AS ALBERTA’S NEW NDP government indulges in the distinctly old exercise of ramping up spending, the focus has been on the overall spending level and whether a given department or function generally needs more funds.

Occasionally, the public discussion will reach as far as public-sector salaries (which never go down). Nobody seems to drill down any further. That’s unfortunate, because vast sums could be saved – hundreds of millions on individual items and billions on projects – by applying a little restraint. Dare I use the term “modesty”?

The finances of a province so blessed in natural resources that its budget should always be in surplus are in peril. Within three months of taking office in May, the Rachel Notley government sent Alberta’s operating deficit zooming to a projected $6 billion. But the province’s finances are deliberately opaque, a gift of Notley’s big-spending Progressive Conservative predecessors.

So, the real deficit, one that counts borrowing for capital items, is likely to double that figure. (The NDP hasn’t released a budget yet.) But to start generating solutions, I think concerned voters need to move beyond these gigantic overall figures and question the cost of individual things.

A clearly visible example is the stupefying elaborateness of current freeway interchanges. Gone is the traditional “cloverleaf” layout, a miracle of 1950s engineering that was compact, used materials efficiently and required just one bridge. Today’s sinuous monstrosities sprawl across hundreds of acres of prime farmland sufficient for entire housing subdivisions. Multiple curved – and costly – “flyovers” connect primary traffic flows, while on/off ramps meander bizarrely for a kilometre or more.

In return, the tab: today’s interchange can consume $120 million – sufficient for up to 10 simple overpasses and two or three traditional cloverleafs.

Several variations on this theme play out wherever public funds are “invested in” (i.e., spent on) capital projects. Strict budgets are approved for, say, a new hospital. Bureaucrats and their chosen contractors, having other ideas, pursue grandiose designs with no hope of staying within budget. Once a structure is half-built, the hapless government has little choice but to cough up more funds to avoid an empty shell sitting at the edge of town. And so we have the spectacle of hospitals in mid-size regional centres costing more than $600 million.

As for schools, am I the only middle-aged person who notices that the modest but functional structures of my childhood have given way to exuberantly designed, lavishly appointed complexes with lobbies that resemble that of a nice hotel and classrooms that resemble a modern research facility? Does a simple schoolhouse for a bunch of eight-year-olds really need LEED Gold certification?

At this point, cue the usual unctuous reply: “It’s for the children.” Sure, but is it worth the cost? For, after those few years basking amid lovely, wood-grained millwork bathed in natural light and soothed by air cleaned with pollen filters and maintained at perfect humidity, the unwitting moppets will be dealing throughout their working lives with the previous generation’s sick spending in building monuments to their own vanity. Does anyone ask if that’s the future they want?

More of Koch’s columns can be read at www.drjandmrk.com.

© 2015 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.