April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[MarchHare]

I know lots of families (and single people) if I were to ask them; would you rather have $300 extra bucks or a bigger roadway.... they would pick the money hands down.

My apologies if I'm belaboring this point after both corporatejay and MMM already addressed it, but we expect our governments to make difficult and smart decisions that hopefully have a long-term benefit even if it's not the most popular thing to do. Our brains are wired to overly value short-term immediate benefit, so I have no doubt many people would choose a $300 personal cheque over a $1B deposit into the Heritage Fund (or another use of that money that doesn't provide an immediate reward), but that doesn't mean it's the best use of our province's funds.

[Lionel Steel]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Again... this is the plan for surpluses... over and above the already balanced budget, which includes all these things.

Still looks like a vote-buying scheme to me, whether or not it will be saved for surplus years. I think we can easily find better ways to spend, or save, that money.

[Jacks]

I guess you have to look at it from all sides, $300 may not mean a lot to most posters on herre but I suppose a family of 4 could use the $1200 to make a mortgage payment or more. I'd personally rather that we built up the Heritage Fund so that it can benefit us in the future when our economy changes. Then again, I don't really need the $300.

[Daradon]

As many people have mentioned, the rebates are great for people of low income. They can make a difference.

I'm just wondering what makes the WRA so sure it's going to have surpluses? Oil is a decent price now and we have a deficit. Sure something can be cut or streamlined, but they are also talking about improving and spending in other areas. Especially reading their platform on things like education. Some of their ideas are really good, but I don't think they have a clue on what they would cost. And all that while maintaining or cutting taxes. At least when the left talks about spending on things they are honest that there will have to be some tax increases somewhere. (Usually business in Alberta)

They are definitely suffering from 'magic wand' delusions. But I won't be too upset if they do win, might as well shake things up. Maybe we can go Liberal, or NDP the four years after that! Haha.

[GP_Matt]

I think that people are missing the point a bit.
The way I read the platform is that the money will allow all Albertans to benefit from those years when surging commodity prices bring in surpluses. It can't be done as something like a tax break for one segment of the population because it won't occur every year. Past governments have gotten into trouble when they committed one time surpluses to ongoing projects. By running a balanced budget through normal times they have created a system that allows for the spending of unpredictable surges in revenue. I think it is actually a pretty great system as it still allows for saving and one time projects (at the municipal level) and also gives something back directly. In the end, I think the best evidence that it is a great program is that all of the debate seems to be around the allocation of the funds rather than the method of separating out surpluses from the standard budget. Arguing that a bigger percentage should go to this or that area is great and maybe they didn't get the percentages perfect but the idea itself I think is perfect.

Governments have had problems at all levels when they received surpluses because they have no plan for them in advance. It makes it much harder to say no when people come cap in hand to have their pet projects funded. Going forward there won't be a surplus to spend because any extra will be allocated in advance. Ignoring of course that the municipalities will have extra money to commit to their pet projects, but I prefer to having those things done locally.

I don't know how they plan to allocate the municipal money, but if they do it by population than the same $300 individual cheque would result in a corresponding $150 cheque to Calgary.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I guess you have to look at it from all sides, $300 may not mean a lot to most posters on herre but I suppose a family of 4 could use the $1200 to make a mortgage payment or more. I'd personally rather that we built up the Heritage Fund so that it can benefit us in the future when our economy changes. Then again, I don't really need the $300.

According to their plan the $300 per person would also include $750 per person into the Heritage Fund for the long term future and a further $300 per person into something like the sustainability fund for the medium term future. It isn't an either or decision.

[crazy_eoj]

I agree, the government should only spend resource revenue surplus' on things people REALLY NEED.

Like a 2 billion dollar carbon capture program.

Or a 2 billion dollar pension payout to teachers.

Or starting more committee's that meet once or less per year.

Or a raise for the Premier!

Those are things all Albertans need much more than a paltry $300.

[Flickered Flame]

The Tories put forth their biggest announcement of the election campaign so far:

In one of their biggest announcement of the election campaign, the Progressive Conservatives said Wednesday they will spend $2.4 billion to build 50 new schools and renovate 70 more, if the party is re-elected on April 23

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Torie...447/story.html

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I agree, the government should only spend resource revenue surplus' on things people REALLY NEED.

Like a 2 billion dollar carbon capture program.

Or a 2 billion dollar pension payout to teachers.

Or starting more committee's that meet once or less per year.

Or a raise for the Premier!

Those are things all Albertans need much more than a paltry $300.

That carbon capture program is interesting though....oil and gas producers are seeing more and more scrutiny globally so these types of investments signal to industry that Alberta is a favourable place to do that business. We have to address these things so that our "dirty oil" (their words, not mine) is easily saleable.

As for the pension payout, how would you handle that? You can't just tell people that worked for decades "remember that pension you were planning on living on? We just decided not to fund it and instead we're giving away prosperity bonuses."

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

My apologies if I'm belaboring this point after both corporatejay and MMM already addressed it, but we expect our governments to make difficult and smart decisions that hopefully have a long-term benefit even if it's not the most popular thing to do. Our brains are wired to overly value short-term immediate benefit, so I have no doubt many people would choose a $300 personal cheque over a $1B deposit into the Heritage Fund (or another use of that money that doesn't provide an immediate reward), but that doesn't mean it's the best use of our province's funds.

Sorry, I don't agree with your basic point about governments spending money responsibly, the historical record shows that private enterprise is better at it. I suggest you open the newspaper and refer to the current OG audit of the F-35 program among other things. The fact is that without close auditing and policing governments and government employees act as self interested private individuals even though they are supposed be operating for the "public good".

In the case of the $300, its really just a non-progressive tax rebate. Even a worst case scenario like buying a pack of cigarettes or booze you are putting more money back into the local economy that supports small businesses in the area. Any tax lowering or rebate is effectively a return of power and assets to the individual and unless you are in government or directly supported by it, its a good thing.

Fundamentally, there is no basis for the belief in responsible government spending and "them" knowing whats best for you. It is no more reasonable then believing in a religion or any other mass movement. Perhaps even less so.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Even a worst case scenario like buying a pack of cigarettes or booze you are putting more money back into the local economy that supports small businesses in the area.

Fundamentally, there is no basis for the belief in responsible government spending and "them" knowing whats best for you. It is no more reasonable then believing in a religion or any other mass movement. Perhaps even less so.

What if I just deposit that money into a savings account, still think that buying cigarettes/booze is the worst case scenario?

I just disagree with the second statement that I've left here. Just because some other government has pursued questionable policies doesn't mean that we should be willing accept this from our soon to be newly elected government and it certainly shouldn't justify spending decisions of this magnitude.

[kn]

It was just a matter of time before 'conscience rights' became the story. If I was the PCs, I'd hammer on this and try and scare everyone into thinking the WRP has a 'hidden agenda':
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/po...686/story.html

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

That carbon capture program is interesting though....oil and gas producers are seeing more and more scrutiny globally so these types of investments signal to industry that Alberta is a favourable place to do that business. We have to address these things so that our "dirty oil" (their words, not mine) is easily saleable.

Is it really any more interesting than an Ipad? This is another program with no clear benefit, and no accountability. The 'signal' you speak of is entirely arbitrary. And the oil is easily saleable, even moreso with a westbound pipeline. How about a 2 billion dollar fund to push through the gateway pipeline?

Furthermore It's simply duplication of research dollars already being done by major industry. If they wanted to do something they should provide a tax break for oil and gas R&D. But we all know the screaming and crying that would result from that.

As for the pension payout, how would you handle that? You can't just tell people that worked for decades "remember that pension you were planning on living on? We just decided not to fund it and instead we're giving away prosperity bonuses."

Well the pension payout I was referring to was paying off the portion of the unfunded liability that the teachers union already had agreed to pay. The government simply traded 2 billion of our dollars in order to keep teachers quiet during the last election.

So yes, telling people to pay the portion of their unfunded liability they already agreed to pay instead of pandering to union interests would be a good idea.

The Government is always more wasteful that a private individual. That's why we've spent over 180 billion dollars of resource revenue and had very little return on that investment.

[Jacks]

Good luck with the hidden agenda card. That may work in Quebec and to a lesser extent Ontario but I think most people out here will roll their eyes if they even hear the phrase.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by kn

It was just a matter of time before 'conscience rights' became the story. If I was the PCs, I'd hammer on this and try and scare everyone into thinking the WRP has a 'hidden agenda':
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/po...686/story.html

That is how the Wildrose will balance their budget. If you can deny health services to the 60% of the Alberta population that is either obese or overweight you instantly reduce government spending by the 25% that most want to see it reduced by.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Good luck with the hidden agenda card. That may work in Quebec and to a lesser extent Ontario but I think most people out here will roll their eyes if they even hear the phrase.

Well in fairness to Danielle, it is not hidden it is right out in the open. Doctors will not have to treat fat people based on the fact that it violates their conscience rights, huge savings for the provincial coffers.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by kn

It was just a matter of time before 'conscience rights' became the story. If I was the PCs, I'd hammer on this and try and scare everyone into thinking the WRP has a 'hidden agenda':
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/po...686/story.html

I wouldn't accuse them of a hidden agenda. Its right there in the policy.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Is it really any more interesting than an Ipad? This is another program with no clear benefit, and no accountability. The 'signal' you speak of is entirely arbitrary. And the oil is easily saleable, even moreso with a westbound pipeline. How about a 2 billion dollar fund to push through the gateway pipeline?

Furthermore It's simply duplication of research dollars already being done by major industry. If they wanted to do something they should provide a tax break for oil and gas R&D. But we all know the screaming and crying that would result from that.



Well the pension payout I was referring to was paying off the portion of the unfunded liability that the teachers union already had agreed to pay. The government simply traded 2 billion of our dollars in order to keep teachers quiet during the last election.

So yes, telling people to pay the portion of their unfunded liability they already agreed to pay instead of pandering to union interests would be a good idea.

The Government is always more wasteful that a private individual. That's why we've spent over 180 billion dollars of resource revenue and had very little return on that investment.

The thing is with the carbon issues that we aren't trying to convince ourselves! Of course in Alberta we largely have no issue with this, but around the world that isn't the case. Will the funds double-up? I don't know, quite honestly. The $2 billion also sounds good, but about $800M of that has been spent, so while the Wildrose would have you believe that you can save that amount you just can't.

I do get a little laugh when people say with a straight face how impeccable their spending habits are and then how bad the government is. I'm not using the "popcorn and beer" line here either, but just take a spin through any of the reports saying how prepared people feel for retirement, how many contribute to RRSPs and that sort of thing. Have a look at how many people will retire with debts these days. The financial reality is far different than how you paint it when it comes to that sort of thing. Does that mean people waste their money? I wouldn't accuse them of that. It would just appear that there might be a better use for some of their funds than the latest widget or a night on the town at times.

[Slava]

Here are some of the biggest names in the Wildrose camp. If the polls are to be believed then someone has to be in cabinet...maybe these folks would be leading contenders?

http://daveberta.ca/2012/04/danielle...se-candidates/

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flickered Flame

The Tories put forth their biggest announcement of the election campaign so far:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Torie...447/story.html

Except for Airdrie, since the education minister was upset that Rob Anderson was doing his job.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

Here are some of the biggest names in the Wildrose camp. If the polls are to be believed then someone has to be in cabinet...maybe these folks would be leading contenders?

http://daveberta.ca/2012/04/danielle...se-candidates/

I will try to post a proper response tomorrow when I have some time but this one jumped out at me. The article is attacking a few WRA candidates and I am not sure what the argument is against Allan Hunsperger. Are they trying to imply that he is Christian and therefore evil?

- Edmonton-South West candidate Allan Hunsperger is the self-described pioneer in the establishment of Alberta’s private schools in the late seventies and founder of Heritage Christian Schools.