The more I think about the "rule of 3's" surplus program the more I think it can be made to work.
The government's budget is their plan for spending in the upcoming year (and beyond). Any spending that comes after the budget has been passed has to come out of a surplus or taken dollar-for-dollar from another program or the government will run a deficit. Since we are nowhere near deficit mode and program spending is never reduced, any such spending is coming from the surplus.
The government is about to commit to allocating end of the year surpluses to 1/3 debt, 1/3 spending and 1/3 tax rebate. I propose that this be adopted but at the beginning of the year. Therefore any post-Budget spending has to be matched to the double-dollar to be passed. Better balanced budget? Sure, but $4.6 billion has to go against the debt and $4.6 billion has to be rebated back to the taxpayers for it to pass. Alternatively the $4.6 billion could be reallocated three ways.
It could work like a sports leagues salary cap. It has the advantage of dramatically reducing electioneering spending or in-year spending to reduce the surplus and avoid paying rebates.
That is something I could get behind.
