Sentences with phrase «budget program expenses»

Based on our analysis, it appears that components of the June 2011 Budget program expenses forecast could be grossly overstated.

Not exact matches

The investment in military hardware in Trump's budget would come at an expense of foreign aid and democracy promotion programs that have been a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy for decades.

If donating to charity is part of your budget, then setting up recurring donations helps you spread out the expense over the course of the year and ensures that the nonprofits you support have money for programs outside of the usual December fundraising push.

As noted in our assessment of the monthly Fiscal Monitor results to date (http://www.3dpolicy.ca/content/federal-deficit-outcome-2010-11-lower-expected-deficit-will-still-not-be-eliminated-2014-15), employment insurance benefits and direct program expenses were running well below the June 2011 Budget projections and the current Update acknowledges this.

Contrary to Mr. Flaherty's claim that the decline was due to better control of spending, it was in fact the result a consistent overestimate of direct program expenses in the budget.

This component of program expenses has been consistently over estimated in the budgets and updates, by the Department of Finance.

Second, the October 2010 Update reduced «direct program expenses» in 2012 - 13 and beyond from that forecast in the March 2010 Budget, without providing any explanation.

Program expenses were reduced by an additional $ 1.2 billion in the March 2012 Budget, primarily due to lower direct program exProgram expenses were reduced by an additional $ 1.2 billion in the March 2012 Budget, primarily due to lower direct program exprogram expenses.

The final outcome was $ 1.5 billion lower than forecast in the March 2012 Budget, with most of the decline again attributable to lower - than - projected direct program expenses.

In the absence of tax increases, the government will not be able to achieve its goal of a balanced budget by 2015 - 16 without major cuts in direct program expenses and the elimination of «boutique» tax expenditures in the order of $ 8 to $ 11 billion by 2015 - 16.

Even with this adjustment, we believe that the outlook for direct program expenses in the outer years is understated, putting the achievement of a balanced budget over the medium term at even greater risk.

However, as noted below, we feel the deficit for 2011 - 12 could come in lower than expected, despite the slowdown in the economy as program expenses were overstated in the June 2011 Budget.

On February 3, 2011, the C.D. Howe Institute released its 2011Shadow Budget [1] entitled A Faster Track to Fiscal Balance, arguing that federal government should undertake aggressive actions to restrain the growth in program expenses in order to achieve a fiscal surpluses one year earlier than forecast in the October 2010 Update [2].

The Fraser Institute notes that in the 2009 Budget, program expenses for 2011 - 12 were projected at $ 235.1 billion (see Table 4).

Expenses for other direct program expenses (excluding other transfer payments) could be $ 2 billion higher than estimated in Budget 2012, especially if the Government decides to book the shortfall in the environmental liability as identified by the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable DeveExpenses for other direct program expenses (excluding other transfer payments) could be $ 2 billion higher than estimated in Budget 2012, especially if the Government decides to book the shortfall in the environmental liability as identified by the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Deveexpenses (excluding other transfer payments) could be $ 2 billion higher than estimated in Budget 2012, especially if the Government decides to book the shortfall in the environmental liability as identified by the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The Budget breaks out direct program expenses into «Operating expenses subject to freeze»; «Other operating expenses» «transfers payments» and «capital amortization».

The Department of Finance, in the Annual Financial Report, also reported that the annual lapse in direct program expenses was again higher than forecast in the April Budget for 2014 - 15.

According to the Department of Finance direct program expenses will have been reduced by about $ 14.5 billion annually due to the restraint measures introduced since the 2010 Budget.

Program expenses were $ 1.5 billion lower than forecast in the March 2012 Budget, with virtually all of the difference due to lower direct program exProgram expenses were $ 1.5 billion lower than forecast in the March 2012 Budget, with virtually all of the difference due to lower direct program exprogram expenses.

Some of the other components of program expenses could come in higher - than - estimated in Budget 2012.

It appears that either the Department of Finance is unable to forecast direct program expenses, or the Minister of Finance has adopted the previous government's approach of ensuring that his deficit targets are met or bettered by «hiding» extra prudence in his budget forecasts — an approach he criticized the previous government for.

The annual lapse in direct program expenses may be higher than forecast in the April Budget for 2014 - 15.

Budgetary revenues were $ 1.9 billion higher, but the biggest difference was in program expenses, which were $ 5.2 billion lower than forecast in the March 2013 Budget.

Given that direct program expenses came in much lower than expected, why did the Government announce in the Speech that it intended to freeze departmental operating budgets?

The current PBO has now requested more information from the Department of Finance as to why direct program expenses in 2012 - 13 were nearly $ 5 billion lower than forecast in the March 2013 Budget.

In our assessment of Budget 2013, we raised concerns about the Government's ability to keep within their forecast of direct program expenses.

Based on the results to date, the March 2011 Budget estimate for program expenses could be overstated by at least $ 6 billion.

We continue to believe that the March 2011 Budget estimate for total expenses is overstated, especially for «Other transfer payments» and «Other program expenses for departments and agencies».

Based on the results to date, it appears that employment insurance benefits and direct program expenses could come in lower than expected at the time of the June 2011 Budget.

In the 2006 Budget, the government promised to reduce the deficit by $ 3 billion per year; to reduce the federal debt - to - GDP ratio to 25 per cent by 2012 - 13; to eliminate the total government sector debt (which includes the federal, provincial and local governments as well as the Canada and Quebec pension plans) by 2021; and finally, to keep the growth in program expenses below the rate of growth in nominal GDP.

This was based on a table that appeared in Volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada 2012 that compared the final audited outcome for 2011 - 12 to the June 2011 Budget forecast of program expenses.

In addition, both the Parliamentary Budget Officer [3] and ourselves questioned the program expenses profile in the October 2010 Update, claiming unjustified and unexplained adjustments, We believe that program expense track in the October 2010 Update was seriously understated.

Dynamic Programming is a system of «budgeting in reverse» by totaling up all «fixed» expenses like rent, insurance, phone, etc. and deducting it from the dollar amount of the next anticipated paycheck.

Most of the lower outcome for program expenses was due to lower direct program expenses, down $ 3.3 billion from the March 2017 Budget forecast.

In the 2015 Budget, direct program expenses were forecast to grow by 4.3 % in 2016 - 17, 2.2 % in 2017 - 18, 3 % in 2019, and 2.3 % in 2019 - 20.

Apart from the uncertainty associated with the risks noted above and the lack of credible prudence in the budget projections, we continue to believe that the forecast for «other revenues» is overstated and that for «direct program expenses» is understated.

Direct program expenses were up $ 1.3 billion (3.4 %), significantly below the 2017 Budget forecast of 6.3 %.

However, on balance, the FES forecast of direct program expenses appears credible, and the growth profile broadly consistent to those forecast in the 2015 Budget.

Tthe Minister of Finance tabled a budget on June 6th which showed program expenses of $ 281.4 billion in 2011 - 12, $ 28.6 billion higher than the forecast of his colleague the President of the Treasury Board.

Prior to Budget 2012 initiatives, direct program expenses were forecast to grow at annual average rate of about 2.5 % between 2008 - 09 and 2016 - 17, an extremely ambitious target.

The March 2017 Budget did not provide forecasts for the components of other direct program expenses.

The March 2011 Budget claims that about $ 80 billion of direct program expenses will be reviewed with the objective of finding annual savings of $ 4 billion by 2014 - 15, which the Harper government claims is about 5 per cent of the review base.

We analyzed the difference between the 2015 Budget forecast for direct program expenses (the last Harper Budget) to the forecast presented in the FES.

The same is true for direct program expenses, were transfer payments are $ 2 billion lower in 2014 - 15 than in the March 2010 Budget, after adjusting for the new policy measures.

In the March 2017 Budget, total program expenses were projected to increase by $ 20.0 billion (7.2 %).

Budgetary revenues are expected to be $ 5.0 billion higher than forecast in the April 2017 Budget, program expenses $ 3.1 billion higher and public debt charges $ 0.4 billion lower.

In the March 2017 Budget, total program expenses were projected to increase by $ 20.0 billion or 7.2 %.

As for total expenses, employment insurance benefits and direct program expenses could come in well below the June 2011 Budget estimates.

The lower - than - expected deficit outcome for 2010 - 11, compared to the June 2011 Budget estimate, resulted from both higher revenues (up $ 1.5 billion) and lower program expenses (down $ 1.2 billion).

There are major classification and accounting differences between the Estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board and the direct program expense forecasts in the Minister of Finance's budgets and updates.