It is usually a bad fit, this idea of government and business getting together on corporate planning and financial strategies for each other.

I'm not talking about government providing some funding or assistance for a company that is growing and investing in local jobs and development. That can be effective economic strategy if done properly.

No, it is the dabbling in business by government that is the larger concern. The examples are in the "Bad Ideas" Hall of Fame: the infamous cucumber greenhouse in Newfoundland; the subsidies to Bombardier that have stretched into billions of dollars even as they sell chunks of their business and don't deliver subway cars to Toronto on time; the purchase of oil pipelines by the Alberta and Canadian governments; and, sadly, so many more.

Business and governments have fundamentally different aims and objectives. Corporations want to grow, provide a healthy return to shareholders, fight for market share, and in the best cases, establish long-term goals, innovate, and take considered risks to achieve corporate success.

Governments want to see happy poll numbers and get re-elected. They think short-term. They are not good at taking responsibility.

The federal budget that came down on Thursday had a lot of big spending plans. Municipalities will welcome large investments in housing, for example. The allocation for defense and our armed forces seems to many to be inadequate, particularly considering the world's situation right now, and because of Canada's chronic underfunding of our military. We are near the bottom of the list of our NATO allies.

Senior bank executives in Canada in the days leading up to the budget had been calling for a much more focused approach to Canada's competitiveness issues—the inadequate investments in R&D, the bulging federal deficits, and the lack of an aggressive national economic strategy. There will be disappointment on Bay Street at the response from the Finance Minister.

This is where Cabinet and Corporate separate; their objectives just don't usually coincide. That is a problem for Canada's future wealth generation and economic growth.

Municipal governments across the country are always in an awkward position at budget times. They must be seen to be grateful for whatever dollars they may receive, however modest, or risk being sent to the penalty box.

At the same time, however, rarely do federal and provincial/territorial budgets meet the needs of local communities. One issue is timing—local governments operate on a calendar year, the feds on an April 1 fiscal. Second is when the feds desperately plunge into a stimulus program, they often demand 'shovel ready projects', which of course few municipalities have sitting on some golden shelf waiting for federal largesse. Third is that the senior governments insist on dabbling and delays—they won't get out of the way and let local governments do what they do best: improve their local community.

We need big projects to push Canada forward, not gazebos in back yards.

The investment community and the business sector are increasingly looking for smart, highly focused federal spending that achieves important economic goals.

Governments are looking for public acclaim and votes.

That is the great divide our country faces each budget day.

Many observers feel Canada's agenda has become too focused on social spending, and not enough on business and commerce. Those are choices a government has the right to make; they will be held accountable at election time. That is how the system works.

In the meantime, municipalities are poring through the fine print of the budget, looking for bits of money that they can use to help expand and improve their own towns and cities. That may be a fretful and disappointing task.