April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Jacks

She should lay off that stuff, when I heard it on the radio this morning I thought it was pretty nasty. Doesn't matter if that was only a small portion of a larger quote, the media will only report the sound bite.

There is plenty to attack the PC Party about, no need to start character assassinations.

Yeah, I admit her response on its own without benefit of Redford quote that triggered it, does sound abrupt. We've heard from a lot of people present during the Redford comments and they were offended.

Here is Redford audio: http://soundcloud.com/teamwildrose/r...-to-change-the

Bleah, I probably would have let it ride... but I'm not running. (thankfully)

Originally Posted by Jacks

Good job getting Tom Flanagan on board, I always liked him.

Him and Cliff Fryers make a good team.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Really? A left-wing talking point that there is an infrastructure deficit? Pretty clearly we can't have an adult conversation about these things because you can't even see where the problems are. I don't know where you live, but just drive around Calgary during rush hour. Or maybe have a a walk through some of the schools or hospitals in the your area. You don't have to go far at all to see where aging infrastructure needs repair/replacement or to be built in the first place.

If that desrire for effective public infrastucture makes me a left-winger in your eyes, so be it. I would just note that effective infrastructure makes Alberta a place where business can operate more effectively and efficiently.

Typical left wing response is to call names, claim superiority, and then shut off debate. Way to fit the mold.

The facts are clear. Alberta has far outspent all provinces on Capital Spending since 1997, including basically doubling the amount the average province spends over the past decade.

And what do we have to show for this? The best road networks in Canada? The best schools? Hospitals?

Not really. Most of what we have seen is a reflection of our bloated public sector. Wasteful spending. Lost efficiency. And a lack of deliverability to the front line. When you get a blank cheque the money seems to dissapear... and it's never enough.

So as much as you may want to pretend that lack of funding is an issue, it clearly is not. Alberta overfunds most things, and the 'spend till it's gone' mantra advocated by the PC, Liberal and NDP parties is NOT working for Alberta.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Typical left wing response is to call names, claim superiority, and then shut off debate. Way to fit the mold.

The facts are clear. Alberta has far outspent all provinces on Capital Spending since 1997, including basically doubling the amount the average province spends over the past decade.

And what do we have to show for this? The best road networks in Canada? The best schools? Hospitals?

Not really. Most of what we have seen is a reflection of our bloated public sector. Wasteful spending. Lost efficiency. And a lack of deliverability to the front line. When you get a blank cheque the money seems to dissapear... and it's never enough.

So as much as you may want to pretend that lack of funding is an issue, it clearly is not. Alberta overfunds most things, and the 'spend till it's gone' mantra advocated by the PC, Liberal and NDP parties is NOT working for Alberta.

Yeah, it's pretty brutal how much spending is required after the fact to make up for Klein's spending cuts.

[darklord700]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

A very good reason why I'm a right wing supporter.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Yeah, I admit her response on its own without benefit of Redford quote that triggered it, does sound abrupt. We've heard from a lot of people present during the Redford comments and they were offended.

Here is Redford audio: http://soundcloud.com/teamwildrose/r...-to-change-the

Bleah, I probably would have let it ride... but I'm not running. (thankfully)

Gotta say, after hearing the full quote from Redford, it was an odd thing to take issue with. I understand the idea of the "character of the province" is something that could be spun into an argument, maybe. But the overall context of the quote was basically positive and forward thinking. It's a weird thing to jump on considering how many other missteps the PCs have made in recent weeks.

[First Lady]

Interesting graph. It's from this blog: http://johnbsantos.com/2012/03/27/po...-2008-to-2012/

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Typical left wing response is to call names, claim superiority, and then shut off debate. Way to fit the mold.

The facts are clear. Alberta has far outspent all provinces on Capital Spending since 1997, including basically doubling the amount the average province spends over the past decade.

And what do we have to show for this? The best road networks in Canada? The best schools? Hospitals?

Not really. Most of what we have seen is a reflection of our bloated public sector. Wasteful spending. Lost efficiency. And a lack of deliverability to the front line. When you get a blank cheque the money seems to dissapear... and it's never enough.

So as much as you may want to pretend that lack of funding is an issue, it clearly is not. Alberta overfunds most things, and the 'spend till it's gone' mantra advocated by the PC, Liberal and NDP parties is NOT working for Alberta.

Who's calling names?

Its funny that you naturally assume that because I want to see improved infrastructure spending that this would automatically equate to "writing a blank cheque" or just waste and inefficiency. There is apparently no middle ground to be found.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Gotta say, after hearing the full quote from Redford, it was an odd thing to take issue with. I understand the idea of the "character of the province" is something that could be spun into an argument, maybe. But the overall context of the quote was basically positive and forward thinking. It's a weird thing to jump on considering how many other missteps the PCs have made in recent weeks.

Well, I think they've both taken swipes now. Redfords was bringing prostitution into provincial discussion. Still think that was really bizarre "out of the gate press release".

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Who's calling names?

Its funny that you naturally assume that because I want to see improved infrastructure spending that this would automatically equate to "writing a blank cheque" or just waste and inefficiency. There is apparently no middle ground to be found.

We have to assume that; we haven't seen your numbers. Where's your plan man.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Ignoring the facts that Wildrose isn't cutting public transportation spending and infrastructure spending is a rather small portion of provincial expenses (salaries being the number one), why is it ok to mortgage your childrens future to pay for infrastructure today? Are future needs not important as well? Who is going to pay for infastructure in greece now that they've exhausted their capacity to borrow?

I think your reasoning is rather selfish. We need to live withing our means today so that future generations are guaranteed to be able to make the same decisions.

I think your reasoning is flawed beyond belief actually - because investing in infrastructure today is something that will be used during your children's and your children's children's future moreso than a tax break today will assist anyone but you. Not saying that I am in favour of massive tax increases but realistically they aren't the worst thing if the money is spent efficiently.

Also cutting salaries is much easier said than done - how do you propose to do that? If you cut nurse salaries for instance you are then in a position where more nurses leave the province and shortages are magnified leading to increased overtime and a further increase to costs.

I think that being selfish is hoarding everything for yourself not building projects for everyone.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by darklord700

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

A very good reason why I'm a right wing supporter.

Because your greatest accomplishment in life was building a lego tower?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

We have to assume that; we haven't seen your numbers. Where's your plan man.

I'm just one man!

The Liberals managed a fully costed platform with a balanced budget though, so clearly they're the real fiscal conservatives that Albertans are craving!

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Also cutting salaries is much easier said than done - how do you propose to do that? If you cut nurse salaries for instance you are then in a position where more nurses leave the province and shortages are magnified leading to increased overtime and a further increase to costs.

I don't think any party is proposing cuts to nurses salaries. The Wildrose put out the following proposals.

• Rolling back the 34% salary increases for the Premier and Cabinet Ministers voted for by Redford and other Cabinet members in 2008

• Eliminating the tax-free portion of MLA salaries

• Cutting and capping transition allowances for retiring MLAs by reducing it by two-thirds to one month’s pay per year of service to a maximum of 12 months

• Indexing MLA and cabinet salaries to the rate of inflation, rather than the average weekly wage index which is often double or triple the inflation rate

• Mandating an independent MLA pay committee – representative of Alberta’s population – to review pay and benefits once every 8 years

• Having the Committee report their recommendations before every second provincial election. MLAs, through the Legislature’s Members’ Services Committee, would then vote on those salaries and choose to either accept the recommendations or take less (taking more would be prohibited) prior to voters heading to the polls

Source

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I don't think any party is proposing cuts to nurses salaries. The Wildrose put out the following proposals.




Source

That plan will save thousands of dollars... in fact for all the outrage over MLA Salaries if you look them up they aren't that much.

The base level is $78,138.00 per year of which $26,046.00 is the Tax Free Portion you want to get rid of, so the base salary is $52,092.00... which isn't really a fantastic salary and certainly not one that is going to attract the best and brightest minds to work for them.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/hr/MLA...muneration.htm

Where are the savings going to come from because it isn't from nic-nack nickle and dime salary cuts to 83 members of government.

[Tinordi]

Redford proposes an extra $3 billion over 20 years for environmental research on oil sands. Something I definitely support. It's these kind of investments the Government should be making with resource revenue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2384238/

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by darklord700

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

A very good reason why I'm a right wing supporter.

If your argument can be summed up in a picture then you should likely think a bit harder.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

That plan will save thousands of dollars... in fact for all the outrage over MLA Salaries if you look them up they aren't that much.

The base level is $78,138.00 per year of which $26,046.00 is the Tax Free Portion you want to get rid of, so the base salary is $52,092.00... which isn't really a fantastic salary and certainly not one that is going to attract the best and brightest minds to work for them.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/hr/MLA...muneration.htm

Where are the savings going to come from because it isn't from nic-nack nickle and dime salary cuts to 83 members of government.

They don't want to eliminate the 26,046; they want to eliminate the "tax free" aspect. IE make the entire salary taxable, like the rest of us.

Additionally, all MLA's are put on committees and max out the benefit there. So that's an additional 42 K. In reality the base salary is $120,138.00.

That doesn't include their living allowance, travel expense, etc.


Really the biggest take away from that list is the transition allowance reduction. (IMHO)

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

That plan will save thousands of dollars... in fact for all the outrage over MLA Salaries if you look them up they aren't that much.

The base level is $78,138.00 per year of which $26,046.00 is the Tax Free Portion you want to get rid of, so the base salary is $52,092.00... which isn't really a fantastic salary and certainly not one that is going to attract the best and brightest minds to work for them.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/hr/MLA...muneration.htm

Where are the savings going to come from because it isn't from nic-nack nickle and dime salary cuts to 83 members of government.

I do know what you are saying although you did miss the $36000 a year that they currently get for sitting on committees. I assume that will be rolled back into their salary. I think the idea is not to get rid of the tax-free portion but rather the tax free status of that portion.

As for the drop in the bucket it is likely more symbolic but it is ridiculous to go into union negotiations when you have just voted yourself another pay raise. When money is tight they need to lead by example.
The savings will come from things like extending the infrastructure budget to three years instead of the current two. By reviewing and prioritizing they will identify which projects can be delayed and those that can't.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I do know what you are saying although you did miss the $36000 a year that they currently get for sitting on committees. I assume that will be rolled back into their salary. I think the idea is not to get rid of the tax-free portion but rather the tax free status of that portion.

So that will save what? 10% of 26,046 over 83 MLAs so a total of $215,000 a year? No offense but I don't see that as being a big deal in any way shape or form.

As for the drop in the bucket it is likely more symbolic but it is ridiculous to go into union negotiations when you have just voted yourself another pay raise. When money is tight they need to lead by example.

The savings will come from things like extending the infrastructure budget to three years instead of the current two. By reviewing and prioritizing they will identify which projects can be delayed and those that can't.

Delaying projects isn't saving any money it just spreads it out over a longer term and often just causes increased costs as the cost of labour and materials increases. It doesn't matter if you save a dollar now if you have to spend 2 dollars in three years time, that isn't financially conservative, that is financially stupid.

[GP_Matt]

Hopefully labour costs don't double in three years, although if they do so will tax revenue so it should be neutral there.

And delaying costs makes sense all the time. Have you never wanted to buy two things and decided that you could afford to buy one now and the other later. Currently they allocate a capital budget every year and then pay for projects from it, by spreading those projects out over longer time periods it reduces the capital costs. The reduced amount is still higher per capita than any of the other western provinces.