Jerome is worried about then he and his cabinet colleagues should know that in 2005, they spent 67% of their budget on the social sector.  In 2003,  the last year the Liberals ran the place, they spent about 64% of the budget on the social sector.

Before he goes all Grim Reaper, Jerome should know spending that kind of percentage on the social sector isn’t unusual for governments across Canada.  That’s been pretty much the norm since the late 1960s when governments introduce publicly-funded health care. In Ontario in 2012, for example, all but about $30 billion of the government’s $126 billion budget went to social program spending.

That doesn’t mean the provincial government doesn’t have a huge financial problem. They do. It just means that Jerome is looking in the wrong place to find a sign of it.

Rentierism at the national and sub-national level #nlpoli

_______________________________________________

This is the third in a four part series on the current financial crisis the provincial government is facing.  The first instalment – “The origins of rentierism in Newfoundland and Labrador” – appeared on Tuesday and the second – “Other People’s Money”  - appeared on Wednesday.

_______________________________________________

A rentier is a person who lives off the income from property and investments.  That distinguishes a rentier from a person who earns income through labour.

For the past 40 years or so some political scientists and economists have studied something called a rentier state.  In simplest terms, a rentier state is one that derives a significant portion of its national government income from the money they get from oil and other high-value, but volatile commodities.  [FN 1]

For our purposes, we’ll rely on a definition of “significant portion” as being 40% or more of  government income.  [FN 2] We’ll also focus the discussion on states that derive most of their income from oil.

What we are talking about here goes by several names including  the Dutch Disease or even the resource curse.   Jeffrey Frankel of the Kennedy School of Government put it this way:

It has been observed for some decades that the possession of oil, natural gas, or other valuable mineral deposits or natural resources does not necessarily confer economic success. Many African countries such as Angola, Nigeria, Sudan, and the Congo are rich in oil, diamonds, or other minerals, and yet their peoples continue to experience low per capita income and low quality of life. Meanwhile, the East Asian economies Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong have achieved western-level standards of living despite being rocky islands (or peninsulas) with virtually no exportable natural resources. Auty (1993, 2001) is apparently the one who coined the phrase “natural resource curse” to describe this puzzling phenomenon. …

Other People’s Money #nlpoli

_______________________________________________

This is the second in a four part series that offers an interpretation of the current financial crisis the provincial government is facing.  The first instalment – “The origins of rentierism in Newfoundland and Labrador” – appeared on Tuesday.

______________________________________________

As much as people imagine a great difference between the Confederate and anti-Confederate forces during the National Convention, the two agreed on one thing:  someone else would have to pay for Newfoundland’s return to responsible government.

The London delegation asked the British government to provide the erstwhile country with money. The British balked, pleading their own financial hardship after a long and costly war.  That refusal is largely what prompted Peter Cashin to claim that the British were trying to sell the country the Canadians.  As many words that have been spilled and as many books sold trying to prove the conspiracy existed,  there’s never been a shred of proof that such a plot ever existed outside Cashin’s frustration.

The Ottawa delegation found wealthy Canada more receptive to the Newfoundlanders expectations and after a first referendum and a run-off vote, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians voted to become part of Canada.  For Labradorians the moment was especially sweet.  The National Convention and the referenda were the first time any residents of the mainland part of the country had ever been allowed to vote.

Structural Versus Cyclical: a quick look #nlpoli

Is the government facing a structural or cyclical deficit?

Good question.  Their economist says it is a structural problem but his comments to the Telegram on March 13 suggest he is approaching the problem as if it would sort itself out.

The whole structural versus cyclical question hinges in part on the question of government revenue when the economy is working at full output versus when it isn;t.  Well, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is a bit hard to figure, especially when the government claims that locally everything is great but that it doesn’t have any money.

People get confused.

Well, one  way to start getting a handle on this is to look at the 2011 and 2012 budgets and the related income and spending.

The Origins of Rentierism in Newfoundland and Labrador #nlpoli

______________________________________________

Over the next four days, SRBP will offer an interpretation of the political underpinnings of the current financial crisis.  This series goes beyond the immediate to place recent events in both historical and comparative, international perspective. 

The first two instalments briefly describe some characteristics of the political system and Newfoundland political history before 1934 and from 1949 to about 1990.  The third post will look at the concept of the rentier state and the relationship between dependence on primary resource extraction and politics at the subnational level (states and provinces).  The fourth post will place recent developments in Newfoundland and Labrador in the larger context. 

_______________________________________________

Before 1949, the Newfoundland government’s main source of income was taxation of imports and exports.  The Amulree Commission reported, for example, that the government brought in around $8.0 million dollars in the fiscal year ending in 1933.  Of that, 71%  - $5.7 million  - came from customs and excise duties.  The next largest amount was $700,000 (about 9% of total) that came from income tax while the third largest source of income was postal and telegraph charges totalling slightly more than $587,000.

Newfoundland also had almost no experience of local government before the Commission Government in 1934.  St. John’s was the only incorporated municipality and the city council was quasi-independent of the national government. 

Beyond the capital city, the national government “managed a highly centralized system through the stipendiary magistrates stationed in each electoral district, “in the words of historian James Hiller in his recent note on the Trinity Bay controverted election trial in 1895(FN 1).  The central government also appointed the members of some local  boards to manage education and roads.  The money for all of it came from accounts controlled by St. John’s.

The members of the House of Assembly had enormous control over government and that public money.

Hobson’s Choice #nlpoli

The provincial Conservatives love to spend public money. 

That doesn’t sound very conservative and it isn’t.  Politically, the provincial Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador are more like Republicans than the Progressive Conservatives who used to run the province in the 1980s. American Republicans like to cut federal taxes and jack up federal spending and then blame the resulting financial meltdown on the Democrats.

Around these parts, the Reform-based Conservative Party, as the Old Man used to call them, blames everything on the Liberals.  That is the Liberals who, in case you missed it,  haven’t been in power in a decade.

After ever after

-srbp-