If you were Finance Minister, what would do when revenues are soaring and, in fact, higher than ever Many argue smart money is on paying down debt, cutting taxes, and saving for the future.

Yet it seems, for this government, the foundation of its re-election bid is busting open the piggy bank.

From millions spent on new housing subsidies to free wireless internet for the latte-sipping urban crowd and sweetheart deals for public sector unions, there seems to be no shortage of spending priorities.

Culture, Youth and Recreation Minister Glen Hagel recently warned taxpayers of a brand new kind of deficit in Saskatchewan - the "gym deficit." Hagel says Saskatchewan has a $750 million backlog of spending on swimming pools and art museums.

But the deficit Hagel should be worrying about is the budget deficit that will happen next year. In an interview with the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Finance Minister Andrew Thomson said the government plans to spend "hundreds of millions" from the province's "rainy day" Fiscal Stabilization Fund in order to balance the budget.

There's a serious problem when the government is running a deficit at a time when revenues have never been so good. The problem In a word: Spending. According the provincial auditor, spending rose by 32 per cent since Premier Calvert took office in 2001. Had spending increases been held to inflation, the province would have recording a $2 billion surplus last year instead of just $679 million.

Sound eerily familiar Grant Devine spent the province into the ground during the 1980s but his spending increases are small potatoes compared to Calvert's. Calvert takes "going for broke" to a whole new level.

The very existence of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund (FSF) contributes to the problem. The fund used to be no more than a government line of credit. The government would borrow short-term money on the open market to balance its budget. The only real purpose served was to allow the government to claim the budget was balanced when, in fact, it wasn't.

Last year the government the government took a $877 million surplus and - instead of paying down the province's very large debt - dumped it into the FSF.

Now the problem is that there are no rules around when the government can spend that money, and when (or even if) it should be paid back. As it stands, the fund is low-hanging fruit for pandering politicians.

That's why the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is advancing something it calls the "five per cent rule." This rule would prevent politicians from withdrawing from the rainy day fund unless revenues are forecast to drop at least five per cent from the previous four-year average. It would also require the government to re-pay the fund within four years of withdrawal. The five per cent rule would mean the fund would only be used when it's metaphorically raining, and now just because an election is coming.

Politicians need to start thinking long-term about the province's finances. We have runaway spending during an economic boom, and every body knows what happens to booms. Besides, wouldn't be nice if we could hand the rainy day fund down to future generations as a permanent trust fund