Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
I would suggest you look into the astounding amounts of waste that the PC's have introduced into Alberta. While they make many comittments, in reality most of their money somehow disappears into thin air.
It's time for a change and an evaluation of how to get a return on our investment instead of blindly trusting the government with record spending year after year.
|
If only it was that simple. The choice is between a party that spends too much and a party that won't detail where they'll cut. Even taking out the issues I have with conscience rights and socially conservative issues (which is enormous to me, btw) I can't see that this is the kind of change that I'm particularly interested in.
The other financial issue is that we're jumping from the frying pan into the fire. We move from a party spending too much to a party that not only wants to cut, but now that they smell electoral victory is already starting to throw around tax credits and cash years down the road. How is that fiscally conservative?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntenseFan
I'd like to briefly address how I see the infrastructure deficit that has come up so many times in this thread.
Is there an infrastructure deficit in Alberta for things like roads, schools hospitals, etc.? Yes.
How did this occur? A lot of people are convinced that it occured because of the Klein cuts in the mid-90s. While it's true that this caused the infrastructure deficit to manifest more quickly, it did not cause it. What caused it was likely a huge influx of population into Alberta since the 1970s, which continues on and off to this day (mostly on) and in particular the increase of that population in Alberta's urban areas;
What has exacerbated it significantly is Alberta governments spending completely beyond their means in an ultimately self defeating attempt to manage the influx of population, particularly in urban areas.
Any government dealing with a huge influx of population is going to end up running an infrastructure deficit. Is that good? Of course not. What's worse is a government spending totally beyond its means to try and deal with it. That might keep us ahead of the curve for a little while, but eventually when such deficit financing begins to crush the provincial budgets (like they did by the 90s and will again soon) the government of the day will be forced to either pay dangerous amounts to keep borrowing (unfeasible in the long term) or cut back on such spending (the Klein route).
I am one of those people who dosen't think Klein really had any choice. We couldn't continue to borrow and spend, borrow and spend until up to 50% of the provincial budget was being spent on interest.
Unfortunately, the cuts caused the already present infrastructure deficit to manifest more significantly than the borrow and spend approach. However, that approach was also ultimately doomed to fail in any event.
Long story short, there is an infrastructure deficit, but it is ultimately self defeating in the long term to spend beyond our means to attempt to control it. How then do you deal with it? That is an extremely hard question. In the end, you may have to deal with it as best you can, spend what you can afford and make good investments.
To my mind, we simply cannot be so shortsighted as to overspend to fight the infrastrucutre deficit when we know that only buys time and creates a more significant problem down the road. Particularly so in this Province, where we have a non-renewable source of energy funding a singificant amount of genera; revenue that is going to dry up one day.
This is why I am opposed to fighting the infrastructure deficit by borrowing. Unfortunately, I see the PCs as being the party that will continue to employ this strategy. Arguably they are the ones who caused it, thanks to the Getty days of huge deficits. There is every reason to believe, particulary based on their budget and their campaign promises thus far, that is the tactic they will take.
|
Well Klein didn't cause the issue, but he didn't help by making spending cuts when we were experiencing that growth. Kevin Taft wrote a book called "Shredding the Public Interest" which explained a lot of that (about a decade ago IIRC). Its fine to say the cuts didn't cause the problem, but they were far from helpful and that can't be denied.