Alberta budget news

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

So you are saying that more people, who are older and require the health care system more costs more money? Good observation... how you get from that to how we need to cut funding to the health care system is beyond me.

Nope, what I'm saying is the growth in spending isn't helping outcomes and is unsustainable.

Do you think we can afford another 100% increase in the next decade? How do you propose we pay for it?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Because if you increase my taxes you're going to burn in hell. Only cutting spending is the answer, period.

Still waiting.....

Asking for something of substance please. 2nd try.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How about you bring some substance to this thread?

Which of the Wildrose cost cutting measures do you think would be the least effective?

Why do you think it's reasonable for every province in Canada to carry debt? How much debt would you like your children to inherit?

It only took about 7 times asking Makarov for some numbers to get an answer. I wonder how many times it will take for you to offer something of value.

What is the fascination with debt in this province and how we can't move on from the fact that nearly every single government in the world has debt and that it isn't going to doom future generations to a life of toiling in the caves.

Frankly, if we need to borrow money we should as a province be willing to borrow money, especially for capital projects... with regards to cutting positions, you do realize that the government has to often pay severance as well as the fact if those people can not find a job they will then have to go on government assistance, in combination with the fact that the income tax base for the province slightly decreases.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How about you bring some substance to this thread?

Which of the Wildrose cost cutting measures do you think would be the least effective?

Why do you think it's reasonable for every province in Canada to carry debt? How much debt would you like your children to inherit?

It only took about 7 times asking Makarov for some numbers to get an answer. I wonder how many times it will take for you to offer something of value.

Yeah I just don't think their numbers are realistic, and some of the ideas will never happen (Changing eqaulization? Good luck...), and using "Ongoing" as your savings number is basically saying we don't know whether we can actually save the money, we'll just hope we can. I also can't take seriously a budget that also doubles as a promo for Danielle Smith. Budgets aren't supposed to have pictures of your leader on every other page, political promos are supposed to.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Nope, what I'm saying is the growth in spending isn't helping outcomes and is unsustainable.

Do you think we can afford another 100% increase in the next decade? How do you propose we pay for it?

You have long decades of 15 years... I don't think that is feasible and that we need to focus more on healthy living initiatives, an increased use of home care, seniors living with their children in their twilight years, government sponsored initiatives aimed at keeping people physically active... Although every time that the government puts these measures into place I get to hear the Wildrose Peanut Gallery talk about how the Nanny State is trying to run our lives.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Well besides your sideways tosses I too have experienced working in several large corporations and budgeting definitely didn't go the way you describe. Budgeting usually worked from a project up basis and, outside of human resources, budgets certainly were not rubber stamped for increases year after year without constant analysis and vigilance, haven't heard much of that going on in the provincial government. It wasn't uncommon for budgets to disappear entirely, and that certainly hasn't happened in the government lately. But I doubt I'm going to convince you of anything anyways.

I worked at a large telecom company where a guy got paid for 6 months after he stopped coming in to work (he got another job before his 3 months were up and didn't bother to put in a formal resignation). So much for "constant analysis and vigilance" with the company's money.

You mistake words and intentions for results - every company (and the government, for that matter) SAYS it is run efficiently and cost-effectively under well-crafted policies and rigidly followed procedures, and none of them over a certain size actually do. Are you in management? You sound like a manager.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Of course, the hallmark of private corporations is the profit motive, and we know the government doesn't operate on those guidelines. It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to limit out of control spending, eliminate waste, and force the public sector to live within reasonable means instead of accumulating debt for future generations. Spending for the sake of spending, and not having any increase in outcomes despite huge increases in public salaries over the past decade should be troubling for all of us.

Sure, whatever. Doesn't change the fact that comparing government to private business is asinine and all the buzz phrases in the world (eliminate waste - how? Reasonable means - which are?) won't make it a good idea. I guess it's at least a step up from comparing government to a family.

For someone who demands a lot of numbers and documentation from everyone else, you are certainly short on specifics yourself. Why don't YOU give us an example of a polity that is doing what you think needs to be done here? Why don't you show us some figures on public sector salaries vs private sector salaries in Alberta so we can see this imbalance for ourselves? Why don't you show us studies on how a sales tax is less efficient and more regressive than other types of taxation?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Introduction of rational private health care reforms modeled after Switzerland, France, and Ontario could reduce costs drastically and is a necessary change needed for a sustainable system.

That would likely result in huge savings as well. Nobody is saying these changes happen overnight, but it's definitely time to return to fiscal conservatism in this province. We wasted a golden opportunity given to us by Ralph Klein.

Just because it's a large mountain doesn't mean you don't take the first step and stay in the swamp.

Sorry, I'm waiting for $11 billion in actual painless savings. Otherwise taxes (well, revenue) must go up in order not be using revenue from our children's resources to keep our taxes artificially low.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Still waiting.....

Asking for something of substance please. 2nd try.

I'd like to add for more irony, how is this something of substance?

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Many left wing supporters believe we should leave a deficit for our children so that they have less choices for the future than we do. It's really a sad state of mind, IMHO.

Especially ironic since by my count the Liberals left surpluses that the Conservatives have turned into deficits. Also, Republicans, the right wing party, turned Clinton surpluses into historic debt, and Reagan, the ring wing demigod, was a massive spender who massively increased debt. You think we're all left wingers because we think your consistently proven horrible ideas don't work. Most of us are centrists, we love Bill Clinton and the Third Way cause thats how it should be done.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sorry, no, I'm not trying to imply that they have. That is just what I believe any government of Alberta should do. I think that it is selfish and irresponsible to use non-renewable resource revenues to keep taxes artificially low (I have no problem relying on investmen revenue from a giant Heritage Fund to keep taxes low or to fund infrastructure. ) I imagine that some people disagree with me (including the WRP).

It is my understanding that the WRP also believes in saving resource revenue, although I don't think they want to save all of it.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by jammies

I worked at a large telecom company where a guy got paid for 6 months after he stopped coming in to work (he got another job before his 3 months were up and didn't bother to put in a formal resignation). So much for "constant analysis and vigilance" with the company's money.

You mistake words and intentions for results - every company (and the government, for that matter) SAYS it is run efficiently and cost-effectively under well-crafted policies and rigidly followed procedures, and none of them over a certain size actually do. Are you in management? You sound like a manager.

To certain extent, you are right and loss of efficiency is always a problem with growth, especially into very large organizations.

However, in the private sector competition means that when lack of efficiency and productivity becomes the norm instead of the exception, the business will falter. People lose their jobs. And another, more efficient company comes in to fill the void.

Government (bureaucracy) doesn't have this pressure. We rarely (ever?) hear of mass layoffs, or the closure of an entire department. There is no pressure to meet the performance of competing firms. Thus, extreme attention to cutting costs and waste throughout the public sector should be norm, not an anathema.

Sure, whatever. Doesn't change the fact that comparing government to private business is asinine and all the buzz phrases in the world (eliminate waste - how? Reasonable means - which are?) won't make it a good idea. I guess it's at least a step up from comparing government to a family.

For someone who demands a lot of numbers and documentation from everyone else, you are certainly short on specifics yourself. Why don't YOU give us an example of a polity that is doing what you think needs to be done here? Why don't you show us some figures on public sector salaries vs private sector salaries in Alberta so we can see this imbalance for ourselves? Why don't you show us studies on how a sales tax is less efficient and more regressive than other types of taxation?

I think I've provided ample reference to the early Klein years and the current Wildrose platform as a preferred polity to the current regime.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploa...in-alberta.pdf

And I don't think a sales tax is either less efficient or more regressive than othery types of taxation, so why would I post that?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'd like to add for more irony, how is this something of substance?



Especially ironic since by my count the Liberals left surpluses that the Conservatives have turned into deficits. Also, Republicans, the right wing party, turned Clinton surpluses into historic debt, and Reagan, the ring wing demigod, was a massive spender who massively increased debt. You think we're all left wingers because we think your consistently proven horrible ideas don't work. Most of us are centrists, we love Bill Clinton and the Third Way cause thats how it should be done.

Lol, not interested in discussing fiscal conservatism in name vs practice. Are you arguing that Bush governed from the left wing? I could agree to that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sorry, I'm waiting for $11 billion in actual painless savings. Otherwise taxes (well, revenue) must go up in order not be using revenue from our children's resources to keep our taxes artificially low.

Here is the problem with the resource revenue arguement. We don't need to save all of the oil revenue we extract out of the ground. We need to save enough resource revenue so that as production drops in the future we have saved enough to cover the loss in revenue. So say we have 100 years of oil extraction left and we need to replace 11 billion in revenues. To replace that 11 billion we need around 200 billion in todays dollars saved by year 100. Now assuming we take out growth after inflation out of the fund as a dividend to the province to reduce taxes we would only need to save about 2 billion a year to hit 200 billion when our oil runs out.

The goal of the resource revenue fund should be to create a constant taxation level forever. So because we have no savings now it doesn't make sense to cut all 11 billion and greatly increase the tax burden today so that our children have no taxes in the future. Balance is needed.

So I think when you frame it as finding 2 billion in cuts rather than 11 billion in cuts I think you can have a much more reasonable discussion. Please feel free to play around the numbers rates of return, inflation as you like but the general concept is that we want constant revenue and constant taxation over time.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GGG

Here is the problem with the resource revenue arguement. We don't need to save all of the oil revenue we extract out of the ground. We need to save enough resource revenue so that as production drops in the future we have saved enough to cover the loss in revenue. So say we have 100 years of oil extraction left and we need to replace 11 billion in revenues. To replace that 11 billion we need around 200 billion in todays dollars saved by year 100. Now assuming we take out growth after inflation out of the fund as a dividend to the province to reduce taxes we would only need to save about 2 billion a year to hit 200 billion when our oil runs out.

The goal of the resource revenue fund should be to create a constant taxation level forever. So because we have no savings now it doesn't make sense to cut all 11 billion and greatly increase the tax burden today so that our children have no taxes in the future. Balance is needed.

So I think when you frame it as finding 2 billion in cuts rather than 11 billion in cuts I think you can have a much more reasonable discussion. Please feel free to play around the numbers rates of return, inflation as you like but the general concept is that we want constant revenue and constant taxation over time.

Yes, that is a perfectly reasonable position. I agree. However, I would like to know what the actual numbers are. I would also like those numbers to at least consider the fact that incomes won't likely be 20% higher than average when we run out of resources either.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Lol, not interested in discussing fiscal conservatism in name vs practice. Are you arguing that Bush governed from the left wing? I could agree to that.

Are you saying Harper is governing from the left wing too? And if so, what makes you think the Wildrose would be any different, other than you saying so? Lots of the same people involved in both parties after all, lots of CPCs supporting the Wildrose last year as well (including receiving the Rob Anders kiss of death).

Also when you go to use a reference and use noted CPC and Wildrose supporter the Fraser Institute as your reference (or the CTF), you basically lose any chance of credibility being given to what you're saying. No doubt if anyone used the Toronto Star as a reference to back up their point you'd call it left-wing garbage. Amazingly in today's age, you can find many "experts" who will back up your point, regardless of whether they actually know what they're talking about.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Are you saying Harper is governing from the left wing too? And if so, what makes you think the Wildrose would be any different, other than you saying so? Lots of the same people involved in both parties after all, lots of CPCs supporting the Wildrose last year as well (including receiving the Rob Anders kiss of death).

Also when you go to use a reference and use noted CPC and Wildrose supporter the Fraser Institute as your reference (or the CTF), you basically lose any chance of credibility being given to what you're saying. No doubt if anyone used the Toronto Star as a reference to back up their point you'd call it left-wing garbage. Amazingly in today's age, you can find many "experts" who will back up your point, regardless of whether they actually know what they're talking about.

If you don't like the Fraser institute, then use any one of the 20 or so academic papers they cited.

Foolish statement is foolish.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

If you don't like the Fraser institute, then use any one of the 20 or so academic papers they cited.

Foolish statement is foolish.

Right...so if I don't believe the Institute who publishes the studies, I should believe the sources and citations that its research uses? I think thats a remarkably foolish statement. Don't trust the Institute, just trust the information their opinions are based on?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

What is the fascination with debt in this province and how we can't move on from the fact that nearly every single government in the world has debt and that it isn't going to doom future generations to a life of toiling in the caves.

Frankly, if we need to borrow money we should as a province be willing to borrow money, especially for capital projects... with regards to cutting positions, you do realize that the government has to often pay severance as well as the fact if those people can not find a job they will then have to go on government assistance, in combination with the fact that the income tax base for the province slightly decreases.

lol.

So because other countries, like the US, with its crippling debt load and constant political bickering and inability to pass anything because they can't agree what the hell they need to do, especially when morons like Krugman say they should spend even more.....Alberta should do the same?

If NEEDS be, I have absolutely no problem with going into a deficit to pay for capital projects. But that isn't the problem here, and it is pretty hilarious how you and everyone else in this thread can't see that.

Health care spending has gone crazy the past 10 years. Have we seen results from that? Considering it is the countries/provinces biggest expenditure, don't you think we ought to go figure out how the money is being spent, and why it isn't resulting in drastic improvements, instead of just throwing more money at it? Because that is what will happen. Spending will continue to increase, because once you allow the government to spend like crazy, they will.

[SebC]

Good discussion in this thread. I feel like the if the rest of the province was having the same discussion, we'd be much further along in solving the problems we are obviously facing.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right...so if I don't believe the Institute who publishes the studies, I should believe the sources and citations that its research uses? I think thats a remarkably foolish statement. Don't trust the Institute, just trust the information their opinions are based on?

You could read the studies published in major academic journals and form your own opinions. Even find your own scholarly articles to refute the studies that look at it from another angle.

Or you can defend your closed mind based on nothing but preconceptions. At least we are all aware of where your opinions are coming from.

Good luck!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

You could read the studies published in major academic journals and form your own opinions. Even find your own scholarly articles to refute the studies that look at it from another angle.

Or you can defend your closed mind based nothing on preconceptions. At least we are all aware of where your opinions are coming from.

Good luck!

I have to say you are one of the funniest posters one here, so thank you for making me laugh all day today. The guy who blasts others for not offerring actual evidence and facts (which Makarov did consistently, and not biased either, direct budget information released by the government), yet when asked to provide his own can only provide slanted, biased articles from sources who's goal is to see conservative, libertarian politicians elected.

As to closed minded, I'm pretty sure the guys hating gay people and being racists were in the Wildrose party. Regressive, and closed minded. Well done.