When the going gets tough, the political parties get soft

In his inaugural address in 1961, President John Kennedy famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

How old-fashioned. What a strange concept. Imagine a country’s leader asking for sacrifice from citizens for the good of the country. Nobody does that today.

In Canada, we are squarely in the crosshairs of a time that requires some sacrifice from its citizens for the good of the country. Many Canadians are indeed stepping up in ways that they can control. They are buying more Canadian, definitely buying less from the U.S., and avoiding unnecessary travel to the U.S.

But what have our various politicians, in

full election mode

, been saying to a country that is largely ready to sacrifice? Here is a recent list:

Mark Carney

: Expected budget deficit of $225 billion over four years (an increase of $94 billion over the massive increase of

Justin Trudeau

‘s planned deficits). This is due to tax cuts, homebuilding projects (because owning a house is now a promise from the government) and other “vital” boosts to spending.

Pierre Poilievre

: Expected budget deficit of $100 billion over the next four years, made up of tax cuts and somewhat offset by cuts in government expenses and foreign aid.

Jagmeet Singh

: Ironically, while there would be massive new spending, the NDP is proposing a new wealth tax to help offset costs. However, his key comment was that the

Trump trade war

shouldn’t be Canadians’ “burden to carry.”

This is a country that had a $61-billion

budget deficit

last year and was projecting a $40-billion deficit this year before the

great tariff wars

began.

How did we get from a nation willing to make sacrifices to one where our leaders think we shouldn’t have to carry any burden when the going gets tough? Is it our own fault? Did we show through actions that we only vote for tax cuts and so-called free gifts?

For those who pay virtually no

income taxes

, they know that free stuff from the government is truly free for them.

For those who pay sizable income taxes, they know there is nothing free from the government. It is simply reaching in one pocket and putting it in the other, usually with a chunk of the money disappearing during the long distance between pockets.

The part of this that frustrates me the most is that government and its evolving programs ultimately teach and reinforce financial lessons for its citizens.

Everyone has different financial means, but there used to be a general culture where we felt we had to put money away for both old age and a rainy day. Today, we are seeing more people who believe the government is there to look after them, so they no longer have to take care of themselves.

If you are responsible for yourself, it leads to certain behaviours: going to work every day; putting money aside every paycheque, whether into retirement savings or other savings; if things get tough, you have to pull back on your spending; and if you can afford it, you help other family or charity.

If, on the other hand, you have been taught that the government is there for you in times of need or sort of need, it leads to different behaviours: working is good, but I need to have work-life balance; I will spend what I have today because there is always some program that will help me out if I need it; when the going gets tough, I need some self-care; and I would help others, but that is the government’s job.

It may seem like I am painting extremes, but there is definitely some truth here. Things have changed, and I don’t know if the genie can be put back in its bottle.

From a financial planning point of view, personal responsibility is always preferred to depending on government. These new, modern values lead to a greater risk of someone outliving their money and a greater impact from the rainy days that inevitably come with life.

For me, the big question is whether there is anyone in the Canadian government who is still willing to ask what you can do for your country.

If Canada is really going to make it through the great tariff wars, we require sacrifice. People who have put themselves in a position to do so are able to spend a little more to buy Canadian. There is a little more room to tighten your belt without requiring cash payments from the government. There is a little time to wait as we develop trading partners with other provinces and other countries.

What I do know is that the past decade has put us in a weaker place to fight these fights, both economically and philosophically.

• Q&A: Jamie Golombek answers questions about the federal election and your taxes
• Election promises add up to deficits — and that’s without calculating an economic slowdown

Given the promises of the three main parties in this election, it doesn’t look like these values are going to change anytime in the next handful of years. I only hope that we as Canadians can dig deep into our old-school values to fight the fight ahead. It might be our only hope.

Ted Rechtshaffen, MBA, CFP, CIM, is president, portfolio manager and financial planner at TriDelta Private Wealth, a boutique wealth management firm focusing on investment counselling and high-net-worth financial planning. You can contact him through www.tridelta.ca.

Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the business news you need to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.