Tough times call for tough decisions.
If only the biggest governments in the country weren't too weak to make them.
Amid mounting evidence that they need to level with the public about how and why things are going to have to change - about what happens when mounting debt burdens combine with a demographic crunch, not to mention the decline of our biggest trading partner - those governments are busy trying to save their own skins.
So on Thursday, an $18.7-billion deficit - and a forecast return to surplus no earlier than 2017 - was presented by Ontario's government as good news. Quebec's finance minister promptly dismissed a warning by the Conference Board of Canada that his province will eventually "hit a wall" because government spending is so outpacing economic growth. And federal Treasury Board President Stockwell Day expressed hope that attrition within the public service will account for all the imminent belt-tightening that's needed.
Blame the dodging largely on an unfortunate confluence of coincidences in election cycles, and partly on a political climate caused by the very economic conditions that have drained government coffers.
In the three biggest provinces, second- or third-term governments have long since used up their political capital.
In Ontario, Dalton McGuinty is already perceived to have asked too much of voters, with the harmonized sales tax and higher energy prices and a health-care levy; he's loath to ask much more. In Quebec, Jean Charest is too preoccupied defending his government against corruption allegations to have much energy for other fights. And in British Columbia - which is in better economic and budgetary shape, but still faces some of the same challenges - the ruling Liberals have been in the midst of a full-fledged meltdown since backlash over the HST forced Gordon Campbell to announce his retirement.
Even the federal Conservatives, for all of Stephen Harper's bravado, are hardly comfortable. Endless minority governments, and the perpetual prospect of an election, make it difficult to ask voters to accept any short-term pain for long-term gain.
At least, it's difficult for politicians to make that request when the public hasn't yet gotten to the point where it sees large deficits as a pressing concern - something once anticipated to have happened by now.
Instead, a slow economic recovery from recession has created a mistrustful mood in which, rightly or wrongly, voters feel like they're paying more and getting less. So asking them to accept either service cuts or more levies is considered a non-starter.
Because of that dynamic, there's no real pressure at any level for more aggressive action. The Conservative opposition in Ontario isn't calling for deep spending cuts. Neither are New Democrats calling for significantly higher taxes. Parties at all levels seem to be veering toward what's best described as the Rob Ford model, trying to capitalize on abstract anger by purporting that if only politicians do their jobs better, nobody has to make any sacrifice.
Amid the dire warnings from think-tanks and economists and newspaper columnists, it should be acknowledged that we've been through something like this before. There was much doomsday talk about deficits up until the mid-1990s - at which point, during better economic times, governments surprised everyone by getting into surplus.
But there are differences. The provinces have more accumulated debt now than they did then, and higher servicing costs could wreak havoc for a long time. Most significantly, we now have an aging population that creates increasingly urgent structural challenges, particularly in preserving our health-care system.
Nobody expects politicians to run around with their arms flailing, warning of the apocalypse. But at least nudging the public toward difficult decisions ahead would be a good start, if anyone were strong enough to do so.
Adam Radwanski