What Happens When TD Economists Have Their Facts Wrong?

On a day when many economists and banks are pointing to a somewhat sunnier economic outlook on the horizon, one bank's economist's has a cloudier view.

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=1654601

One thing immediately caught my eye in this article as being factually wrong:

"Since the late 1990s, after the federal government successfully steered the country out of deficit, annual program spending has increased at a rate of between 6% and 8%"

As soon as I read that I knew something was wrong, so I checked the Fiscal Monitor for the past number of years, and sure enough, these TD economist's had their numbers wrong. Here are the numbers starting with the most recent.

'08-'09- Program expenses were up $6.8 billion, or 3.5 per cent.
'07-'08- Program expenses were up $12.5 billion, or 6.8 per cent
'06-'07- Program expenses were up $9.2 billion, or 5.2 per cent
'05-'06- Program expenses were up $4.3 billion, or 2.8 per cent
'04-'05- Program expenses were up $13.7 billion or 9.9 per cent
'03-'04 Program expenses were up $10 billion, or 7.8 per cent
'02'-03- Program expenses were up $6.5 billion, or 5.3 per cent

The '07-'08 is an anomaly, in that it reflects increased federal transfer payments to the provinces. But even using that figure shows that only one of the past four years has seen program expenses increasing in the 6%-8% range the TD economists have used in their forecasting. In fact if one looks at this line in the article, you realize their figures are pretty much useless, as they have used a forecast of the 6% to 8% as the basis for their deficit projections:

"The TD analysis indicates the only way the budget gets close to balance in 2013-14, as anticipated, is if Ottawa freezes program spending growth after fiscal 2012-13, which is when TD expects the economy to fully rebound from the current downturn. If that were to happen, it would record a small deficit of $1.7-billion in 2013-14, followed by a $12-billion surplus in the next fiscal year.
Otherwise, spending growth could be held at 2% following 2012-13, which would lead to a $5.7-billion surplus in 2015-16".

So i have to ask, how much credibility can you give a report that uses improper data for program expense projections 3-4 years in the future? Perhaps they meant something else, like total government spending. But even if that is the case, how do they know what will be included in next years budget, let alone a budget 4 years from now? How can they take into account the sale of assets not yet determined, as well as their value.

H/T to Joanne, where I came across the link.