[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

What facts would you like checked, Mr. Wizard?

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I would suggest you read the Wildrose budget submission. And you can see the spending problems clearly defined since Lougheed/Getty in detail here:
http://www.taxpayer.com/sites/default/files/downloadable/Roadmap%20to%20a%20Balanced%20Budget.pdf
Specifically: Ralph Klein was elected on the promise to tame the deficit and eliminate Alberta‟s debt, not by increasing taxes, but rather by making spending cuts. And cut he did. In fact, between 1993 and 1997 the Klein government cut 21.6 per cent in program spending. It‟s often suggested that Klein, “cut to the bone,” or implemented “slash and burn” policies. Rhetoric aside, where did Alberta stand in 1997 in comparison to other provinces?
At the depth of the spending cuts in 1996-97, Alberta was still, per capita, the sixth highest spending province in the nation at $4,568.

Big time thanks here. Cause the report says what I said. Deferring the cost to the future = deficit.

Following the deferral of maintenance on infrastructure during the 1990s as well as the
emergency deferral of $735 million in infrastructure projects in 2001, the Alberta
government has been attempting to catch-up. This catch-up has led to a considerable
increase in infrastructure spending in the past five years.

Also, all the numbers in there are total spending, nothing specific to infrastructure. Also, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation? Why not just use the Fraser Institute? Biased source is biased. They are as pro-WR as it gets (except for maybe Fraser)

Originally Posted by Knalus

So, in your mind, a town of a population of 300,000, and growing at 20%, spending $100 million a year, and a city of a population of 3,000,000, growing at 5%, spending $100 million a year, would you say the town is underspending? Because you are comparing the growth rates to the city? Cause that's what you are trying to say here about Alberta and Quebec.

Well just using the figure of $100 million makes it hard to determine. You need two years to compare to see the increase. If for instance $100 million for the town of 300,000 was previously $95 million before the 20% growth, it would be in a deficit (only a 5% increase in spending versus 20% growth). Conversely, if the town of 3,000,000 does the same ($95m to $100m), it is actually overspending (5.25% increase in spending versus growth of 5%). In this case the actually dollar figures are irrelevant, rather it is the % that is the key figure. Of course Calgary is always going to spend more on infrastructure than say Canmore. But Calgary could be in an infrastructure deficit and Canmore may not be.