e-brief Out on a Limb: Assessing the Fiscal Sustainability and Effectiveness of the 2009 Federal Budget
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2009 federal budget proposed a $40 billion economic stimulus package spanning two years and projecting a return to balanced budgets within five. The projected quick recovery of federal finances relies primarily on aggressive assumptions about future interest rates, growth of program expenditures and effectiveness of the economic stimulus plan. Sustainable budget plans build confidence in the future: with them, Canadians expect that tax burdens will not need to increase in the near term and public services will be maintained. Uncertainty erodes confidence, delaying private investments and shrinking the immediate impact of government initiatives on the economy. So budget implementation needs to focus on the complementary goals of prioritizing the infrastructure and tax initiatives with the best short-run effect, and ensuring that the projected return to surplus happens on schedule. Are Deficits Here to Stay? The recent global slowdown, given current baseline for federal revenue and spending, will likely result in underlying budgetary deficits totaling $35 billion over the next five years, adding at least $1.6 billion to annual debt charges. Meanwhile, the measures announced in Budget 2009 would add about $49 billion to the accumulated deficit, increasing annual debt charges by an additional $2.2 billion. In total, the federal accumulated deficit is projected to increase by nearly $85 billion over the next five years. This projected rebalancing of federal finances is crucial, before fiscal pressures from demographic change intensify over the next decade. Lower debts free up resources currently spent on debt charges and better enable the country to deal with the fiscal pressures of population aging. Robson (2009) recently estimated that, by 2057, population aging will be a significant strain on the finances of governments in Canada. The current discounted value of this implicit liability is $1.5 trillion.I N D
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".