Over the next year or so, the Saskatchewan Party government will be looking save every penny it can.
Bet that there will be things done that rural people won鈥檛 like.
For starters, a government can only go so far when it comes to cuts that people can all grudgingly agree on.
Nobody likes the idea of adding another $5 to every prescription for seniors or kids. But while those impacted will grumble about it, it鈥檚 justifiable because it鈥檚 small and largely seen as fair.
But governments can only get so far by doing things that don鈥檛 have some political implication.
Maybe the budget decision to close the Buffalo Narrows Correction Centre way up north in the Cumberland riding would have been an easier political decision.
It involves inmates and it鈥檚 in a place where the Sask. Party is unlikely to win. And the added bonus is that it can be argued that it makes economic sense because it is more expense to run a small correction centre in a remote location.
But there are only so many political hits any government can afford to take. And there鈥檚 only so much money that saved with small potato (on the scale of a $14 billion annual provincial budget) like
No doubt, the Sask. Party government thought it could afford the political hit of only funding half the 1.9-per-cent annual teachers鈥� salary increase by dumping the remain half of the costs of local school boards.
The government is betting most won鈥檛 care, although teachers clearly would care.
Moreover, making teachers anger may not be a huge political deal to the Sask. Party, given that teachers aren鈥檛 always been as part of its votes base.
But teachers vote and parents vote. And crowded classrooms or cutting other aspects of school board budgets tend to hit very close to home.
And, more to the point, the government is running out of these smaller hits.
With the Sask. Party government borrowing $1.7 billion in the past two years and adding $2.6 billion the public debt, everyone is going to feel the pinch.
And with this much added debt, it appears that the Sask. Party is going to do something big.
This reality has added to the trepidation that Premier Brad Wall must be serious about selling off SaskTel and using the money to pay debt.
Last month, government released the results of a risk assessment it commissioned Mark H. Goldberg Associates Inc. to determine the long-term value of the Crown-owned telephone utility.
The report indicated that SaskTel is going to be squeezed by Bell, Rogers and Telus 鈥� especially in the wake of Bell鈥檚 takeover of Manitoba Telephone System (MTS).
鈥淭here is a risk that SaskTel鈥檚 net income will be unable to support the level of dividends that have been returned to the province in recent years,鈥� Goldberg wrote.
But in the wake of the Goldberg report, Wall was quick to downplay the potential of a SaskTel privatization.
Wall noted the loss of head-office jobs in Regina, but it should be noted that rural SaskTel jobs would also be at risk.
However, Wall鈥檚 key argument was that cell towers, Internet and other less-than-maximum-profit services to rural and remote Saskatchewan customers would suffer because these are things private telcos wouldn鈥檛 be eager to provide.
It was an important comment.
Sure, all people 鈥� including rural people 鈥� are going to have to bite the bullet in the coming year.
Perhaps that might very well include less-valued services like the Saskatchewan Transportation Company or perhaps even rural municipalities, if Wall鈥檚 鈥渢ransformational change鈥� means anything.
Tough decisions will have to be made.
But to rob rural Saskatchewan of key communication infrastructure makes no sense for anyone.
Wisely, Wall already seems to be defining what鈥檚 critical and what鈥檚 not.
Murray Mandryk has been covering provincial politics for over 22 years.
