Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
Perhaps you can outline exactly what you mean by 'moderate' spending cuts?
Everything I have read regarding Mintz would suggest he believes running deficits is wrong, that he doesn't support increasing tax revenues, and he doesn't support wasting royalty revenues on program spending.
Thus, it seems he would support reductions in spending in the neighborhood of 10-12 billion dollars annually.
It's almost as if he wrote the Wild Rose fiscal platform. Moderate spending cuts, no deficits, and saving for the future.
|
What is the Wildrose fiscal platform exactly? I've read basically everything they've put out and I don't think that I could tell. Danielle Smith was on QR 77 yesterday talking about how regressive consumption taxes are as well...so apparently there is a rather significant issue right there.
I can't define moderate for you, sorry we won't be able to argue semantics (one of my least favorite things to do!). I can say without question that "moderate" wouldn't be 25-30% of a budget though, at least in my world.
I have to say that if you think that magnitude of cut is moderate than I'm terrified at what you would consider to be deep cuts!
The thing is that most people, just talking average people here, agree that we should have some areas where spending can and should be reduced. When I went through the budget exercise on the website I found what I would consider to be a lot of areas to cut where the government shouldn't be involved (in my personal opinion). I just think that along with cuts there has to be a change to the structure of the revenues in this province so that it is more stable.
I can see how in the opinion of the Wildrose that makes me a demon who doesn't agree that the budget can be fixed with cuts alone. I also think that the Wildrose is opposing a consumption tax based solely on the political view as opposed to what actually makes sense for the province. I get that it has the word tax in it and that sounds bad! I just think that for real "fiscal conservatives" they should climb on board with the idea and try to "conserve" some of the non-renewable resource revenue for our future.