What Raphael said:
But has the “stimulus” had anything to do with economic recovery? While the government makes a bold statement that it has, less than a month ago the Financial Post ran a story that showed only 5% of the stimulus money had even been released into the economy yet. Even with the most up-to-date statistics, there is no chance that recent stimulus spending could have any effect on economic indicators talked about in the Prime Minister’s speech. So the economy seems to have stabilized, and even turned around, all without the massive spending that has been so urged by the members of the opposition government.
So if economic indicators are positive, consumer confidence is growing, and unemployment is leveling off, why do we still need to spend billions of stimulus bucks? The answer is found at the tail end of a National Post editorial. Politicians of all stripes want credit for fixing the economy, and win praise from voters with local infrastructure programs that have nothing to do with economic recovery.
Yay for the appearance of action!
One thing I want to add to this. If the economy does start to recover slowly, government revenue will also rise. That would be the time to invest in our infrastructure. Instead, that increase in revenue will have to go to paying interest on debt accumulated for stimulus that didn't happen in time.
We've put ourselves into an ass backwards cycle. We increase spending when we don't have money, and reduce it when the resultant deficit gets out of control.
I expect whoever is PM will promise that its different this time. I won't be holding my breath.