One can appreciate the frustration of the business types. They’ve put years of effort into convincing Canadians we can’t afford much in the way of social programs, that life in the age of globalization must be a survival-of-the-fittest kind of affair. Now, after all that effort — here we go again, getting dangerous thoughts in our heads about how the law of the jungle doesn’t have to apply to us.

No wonder the business-minded commentators who dominate our media seemed in such despair last week, struggling to come up with ever more dramatic images to describe the sheer bigness of the government spending unleashed in the federal budget. (I heard “staggering” a few times.)

In fact, the “staggering” Jean Chrétien “spending spree” was relatively modest (the only thing whose size has been more exaggerated in recent weeks being Saddam Hussein’s weapons arsenal or George Bush’s “coalition of the willing”).

Part of the “spending spree” is going, not to social programs, but to the military, business owners and high-income earners using retirement tax shelters. Still, the Globe and Mail’s John Ibbitson fumed that there was little in the budget for Canadians who weren’t “fragile.” (If only the budget hadn’t squandered so much on disabled children, there’d be more left for the “sturdy.”)

The very thought of starting to rebuild some of our shattered social programs seemed to rankle. Clearly, this wasn’t supposed to happen. Those big deficits in the ’80s and early ’90s were supposed to knock all expectations of social entitlements out of us for good.

Of course, back then, we were told it was the deficit that forced us to take a hacksaw to social programs. Now, with the deficit long gone and the national debt rapidly shrinking, the reason we’re supposed to shun social investment has become more murky. Something to do with behaving responsibly, more like grown-ups.

This is an odd notion. Maybe it’s the word “spending” that throws people off. It conjures up images of frivolity, the shopping channel or afternoons wasted at the mall.

But it’s hard to see how “spending” on health care, child poverty, day care, student loans, Kyoto implementation, etc., is irresponsible. It seems, if anything, considerably more responsible than spending on DVDs, bathroom renos, facelifts, bigger SUVs or other likely purchases if the money went instead into tax cuts — particularly tax cuts aimed, as they so often are, at the high-income crowd.

In a full-page newspaper ad, the investment firm Ernst & Young warned last week of the “worrisome increase in program spending.” Why are the spending increases “worrisome”? Not because they will cause deficits — spending increases are no more likely to cause deficits than tax cuts are — but because there will be less left over for the tax cuts desired by Ernst & Young analysts and their clients. The ad suggested that tax cuts would be a more responsible course, since Canada must keep up with Bush’s proposed $674 billion tax cut (for the super-rich).

Now there’s a truly irresponsible, deficit-inducing idea, if ever there was one. Earlier this month, 450 U.S. economists, including ten Nobel laureates, denounced the Bush tax cut in a full-page ad in the New York Times, saying it won’t stimulate the economy but will foster inequality and cause chronic deficits. (Come on, Canada, jump on board!)

Of course, Ottawa is already phasing in its own $100 billion tax cut. Since the end of deficits six years ago, Ottawa has allocated about eighty-five per cent of the overall surplus to tax cuts and debt reduction, and only about fifteen per cent to social spending.

But we never hear about the “tax cut spree.” Tax cuts are always portrayed as good, very grown-up, never irresponsible, even though they can leave us impotent to take collective action. And taking collective action simply makes more sense in areas like health care, education and social security.

One gets little sense of that from commentators who lecture against “spending sprees,” like parents lecturing against drugs. (Just say “no” to health care.)

The simple truth is that there’s no right or wrong about what we do with our surplus, just choices about how we want to live. If we want to spend it on tax cuts for the rich, we can do that — but we don’t have to. We could even be more like European countries, many of which have national child care programs and free university tuition — and successful economies.

It’s almost like their parents are away for the weekend.

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...