May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Buster

Set up "checkstops" at the BC border and the Sask border. Delay everything that comes from BC or Quebec that isn't intended for Alberta.

Impractical? Of course.

But please do it.

I was thinking a $5000.00 per semi truck filled with Quebec goods hitting the Alberta border and $2000.00 per semi truck filled with BC goods hitting the Alberta border.

$50,000.00 for each train.

$1000.00 tourist tax for people that want to travel to BC or Sask.

I'm kidding of course, but that would probably fix our budget in a hurry and raise an impolite middle finger to those provinces that are doing the most damage.


If they don't want to pay it they can find another way to get their products to market.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by V

So I'm really bad at Google, can someone please point me in the direction of this runaway government spending on pensions here in Alberta? I just can't find it.

Kicking Alberta's Unfunded Pensions down the road.

One theory about politics is that because politicians must get votes to stay in power—that’s their “currency”— they are unlikely to act against their own self-interest. So politicians cater to the specific voters who put them in power in the first place.

Previously, reforms to government employee pensions were sold by Horner as absolutely critical, something he repeated recently when he backed off more substantial improvements. He even noted that public sector pension plans “are no longer sustainable in their current form.”

The result to date has been one of two consequences: the direct taxpayer infusions, such as the $1.2 billion top-up in 2009/10 for what’s known as “pre-1992” Alberta Teachers’ Pension Plan (and the government’s assumption of the full unfunded liability in that plan), and hikes in pension plan contribution rates. For instance, increases in Public Service Pension Plan employee/employer contributions took place in 2003, 2007, 2010, and 2012.

Even the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation, which runs its own pension plan, has moved away from using averages based on late career earnings to calculate pension benefits. Instead, for that union-run plan, as of 2015, eventual pension benefits will be calculated using career-average earnings.

By again kicking the existing unfunded pension liabilities down the road, the province has exposed taxpayers to future risks and more bailouts, obvious or hidden. The government has also demonstrated that the theory about political behaviour—politicians mostly act in their own short-term electoral interest and not in the long-term interest of the public—is regrettably true more often than not.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/arti....MdRRTw4Q.dpuf

Canadian governments — slowly, awkwardly and in the usual piecemeal manner — are gradually beginning to address the financial elephant in their shared room, the problem of unaffordable public pensions.

The Alberta proposal would freeze benefit increases until 2021; reduce the rate of cost-of-living increases and set “targets” instead of guarantees; cancel early retirement incentives and reduce benefits for those who retire early; and allow the government to escape automatic improvements during tough times.

Predictably, Alberta’s labour organizations are having a conniption. The unions representing provincial employees are so upset about the plan they scheduled a press conference to respond to the plan for Sunday, 24 hours before the details were even unveiled.

Alberta’s pension has unfunded liabilities of $7.4 billion which, while affordable now, won’t be as the ranks of retirees grows and people collect benefits over longer lives. The number of active workers to retirees has already shrunk dramatically, so fewer people are paying more money to support retirees over a longer period. There’s a limit to how often pension plans can boost payments by active workers or ask taxpayers to foot a larger government contribution, and the market struggles of the past decade demonstrated how uncertain investment growth can be.

It’s simply not sustainable, and union cries that it’s all unfair won’t change that.

Alberta isn’t alone in facing the music. In May, New Brunswick Premier David Alward announced a revamped plan that would increase the retirement age by five years over a 40-year period, base payments on an “enhanced career average” rather than the traditional best-years’ salary, and link cost-of-living increases to the plan’s performance.

“It is not fair or realistic to expect New Brunswick taxpayers to backstop huge swings in pension valuations because of the performance of pension plan investments,” Alward said at the time.

“Taxpayers who don’t have their own pensions are asked to pay more and more taxes for those who do,” he said.

Despite what the unions claim, it’s not a case of governments against their workers. It’s Canadian taxpayers who can no longer afford the bill for richer plans than most of them enjoy. The world has changed since those plans were approved. The numbers are compelling. Like it or not, politicians are being forced to admit as much.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...s-then-who-can

The minister said unfunded liabilities – now sitting at about $7.4-billion for four separate provincial public pension plans – cannot be borne by taxpayers, and the problem won’t be solved with increased contributions or periods of higher investment returns alone.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle16919469/

And then lo and behold, a mere two months after the NDP are elected:

Alberta government pension plans not in peril after all: union

Alberta public sector pension liabilities dropped by more than $400 million last year, prompting labour leaders to say that’s proof the planned changes to the funds by former premier Alison Redford were never necessary.

In the fall of 2013, Redford’s Progressive Conservative government claimed reforms were needed to address a $7.4-billion unfunded liability in Alberta’s four major public sector pension plans. It proposed to get rid of early retirement incentives and guaranteed cost-of-living increases.

Alberta Finance spokeswoman Carolyn Gregson said the liability for pension obligations for the government, combined with the liability for its commitment towards pre-1992 teachers’ pension obligations, dropped from $10.7 billion in 2014 to $10.3 billion in 2015 — an improvement of $404 million.

“Those unfunded liabilities will move up and down with the performance of the market,” he said. “Investments were strong this year, but they are not strong every year. It could down again next year or it could go back up again.”

PC Leader Ric McIver said a pension plan requires “a whole string of good years — not just one,” and he urged the new NDP government to come up with a plan to address the unfunded liability in its pension plans.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...fter-all-union

It cannot keep on going as it is. The status quo is economically untenable.

[Locke]

And I hate to ram this down people's throats, but some of those articles that are older list the unfunded pension liability that is a catastrophe at $7.4 Billion while the more recent article that points out the excellence of that pension fund's progress has managed to bring it down from $10.7 Billion to $10.3.

So it was a catastrophe at $7.4B, but $404 million in earnings that one time has saved its viability by managing to bring it down to a much more manageable $10.3 Billion.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

According to this - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bmT5J7CBmN...al%2BPolls.PNG

the NDP is still polling at about 30% and trailing what I assume is Wildrose by a slight bit. From reading this thread you'd think they'd be at 5%.

I think this is the full poll that was used in that graph.

http://thinkhq.ca/wp-content/uploads...HR-Release.pdf

I haven't heard of many other public polls that been released or shared since the end of November. I've heard of a bunch of internal polls showing different results.

Anyways, the results are:

33% - WRP
29% - NDP
25% - PC
8% - Libs
3% - ABP

With 18% undecided.

So with undecided factored in it'd look like:

27% - WRP
24% - NDP
20% - PC
18% - Undecided.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

$1000.00 tourist tax for people that want to travel to BC or Sask.

$1000 for Saskatchewan seems cruel. Isn't going to Saskatchewan punishment enough?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Good lord, the bellyaching in this thread.

I find it kind of puzzling when right-wing capitalists bitch about the selfishness of others.

[nik-]

Easy to be a zealot when you don't even live in the province haha.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

Easy to be a zealot when you don't even live in the province haha.

It's also easy to not be concerned with the environment when you don't live in the province that is expected to open it's shores to more oil tankers, in order to serve the interests of its neighbouring province.

[nik-]

Fair enough, we can go east along existing pipeline routes.

[rubecube]

To be honest, I haven't heard the same concerns with the Atlantic coastline as I have with the Pacific, so I'm all for it if it's an easier route.

[nik-]

It's not easier, it's just there.

I'm just bored of the cheerleading from people that have no stake in this. It's pretty easy to totally support a government that has been pretty damn poor to this point when whether it succeeds or fails affects your life in zero ways.

The tragic part of this is this crap government is going to cause this province to swing into the hands of the WRP next election and it's a ####ing shame.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's not easier, it's just there.

I'm just bored of the cheerleading from people that have no stake in this. It's pretty easy to totally support a government that has been pretty damn poor to this point when whether it succeeds or fails affects your life in zero ways.

Meh, the St. Lawrence is a lot easier to navigate than the ####show in Kitimat. And I don't particularly support anyone because, as you say, I have no stake in it. I just enjoy the debate.

[Fuzz]

The St Lawrence already has tanker traffic. This should be a non-issue. Where do you think all their oil comes from? It comes up the St Lawrence in tankers.

[2Stonedbirds]

http://www.tabertimes.com/agricultur...y-from-office/

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

http://www.tabertimes.com/agricultur...y-from-office/

From the article,

What I have said is if Madame Premier refuses to let the Lieutenant Governor represent our interests and order the holding of those two plebiscites, we on the steps of the legislature on Feb. 9, we will begin the process which will see her removed from the office of the premiership. They are all wondering what George has up his sleeve. Come with your friends and family, bring your kids, because it’s going to be a great moment in Canadian history…I shared my information with a couple of lawyers and not a single one of them has broke confidence. They have assured me, what I have planned is fully legal, fully democratic, it’s fully peaceful and it will result in the removal of Rachel Notley from office. Alberta is about to show the world how to properly exercise our democratic rights to control the leaders who attempt to control us.”

Sounds ominous.

[Fuzz]

The Alberta Election Act allows for cabinet to ask the Lieutenant Governor to call for a plebiscite if they believe there is a significant public sentiment for it. The plebiscite would not be binding on the government.

So first he has to convince the NDP cabinet to bring forward this plebiscite to remove Notely from office? Uh ya, good luck with that.

“The plebiscites we are doing are very much legal. If the government refuses to run those plebiscites and then abide by the will of the majority of the citizens because Notley does not have the support of the majority of Albertans, she only has the support of the majority of the legislature. Close to 60 per cent of the population did not vote for her,

Uhm, that's how it works. Have you been paying attention in history class? Most of our governments have around 40% of the people vote for them.

and now she is proposing legislation that was not announced and publicized and run on to win those seats, so in my mind she is both an accidental leader of government and she is also at this point, proposing legislation that she did not publicly disclose. Without disclosure, she is an affront to democracy,” said Clark. “What we are doing with these plebiscites, is we are going to school her on democracy. She is already ignoring Westminster parliamentary tradition and democratic ideals and that cannot be allowed to stand.”

HA! Welcome to every government ever. Somebody get my my fainting couch, a government isn't doing what they promised!

This could be humorous to watch, though I'm not sure any decent news organization would even bother covering it. So expect to read about it in the Sun, probably in an "article" by Rick Bell.

[2Stonedbirds]

LOL Yeah, lots of skulldaggery and super top secret mumbo jumbo I agree.

Guess we will watch the hammer fall on February 9th.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The St Lawrence already has tanker traffic. This should be a non-issue. Where do you think all their oil comes from? It comes up the St Lawrence in tankers.

That's kind of my point. Seems like the St. Lawrence is perfect for tanker traffic. Kitimat and the Burrard inlet? Not so much.

[Kavvy]

I feel bad for Greg Clark of the AB Party .... shares the same name

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's kind of my point. Seems like the St. Lawrence is perfect for tanker traffic. Kitimat and the Burrard inlet? Not so much.

There have been tankers in Burrard Inlet for 50+ years. Not to mention the massive coal carriers that have been exporting climate change to Asia for much longer than that.