April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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

What do you mean? I thought that this announcement doesn't say where until the school boards submit their capital budgets at the end of April?

That is a huge announcement though. This is a marked difference between the PCs and Wildrose IMO. I think there is a huge infrastructure deficit specifically in the education system and putting that kind of emphasis on it is a great move for the province.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

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?

I didn't write the article. I just wanted to start the discussion of who should be in cabinet if the polls are right. Seems logical to start with the biggest names on the list.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

What do you mean? I thought that this announcement doesn't say where until the school boards submit their capital budgets at the end of April?

http://www.rockyviewweekly.com/artic...isters-comment

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

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/

Nice smear job there.

"Calgary-Lougheed candidate John Carpay penned an opinion-editorial in the National Post in 1994 which criticized Premier Ralph Klein for not invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to block the Supreme Court decision forcing Alberta to include protection of homosexuals from discrimination."

http://taxpayer.com/opinion-editoria...ien-and-martin

Clearly he didn't bother reading the article he linked to, considering it was about Ralph Klein being a hypocrite about standing up to judge-made law and has nothing to do with being anti-homsexual. Also it was written in 2004.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

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?

How is that an attack?

I've never heard of the rest of those guys, but I know Link Byfield is a moron.

If the rest of those little bios are true, then yay, we get a bunch of wingnuts calling in government.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

http://www.rockyviewweekly.com/artic...isters-comment

What does that have to do with anything? I guess we can take from this that Rob Anderson would oppose the PC announcement, but aside from that it seems like a non-issue.

[kn]

Is the average member of the electorate debating party positions online or with their family, friends or colleagues?

I like to think of myself as socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and sound enough to examine a policy based on its merit, not how it conforms to a certain ideological position. That being said, now that I've had some time to think, my initial support of the WRA was primarily emotional, being angry at the PCs.

The 'no-pay' committee is such a symbol of corruption, arrogance, and entitlement and it's obvious I'm not alone in feeling that way as it has touched a nerve with many Albertans. But is that alone enough to vote for a new party? I don't think so and it is important that the WRA and its policies are fully examined. I'm glad this is happening now but I'll admit, I'm starting to get information overload. I don't have time to research the validity of arguments made by journalists and thus have to rely on not only this forum, but various media outlets to try and discern what is fact from fiction.

As of yet, there is no promise that entices me to vote for or against one party. Although I donated to the WRA, that shouldn't be taken as a cemented vote. I wonder how many Albertans will similarly start to question their initial support of the upstart party. For me, a lot will be riding on the all-candidates forum and the leader's debate.

Sober second thought may be the antidote to any momentum.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by kn

Sober second thought may be the antidote to any [Wildrose] momentum.

The Wildrose appeals to the 0.08ers, so I doubt there will be much sober second thought.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by SebC

The Wildrose appeals to the 0.08ers, so I doubt there will be much sober second thought.

Wildrose does not care about education.

They want more home school.

[toonmaster]

Originally Posted by Slava

That is a huge announcement though. This is a marked difference between the PCs and Wildrose IMO. I think there is a huge infrastructure deficit specifically in the education system and putting that kind of emphasis on it is a great move for the province.

I was on the fence going into this election. I decided I would give WR & PC a fair shot to sway me one way or the other. Danielle Dollars pushed one foot over to the PC side and this just sealed the vote for me. The education system needs this kind of commitment from the province. PC it is.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by toonmaster

I was on the fence going into this election. I decided I would give WR & PC a fair shot to sway me one way or the other. Danielle Dollars pushed one foot over to the PC side and this just sealed the vote for me. The education system needs this kind of commitment from the province. PC it is.

I would suggest you look into the astounding amounts of waste that the PC's have introduced into Alberta. While they make many comittments, in reality most of their money somehow disappears into thin air.

It's time for a change and an evaluation of how to get a return on our investment instead of blindly trusting the government with record spending year after year.

[IntenseFan]

I'd like to briefly address how I see the infrastructure deficit that has come up so many times in this thread.

Is there an infrastructure deficit in Alberta for things like roads, schools hospitals, etc.? Yes.

How did this occur? A lot of people are convinced that it occured because of the Klein cuts in the mid-90s. While it's true that this caused the infrastructure deficit to manifest more quickly, it did not cause it. What caused it was likely a huge influx of population into Alberta since the 1970s, which continues on and off to this day (mostly on) and in particular the increase of that population in Alberta's urban areas;

What has exacerbated it significantly is Alberta governments spending completely beyond their means in an ultimately self defeating attempt to manage the influx of population, particularly in urban areas.

Any government dealing with a huge influx of population is going to end up running an infrastructure deficit. Is that good? Of course not. What's worse is a government spending totally beyond its means to try and deal with it. That might keep us ahead of the curve for a little while, but eventually when such deficit financing begins to crush the provincial budgets (like they did by the 90s and will again soon) the government of the day will be forced to either pay dangerous amounts to keep borrowing (unfeasible in the long term) or cut back on such spending (the Klein route).

I am one of those people who dosen't think Klein really had any choice. We couldn't continue to borrow and spend, borrow and spend until up to 50% of the provincial budget was being spent on interest.

Unfortunately, the cuts caused the already present infrastructure deficit to manifest more significantly than the borrow and spend approach. However, that approach was also ultimately doomed to fail in any event.

Long story short, there is an infrastructure deficit, but it is ultimately self defeating in the long term to spend beyond our means to attempt to control it. How then do you deal with it? That is an extremely hard question. In the end, you may have to deal with it as best you can, spend what you can afford and make good investments.

To my mind, we simply cannot be so shortsighted as to overspend to fight the infrastrucutre deficit when we know that only buys time and creates a more significant problem down the road. Particularly so in this Province, where we have a non-renewable source of energy funding a singificant amount of genera; revenue that is going to dry up one day.

This is why I am opposed to fighting the infrastructure deficit by borrowing. Unfortunately, I see the PCs as being the party that will continue to employ this strategy. Arguably they are the ones who caused it, thanks to the Getty days of huge deficits. There is every reason to believe, particulary based on their budget and their campaign promises thus far, that is the tactic they will take.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I would suggest you look into the astounding amounts of waste that the PC's have introduced into Alberta. While they make many comittments, in reality most of their money somehow disappears into thin air.

It's time for a change and an evaluation of how to get a return on our investment instead of blindly trusting the government with record spending year after year.

If only it was that simple. The choice is between a party that spends too much and a party that won't detail where they'll cut. Even taking out the issues I have with conscience rights and socially conservative issues (which is enormous to me, btw) I can't see that this is the kind of change that I'm particularly interested in.

The other financial issue is that we're jumping from the frying pan into the fire. We move from a party spending too much to a party that not only wants to cut, but now that they smell electoral victory is already starting to throw around tax credits and cash years down the road. How is that fiscally conservative?

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

I'd like to briefly address how I see the infrastructure deficit that has come up so many times in this thread.

Is there an infrastructure deficit in Alberta for things like roads, schools hospitals, etc.? Yes.

How did this occur? A lot of people are convinced that it occured because of the Klein cuts in the mid-90s. While it's true that this caused the infrastructure deficit to manifest more quickly, it did not cause it. What caused it was likely a huge influx of population into Alberta since the 1970s, which continues on and off to this day (mostly on) and in particular the increase of that population in Alberta's urban areas;

What has exacerbated it significantly is Alberta governments spending completely beyond their means in an ultimately self defeating attempt to manage the influx of population, particularly in urban areas.

Any government dealing with a huge influx of population is going to end up running an infrastructure deficit. Is that good? Of course not. What's worse is a government spending totally beyond its means to try and deal with it. That might keep us ahead of the curve for a little while, but eventually when such deficit financing begins to crush the provincial budgets (like they did by the 90s and will again soon) the government of the day will be forced to either pay dangerous amounts to keep borrowing (unfeasible in the long term) or cut back on such spending (the Klein route).

I am one of those people who dosen't think Klein really had any choice. We couldn't continue to borrow and spend, borrow and spend until up to 50% of the provincial budget was being spent on interest.

Unfortunately, the cuts caused the already present infrastructure deficit to manifest more significantly than the borrow and spend approach. However, that approach was also ultimately doomed to fail in any event.

Long story short, there is an infrastructure deficit, but it is ultimately self defeating in the long term to spend beyond our means to attempt to control it. How then do you deal with it? That is an extremely hard question. In the end, you may have to deal with it as best you can, spend what you can afford and make good investments.

To my mind, we simply cannot be so shortsighted as to overspend to fight the infrastrucutre deficit when we know that only buys time and creates a more significant problem down the road. Particularly so in this Province, where we have a non-renewable source of energy funding a singificant amount of genera; revenue that is going to dry up one day.

This is why I am opposed to fighting the infrastructure deficit by borrowing. Unfortunately, I see the PCs as being the party that will continue to employ this strategy. Arguably they are the ones who caused it, thanks to the Getty days of huge deficits. There is every reason to believe, particulary based on their budget and their campaign promises thus far, that is the tactic they will take.

Well Klein didn't cause the issue, but he didn't help by making spending cuts when we were experiencing that growth. Kevin Taft wrote a book called "Shredding the Public Interest" which explained a lot of that (about a decade ago IIRC). Its fine to say the cuts didn't cause the problem, but they were far from helpful and that can't be denied.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

I'd like to briefly address how I see the infrastructure deficit that has come up so many times in this thread.

Is there an infrastructure deficit in Alberta for things like roads, schools hospitals, etc.? Yes.

How did this occur? A lot of people are convinced that it occured because of the Klein cuts in the mid-90s. While it's true that this caused the infrastructure deficit to manifest more quickly, it did not cause it. What caused it was likely a huge influx of population into Alberta since the 1970s, which continues on and off to this day (mostly on) and in particular the increase of that population in Alberta's urban areas;

What has exacerbated it significantly is Alberta governments spending completely beyond their means in an ultimately self defeating attempt to manage the influx of population, particularly in urban areas.

Any government dealing with a huge influx of population is going to end up running an infrastructure deficit. Is that good? Of course not. What's worse is a government spending totally beyond its means to try and deal with it. That might keep us ahead of the curve for a little while, but eventually when such deficit financing begins to crush the provincial budgets (like they did by the 90s and will again soon) the government of the day will be forced to either pay dangerous amounts to keep borrowing (unfeasible in the long term) or cut back on such spending (the Klein route).

I am one of those people who dosen't think Klein really had any choice. We couldn't continue to borrow and spend, borrow and spend until up to 50% of the provincial budget was being spent on interest.

Unfortunately, the cuts caused the already present infrastructure deficit to manifest more significantly than the borrow and spend approach. However, that approach was also ultimately doomed to fail in any event.

Long story short, there is an infrastructure deficit, but it is ultimately self defeating in the long term to spend beyond our means to attempt to control it. How then do you deal with it? That is an extremely hard question. In the end, you may have to deal with it as best you can, spend what you can afford and make good investments.

To my mind, we simply cannot be so shortsighted as to overspend to fight the infrastrucutre deficit when we know that only buys time and creates a more significant problem down the road. Particularly so in this Province, where we have a non-renewable source of energy funding a singificant amount of genera; revenue that is going to dry up one day.

This is why I am opposed to fighting the infrastructure deficit by borrowing. Unfortunately, I see the PCs as being the party that will continue to employ this strategy. Arguably they are the ones who caused it, thanks to the Getty days of huge deficits. There is every reason to believe, particulary based on their budget and their campaign promises thus far, that is the tactic they will take.

^ A good post, but you failed to provide any real solutions. Simply "spending what you can afford" is not good enough and will result in you losing the next election (classrooms with 50 kids and 12 hour average emergency wait times will do that to a government).

I think borrowing to address the most dire needs is a good thing, but it's all about balance and making the tough decisions regarding what is actually a "need" and what is a "want that will get us re-elected". Unfortunately, the larger issue here is that average Joe doesn't care about debt loads, he just wants his own life to be as comfortable as possible and will vote for whoever he feels will make that happen....regardless of how it gets done.

[Slava]

PCs introduce "fast track" emergency rooms. Gotta say this is about time. It just makes sense: http://www.votepc.ca/admin/contentx/...d=2427&r=10187

[IntenseFan]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well Klein didn't cause the issue, but he didn't help by making spending cuts when we were experiencing that growth. Kevin Taft wrote a book called "Shredding the Public Interest" which explained a lot of that (about a decade ago IIRC). Its fine to say the cuts didn't cause the problem, but they were far from helpful and that can't be denied.

In terms of causing an immediate manifest of the infrastructure deficit, the cuts were certainly the cause of that. I think we agree. Here is where I think we disagree: what was the other option? Continue to borrow so we could continue to spend beyond our means?

I suppose raising taxes (and royalties) was another option, but again that is a temporary fix because at some point tax raises are going to become revenue neutral for the Province as there is a stifling effect on the economy.

What Klein did was look into the long term future and saw that future government spending and social programs would one day become severly restricted at anything more than marginal levels if the borrowing and spending kept up the way it was. What kind of infrastructure deficit would we have then?

What he did was cause short term (and yes even long term) pain in exchange for sustainability of government spending for at least some respectable level. The alternative was to turn Alberta into one of the more unfortunate members of the Euro-zone. Although it would not happen overnight, it would eventually happen.

Unfortunately, in the last years of Klein and in the Stelmach and now Redford administrations, borrow and spend has again become the norm. One day, possibly sooner than anyone expects, it is going to kill our budget flexibility.

Mark Steyn has said that the grandchildren and great grandchildren of the baby boomers are going to dig up the boomers bones and go bowling with them because of all this deficit financing deferring a crisis into their generation. If this keeps up, I can see why they would be upset.

[IntenseFan]

Originally Posted by psicodude

^ A good post, but you failed to provide any real solutions. Simply "spending what you can afford" is not good enough and will result in you losing the next election (classrooms with 50 kids and 12 hour average emergency wait times will do that to a government).

I think borrowing to address the most dire needs is a good thing, but it's all about balance and making the tough decisions regarding what is actually a "need" and what is a "want that will get us re-elected". Unfortunately, the larger issue here is that average Joe doesn't care about debt loads, he just wants his own life to be as comfortable as possible and will vote for whoever he feels will make that happen....regardless of how it gets done.

Absolutely correct. I must concede I really don't have a solution to this extremely complex social issue/problem. I just am arguing against something which appears to almost certainly not be the solution.

I would concede that there are times to engage in deficit financing. The 2008/09 economic crisis was an example. However, Alberta was in a position to weather it much better. But we overspent. Significantly. Now things are in growth and here we are in Alberta continuing to run deficits. A PC government will not get us out of deficit any time soon relying on their latest budget. It is based on extremely dubious projections about the growth in the economy, the price of oil and in particular the price of natural gas. You can only use economic downturn as an excuse for deficits for so long in a Province as advantaged as Alberta.

You are also correct that very few governments ever think beyond the current term and that is a major fault. Even Klein, with his apparent view to the future of government spending was likely more motivated by the sentiment across Western Canada (and even Ont.) in the 90s that we had to cut to survive. He was nothing if not politically astute.

What do we do? Not sure. But what we don't do is deficit finance for the next 10 years until we have trouble affording much more than the most marginal of programs.

[Flickered Flame]

Originally Posted by Slava

PCs introduce "fast track" emergency rooms. Gotta say this is about time. It just makes sense: http://www.votepc.ca/admin/contentx/...d=2427&r=10187

And the WRA announces shorter waits time today as well.
http://www.wildrose.ca/leader/provid...en-its-needed/

[Slava]

^ Really a lot of this is just pure right-wing fear mongering though. Governments can have debts, and frankly budgeting for the government is not anywhere near the same as budgeting for a household. I'm really tired of that line of though; its wrong and there are marked differences:

1. The government can not only go into debt, but here's an enormous difference for you; if they choose the government might literally never pay the debt back. There's honestly not a huge issue with that. We all expect (regardless of political spectrum) that the province will be here in 100 years, right? They aren't facing the deadlines of a normal household and likewise the constraints regarding debt repayment aren't there either.

2. Governments have things such as issuing bonds that they can take advantage of, or they can raise taxes. The ability to raise taxes and essentially generate revenue willingly is not equal to a household and certainly affords another opportunity to deal with financial obligations that households do not have. In fact part of the credit rating for a government is the size of that tax base and what kind of burdens are already there.

Anyway, I could write a lot more, and doubtless a full book could be written. Its just not true though.

I better clarify right away that I'm not advocating for a government to borrow huge amounts of money and never pay them back. I'm just pointing out an obvious and often ignored reality of governing as opposed to the average guy that is so often brought up.

Long story short, the reason that the governments budget the way they do is because they can.

[tete]

Originally Posted by Slava

PCs introduce "fast track" emergency rooms. Gotta say this is about time. It just makes sense: http://www.votepc.ca/admin/contentx/...d=2427&r=10187

Isn't that just a fancy word for "triage" which they already should be doing in emerg?