The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Those aren't solutions, those are ideas. You basically just said this:

The best way to be successful is to reduce spending because all of the bad things that happened in the province happened because we increased spending.

Also, I think we should fix healthcare so it is better.

Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds?

If you want to pay off your mortgage faster than start paykng off your mortgage faster.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

That is certainly a fair comment and true, but only to a point. Many of the jobs in our public service do not compete directly with the private sector at all. Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, etc. certainly do not have direct competition from within the private sector, and instead from other provincial employers.

I'm also not entirely sure where they got their numbers, but the report they quote states that Alberta's salaries increased on average by 55% over the past decade while public salaries increased by about 77%. It also states that provincial public administration wage growth in Alberta was the second fastest of all the major categories tracked by Statistics Canada over the past decade.

Furthermore, this totally ignores the fact that the 'public' job used to be one where you might accept lower salaries in exchange for some of the 'perks' associated with them. Gold plated pension, amazing job security, and early retirement. As public wages have grown to equal and often eclipse private wages, we see the same 'extra' benefits remaining.

They don't compete directly with the private sector in Alberta, but they do compete with the private sector indirectly and directly with the private sector from other places. Doctors and nurses used to often get their education here and then go to private hospitals in the US to get higher paying jobs. I don't know if this is still the case, but it definitely was not that long ago.

As for teachers, I personally know at least four who have left jobs in education (for which they had to get 4 year education degrees) for jobs in the oil patch. The reason? Less work and more pay.

[killer_carlson]

Let me ask this question:

If the WR Finance Critic offered a session going through the budget and giving details of the critique and the WR solutions, would you attend?

I know he did them over the last budget, and anticipate it would happen again.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Let me ask this question:

If the WR Finance Critic offered a session going through the budget and giving details of the critique and the WR solutions, would you attend?

I know he did them over the last budget, and anticipate it would happen again.

I probably would, but I'm kind of a loser like that. I went to the economic summit that Redford ran last spring and thought it was really interesting.

[Tinordi]

Yes Alberta's programs are so expensive compared to the rest of Canada and such a waste of taxpayer money:





Check out BC. They have a balanced budget but they also have much higher own source revenue when adjusted for resource rents. Connect the dots.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthw...ax-prices.html

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by fotze

Why are they "adjusting"?

Makes their chart look better, otherwise their point is invalid.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

You can conclude it because its on their website today. Surely you've looked and read the website right? Its not like it took a lot of digging to see that there is a deficit...just keep reading the whole page and at the bottom its a negative number. I know its a tough concept...

You've moved the goal posts now, but whatever floats your boat. Originally you criticized Danielle Smith for promising to balance the budget in 2012 and now you're talking about today. Once again, you can't state absolutely that the Wild Rose wouldn't have balanced the budget in 2012 because they weren't in power.

Am I disappointed that the WRP wouldn't balance the budget if they were in power this year? Of course. But the reality is the current government has put us in such a deep dark hole that it would be nearly impossible to eliminate the deficit without drastic and severe spending cuts that would have terrible consequences. You don't turn the titanic overnight.

Does that mean I think it's ok to continue on the same path and put our children into even further debt, to the tune of 22 BILLION by 2017 on the PC's current course? No freaking way.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yes Alberta's programs are so expensive compared to the rest of Canada and such a waste of taxpayer money:

Check out BC. They have a balanced budget but they also have much higher own source revenue when adjusted for resource rents. Connect the dots.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthw...ax-prices.html

I actually like these charts, it reflects the gross disconnect between our taxation and spending habits. All they really show is how low taxes are in Alberta compared to other provinces. If we agreed to not disperse any resource revenues on program spending, instead reserving it for an income fund, that would be a real eye opener.

If Albertan's really do want to continue the massive spending in this province, we should be taxed to reflect that. Once people realize how much this government costs by paying out of pocket, instead of squandering our resource revenues, I think the priorities would change quickly.

15% sales tax anyone?

[Tinordi]

For once, I'm with crazy.

It seems though like the real policy question here is why is Alberta program spending more expensive than other provinces?

I would assume that there's some gristle to trim after a party has been in power for 43 years but I'm fairly sure that that's just drops in the bucket. Is a province with high labour costs just destined to have higher per capita costs for the government to do business?

It would seem like Klein did cut back to the bone in the 90s, have all of those gains grown in again?

Would a province with big infrastructure needs from big resource projects simple have higher costs? Would a province with large net in-migration have higher per capita costs because of the transaction costs at least in the short term?

Or is it just waste and incompetence. It's a pretty pivotal question.

[Flamenspiel]

I think its in the other thread but I'd like to have an auditor general with godlike powers for a few years, I am not implying anything buts lets just make sure.

[troutman]

Provincial Sales Taxes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_Canada

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

For once, I'm with crazy.

It seems though like the real policy question here is why is Alberta program spending more expensive than other provinces?

I would assume that there's some gristle to trim after a party has been in power for 43 years but I'm fairly sure that that's just drops in the bucket. Is a province with high labour costs just destined to have higher per capita costs for the government to do business?

It would seem like Klein did cut back to the bone in the 90s, have all of those gains grown in again?

Would a province with big infrastructure needs from big resource projects simple have higher costs? Would a province with large net in-migration have higher per capita costs because of the transaction costs at least in the short term?

Or is it just waste and incompetence. It's a pretty pivotal question.

If you are looking for a single answer there isn't one, we do have a well-payed public service and that is something that we need in order to a) attract qualified people to the positions and b) ensure that government employees have a certain standard of living.

We have higher costs also because we as a province have continually put things off, our urban planning is pretty horrendous (look at public transit playing catch-up). That in combination with having a booming population in the cities puts us at a disadvantage once again with having to pay high labour and material rates in order to build the services to support a growing population.

There are issues with entitlement and corruption that exist, however if anyone is thinking that is responsible for anything other than a drop in the bucket, they are burying their heads in the sand.

The other problem that I see, is if you start laying off a bunch of people, what happens to them, what are the costs associated with that. If there is reduced efficiency in the government, who bears those costs. It is a lot easier to say that they will reduce inefficiencies, it is much more difficult to say with any degree of accuracy how they will do it and what impact that it will have on the province.

I really don't think that there is a simple answer no matter what any political party would have you believe, at the end of the day though, if people are so concerned about saving for future generations, why would they not be willing to increase their personal taxation a slight degree or at least adjust the taxation to be a progressive tax, one that would actually benefit those with low income while putting a greater onus of the responsibility on those with more income.

[Azure]

I figured it was pretty obvious that Albertans weren't being taxed according to the public service programs they received.

5% PST would be a great place to start. Problem is will that money actually be used effectively, and will resource revenue be put into savings or invested properly to sustain multiple generations over the long term?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Azure

I figured it was pretty obvious that Albertans weren't being taxed according to the public service programs they received.

5% PST would be a great place to start. Problem is will that money actually be used effectively, and will resource revenue be put into savings or invested properly to sustain multiple generations over the long term?

Probably no brainer that it will not considering the way things have been handled in recent history,

[Azure]

Exactly.

And that is why there is no point in really doing anything until a government comes into power that is willing to change things.

[Dion]

For more than four hours, she sat as the PC board of directors aired a laundry list of grievances about her leadership — and her personally — only to emerge looking pale and drawn, with a tight smile on her face.

“She was numb,” says a source close to the premier.

“Put yourself in her shoes. Can you imagine sitting around a table with 50 colleagues and having them literally go around the table, one by one, and tell you everything you’ve done wrong, and everything you’re doing wrong, challenging your every assumption about yourself, challenging your integrity."

“It was relentless,” says one Tory member who was inside the hotel room.

“She was told at one time that I don’t think we can win the next election with you as our leader. That was pretty harsh.”

Two separate board members described the gathering as “brutal,” as the premier absorbed the scathing assessment of some senior Tory board members.

She was told by one director that some constituencies had given up on her as leader, while others warned of a troubling lack of communication between the party, caucus and the premier’s office.

“The overwhelming issue was her,” said one director. “With everything taken together, it’s not a matter of policy, it’s an issue of likability and trust.”

The source close to Redford said the caucus meeting was “very similar” in tone to the meeting of the board of directors less than 48 hours earlier.

As more party members and MLAs openly defied Redford’s leadership, the premier began to question how much “public humiliation” and “character assassination” she wanted to swallow.

Rumours also beset Redford as talk swirled among the political class that another damaging allegation was about to surface, a charge hotly denied by those close to the premier.

Amery, in fact, believed Redford was going to make changes to try to salvage her premiership.

“Honestly, based on the conversation we had on Monday and how open she was to hear our views, I was surprised by the (resignation),” he says.

“Maybe I didn’t read her right. Or probably none of us (did).”

Sources close to Redford say various plans were being developed behind the scenes to deal with the situation.

Options ranged from cleaning out the staff in her office to cracking down on the dissidents. A group within caucus rallied to the premier’s side and offered support in the push to stabilize her leadership, the source said.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/po...255/story.html

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Dion

When I worked for Safeway sick days were abused all the time. Got a rare weekend off? Time to use a suck day to make it a long weekend was the response. If you didn't use them they accumulated and were paid out when you quit. That's why your groceries cost so much.

Oh yeah, the typical wing-nut argument: "Prices are too high because of the YOON-YUN 'abusing' their rights by using their (collectively bargained) sick days! It's all the YOON-YUN's fault!!!"

Nevermind the fact that the CEO takes home 11 million per year.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Oh yeah, the typical wing-nut argument: "Prices are too high because of the YOON-YUN 'abusing' their rights by using their (collectively bargained) sick days! It's all the YOON-YUN's fault!!!"

Nevermind the fact that the CEO takes home 11 million per year.

Safeway: 138,000 employees. Let's say, 24 hours per week per employee (All part time): 3.312 million hours per week. 172,224,000 hours per year. So, cut the CEO's salary to 0 and we can give them all a raise of 6 cents per hour!

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

Safeway: 138,000 employees. Let's say, 24 hours per week per employee (All part time): 3.312 million hours per week. 172,224,000 hours per year. So, cut the CEO's salary to 0 and we can give them all a raise of 6 cents per hour!

Not the point. But nice attempt at a deflection.

[CaramonLS]

Maybe Dion is talking about a different province, but Safeway's sick days aren't paid out for Alberta employees upon termination and haven't for years.