There was no end of scorn heaped on the Liberals last week for trying to buy our votes. But the problem isn’t that they’re trying to buy our votes. The problem is they’re offering so little in return.

The Liberal election strategy laid out in last week’s mini-budget seems to be mostly about offering wide-reaching tax cuts.

These days, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the purpose of government isn’t simply to collect taxes and then give the money back in tax cuts.

The purpose of government is to, well, govern. And one important aspect of governing is to collect money from us and then spend that money in ways that provide us with benefits — benefits we simply couldn’t create or afford on our own.

An appreciation of that unique role for government — as creator of public infrastructure, programs and services beyond what we could possibly accomplish individually — is utterly missing here.

It’s all part of the neoconservative revolution that has sought to enhance the power of private interests by diminishing the power of government to protect the public interest. A key neocon strategy has been to denigrate the role of government and suggest governments should concentrate on giving taxpayers their money back.

The prevalence of this ideology has undermined our understanding of the enormously positive role that government can play in our lives.

Let’s look at what the Liberals are offering with their dismal little tax cuts. Individually, almost nothing. For individual taxpayers, the total savings range from about $120 for a very low income taxpayer to about $360 for a high-income taxpayer, according to the government’s own numbers.

One would have trouble imagining a scenario in which these savings could significantly improve anyone’s life. At the low end, the money could perhaps buy some clothing, groceries, a case of beer; at the upper end, a dinner out, a fancy toaster oven, some fluffy bathroom towels.

But, pooled together, the tax-cut money amounts to $30 billion.

A lot can be achieved with $30 billion. Some possibilities: providing top-notch diagnostic equipment in hospitals across the country, investing serious amounts in upgrading our universities and in early childhood education programs, properly funding public transit.

Then there are programs long in place in the more advanced Scandinavian countries but not even on the radar here — free dental care for children, free university tuition, national drug plans, extensive leave programs for new parents and comprehensive home-care services.

Such investments would improve health, national productivity and the environment.

But don’t let that throw you off and lead you to conclude that they’d be mostly about meeting lofty goals.

They’d also be about making our lives more manageable and enjoyable, and they’d take us further in that direction than a couple of hundred dollars in tax relief could.

It’s the difference between government providing a cash-back service and doing something largely forgotten in this neoconservative age — actually governing.

Linda McQuaig

Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a reputation for challenging the establishment. As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989...