GDT: The Alberta Election 2012 - The Morning After - PC Majority Government

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I rather like the portion going to the municipalities. As a one time cash injection it would allow them to finance something that people want but may not be able to afford. In the past, surpluses have been used in some part by the provincial government to fund these kinds of projects but I would much rather have those drafting the budget removed from the spending decisions of a surplus.
The city will know that the money is one time and has no strings so hopefully they don't use it to ramp up program spending.

Just like the Peace Bridge, right? It was funded entirely by a one-time grant from the provincial government, but how popular was that with WRP supporters?

I'm 100% for transferring more money to municipalities, but the unpredicable nature of provincial surplusses is not the best way to do it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am going to bring this up with the party and I think that First Lady alluded to it but I am not sure what the options were. The candidate was elected by the members of the local constituency association to represent the Wildrose in the upcoming election. Does the party then have the option to have his name removed from the ballot? What if the ballot is printed, can they ask elections Alberta to strike out his party affiliation on the ballot?
I am not trying to pick a fight or debate the actions, I am really just not sure what options the party had.

Those are all good questions. However, the least that Smith could have done is publicly condemned those comments as unacceptable for members of her party. That wouldn't even have been politically risky as I doubt that either Leech or Hunsberger were likely to be elected in their ridings anyway.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Just like the Peace Bridge, right? It was funded entirely by a one-time grant from the provincial government, but how popular was that with WRP supporters?

I'm 100% for transferring more money to municipalities, but the unpredicable nature of provincial surplusses is not the best way to do it.

I am a supporter and I like the bridge, but I no longer live in Calgary so my opinion may be irrelevant.
I personally like things like that where the government has spent a bit extra to make buildings/structures look good. It may contradict a bit with a pure fiscal conservative viewpoint but none of us are perfect.
AFAIK the bridge was going to happen anyway and it was still not going to be cheap. everyone fixated on the total cost when they should have been talking about the cost difference between building a standard concrete bridge and one that was designed by a world class architect.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am going to bring this up with the party and I think that First Lady alluded to it but I am not sure what the options were. The candidate was elected by the members of the local constituency association to represent the Wildrose in the upcoming election. Does the party then have the option to have his name removed from the ballot? What if the ballot is printed, can they ask elections Alberta to strike out his party affiliation on the ballot?
I am not trying to pick a fight or debate the actions, I am really just not sure what options the party had.

I don't know about internal WRP policies, but don't party leaders normally have the option to denounce a candidate or elected representative and remove them from caucus if they get too far out of line?

For a recent example, the federal Conservatives did this with Helena Guergis a few years ago.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Those are all good questions. However, the least that Smith could have done is publicly condemned those comments as unacceptable for members of her party. That wouldn't even have been politically risky as I doubt that either Leech or Hunsberger were likely to be elected in their ridings anyway.

I thought that as well, but my role with the party was to help get them in a position to contest the election. I was not privy to any of the election strategies or backroom discussions so I am unable to comment on their motivations.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think the only move Danielle could have made is asked both of them to withdraw from consideration. I don't know how you fire unelected party members. Perhaps she could have booted them from the party and forced them to run as independants, but I don't know if she's allowed to do that.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If the WRP gets rid of the irresponsible Dani-dollars, I'd be 100% behind this policy. IMO, there are only three fiscally-responsible ways to deal with a surplus:

1) Accelerate repayment of outstanding government debt
2) Invest in long-term savings (i.e. Heritage Fund)
3) Save the excess money in a good year to cover a budget shortfall in a bad year (i.e. Rainy Day fund)

I'd like to suggest a fourth...investing in infrastructure that broadens the economic base of the province...making it less volatile when resource prices swing

Basically, investing in science, technology, education, research etc.

Good paper here if interested

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I'd like to suggest a fourth...investing in infrastructure that broadens the economic base of the province...making it less volatile when resource prices swing

Basically, investing in science, technology, education, research etc.

Good paper here if interested

I agree completely that Alberta should be investing in economic diversification, but that should be a regular spending item that we properly budget for every year, not something that only receives funding when we have a surplus.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I'd like to suggest a fourth...investing in infrastructure that broadens the economic base of the province...making it less volatile when resource prices swing

Basically, investing in science, technology, education, research etc.

Good paper here if interested

In order to ramp up infrastructure during a surplus they would also have to ramp down infrastructure during a deficit. I don't mind one off projects that can be fully funded with minimal ongoing costs, but generally feel that if the infrastructure is that important then it should have been in the budget at the start of the year.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I'd like to suggest a fourth...investing in infrastructure that broadens the economic base of the province...making it less volatile when resource prices swing

Basically, investing in science, technology, education, research etc.

Good paper here if interested

I agree with some of that but not all of that.

4) Pissing away money on pet projects, currying favors with political friends and special causes.

Why can't we just make a commitment to education primary, secondary, and research and let the increased intelligence the province gains decide for itself the direction of a future economy. I'd rather we have a good educational system and saved money in the Heritage giving us a future budgetary advantage than having government sponsored economic diversity programs. A prosperous economic future isn't going to be blueprinted on the desk of a government bureaucrat.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think the only move Danielle could have made is asked both of them to withdraw from consideration.

I think that would have been a good move for her. She could stick by her libertarian roots, reenforce her belief that speech should be free and she's not going to muzzle them, but she also doesn't think they represent the party's best intentions. They are free to think and speak, but what they say may reveal them to not qualify as the kind of leader their communities want.

[photon]

On Danidollars, that's a socialist wealth redistribution thing to do (as I'm sure the # of dollars isn't related to how much taxes you paid, so low tax payers benefit disproportionately).

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by photon

On Danidollars, that's a socialist wealth redistribution thing to do (as I'm sure the # of dollars isn't related to how much taxes you paid, so low tax payers benefit disproportionately).

This is a really interesting issue and one that was discussed a bit in the campaign thread. Intuitively, the Danidollars feel totally regressive to me. Does anyone know of any good reading on this issue (articles, etc.)?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Reducing taxes doesn't help though if the revenue is the result of high resource prices. If you reduce taxes when there is a lot of money coming in you then have to raise taxes as the price drops. Using corporate taxes as an example an oil company would pay a lower tax rate when they were making more money and their tax rate would go up when their margins are shrinking.

You are assuming that the price of oil and natural gas, which is the primary resource revenue in Alberta, is going to drop significantly. Highly unlikely.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This is a really interesting issue and one that was discussed a bit in the campaign thread. Intuitively, the Danidollars feel totally regressive to me. Does anyone know of any good reading on this issue (articles, etc.)?

Wouldn't it be highly progressive? $300 is worth much more to a starving student with barely any income than an oil exec making $1M+ per year.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am going to bring this up with the party and I think that First Lady alluded to it but I am not sure what the options were. The candidate was elected by the members of the local constituency association to represent the Wildrose in the upcoming election. Does the party then have the option to have his name removed from the ballot? What if the ballot is printed, can they ask elections Alberta to strike out his party affiliation on the ballot?
I am not trying to pick a fight or debate the actions, I am really just not sure what options the party had.

Does the party not have the right to revoke ANYBODY'S membership? No membership means you can no longer represent the WRP.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Wouldn't it be highly progressive? $300 is worth much more to a starving student with barely any income than an oil exec making $1M+ per year.

Yes, but if it were truly progressive, it seems to me that the oil exec would recieve only $10 and the starving student (or elderly person or whoever) would recieve $590.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You are assuming that the price of oil and natural gas, which is the primary resource revenue in Alberta, is going to drop significantly. Highly unlikely.

But the problem with that approach is there's no way to guarentee prices won't drop. It most likely won't but if it does then what?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You are assuming that the price of oil and natural gas, which is the primary resource revenue in Alberta, is going to drop significantly. Highly unlikely.

I will admit that it is highly unlikely that natural gas will drop in the near future, but I thought the same when it was sitting at $3 and again at $4. If I keep on this path then I will be right eventually.

As for the future prices, if you know that oil revenues will stay the same or increase for the next 10 years than I think you are dreaming. It may happen but it can't be known and no government should base their budget assumption on predicting the future.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Yes, but if it were truly progressive, it seems to me that the oil exec would recieve only $10 and the starving student (or elderly person or whoever) would recieve $590.

Progressive taxation refers to the percentage. A person who makes $30000 would have a personal exemption of $17000 and would then pay $1300 a year in taxes, Getting a $300 check from the government would be the same as a tax break of 23% making their effective tax rate 3.3%. Someone making $100000 would pay $8300 in taxes and the dividend would result in a tax break of 4% and an effective tax rate of 8%. That seems pretty progressive to me.