rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Five reasons why the deficit should be bigger, not smaller

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca in its summer fundraiser today for as little as $1 per month!

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

I've estimated a $29-billion deficit for the March 22 budget, although $6 billion of that is made up of a fictional contingency fund. Usually, most budget commentators advocate for a small deficit (or preferably a surplus). This year is oddly different with economists from CIBCTD, and Scotiabank all urging at least $30 billion deficits over several years.

I agree with the banks (shockingly): Canada's economy needs a significant boost in the form of federal deficit spending. The issues of slow growth, income inequality, technical recessions and stagnant employment rates -- ignored by the last government under the illusion the economy would fix itself -- are not going away.

But here's what the bank economists won't tell you about the deficit:

1. One government's deficit is another person's surplus

Every deficit creates a surplus elsewhere. If I give you $5, I have a $5 deficit, but you have a $5 surplus. The same is true for the federal government, except the amounts are counted in the billions. Every billion dollars in federal deficit means an extra billion in the pockets of Canadians through new transfers or higher wages, extra money for the provinces, and extra opportunities for businesses.

It's important to note that a deficit should finance the types of activities that provide the biggest bang for the buck -- programs that hire Canadians to do work like building, repairing or upgrading infrastructure and social services, or programs that transfer money to low-income families and the unemployed. A deficit that sends money to rich households would not be very useful; only a small part of this budget is likely to do that…thankfully.

2. Larger deficits = lower unemployment

Most economists know this but rarely say it. A deficit well spent on infrastructure or social programs can create hundreds of thousands of jobs. The result is lower unemployment. Given the slack in the economy today, the higher the deficit, the lower unemployment will be.

3. The federal government needs to manage the economy

It is absolutely possible for the federal government to cut back spending to balance its books, as it has done over the past couple of years. But someone will always have to pick up the pieces. Recently, that someone has been the provinces and Canadian families. The provinces, whose programs like health care and education are far harder to cut, have more debt than the federal government for the first time in history, and they pay more interest on that debt. At the same time, household debt is reaching $2 trillion, more than three times the debt of the federal government. Shifting the burden of debt to other sectors is not a responsible approach.

4. Financial markets are desperate for deficits

This may be hard to believe, but it's absolutely true: the financial markets are desperate for higher federal deficits that create more bonds for it buy. In fact, they have bid down the real interest rates on federal debt to either zero or into the negative, after inflation. To provide some context, if you had a negative interest rate on your mortgage, the bank would send you a cheque each month, not the other way around.

This may seem incredible, but it is the situation the federal government currently enjoys for any deficit it runs. If bankers and pension funds want to pay the federal government monthly to improve the country, I think we should let them. The federal government hasn't paid this little interest on debt since the Second World War.

5. The federal government doesn't have a spending problem

The federal government doesn't have a spending problem -- it has a massive revenue problem.  Federal expenditures as a share of the economy are the smallest they've been since 1940 -- before medicare, employment insurance or modern old age security were introduced. The federal government is smaller today than at any time in post-war history, despite the larger responsibility it holds.

Revenues are also bumping along near all-time lows. Massive decreases in taxes over the past 20 years account for that revenue problem: marginal income taxes on the richest used to be over 70 per cent, now they're 50 per cent; corporate income taxes used to be at 50 per cent, now they're at 26 per cent; personal tax loopholes gave away $200 billion in 2015 alone. If the federal government needed to close a deficit for some reason, reversing any of these changes alone would cover it.

To sum up, if you're going to run a deficit -- which the banks, most political parties, and progressive think-tanks like the CCPA all somewhat oddly agree we should -- go big or go home. The government has the room to spend more than $30 billion, as long as it's going to all the right places.

David Macdonald is a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the coordinator of the centre's Alternative Federal Budget project. Follow him on Twitter @DavidMacCdn.

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.