British Columbians should take some comfort in Finance Minister Kevin Falcon's declaration that the province will be able to deliver on its promise to balance its books in 2013-14.

The minister said this week that he is confident that the government can pull itself out of deficit next year despite the continuing uncertainty affecting global markets. A month ago, he expressed concern that reaching the target might not be possible.

Deficits are not good. Deficits reduce the government's ability to manoeuvre, and mean that we will be passing on our bills to our grandchildren. So Falcon's latest musing should be seen as good news; and a sign that we are possibly getting through the worst of it.

Before we crack open the champagne, however, a note of caution: The devil is in the details.

It's known as balancing a budget because that is, ultimately, what is involved. The government needs to balance the needs and the wants on one side against the harsh financial realities on the other.

When times are good, the government has the freedom to spend on a wide variety of programs, including some that, truth be told, are probably not worth funding. When times are bad, the programs and services are reduced to make up for the shortfall in revenue.

It's easier to run a government when the money is rolling in, because the politicians don't have to say "no" quite as often. That makes them happy, and it makes the people happy, too.

When the money supply starts to run dry, running the government is much, much more difficult. Tough decisions have to be made, and if cutting the obvious fat doesn't do the trick, the financial wizards have to make deep cuts, and those cuts can hurt.

Don't cut enough, and the deficit and the debt will soar. Cut too deeply, and the government's action can worsen the impact of the economic recession.

A government that is committed to balancing the budget no matter what the impact might be is not a good government, just as a government that does not pay down debt during the good times is not doing its job properly. We need a balanced, sensible approach, not wild swings between spending and slashing.

So, the questions that need to be asked: Does the newfound confidence in achieving a balanced budget reflect better revenue expectations and wise, careful trimming of expenses? Or is it possible because of deep cuts that we will all pay for - not necessarily right away, but someday?

No matter what happens in the next few months, we probably won't have answers for a year or so, when the full impact of the government's budget strategy plays out.

In the meantime, let's hope that government spending is being cut with care, and that government employees - not to mention all of the people who depend on the government for services - are not put under unnecessary duress.

Ultimately, of course, we don't want to pay any more taxes than we need to, and we don't want to see the government run a string of deficits. We also don't want to lose what the government does for us.

See? Again, it's all about balance.