The Wildrose as fiscally conservative is even mind boggling to me. As far as I've seen nothing has been costed, which is just one issue.
More importantly though the whole thing is predicated on saving $2 Billion from carbon capture, which is fine enough. The problem is that its not actually $2 Billion anymore. Nearly half has been spent and who knows how much more it would cost in terms of lawsuits and other business issues that could arise?
Then we get to the all important issue of taxation. How can you claim to be fiscal conservatives when the plan calls for using nearly all of the one-time resource funds we get at this point to keep taxes low for the short-term only? Its pure ideology and has less to do with fiscal conservatism and more to do with saying "we have low taxes". Frankly it strikes me as intellectually dishonest; they know its not really accurate, but don't want to say it until after they're in office.
|