Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Surplus!!

During the last debate, the two candidates sparred over the ever growing US debt. Although I forget the exact figures, the yearly deficits were certainly in the hundreds of billions of dollars and growing the national debt at a staggering rate. Bush portrayed Kerry as a tax and spend liberal who will most certainly raise taxes. However, through the magic of debt financing, Bush can simultaneously cut taxes and increase spending.

North of the border, Canadian politicians are distraught over the surplus that has been generated this year. Admittedly, the paltry $8 billion dollars wouldn't cover the bill for Halliburton but it does demonstrate that the current economic conditions do not necessitate running huge budget deficits each year. Canadian politicians are up in arms that the surplus is greater than expected and the money must be spent at reducing the national debt rather than being spent on increasing the health care or other public programs.

But wait, isn't the war in Iraq a significant contributor to the deficit? Yes, it is but the US had the opportunity to reduce its costs if it had worked in concert with the United Nations rather than acting unilaterally in a "coalition of the willing". Canada, traditionally an ally of the United States simply because of its geographic proximity, opted out of joining the coalition but would have contributed some of its budget surplus to the cause if the UN felt the military action was justified.

Although Bush derided Kerry for ignoring the contributions of the coalition members during the debate, many of these "willing supporters" have in fact been bribed for their support. Turkey received $30 billion in aid while numerous other governments have been promised compensation for their rubber stamps. What is the net contribution the coalition members have made once the financial compensation and other promises are deducted? It would not surprise me that the coalition costs the US more than it contributes with the possible exception of the UK.

Veneer of a coalition isn't cheap.


No comments: