The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[GP_Matt]

What about those who think taxes are high but want to see more done with the same amount of money?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I may not like it, but if the economy stays on the upward track and the PCs find a solid leader they will be really hard to beat in the next election.

I have done some door knocking for campaigns and am pretty sure that when things are going well in Alberta most people simply do not care who the leader is unless they actively dislike their leader.

That said, my guess for replacement is Thomas Lukaszuk who comes off as capable but polarizing.

I'm not even sure that I would describe him as capable. He is definitely polarizing though, and I don't think he would stand a chance.

Originally Posted by darklord700

Agreed. That's why it is hard to dethrone PC for the last 40 years for AB had done fine economically for the most part. The introduction of PST will be the only PC death knell. Other than that, an immigrant from Nova Scotia who has no intention of staying in AB for the long term won't even care about high debt numbers, it was way higher back home anyway.

Voters' personal dislike of Redford is WR's only card of dethroning PC in 2 years. And that's why, funny as it may sound, WR must find a way to keep Redford in the premier's office over the next two years.

I actually think the best hope of the Wildrose is if a liberal party were to rise up and challenge somewhat on the left of the PCs. That is the easiest route for them anyway.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

I really don't understand the lower taxes argument by people in this province. We pay 10%. How much lower do people expect it go without SERIOUSLY impacting the things that in the next breath you bitch about?? Less taxes = fewer nurses, no highways, more debt, and simply passes the buck to the next generation to figure out (I'm 34). If anything this province needs higher taxes because with the O+G windfalls we still can't figure out how to balance a ####ing budget. Gross incompetence doesnt quite cut it.

Sure we bitch about Redford wasting tens of thousands and how government is inefficient. I hate it as much as the next guy, but I do believe it's small potatoes.

I can't stand the PC's in this province and don't know who to vote for. Maybe someone with an accounting degree that isn't a social right wing zealot.

Actually, the huge accumulation of debt is what really is passing the buck onto the next generation. Now not only will they have to pay taxes on what they want to provide for social services, they also have to pay for all the borrowed cash that people today wanted to spend but didn't want to pay for.

Last election was a stark contrast fiscally between keeping taxes flat and cutting spending for a balanced budget (Wildrose), raising taxes and raising spending for balanced budget (Liberal), and keeping taxes flat and raising spending for huge debt. I said at the time and still believe anyone who voted PC last election voted to take away some options of the next generation.

Unfortunately Alberta got exactly what we voted for.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Slava

I actually think the best hope of the Wildrose is if a liberal party were to rise up and challenge somewhat on the left of the PCs. That is the easiest route for them anyway.

Until the opposition brings out the Trudeau dog whistle.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Nenshi needs to save everyone from the crappy PCs and even crappier Wildrose and just run in 2016. Start a new party so you don't have to be tied into any of the tainted brands.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Actually, the huge accumulation of debt is what really is passing the buck onto the next generation. Now not only will they have to pay taxes on what they want to provide for social services, they also have to pay for all the borrowed cash that people today wanted to spend but didn't want to pay for.

Last election was a stark contrast fiscally between keeping taxes flat and cutting spending for a balanced budget (Wildrose), raising taxes and raising spending for balanced budget (Liberal), and keeping taxes flat and raising spending for huge debt. I said at the time and still believe anyone who voted PC last election voted to take away some options of the next generation.

Unfortunately Alberta got exactly what we voted for.

100% agree, I should have been more clear.

[MarchHare]

Last election was a stark contrast fiscally between keeping taxes flat and cutting spending for a balanced budget (Wildrose)

The problem I -- and many others -- had with the Wildrose platform is that it was full of unicorns and rainbows but very short on specifics. How, exactly, were they planning to balance the budget while keeping service quality consistent without raising taxes? Other than performing ritual sacrifices to the O&G gods in the hopes that royalties would magically increase back to ~2005 levels, their numbers just didn't add up...unless, of course, you bought into the grand lie that there's tens of billions to be found simply by "cutting waste" and "finding efficiencies".

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The problem I -- and many others -- had with the Wildrose platform is that it was full of unicorns and rainbows but very short on specifics. How, exactly, were they planning to balance the budget while keeping service quality consistent without raising taxes? Other than performing ritual sacrifices to the O&G gods in the hopes that royalties would magically increase back to ~2005 levels, their numbers just didn't add up...unless, of course, you bought into the grand lie that there's tens of billions to be found simply by "cutting waste" and "finding efficiencies".

Their platform certainly didn't have 'tens of billions' of dollars attributed to empty platitudes....there was plenty to criticize without making things up. And while I know you are constantly attacking the Wildrose party exclusively because of your personal bias, alleging that the other parties didn't make similar assumptions or promises in their own calculations is nothing but your own "unicorns and rainbows".

Bottom line, one more time: Wildrose promised to cut spending and maintain taxes to attempt to balance the budget, the Liberal Party promised to increase taxes and increase spending to balance budget, and the PC's promised to increase spending and maintain taxes to balance the budget.

And here we are, billions of dollars in debt, again.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Bottom line, one more time: Wildrose promised to cut spending and maintain taxes to attempt to balance the budget, the Liberal Party promised to increase taxes and increase spending to balance budget, and the PC's promised to increase spending and maintain taxes to balance the budget.

Yes, because as we all know, politicians and political parties always keep 100% of the promises they make to voters...

[MarchHare]

Their platform certainly didn't have 'tens of billions' of dollars attributed to empty platitudes

At the time of the 2012 election, Alberta's annual deficit was measured in the tens of billions. The Wildrose campaign stated that they would balance the budget without raising taxes; however, they did not provide any specific details on where exactly they would cut spending to make the numbers work out. So yes, their platform most certainly did have tens of billions of dollars attributed to empty platitudes.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

And while I know you are constantly attacking the Wildrose party exclusively because of your personal bias, alleging that the other parties didn't make similar assumptions or promises in their own calculations is nothing but your own "unicorns and rainbows".

Since when do I constantly attack the Wildrose Party? Do you have me confused with another poster? I barely ever comment about the WR party on this forum. In fact, this thread is the first time I recall even mentioning them since the provincial election two years ago.

And I certainly have never stated that the campaign platforms of the other provincial parties didn't also have issues, so I have no idea why you would attribute such a comment to me.

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The problem I -- and many others -- had with the Wildrose platform is that it was full of unicorns and rainbows but very short on specifics. How, exactly, were they planning to balance the budget while keeping service quality consistent without raising taxes? Other than performing ritual sacrifices to the O&G gods in the hopes that royalties would magically increase back to ~2005 levels, their numbers just didn't add up...unless, of course, you bought into the grand lie that there's tens of billions to be found simply by "cutting waste" and "finding efficiencies".

Maybe you weren't looking hard enough?

If they do it again for yesterday's budget, this will be the fifth year Wildrose has released a very thorough alternative budget explain how they would budget differently than the PCs. It goes well beyond the unicorn and rainbow level of discussion and deeper into specifics.

Here's a link to last year's: http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/media/2013/03/WebTry.pdf

While I don't agree with much of it, I wouldn't accuse them of lacking specifics either.

[Maccalus]

For Reference here is the Wildrose 2014 budget recommendations.

http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/wildr...commendations/

[automaton 3]

My wife, who generally pays scant attention to politics or politicians is furious with Redford over her "I'm a mother so the rules shouldn't apply to me" comment.

Would love to be a fly on the wall within the PC braintrust. Do they even attempt to rebuild public trust with Redford at the helm, or do they find a way to put her to pasture?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

Maybe you weren't looking hard enough?

If they do it again for yesterday's budget, this will be the fifth year Wildrose has released a very thorough alternative budget explain how they would budget differently than the PCs. It goes well beyond the unicorn and rainbow level of discussion and deeper into specifics.

Here's a link to last year's: http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/media/2013/03/WebTry.pdf

While I don't agree with much of it, I wouldn't accuse them of lacking specifics either.

Thanks for that link. I don't have time to read it thoroughly in its entirety at the moment (so apologies in advance if some of this is off-base), but from the executive summary, the Wildrose Party is estimating they could implement the following savings:

Recommendation: Revoke the 8% MLA pay raise and return to the
MLA salary that was in place after the 2012 election. Reduce cabinet
salary by 30%.
Savings: $1.5 million

Recommendation: Eliminate “Ministers without portfolio” and cut
ministries to 16.
Savings: $5 million

Recommendation: Cut 10% from the Legislative Assembly Office.
Savings: $7 million

Recommendation: Reduce the Public Affairs Bureau.
Savings: $10 million

Recommendation: Eliminate political patronage posts.
Savings: At least $2 million

Recommendation: Implement the Wildrose 10-Year
Debt-Free Capital Plan.
Savings: $1 billion (annually)

Recommendation: Postpone Federal Building add-ons.
Savings: $4 million

Recommendation: Cancel Family Care Clinics.
Savings: $145 million (over four years)

Recommendation: End grants to for-profit companies.
Savings: $230 million (based on 2011-2012 blue books)

Recommendation: Cancel AOSTRA 2.
Savings: $150 million (beginning 2014)

Recommendation: Eliminate Alberta Enterprise Corporation.
Savings: $99 million (one-time savings)

Recommendation: Reduce government promotional spending.
Savings: $20 million (one-time savings)

Recommendation: Hold line on front-line public sector salaries until
cash surplus established.
Savings: $140 million 2013, $420 million 2014, $700 million 2015

Recommendation: Defined contribution pension plans, not defined
benefit, for all new hires.
Savings: Ongoing

Recommendation: Limit all future severance agreements to a
maximum of $100,000 for 10 years of service.
Savings: Ongoing

Recommendation: Audit all departments and implement a zero-based
budgeting process that includes third party experts to review all
dollars spent.
Savings: $700 million - $1 billion

(3% reduction in remaining operating expenses after excluding salaries and capital.)
Recommendation: Establish a Wastebuster program.
Savings: Ongoing

Recommendation: Double the budget for the Auditor General and
establish focus on value-for-money audits.
Savings: Ongoing

Recommendation: Negotiate a better equalization deal.
Savings: Potentially billions in 2015

I won't comment on each of these items individually, but that last recommendation, "Negotiate a better equalization deal" is simply laughable. Are they so ill-informed that they don't even understand how the equalization program works? The Government of Alberta doesn't pay a cent for equalization; it's a federal program funded with federal tax dollars. Even if Harper's Conservatives completely eliminated the equalization program tomorrow, it wouldn't result in any savings at all for the provincial government. Or are they suggesting that under Wildrose leadership Alberta would somehow become a recipient of federal equalization dollars, thus increasing the province's revenue?

Assuming my quick "napkin math" summation of those 25 recommendations is correct, that's a total savings of $2.37B (that's generously using the upper bound whenever they give an estimate between two ranges). I'm even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they actually will realize their maximum estimate of $1B from "auditing all departments and implementing a zero-based budgeting process" -- a.k.a. the mythical "cut waste and find efficiencies" savings.

From that same document, they state that the provincial deficit is $8.3B, so even in a best-case scenario, their proposed saving measures still leave them ~$6B short of a balanced budget unless provincial revenues significantly increase through improving economic conditions and greater resource royalties.

[Flash Walken]

Is there any evidence that the cuts proposed by the Wild Rose are A) feasible and B) necessary?

For example, they cite as a major cost savings reducing the ratio of managers to works from 5/1 to 10/1. What is the evidence that this is a necessary or desired cost savings? What impact is this likely to have on service? If the impact on service is negative, are the cost savings on the service enough to trump the negative impact to services.

What impact is the reduction of half the provinces health managers on unemployment in the province? What is the cost in eliminating these positions in terms of buyouts, severance and pensions to the province. Is the savings enough to justify removing the positions and people in them?

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Thanks for that link. I don't have time to read it thoroughly in its entirety at the moment (so apologies in advance if some of this is off-base), but from the executive summary, the Wildrose Party is estimating they could implement the following savings:



I won't comment on each of these items individually, but that last recommendation, "Negotiate a better equalization deal" is simply laughable. Are they so ill-informed that they don't even understand how the equalization program works? The Government of Alberta doesn't pay a cent for equalization; it's a federal program funded with federal tax dollars. Even if Harper's Conservatives completely eliminated the equalization program tomorrow, it wouldn't result in any savings at all for the provincial government. Or are they suggesting that under Wildrose leadership Alberta would somehow become a recipient of federal equalization dollars, thus increasing the province's revenue?

I am not defending the vagueness of the budget, but every party has similar vague term budgets until they table a full and complete budget.

Regarding the better negotiated equalization deal. I believe what they were going for was to negotiate the federal transfers for programs such as health care move more towards a per capita funding situation. The federal conservatives made a change towards this in this year's budget, which will result in the province of Alberta receiving more money. I will agree, it is a horrible display communication.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

I am not defending the vagueness of the budget, but every party has similar vague term budgets until they table a full and complete budget.

Absolutely agreed. Please don't make the same mistake that crazy_eoj did and take my criticism of the WR platform as a tacit endorsement of any other party's proposals.

Regarding the better negotiated equalization deal. I believe what they were going for was to negotiate the federal transfers for programs such as health care move more towards a per capita funding situation. The federal conservatives made a change towards this in this year's budget, which will result in the province of Alberta receiving more money. I will agree, it is a horrible display communication.

That has nothing to do with equalization, though. There are several different transfer payment programs between Ottawa and the provinces. Equalization is one such program, from which Alberta does not currently receive any benefit (although we have in the past). So by saying that a hypothetical Wildrose government would negotiate a better equalization deal for Alberta, they're either being ignorant about what the program is and how it works, or they're being deliberately disingenuous in order to capitalize on fears of Eastern boogymen after Alberta's wealth.

The transfer payment you mentioned above is the Federal Health Transfer, a program in which every province -- including Alberta -- has always received funding.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That has nothing to do with equalization, though. There are several different transfer payment programs between Ottawa and the provinces. Equalization is one such program, from which Alberta does not currently receive any benefit (although we have in the past). So by saying that a hypothetical Wildrose government would negotiate a better equalization deal for Alberta, they're either being ignorant about what the program is and how it works, or they're being deliberately disingenuous in order to capitalize on fears of Eastern boogymen after Alberta's wealth.
.

I agree, and understand the equalization program. If I had to guess, the Wildrose were more the latter than the former of your options. Politics is a dirty game and played that way by all sides.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The transfer payment you mentioned above is the Federal Health Transfer, a program in which every province -- including Alberta -- has always received funding.

Yes, but until this federal budget Alberta, and several other provinces, received less per capita than certain other provinces. That is the only reason I brought that up.

[Jacks]

The part about negotiating a better equalization deal is just fluff added in to look good, It's just political window dressing. They haven't relied on that for their alternative budget though so it really doesn't make a difference.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

For Reference here is the Wildrose 2014 budget recommendations.

http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/wildr...commendations/

From looking at that list the Wildrose apparently can't balance the books either. I didn't pull out a calculator, but what are we at there...$2B? The biggest line item in terms of savings is $950M for the funding to cities and I'm not even sure ho feasible that would be to save at this point? Presumably some of that work has begun.

There is some of that list that is hard to argue with though. Cutting corporate welfare for example, almost surely something I want to see.