In a time of prosperity, there are two schools of thought for what a government should do when it presents its budget for the coming fiscal year.

One school of thought is to be somewhat prudent, not knowing what the future will bring in terms of revenues and market trends.

The other approach is, in a time of increased revenue and the prospect of more growth to come, to increase spending accordingly and address some of those areas that have been wanting in terms of funding in recent years.

Happily, for most sectors of the province, the Sask. Party chose the latter approach in their first budget since taking office last fall as a majority government after 16 years of NDP rule in the Legislature.

With revenues up by 19 per cent, the budget's spending increased by a significant 10 per cent to about $1 billion, with more spending in such diverse areas as highways, health care, K-12 education, municipalities and infrastructure, and various other government initiatives.

Included in this budget was $156.6 million for education property tax relief, an increase of $48.7 million, plus a six per cent increase to operate schools, and seven per cent increase in revenue sharing to municipalities.

As with most any budget, there are those who are happy, and those who are not. Critics of this budget pointed to two areas that were felt to be deficient; one, former finance minister Harry Van Mulligen says the property tax relief should have been higher, and he pointed to the fiscal stabilization fund of $1.3 billion as proof that the government have the monies available to do this.

Secondly, and perhaps with more relevance, the increase in revenue sharing was inadequate; the problem here is, the government itself admitted this, long before the budget was set. The premier and the minister responsible both told delegates to the SUMA, and more recently SARM, conventions that they knew seven per cent was not enough for the needs municipalities have.

So, if they knew that, why was it just left at seven per cent in the budget?

One factor is that when there's a big pie, and big needs that need filling, everyone around the table wants more, and municipalities are no exception. The difference between the two criticisms is this: in terms of property tax relief, property owners will see a savings in this year's bill.

But, on the other hand, municipalities (which now have to set their final mill rates, after the school boards proceed to set theirs) will in many cases still have to increase taxes because of their rising costs, and this may well cancel out any good that property tax relief would have brought.

In the end, not everyone can be satisfied. Even with bigger revenues to the provincial coffers, it is still a finite amount. For the most part, the new government acted prudently, but more could have been done. - Greg Nikkel