Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Tories overestimated OAS costs by hundreds of millions

OTTAWA — As debate over the sustainability of the country's Old Age Security system continues, new figures show the Conservative government has overestimated the cost of the system by hundreds of millions of dollars in three of the past four years.

While the government says the differences are to be expected and remain well within normal ranges, the opposition is arguing they raise further questions about the government's long-term projections about the OAS system's unsustainability.

A government report tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday shows that while the government had anticipated paying out $29 billion in OAS during this fiscal year, the actual amount was $410 million less.

The report says the difference is because there were fewer beneficiaries than expected and the average payout per person was lower than projected. In addition, more beneficiaries paid back their benefits than anticipated.

The government also overestimated in 2010-11, doling out $356 million less than the initial projection of $28 billion, and in 2008-09, when it was off by $368 million.

In the past four years, the only time the government underestimated was in 2009-10. In this instance, the difference was $192 million.

A spokeswoman in Human Resources Minister Diane Finley's office said the discrepancies are not unusual, particularly when dealing with a multibillion-dollar projection and that they are within normal ranges.

"There are always going to be slight differences, but it continues to line up," Alyson Queen said. "There will be, with any financial forecasting, a difference between your projections and your actuals."

But NDP finance critic Peter Julian said the difference serves to further undermine the government's long-term predictions that the OAS system is unsustainable.

"It certainly doesn't help the government spin that has been in contradiction to all the forecasts about the viability of the OAS in the long Term," he said.

The Conservative government maintains the OAS system — which pays retired Canadians a maximum of $540 monthly — is on shaky financial ground because the number of seniors is expected to double over the next 20 years while the share of the population made up of working-age taxpayers will be cut in half.

Several economists and spending watchdogs, including parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, however, have argued the OAS system is fiscally sustainable over the long term and "there's no reason to change" eligibility rules from a fiscal standpoint.

In a separate report, the government estimated OAS payments to increase to $30.5 billion in the coming fiscal year. Depending on whether last year's projected cost is used as a base or the actual number is, that represents a 4.6 or six per cent increase.

Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Lee Berthiaume

No comments:

Post a Comment