Alberta budget news

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peter12

Anytime there is a political debate on this board, I am reminded of how stupid most people don't deserve to vote, or comment on public affairs.

Nice sentence, smart guy.

Originally Posted by peter12

You don't think having citizen watchdog groups at a budget meeting is a good idea?

CTF is not a "citizen watchdog group". It is a myopic special interest group who's answer to every single issue is "lower taxes" and "less spending". What is the point of giving them an early look at the budget? So that we can hear them say "lower taxes" and "less spending"?

[GP_Matt]

Can someone clarify why this meeting exists at all. Initially I thought it was to provide input in the budget from various viewpoints (special interest groups). But if the budget is done and will not change is the government just looking for some advance criticism so that they can prepare their responses?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Nice sentence, smart guy.



CTF is not a "citizen watchdog group". It is a myopic special interest group who's answer to every single issue is "lower taxes" and "less spending". What is the point of giving them an early look at the budget? So that we can hear them say "lower taxes" and "less spending"?

Wasn't it the CTF who exposed the 'no-meet' committee stuff?
Or more recently, they pointed out that people making over $100000 a year were living in government subsidized low income housing. Not because they needed help, but because the government couldn't find any low income applicants and never considered charging market rent to the high income earners.

I think they do a good job of naming and shaming the government when they waste money and hope they continue to do so. As for keeping them from the meeting I think it will only make their voice stronger. Instead of one voice among many when the budget is released there will be focus on them with the media wondering why they weren't invited.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Wasn't it the CTF who exposed the 'no-meet' committee stuff?
Or more recently, they pointed out that people making over $100000 a year were living in government subsidized low income housing. Not because they needed help, but because the government couldn't find any low income applicants and never considered charging market rent to the high income earners.

I think they do a good job of naming and shaming the government when they waste money and hope they continue to do so. As for keeping them from the meeting I think it will only make their voice stronger. Instead of one voice among many when the budget is released there will be focus on them with the media wondering why they weren't invited.

I'm not saying that the CTF has no value or should have no voice in our country's political discussion. Indeed, I agree with them on several issues.

I am saying, however, that there is nothing special about the CTF. It is not "a government watchdog" like, for example, an ombudsman. It is a special interest group. It, like most (all?) special interest groups, has a myopic focus (in this case, less spending and less taxes) and, despite how it (and others, such as posters on this forum) might portray it(self), it does not represent all Canadians or all taxpayers.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Can someone clarify why this meeting exists at all. Initially I thought it was to provide input in the budget from various viewpoints (special interest groups). But if the budget is done and will not change is the government just looking for some advance criticism so that they can prepare their responses?

Since its creation in 1990, the CTF has participated in the budget lockup as the largest taxpayer advocacy group in the country.

The lockup allows stakeholders to study the budget and provide reaction to the media alongside opposition and government members.

Link

The CTF is getting more attention by being banned.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

LOL...yeah OK.

Liberals make me laugh.

I find your argument very persuasive.

[Makarov]

Since its creation in 1990, the CTF has participated in the budget lockup as the largest taxpayer advocacy group in the country.

This is what I can't stand. CTF is not, no matter what it calls itself, a "taxpayer advocacy group".

[First Lady]

Apparently only "employee's" of parties will be allowed in. They have shut out all groups normally invited. Some may say the CTF is right leaning, but they have barred the left leaning groups too.

So the Wildrose has put out this offer to all of them.

The open invitation has been extended by Leader Danielle Smith’s office to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Public Interest Alberta, the Fraser Institute and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.

“This Premier has said she wants to raise the bar on accountability and transparency in government. If she’s not going to raise it herself, we are happy to raise it for her,” Smith said. “Quite simply, this government is attempting to stifle open and honest criticism of their budget by shutting these groups out. We believe they should be brought into the process of analyzing this very important budget, not left out in the cold.”

Wildrose is offering one-day, $1-contracts to individuals from each of those organizations to be brought in to provide budget analysis to the Official Opposition. Government has stipulated that only staff can accompany MLAs into the pre-budget lockup briefing.

Full release

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

Anytime there is a political debate on this board, I am reminded of how stupid most people don't deserve to vote, or comment on public affairs.

You don't think having citizen watchdog groups at a budget meeting is a good idea?

Just when I think that you can't get any holier than thou, you come out and blow away my expectations. I, (more often than not), disagree with guys like Dion, Transplant, Jacks, Crazy eoj and others. At no point would I ever suggest that they don't deserve to vote or shouldn't comment.

I would bet that if a bunch of us ever sat down and talked it would be interesting, thought filled discussion. Some of us might even learn something, but we would all see that the other side doesn't have horns. I'm a big believer that while we have different ways of getting there, we all want what's best for the province/country/city. Adults can disagree and debate things though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that and in fact it ought to be encouraged.

As for having a "watchdog" as you call them in attendance, the answer should be no anyway. It's not a budget meeting, its the release of the budget for media to release after the lock-up expires. I have no idea why we need groups like CTF to be there.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Apparently only "employee's" of parties will be allowed in. They have shut out all groups normally invited. Some may say the CTF is right leaning, but they have barred the left leaning groups too.

So the Wildrose has put out this offer to all of them.



Full release

In fairness this would only make the status between the CTF and Wildrose official. They might as well be employees anyway because they're already lapdogs.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

In fairness this would only make the status between the CTF and Wildrose official. They might as well be employees anyway because they're already lapdogs.

And with the AFL

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

And with the AFL

I'm not so dumb as to see what's happening here. They invite the "other side" to make this look like they want to hear what the lefties have to say. They're not fooling anyone because until they just invited them no one even knew that these others weren't there and cared even less. Good to see the Wildrose engaging in publicity stunts rather than actually just attending and coming up with ideas though.

Reality is that this is a waste of $4 though and if you've seen that KFC commercial you know what you can get with that kind of money! So much for fiscal conservatives!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not so dumb as to see what's happening here. They invite the "other side" to make this look like they want to hear what the lefties have to say. They're not fooling anyone because until they just invited them no one even knew that these others weren't there and cared even less.

You don't get it, Slava. The AFL and Public Interest Alberta are just "special interest groups". The CTF is "a government watchdog" that represents "Canadian taxpayers" (i.e., everyone over the age of 5 in Canada)!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I find your argument very persuasive.

Good for you. The fact you consider the CTF a special interest group that doesn't work on behalf of every single taxpayer tells me all i need to know.

Your ideology is so out of whack with reality, I am more than pleased you disagree though.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Good for you. The fact you consider the CTF a special interest group that doesn't work on behalf of every single taxpayer tells me all i need to know.

Your ideology is so out of whack with reality, I am more than pleased you disagree though.

You realize that every person in Canada over the age of 5 pays some form of taxes, right?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

In fairness this would only make the status between the CTF and Wildrose official. They might as well be employees anyway because they're already lapdogs.

Would that theoretical status of "official" between the CTF and WR also extend to AUPE and the AFL as well?

Just wondering what the rules are in this scenario.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Good for you. The fact you consider the CTF a special interest group that doesn't work on behalf of every single taxpayer tells me all i need to know.

Your ideology is so out of whack with reality, I am more than pleased you disagree though.

Can you just tell me where they get this mandate? Politicians are elected, so we know where that mandate comes from. Where exactly does the CTF get to come out and say that "we're opposed to this" or "in favour of that" though? It sure looks like a facade.

Another important point is that this is a group that represents us to people we elected to represent us. Not only do I have no idea where they get their authority from, and the fact that they are completely unaccountable, but do we really need this? We elect people to these roles and while not everyone agrees, we elect opposition politicians as well. What is the purpose of this group, if not to advance a particular agenda? Elected politicians already represent "every single taxpayer", and its clear and transparent where that authority comes from in the first place.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Would that theoretical status of "official" between the CTF and WR also extend to AUPE and the AFL as well?

Just wondering what the rules are in this scenario.

If by "official" you care to include that they're dominated by special interests I could probably be swayed to go along with that. More accurately though, let's call it what it is: a publicity stunt. Next thing you know Danielle Smith will have her truck parked on the legislature steps in defiance of local bylaws!

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

As for having a "watchdog" as you call them in attendance, the answer should be no anyway. It's not a budget meeting, its the release of the budget for media to release after the lock-up expires. I have no idea why we need groups like CTF to be there.

Perhaps list us some reasons of why or what groups SHOULD be there, and why the CTF doesn't qualify? Or perhaps outline what has changed in the last couple decades years to suddenly reverse standard procedures?

Bottom line, this is just the Redford government showing how petulant and vindictive they are. They have been fully exposed as having basically no fiscally conservative principles at all and are throwing a temper tantrum to try and distract from that fact.

I don't think it's going to work in their favor at all, the more childish stunts they pull the more people will move to support the Wildrose Party.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Would that theoretical status of "official" between the CTF and WR also extend to AUPE and the AFL as well?

Just wondering what the rules are in this scenario.

No, no. There are no rules when it comes to Slava spin.

He will just turn around and pose a different question to you.