Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_Matt
I am not saying it has merit because it is in writing, just impressed that they took the time to put their ideas down instead of standing up and saying we can do better (I am thinking of the federal liberals here)
As someone who sells mutual funds you should know that an additional 3% per year compounds quickly.
If the PC's had stuck to population growth plus inflation as their budget limit every year from 2003 on we would spend 7 billion less this year and would have had a surplus each of the last three years.
|
Thanks, I do know about compounding. We've seen the effects of compounding cuts to education going back many years here. In fact you can have a look at the state of some of the schools in the province to see that first hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
Are we looking at the same document?
It clearly states that there would be an increase to education and health care funding.
|
We're looking at the same document. The PC budget alloted approx. $500M more than what the Wildrose would've offered...so I call that a cut. You could call it "not enough of a raise" annd I guess that would be as accurate.
The thing is with these cuts that we have a growing province as well. So what seems minor really has more of an impact. I know that the school system is already having difficulty meeting class size targets...how does less money do anything to alleviate this? Its really just an easy solution to the budget, but not the best solution for the province.