Redford: Buyers Remorse?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Other

Do you know what areas compose "Other"?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So, in your view, every government program is wasteful and every public servant is overpaid. And your proposed solution is to deliver more value for what we spend. I wonder why no one else has ever thought of that?

So in your view, every government program is perfectly run, and if only they had more money every problem would be solved? Why not just tax everyone 100% and the government would finally be able to create heaven on earth.

Jeesh, two can play the platitude game.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well lets hear where spending should be cut? Give it to me straight though; none of this "finding efficiencies" or "cutting waste" political speak. The reality is that we're either talking serious program reduction, downloading costs to the public or not cutting deep enough to make a significant difference. If that last case is what we're down to it means we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.

Downloading costs to the public is not a bad thing. People who use a service should pay for a bigger portion of it. Yes, I'm looking at you health care.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Fire

Downloading costs to the public is not a bad thing. People who use a service should pay for a bigger portion of it. Yes, I'm looking at you health care.

Really? That system exists. Have you taken a look at it and seen the kind of outcomes it produces? Expensive, unequal, and economically inefficient.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Other

So you propose to significantly cut funding for the following Ministries and government bodies then?

Legislative Assembly;
Aboriginal Relations;
Energy and Environment;
Executive Council;
Finance and Enterprise;
Justice;
Solicitor General and Public Security;
Sustainable Resource Development;
Tourism, Parks, and Recreation; and
Treasury Board.

Please elaborate on which of these are expendable and why.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Fire

Watch Redford try to introduce a PST in a couple of years.

I agree with this point and the post right below making fun of it. Reason being is that there are good reasons for a PST (if executed properly), but none of them that were communicated to voters back in the spring when the PC's were running banner ads on the internet that said "No cuts. No increases to taxes."

No doubt in my mind, its introduction within the next couple of years is going to be quite a negative surprise for some PC voters who thought that there was an option other than the Wildrose to avoid tax increases. Maybe this thread will be resurrected at that point after Redford has a greater body of work to cast judgement upon.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So in your view, every government program is perfectly run, and if only they had more money every problem would be solved? Why not just tax everyone 100% and the government would finally be able to create heaven on earth.

Jeesh, two can play the platitude game.

Look, if you're interested in areas or programs that I believe should receive more resources and more investment, I am more than happy to provide, discuss, and defend those suggestions. For example, I agree very much with Wooster that Alberta's cities, and Calgary and Edmonton in particular, require larger and more reliable/stable funding in order to build infrastructure like LRT.

You however seem reluctant to provide, discuss or defend any specific suggestions of where government spending can be reduced other than to say "take your pick." That sounds to me like ideological rhetoric rather than actual discussion about how to improve our province.

[GP_Matt]

A few wasteful salaries.
Gary Mar - $264 000 base
Stephen Duckett - $684 000. (I don't actually have a problem with his salary, he was hired as an expert to come in to run Alberta Health services. But he was let go within the year before he had a chance to implement any of the policies we hired him to do. He was then given a years severance. He wasn't fired because of performance, he was fired because he didn't speak to the press after a meeting and later said that Ed Stelmach told him not to speak at that time. Either hiring him was a good idea and he should have been allowed to work or hiring him was a bad idea and his salary was wasteful.

As for departments, Highway 63 comes to mind. They are trying to rush through construction of a road in muskeg. Normal construction methods require a ton of time to expose the ground and drain the area before a road can be built. If they rush it they will either spend a ton of extra money up front or the ground underneath and will be subject to terrible frost heaves similar to a few sections of highway 43. Nothing has changed to suddenly demand that the road be improved ahead of schedule.The volume is increasing, but that wasn't unexpected. There have been some very public accidents, but most of those were the result of incredible speeds. Road expansion should be based on traffic volume, not media scrutiny. If there is a problem with too many speed related accidents then the police should be out in heavier force.

As for waste, I think that the government could go a long way towards reducing waste in their budget by rewarding department managers for reductions instead of penalizing them. Right now if they save money one year it is lost the next so they make sure to spend it. Maybe 10 percent of savings should be allotted to bonuses for staff.

CCS sure looks like a huge waste of money. I am not sure what they have to show for the project.

It was a while back, but the billion dollar check that the government cut to the teachers union to fund the teachers portion of their pension contributions seemed excessive.

It hasn't happened in a few years (due to the economy, not restraint), but the government has a track record of underestimating budget surpluses and then spending the found cash like a drunken sailor.

[Tinordi]

This report says that Alberta public spending is right in line with national averages.

http://parklandinstitute.ca/download...ingTheMyth.pdf

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Look, if you're interested in areas or programs that I believe should receive more resources and more investment, I am more than happy to provide, discuss, and defend those suggestions. For example, I agree very much with Wooster that Alberta's cities, and Calgary and Edmonton in particular, require larger and more reliable/stable funding in order to build infrastructure like LRT.

You however seem reluctant to provide, discuss or defend any specific suggestions of where government spending can be reduced other than to say "take your pick." That sounds to me like ideological rhetoric rather than actual discussion about how to improve our province.

Honest question and I am not sure where I stand, but do you think the issue of Calgary's LRT needs (and any municipal capital project) should be municipal, provincial or federal responsibilities? One argument that the city raises is that the Municipal Government Act doesn't give the city very many options for raising money. Really, just property taxes and user fees. Property taxes are a pretty poor way to raise large sums of money though, so maybe the act should be revised to allow the city to put a surcharge on income taxes or sales taxes.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This report says that Alberta public spending is right in line with national averages.

http://parklandinstitute.ca/download...ingTheMyth.pdf

Thanks. Conclusions drawn for those too lazy to open the document:

We have examined several indicators of per capita government
expenditures across the provinces. By neither of two measures does
aggregate government spending in Alberta appear large relative to
that in other provinces. Despite the substantial growth of provincial
revenues since 2000, total provincial spending per capita has been
and is quite average or typical. When comparing major expenditure
categories, we find that only in outlays on education is Alberta even at
the top in per capita spending and even there, Alberta follows behind
Saskatchewan. Most striking given the current cuts to health care is
the fact that per capita health expenditures have been remarkably low
in Alberta.

With Alberta’s high economic growth and monies flowing in from
the rich resource bounty, Alberta should be at the top of per capita
spending on social programs. Instead, this report shows that Alberta’s
spending on social programs in general has been embarrassingly
average. Certainly, Alberta’s level of per capita spending does not
justify cuts to social programs.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Honest question and I am not sure where I stand, but do you think the issue of Calgary's LRT needs (and any municipal capital project) should be municipal, provincial or federal responsibilities? One argument that the city raises is that the Municipal Government Act doesn't give the city very many options for raising money. Really, just property taxes and user fees. Property taxes are a pretty poor way to raise large sums of money though, so maybe the act should be revised to allow the city to put a surcharge on income taxes or sales taxes.

Wooster (and others) would certainly be in a better position tthan me o comment on this issue, but there is no doubt that municipalities in Canada are at a distinct constitutional disadvantage (although in fairness to the drafters of the British North America Act, few people at the time foreasaw the tremendous urbanization of Canada or the world during the 20th and 21st centuries). I certainly believe that municipalities need the legislated authority to raise their own revenues (other than property taxes.) I'm not sure what the most efficient or effective way of raising such revenues would be though. A municipal sales tax likely would only spur a retail construction boom in Airdrie, Balzac, Okotoks, etc.

[JD]

I know this part is in the "Concluding Comments" section, but what kind of report uses subjective terms like "embarrassingly"? Aren't reports supposed to be impartial and objective? The author exposes their bias in that section and, now, admittedly without going deeper into things, I assume they plucked stats that support their argument.

I also enjoy the assertion that because there are resource monies, Alberta should spend more than anyone else.

[Tinordi]

I'm not standing by the conclusion in the report just the data, which shows that public spending is quite normal compared to other provinces.

[GP_Matt]

Another area of provincial expenditure that I think should be reviewed/cut is the road maintenance transfers. Currently the province hands out a fixed amount per metre to each municipality based on the total length of all roads in said municipality. That means that a single lane gravel road gets the same amount as a major arterial road that is 4 lanes wide. So a large municipality will receive a huge check to plow gravel roads while a small city receives almost nothing.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by JD

I know this part is in the "Concluding Comments" section, but what kind of report uses subjective terms like "embarrassingly"? Aren't reports supposed to be impartial and objective? The author exposes their bias in that section and, now, admittedly without going deeper into things, I assume they plucked stats that support their argument.

I also enjoy the assertion that because there are resource monies, Alberta should spend more than anyone else.

Those are fair criticisms. I would note however that the author notes at the beginning that all Parkland Institute reports are peer-reviewed. In any event, I certainly don't think that your criticims warrant dismissing the statitstics.

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Another area of provincial expenditure that I think should be reviewed/cut is the road maintenance transfers. Currently the province hands out a fixed amount per metre to each municipality based on the total length of all roads in said municipality. That means that a single lane gravel road gets the same amount as a major arterial road that is 4 lanes wide. So a large municipality will receive a huge check to plow gravel roads while a small city receives almost nothing.

If that is true, it certainly strikes me as absurd and inefficient as well. However, it takes a lot longer than just three months to amend legislation, especially legislation that requires consultation with all of the province's municipalities.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I'm not standing by the conclusion in the report just the data, which shows that public spending is quite normal compared to other provinces.

The report didn't mention it, but I wonder what the numbers would look like if you removed debt servicing from the per capita numbers.

We also spend more per capita than Ontario, Quebec and B.C. the three provinces that have a higher population than us and less than the provinces with smaller populations. I wonder how much of the difference is due to economies of scale?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

If that is true, it certainly strikes me as absurd and inefficient as well. However, it takes a lot longer than just three months to amend legislation, especially legislation that requires consultation with all of the province's municipalities.

I am not using that program to judge Alison Redford, just pointing out areas of government inefficiencies. I didn't vote for the P.C.'s but that doesn't mean that I am hoping for her downfall or going to ignore anything good that she accomplishes. I place being an Albertan far ahead of any political leanings.

As far as I am concerned, she is in power for at least 4 years (barring an early retirement by Stephen Harper that convinces her to resign and explore other options) and I will wait to judge her performance based on what she does and does not accomplish during that time. I really don't think three months is enough time to judge a politician as everything takes time to play out.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Thanks. Conclusions drawn for those too lazy to open the document:

So other provinces spend too much money and we should too?

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Really? That system exists. Have you taken a look at it and seen the kind of outcomes it produces? Expensive, unequal, and economically inefficient.

A government run program will never be more efficient than a private alternative. The fact they are in business to make money will do that. As for expensive and unequal, so what, people willing to spend their money on private healthcare will save money on the public side.

Food and shelter are more important staples in life than health care, but we are not all forced to have the same house or quality of food. You don't hear people crying that it's not fair. Health care is the biggest drain on the budget and it's % is forever increasing. Until the politicians get the guts to fix it, the debt problems in all the provinces will not go away. Increasing taxes will not fix it.