Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear
I respectfully disagree...Alberta has been using natural resource royalties to fund Government operations for decades INSTEAD OF FILLING UP THE HERITAGE FUND...
|
Fortunately, we do not have Putin-, Gaddafi- or Arafat-like rulers, who blatantly steal money from their own people to enrich themselves. Alberta (and Canada, in general) are still governed in a reasonably law-abiding, democratic manner. While government corruption does exist on a favour and political quid-pro-quo basis, it is mostly ideological and not prevalent. "Funding Government operations" to quote from your post is an undeserved accusation. Over the past 50 years or so, Alberta Governments funded its operations for perceived people's benefit within the belief system and ideology of the ruling parties. Klein died a poor man.
I blame all Alberta governments for only one thing: not investing heavily in diversifying energy industry as much as possible, when times were plenty. Even now, instead of investing in petrochemical processing to manufacture stuff here or into processing exhaust fumes to make oil/gas burn cleaner, they make those inspired faces and talk out of their asses about making Alberta a Canadian Silicon Valley. Sometimes, I honestly think that often the dumbest choose to go into politics, because they cannot make living doing anything else.
Heritage Fund was intended as a piggy bank for rainy days. But saving more means spending less on public needs. All governments prior to Notley's have been accused by the public of spending not enough. This political dilemma is never simple or easy to solve without sacrifices and iterations of balancing.
Economically, the route to prosperity goes through balancing. First, you balance the house: reduce spending of the public dollars to match the current tax revenues at both provincial and municipal levels. Second, you reduce public spending even further to allow for debt repayment within a reasonable timeframe. Third, you give it some time to see which areas of public service start suffering quality issues caused by spending reductions (it should not be a direct correlation). And only then, you offer people a choice to get more/better services in exchange for more taxes.
P.S. F...k Norway, by the way.