[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Hilarious! I read the document and ACCORDING TO THE PC's it doesn't actually detail anything. Basically its a document that says "we can fix everything, not raise taxes and show a surplus." Oh OK.

I note that one major cut (from the emergency fund) is worth $400M alone. So while the Wildrose can balance the budget, its hardly impressive. You cut $400M here and suddenly the deficit that Redford announced is cut in half. Except that ACCORDING TO THE PC'S having $500M in an emergency fund is both prudent and necessary !

This ACCORDING TO THE PC'S shows all you need to know about the Wildrose not actually being anywhere near ready for government though. Their budget comes in at a growth of about 0.05% lower than what the Tories suggest...which is essentially nothing. But heres where you know they are grasping at straws: they compare spending per capita with other provinces and we all know that ACCORDING TO THE PC'S is completely meaningless. Its the old trick of using a statistic that might appear relevant that really isn't. So what if BC, Saskatchewan and Ontario spend less per capita than what you propose? I note that ACCORDING TO THE PC'S the Wildrose also intends to spend far more than the current government of Burkina Faso.

Some other gems:

- "implement zero based budgeting immediately and identify hundreds of millions through in-year savings". Uh, OK. I guess they will also "create efficiencies"? ACCORDING TO THE PC'S this won't work.

- a couple of charts that totally make a mockery of their arguements. The first is showing government royalty revenues, which were pounded in 2009-2010 and are better, but not as good in 2010-2011. Then the next chart shows the sustainability fund (for a rainy day) which peaked ahead of this enormous drop, and they project to continue dropping. First of all ACCORDING TO THE PC'S thats the point of the fund, right? Recession hits and you have this fund to help supplement reduced revenue. Secondly, nice work on the projections, despite the projections for increased revenue from your own chart.

- Figure 7 is really my favorite though. Remember how we had reletively severe cuts through the 1990s and ACCORDING TO THE PC'S we faced an infrastructure and service deficit as a result? Well the WRA has conveniently left off most of that in this chart. Instead they pick up at the tail end of reduced spending to try to demonstrate that the PC's have over spent through the 2000's on a per capita basis compared to the rest of Canada. Again, not only ACCORDING TO THE PC'S is the per capita number irrelevant, but its also misleading. Its misleading because ACCORDING TO THE PC'S the government absolutely had to invest in infrastructure and services following the severe cuts. We had a fast growing population and ACCORDING TO THE PC'S were already behind in these areas. Factor in explosive growth and ACCORDING TO THE PC'S spending had to be done, its just a shame that none had been done earlier in the cycle!

Overall, its a lot of fluff though. Most of the ideas that are actually relevant are the same as what Redford announced yesterday (hiring teachers, nurses and police officers being the largest similarities). Piggybacking things like cutting the communications and saving a whopping $7 million is really a complete who cares line item. $7 million out of a $40B budget? Wow, way to keep your eye on the ball.

FYP for those wondering where all the huge assumptions came from!