If the financial budget appears to balance, 'every thing is OK'.
Oh, we take that one step further in Canada! Seems like every federal or provincial budget has resulted in a surplus the following year, supposedly meaning that all funding targets have been met, and yet the tax rate never seems to go down? The best was earlier this (fiscal) year when the Canadian dollar was growing stronger comparatively to the U.S. dollar, the federal finance minister was imploring private businesses in Canada to reduce their prices (the argument being that the stronger dollar ought to be able to buy more). I wonder if he'll carry the same attitude coming up to tax time this year? Should I expect a rebate to the tune of 20% or so (I don't know the exact figure, but it's high) over last year's taxes, minister? I'm not going to hold my breath on that one!
I hate to say this, but I believe our country is in terminal decline.
Since you've taken the "pro" on that one, I'll try to balance it with the con: It's not all bad, either there or over here. For one, you're able to communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the planet, for next to nothing (if you use the library - at home, etc is extra luxury). Your media options are greater than they've ever been. Your choice of consumer goods are greater, and their cost is lower.
Those advances are all private-sector related, but they spill over into the public sector, too (e.g. availability of a wider range of medical care or education products). What I believe both our countries are currently experiencing is the market and political effects of an aging population, particularly one that has a significantly expanded, 50+ demographic as the babyboomers hit retirement, kick the kids out, and figure out what to do with their top-end salaries, investments and/or pensions. As such, whereas the clout of that generation 30-40 years ago was represented politically (voting, demonstrations), now the same generation is making a bigger impact on markets. That's because now they have more money than they do a willingness to picket (
pardon me, I have to go put on some Wilson Pickett...). The perogatives of politicians tends to reflect that change from protester to investor. Now they're not just influenced directly by Big Business, but also indirectly in that the majority of people supporting a winning candidate or party also stand to gain individually as shareholders in the various Big Business companies. Of course, that's going to influence the relative interest of government funded education or health care on a variety of levels.
Voters aren't going to want to elect a politician who'll compromise their individual investments for the sake of an education system their own family's children no longer use. They're not going to want to pay higher taxes if it means that money could have otherwise been spent on investments, either. People have always been able to recognize the individual importance of either the market or goverment initiatives, but their awareness, understanding, and involvement in both is a very new thing now compared to 25, 50, or 100 years ago.
It's a work in progress, and I think it's best for the populace to consider the importance not just of being an informed voter, but also an informed investor, if only to ensure the two are working harmoniously and are not at odds.