April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The money for Ralph bucks would alone have paid for the entire capital cost of the West LRT. I'd rather focus windfalls on two things - infrastructure (particularly for cities) and savings/endowments.

A billion bucks would get us 40 Peace Bridges! That should put it into perspective for those who think it's no big deal.

Politicians are voted in to make tough decisions in the best interests of the people. Giving money back and putting the responsibility on us is lazy and cowardly leadership.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Table 5

A billion bucks would get us 40 Peace Bridges! That should put it into perspective for those who think it's no big deal.

Politicians are voted in to make tough decisions in the best interests of the people. Giving money back and putting the responsibility on us is lazy and cowardly leadership.

But I use my iPad everyday and barely ever use the bridge. Don't tell me how to spend my money.

[psicodude]

I would rather the government invest my $300 in emerging industries that will keep this province afloat long after the oil runs out (or we find a way to stop relying on it, whichever comes first). It would be nice to know that my 4 year old son will still be able to raise a family in this province.

But I suppose planning for things 30 years away doesn't buy a lot of votes. My son would rather have more toys anyway...

[NuclearPizzaMan]

How exactly did Smith go from failure CBE trustee to blogger to leader of a major political party again? I'm not a big fan of any of the choices for premier in this election, but at least they have some credentials. Smith doesn't seem like the kind of person that one would give responsibility to knowingly.

[AnybodyButPC]

I have been reading this thread and a couple of things puzzle me: 1) Why are people so against the government for wanting to share, with the populace, a portion of the royalties that are collected from companies who profit from our natural resources? 2) Why are people so afraid to try something new? We did it in 1971 and got one of the best governments this province had ever seen. Could we not be lucky again?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by AnybodyButPC

I have been reading this thread and a couple of things puzzle me: 1) Why are people so against the government for wanting to share, with the populace, a portion of the royalties that are collected from companies who profit from our natural resources? 2) Why are people so afraid to try something new? We did it in 1971 and got one of the best governments this province had ever seen. Could we not be lucky again?

Might be because handing out a meaningless chunk of cash is a far cry from the fiscal restraint that the WRP has been claiming to support? I don't think the trying something new is a bad idea, but I really wish that something new didn't have such unrealistic promises. If your position is that we should try and 'get lucky' with our government rather than elect the party with the best policies, then I think you are a bit out to lunch, even for a fake account on a message board.

And don't even get me started on conscience rights, but that's technically not a party policy... right?

[Slava]

And to add to what Rathji said, where were these questions in 2008? Or say after 20 years, or 25-30 years? Seems a bit silly to say 41 years is too long, but it was okay at 37 years. Thats a pretty weak reason to suddenly change governments. Don't give me a line about no one else being credible either; not only were there some very competent people through the last few decades, but the Wildrose/Canadian Alliance/Social Credit has run in one form or another in each election (as far as I know).

I do laugh at the "why can't we be lucky" comment though. That should help form a campaign slogan for sure, or at least maybe a leader should use it in the debates! It sure inspires a lot of confidence!

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sure, but why stop there? If we agree that post-secondary education shouldn't be fully-subsidized (note: it already is heavily subsidized, just not 100%) for a variety of reasons, why doesn't that same rationale extend to primary and secondary education, too?

I'd like to think that it is the difference between adults and children.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Playing devil's advocate here (I don't support 100% taxpayer-subsidized tuition): couldn't you say all of the above about elementary and secondary education as well? There's no guarantee that high school graduates will stay in Alberta, and what motivation do they have to take their studies seriously since 100% of their education is being paid for by the taxpayers? Why draw the line at what amount of education the government should fully fund at the post-secondary level?

Primary and secondary education are a basic public service that all jurisdictions provide. Post-secondary is an option that not all jurisdictions treat equally.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Primary and secondary education are a basic public service that all jurisdictions provide. Post-secondary is an option that not all jurisdictions treat equally.

Yes, I understand that, and I agree with your basic premise.

What I'm asking is more of an out-of-the-box question: why have various jurisdictions decided that primary and secondary education are a basic public services that should be provided to all citizens by the government but post-secondary education is not? You outlined some reasoning why you don't believe post-secondary eduction should be fully subsidized by taxpayers, but all of your reasons are equally applicable to elementary or high school students as well.

I'm just wondering why we (the collective "we" of society) have decided to draw the line of where we stop fully paying for the education of our citizens at the high school level. It seems sort of arbitrary if you really think about it.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

But I use my iPad everyday and barely ever use the bridge. Don't tell me how to spend my money.

Get used to barely ever using a lot of things then, because some things just won't be built if there are no tax dollars to do it with. New C-trains, better roads, better schools, hospitals...all things that could be supported with this money. I know a lot of these things sound boring, but that's why we elect public officials so they can responsibly take care of these elements in society.

But hey, you can buy half an iPad.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm just wondering why we (the collective "we" of society) have decided to draw the line of where we stop fully paying for the education of our citizens at the high school level. It seems sort of arbitrary if you really think about it.

Not really. High school ends at the time the student becomes an adult. (You can argue that turning 18 meaning you are an 'adult' is arbitrary as well, but that's beside the point) Adults have their own duties to society, and a much greater responsibility to themselves. At that point, I believe they need to be responsible for the consequences of their choices. Plans like this shift that burden to society itself. It's the same theory that led the idiotic school officials in Ontario to judge themselves as "co-parents".

This plan is nothing but yet another welfare system. That does not benefit society.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

http://beaconnews.ca/blog/2012/04/nu...ergy-dividend/

Duane Bratt on the Wildrose dividend plan in this article.

As far as the post from crazy joe above, do you have anything to show that we were never below the provincial average in spending? I seem to recall an alternative budget graph produced by the WRA that showed that we were below the other provinces in the early 2000's (the graph didn't go further back than that). While we increased after, I think that most Albertans agree that was for the specific reason that we needed to try to keep pace with the enormous population influx the province was seeing.

We still face a fairly well documented infrastructure deficit in terms of education in particular where numerous articles have been written about the state of our schools. We basically have to spend money to fix that kind of thing, unless we press everyone into home-schooling I suppose.

At the depth of the spending cuts in 1996-97, Alberta was still, per capita, the sixth

highest spending province in the nation at $4,568.

Starting with Budget 1996, the spending increases resumed after three years of budget
cuts. In 1996-97, spending technically increased (0.2 per cent), but the real spending
hikes didn‟t start until 1997-98 when the government jacked spending by over 8 per cent.
Between 1998-99 and 2001-02 budgeted program spending increased, on average, by
11.4 per cent per year.

This increase coincided with a significant and rapid increase in natural gas prices, and thereby, non-renewable resource revenue.

Alberta governmentnon-renewable resource revenues rocketed from $2.4 billion in 1998-99 to $10.6 billion in 2000-01, and then dropped back to $6.2 billion in 2001-02.

While 2001-02‟s non-renewable resource revenues were significantly lower than the year previous, they were still nearly triple the amount of just three years prior.

This rapid fall coincided with the market crash following 9/11 (thereby reducing Heritage
Fund returns), dropping total revenues by 14 per cent. The Alberta government reacted
by implementing a hiring freeze, a 1 per cent cut in every ministry budget, the
elimination of energy rebates to school boards and health authorities, the elimination of
community lottery boards and the deferral of nearly a billion dollars worth of capital
projects.

This correction, however, would not have been necessary had the government not
increased program spending in Budget 2001 by 24.5 per cent.

After what was essentially a spending freeze in 2002-03, between 2003-04 and 2008-09

budgeted program spending increased by, on average, 12.1 per cent per year.

All from the CTF budget submission.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Get used to barely ever using a lot of things then, because some things just won't be built if there are no tax dollars to do it with. New C-trains, better roads, better schools, hospitals...all things that could be supported with this money. I know a lot of these things sound boring, but that's why we elect public officials so they can responsibly take care of these elements in society.

But hey, you can buy half an iPad.

So, totally ignoring the fact that these things should be BUDGETED for and not expected to be paid with unexpected surplus... how do you reconcile the fact that Alberta has spent 180 BILLION dollars of extra resource revenue over the past 20 years with very little to show for it?

Why can't we simply plan for these types of things like other provinces?

[Slava]

Where does that say that we were above the provincial average in spending? Sixth highest (out of ten, nonetheless) doesn't imply that. Yes, we were spending more than we had been spending in years prior, but again we had almost no choice.

The Wildrose graph I mentioned appears to show that we were below the other provinces in the early 2000's, which corresponds to some of the dates mentioned above here (particularly where the spending skyrockets).

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Where does that say that we were above the provincial average in spending? Sixth highest (out of ten, nonetheless) doesn't imply that. Yes, we were spending more than we had been spending in years prior, but again we had almost no choice.

The Wildrose graph I mentioned appears to show that we were below the other provinces in the early 2000's, which corresponds to some of the dates mentioned above here (particularly where the spending skyrockets).

It's all on the website. Looks like the average was about 4600 so maybe we were below the average for one year.

We then led Canada for a decade or so. Because, as you say, we "had no choice".

Point being, and still is, even at the depth of the dark klein days, we still spent as much as other provinces.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It's all on the website. Looks like the average was about 4600 so maybe we were below the average for one year.

We then led Canada for a decade or so. Because, as you say, we "had no choice".

Point being, and still is, even at the depth of the dark klein days, we still spent as much as other provinces.

No we didn't. You can see clearly on the Wildrose' own graph that we weren't spending as much. Its a nice talking point, but its just not the case...

I suppose had no choice is left to interpretation. Most Albertans would've agreed that we had to fund infrastructure through the early-mid 2000's though. We were in the midst of a boom, with a huge population influx and had to do something to try to deal with that. We could've left it stagnant, but that wasn't suggested by any of the political parties that I'm aware of.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Get used to barely ever using a lot of things then, because some things just won't be built if there are no tax dollars to do it with. New C-trains, better roads, better schools, hospitals...all things that could be supported with this money. I know a lot of these things sound boring, but that's why we elect public officials so they can responsibly take care of these elements in society.

But hey, you can buy half an iPad.

Sorry, that should have been green text. That's my whole point. People are being selfish and only thinking about what they use and not what benefits the entire community.

And as someone pointed out earlier, it's not really "our" money. The only thing that people required to have to obtain Ralph Bucks was an alberta address on September 1. They didn't have to pay taxes or even live in this province for a certain amount of time.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

where were these questions in 2008? Or say after 20 years, or 25-30 years? Seems a bit silly to say 41 years is too long, but it was okay at 37 years.

Lots of people were sick of the PC's last time around but the only other option was Taft and the Liberals.

Originally Posted by Slava

Don't give me a line about no one else being credible either

Why not?
Alberta is mostly centre right, there has only been one centre right option till now.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Lots of people were sick of the PC's last time around but the only other option was Taft and the Liberals.


Why not?
Alberta is mostly centre right, there has only been one centre right option till now.

Well truthfully there is still only one centre right option at this point, but why split hairs. As I noted though, the Wildrose was around in prior elections albeit under different monikers at some points.