Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
False dichotomy. Adding funding in one area does not necessarily mean removing it from another. One hypothetical example, though relevant really to Alberta only, would be a sudden windfall from a rapid escalation in natural gas prices. Under such a scenario, the government could lend funding to such projects without the need to either cut somewhere else or deficit spend.
Of course, I expect your response will be "but they could instead spend that windfall in other areas, such as those that I like, therefore you are still taking money away from those groups." To which I respond, "That money was not allocated, they have no inherent right to it."
Ultimately, the views you are expressing here are actually a parallel of the current CBA dispute. Which is interesting, if nothing else.
|
Though I can see the logic in the idea, commodity prices are far to volatile to budget something like this around. If you're planning on funding a project like this on gas revenues alone without cutting any programs it could sink a government if the money didn't come through.
Look no further then the provinces inability to get unions signed long term at fixed amounts or last minute cancellations of numerous infrastructure projects over the last decade when there's suddenly no funding.
Its a slippery slope that tax dollars should not be involved imo. Even if there was a commodity windfall its going to be a short term thing and should be spread to public sector areas of need, not the private sector.