Alberta budget news

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Husky

I dont quite agree. All you are doing is passing additional costs onto end users. The goivernment NEEDS to start managing their capital better. Giving them more money does nothing for becoming more efficient. If anything its led to this problem.

Exactly.

People should be paying for stuff they use. I am sick of the culture that makes people feel entitled to get government services without paying for them.

I have no problems with cutting funding, if it makes sense, and isn't some knee jerk reaction to having a deficit. Find waste and kill it. Make things more efficient, absolutely.

Don't think that you can just cut programs based solely on the fact that we have X billion more in deficit to make up, though, because that just passes those costs onto future generations.

[RubberDuck]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't understand why asking what the leader of the opposition party would suggest for a budget is hypothetical. Isn't it her job to provide options she thinks are better?

Yes you are correct.

My point was, when the PC's have been questioned in this thread and others, a typical justification is along the lines of, "Danielle Smith wouldn't have done any better or the Wildrose would have been worse." Because they are not in power these points are hypothetical. I have loosely tied that to Slava's comment I admit.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Dion

Have to wonder why that budget didn't include rollback on wages to MLA's, AHS executives and CEO's. It's a fair thing to ask when GP's are asked to take a rollback and the rest of us are expected to tighten our belts. Redford should start by trimming the fat in her own govt first.

That's a good idea.

I don't have time to look it up right now, but anyone know what a comparable wage cut to MLAs and AHS execs would save us?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Exactly.

People should be paying for stuff they use. I am sick of the culture that makes people feel entitled to get government services without paying for them.

I have no problems with cutting funding, if it makes sense, and isn't some knee jerk reaction to having a deficit. Find waste and kill it. Make things more efficient, absolutely.

Don't think that you can just cut programs based solely on the fact that we have X billion more in deficit to make up, though, because that just passes those costs onto future generations.

Actually, accumulation of debt is what passes on costs to future generations. Living within your means at least guarantees that our children will be able to choose what to spend their money on instead of servicing poor spending decisions of the past.

[Rathji]

So you can't pay down debt and do things like build infrastructure at an acceptable level? Provide good education for our future workforce? Ensure that our health care is acceptable?

[Cowboy89]

I'll say that I can agree with the theory that Tinordi hammers on endlessly about, being that our capital and operating budget shouldn't be funded by resource royalties and as such that means tax increases and adjustments.

The big concern I have though about a soveriegn wealth fund in which all of the resource revenue goes towards is the issue that Alberta isn't it's own country. What happens if over the next 30 years or so we build a trillion dollar wealth fund all the while we're paying higher taxes and then future federal governments attempt to shore up their own crappy finances by raiding our fund or by changing the equalization format in such a way that the investment proceeds of such a fund are factored in?

It's all well and good to point out Norway as an example, but in their case they don't have to fear a superior government taking it away. One might point to Alaska as the contra to that arguement, and I would point out that Alaska's fund isn't as material relative to US government's budget as a potential Alberta fund would be to the Canadian governments. Also the US is a little more in favor of state rights than Canada is provincial rights.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'll say that I can agree with the theory that Tinordi hammers on endlessly about, being that our capital and operating budget shouldn't be funded by resource royalties and as such that means tax increases and adjustments.

The big concern I have though about a soveriegn wealth fund in which all of the resource revenue goes towards is the issue that Alberta isn't it's own country. What happens if over the next 30 years or so we build a trillion dollar wealth fund all the while we're paying higher taxes and then future federal governments attempt to shore up their own crappy finances by raiding our fund or by changing the equalization format in such a way that the investment proceeds of such a fund are factored in?

It's all well and good to point out Norway as an example, but in their case they don't have to fear a superior government taking it away. One might point to Alaska as the contra to that arguement, and I would point out that Alaska's fund isn't as material relative to US government's budget as a potential Alberta fund would be to the Canadian governments. Also the US is a little more in favor of state rights than Canada is provincial rights.

That seems like defeatist thinking though. We shouldn't do the right thing today because of something completely unknown the might happen at some unknown time in the future?

[Tinordi]

That may be a perceived concern but does that still justify frittering the resource away so we can consume more crap built in China?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So you can't pay down debt and do things like build infrastructure at an acceptable level? Provide good education for our future workforce? Ensure that our health care is acceptable?

I never said any of that.

But spending beyond our means is what passes along an obligation to PAY to our children.

If we have to spend more than what we have just to maintain an 'acceptable' level, then what choice do our children have when 10% of their revenue is already gone? Who's generation is left holding the bag when there's just no more borrowing to be done? See: Greece.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

That seems like defeatist thinking though. We shouldn't do the right thing today because of something completely unknown the might happen at some unknown time in the future?

Speaking about doing the right thing, I agree with you that we should follow through with this fiscal overhaul, but the caveat is I don't want it to be Alison Redford or the Progressive Conservative party to be the ones to do it. I think it has to be a Liberal or even Wild Rose party(if they actually had the balls to increase taxes to do something fiscally responsible) to be the ones to do it.

One of the things that has largely been ignored by the general populace's obsession with the ideological debate (Right wing vs. left wing vs. centrist) is how outrightly corrupt the PC's are. I have family and friends that work in the government and they know personally of many conflicts of interest where sub-optimal and more costly decisions get made because some of the stakeholders are in the minister responsible's back pocket.

I have no confidence that giving the government more levers of generating revenue aren't going to be swallowed up overtime by the borg that is the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.

[Jacks]

Let me give you an example of how government works.

Awhile ago the government needed a piece of equipment in a Northern Alberta town. It was determined that they had a surplus piece of equipment in Southern Alberta so they paid to have the (very) old piece of equipment transported up to the other town. Sounds good right? they saved money by utilizing surplus equipment rather than buying new.

Problem is that the cost to get the piece of equipment up there was just slightly more than it would have cost to buy a new piece of equipment. If they had bought the new piece they would have spent about 10% more but they now would have had two pieces of equipment, one brand new. That's not even taking into account the time spent tracking down the surplus piece of equipment, getting it declared surplus, tendering out the job, etc. In the end it was probably the same cost or maybe even cheaper to buy new.

I don't blame the person who did this, they are directed to reuse whenever possible. They have nothing to gain by trying to change the system, if they did change the system their job might not be necessary.


Another example: MRI's

Wait times for MRI's have been getting better but they are still pretty long. I had to get an MRI a few years ago, rather than wait 6-9 months I chose to pay to get one done. I called up the clinic and booked an MRI to be done 2 days later, I think it cost me $750.00. When I was there I was asking the tech how I got in so quick and he said that the machine sits idle a lot of the time.

If AHS was to buy up this idle time you could drastically cut down wait times. I don't have any stats but I can't imagine that a hospital charges AHS much less, probably more, to do an MRI than $750.00. They would be doing a bulk buy of time on a short notice basis and would probably get the clinic to give them a way better deal. I don't know about you but if I was told I can wait for 6-9 months to get a "free" MRI or I could go on a waiting list where they would give me 24-48 hours notice and I would get in, between paying customers, in about a week I would choose option #2. Who cares if someone paid to get in front of me if it's going to cut down my wait time in the end?

Problems with this:
1) People would be protesting that the government is paying private clinics and they are making a profit.
2) People would be outraged that someone was paying and getting to the front of the line while the poor people have to wait.

The result? We aren't allowed to pay the private clinic and everyone has to wait longer and it costs more. That's not even factoring in doctors visits in the months waiting for the MRI or the savings from diagnosing and treating in the early stages of a problem.

There is plenty of "cost cutting" and "waste" that can be addressed.

/rant

[yads]

A few things on the Norway comparison. In addition to not being our own country, we don't have what basically amounts to a government owned oil company like Statoil.

Another question I have is what should the plan be for the Heritage fund? At what point is it acceptable to start spending it? Is the plan to have everyone employed by the government once industry packs up and leaves? If anything I would support spending a percentage of the money we make from resource revenue now to invest in alternative industry: high tech, manufacturing, alternative energy, etc. So that when the resources run out/become worthless, the entire economy doesn't collapse.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Speaking about doing the right thing, I agree with you that we should follow through with this fiscal overhaul, but the caveat is I don't want it to be Alison Redford or the Progressive Conservative party to be the ones to do it. I think it has to be a Liberal or even Wild Rose party(if they actually had the balls to increase taxes to do something fiscally responsible) to be the ones to do it.

One of the things that has largely been ignored by the general populace's obsession with the ideological debate (Right wing vs. left wing vs. centrist) is how outrightly corrupt the PC's are. I have family and friends that work in the government and they know personally of many conflicts of interest where sub-optimal and more costly decisions get made because some of the stakeholders are in the minister responsible's back pocket.

I have no confidence that giving the government more levers of generating revenue aren't going to be swallowed up overtime by the borg that is the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.

I don't disagree with you, but my desire is to move this away from a political discussion in general. I think that the further away from the money we get the politicians, the better off we are. That's a blanket statement and not targeted at any party...frankly though, they've demonstrated virtually no foresight and objectivity. I don't think I can be convinced that is a PC problem or even an Alberta problem at this point.

I love the Economic forum idea, and now think its brilliant. Mainly because I'm invited and excited to be going! (I know...small things and small minds)

[Tinordi]

One of the reasons why consultants are hired so much is because much of that core capacity was lost in the various rounds of government cuts and efforts to make government more 'streamlined.' Government could do that job in house if they had the expertise, but a policy decision was made to outsource that work to expensive consultants.

Again there are no easy answers here.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by fotze

That reads like you were the salesguy who lost out on the commission on selling the new piece of equipment.

Reading it now it does sound that way but no. I just hate seeing our tax money wasted.

[darklord700]

Wild Rose hit me up again tonight for they are launching a Stop The Debt campaign to stop the reckless spending of the PC.

[killer_carlson]

It was an interesting PR exercise, but very pointed in its creation.

What was the most consistent cut throughout do you think?

[Azure]

I also found it very interesting that you could find constant options for cutting stuff for old people, sick people, or people with mental health problems, but there wasn't a single option to cut pay for MLA, or at least freeze wage increases.

I guess if you can frame the debate....

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

I also found it very interesting that you could find constant options for cutting stuff for old people, sick people, or people with mental health problems, but there wasn't a single option to cut pay for MLA, or at least freeze wage increases.

I guess if you can frame the debate....

Probably because MLA salaries are a miniscule portion of government spending. It's like asking "Why don't they have a option for having penny collection jars in the clinics to defray the cost of health care?"

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jammies

Probably because MLA salaries are a miniscule portion of government spending. It's like asking "Why don't they have a option for having penny collection jars in the clinics to defray the cost of health care?"

This. Add to that I think there is an option to cut some of their supports and such (I can't recall how its worded, but I cut it in my submission). Let's say you cut the MLA pay in half though...it would save you about $5 million a year. Chump change in the grand scheme.