I think there is no substitute for having a target on the bottom line. I would like to see that be zero when it comes to the amount borrowed, and that means, practically speaking, having a small surplus. My two main reasons for that are, first, that the debt-to-GDP ratio has not proved to be a very serious constraint and, second, that when you have a particular target on the bottom line, such as zero, every dollar of spending needs to be justified in terms of the dollar that you don't spend somewhere else or the dollar of revenue that you will raise to pay for it. At the moment, we're operating in a bit of a spirit of money appearing to be free. Because of the conversation on housing, I'll just say I'd be wary of any program that relies on decades of big federal government subsidies, because I think the money is going to dry up at some point and that pinch is going to be less serious the sooner we get on with getting the budget back to balance and the debt under control.
On March 21st, 2022. See this statement in context.