Alberta Politics Thread

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

We already knew we were overspending before Notley came in. The fact that the Redford/Prentice Tories did it first in no way mitigates the fact that Notley continues to overspend.

So, yeah. When speaking of "rude awakenings" that the population needs to face, I would suggest the cradle to grave supporters might consider the fact that services spending needs to be cut too.

With so many graduates of "Economics 101" posting in this thread, I'm surprised that more posters aren't familiar with the classic economic case for government spending to stimulate a sluggish economy. Agree with it or not, it's not some crazy, novel idea.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Makarov

With so many graduates of "Economics 101" posting in this thread, I'm surprised that more posters aren't familiar with the classic economic case for government spending to stimulate a sluggish economy. Agree with it or not, it's not some crazy, novel idea.

Stimulating the economy with deficit spending is usually targeted in specific spheres with the goal to nurture, develop the base economy with the hope that it grows to strengthen the tax base and ultimately create a rising tide to bring it out of a recession.

The mere act of spending more than you have isn't stimulating the economy. The government isn't spending $11 billion in infrastructure, investing it in start up businesses, new business incentives, nurturing fledgling companies or investment. The Alberta overspending is just to keep operating, it's a structural deficit. It's not a capital investment, it's just keeping the dang lights on.

Again, to drag out the dual income family scenario with the recent layoff example - it's like that person taking out a short term loan to go back to school to get new skills and ultimately employment in a higher paying field. Not the current government scenario of continuing on the exact same unsustainable spending path of hookers and blow, paycheck to paycheck. That is not stimulating the economy (the hookers, maybe).

If it were, you might as well literally borrow another $11 billion and dump it on the street for people to pick up or just give cheques to every Albertan for $3,000 tomorrow.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

With so many graduates of "Economics 101" posting in this thread, I'm surprised that more posters aren't familiar with the classic economic case for government spending to stimulate a sluggish economy. Agree with it or not, it's not some crazy, novel idea.

So when do we cut spending? Do you honestly think if oil returns to $70 a barrel and the energy revenues start flowing into provincial coffers again that the NDP will make substantial cuts to government spending?

Also, what happens if the economy in Canada (and the rest of the mature economies of the West) follows the course of Japan and we see 20 years of a sluggish economy? Just keep spending and spending?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It would really depend on a lot of factors, obviously more efficient operations would be the first place to start. Wage cuts can happen and are an option if a situation warrants it. Wage freezes are typically the first and better option in that direction. With the higher taxes, a wage freeze would have more of a positive impact IMO than reducing wages. Reducing wages would reduce both tax revenue as well as economic consumer spending revenue, whereas freezing wages would increase revenue while only reducing economic consumer spending revenue.

So you would support a 3 X 0 wage freeze for all government contracts coming up?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So when do we cut spending? Do you honestly think if oil returns to $70 a barrel and the energy revenues start flowing into provincial coffers again that the NDP will make substantial cuts to government spending?

Also, what happens if the economy in Canada (and the rest of the mature economies of the West) follows the course of Japan and we see 20 years of a sluggish economy? Just keep spending and spending?

I think they key for Alberta is to Balance the budget at $55 to $60 oil. Then when oil prices use you legislate the money into the heritage fund. Otherwise it gets spent.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Cutting programs now, as I've said before, can be potentially more expensive than maintaining programs in the long run. If we want something eventually we will pay for it one way or another. I'm not saying it should not be considered on a case by case basis, but if there is an opportunity to fix the problem without reducing our services I think that option needs to be explored first. It's a gamble either way, and this is the more sensible option to take first in my opinion. If this way doesn't work, you can turn to cuts. But if you start with cuts and that doesn't work, do you really think taxpayers are going to want to have taxes raised after you've already cut programs?

Iggy, in what scenario would you ever reduce (not kill, not wipe out, not massacre) programs if not in a record structural deficit, where your operating costs are clearly unsustainable? You want to get dependence off of oil and gas revenues, I get it. Then you cannot keep spending like you are still getting peak oil and gas revenue indefinitely into the future when it'll be the only thing possible to bail you out. And piling up -$11 billion year after year isn't a good time to experiment and dabble.

As for cutting and taxes, it's not binary. Not to sound like a jerk but it seems like you tend to believe things or envision scenarios that are all one way or another. When economists and rating agencies are saying that our credit rating is in trouble, it's not like they're saying to light the government on fire and wipe it out. A reasonable plan to pare some costs and adjust taxes aren't the end of the world. As Slava mentioned, there has basically been little to no material adjustments to spending with no future plans. Hell, I'd disagree with you and say that people would be way more amenable to the additional piling on of taxes if they made at least some token attempt to control spending. Our financial minister basically shrugged when asked about his estimate of when things might be balanced or adjustments in the future.

Nevermind the additional billions of dollars we pile up year after year in debt servicing costs while we continue to borrow just to operate and keep the lights on.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I understand where you are both coming from, but there are some facts that support this action. Please try to read this without your anti NDP hats on, I'm not trying to justify their actions based on the party. We will have more tax revenue coming in, this will potentially help stop the bleeding. They will also maintain the services we currently have which people would not like to see go(nobody likes to downsize), this will also avoid paying ballooning catch up costs if they did reduce services and spending(ie road work). There have also been reports of oil bouncing back next year, that also potentially adds a boost. They are also trying to get pipelines approved(whether you agree or not with their way of doing it) which will also potentially provide a boost.

Now you probably noticed I said these thing could potentially help in most cases, what they are basically doing right now is waiting to see, sure is it us as taxpayers who could potentially end up with a bigger deficit to pay off if a year goes by and there are no improvements or not enough? Yes, but there is a potential that the problem could start showing signs of improvement as well, and we could get ourselves out of the situation we're in without cutting funding or programs unnecessarily.

Cutting programs now, as I've said before, can be potentially more expensive than maintaining programs in the long run. If we want something eventually we will pay for it one way or another. I'm not saying it should not be considered on a case by case basis, but if there is an opportunity to fix the problem without reducing our services I think that option needs to be explored first. It's a gamble either way, and this is the more sensible option to take first in my opinion. If this way doesn't work, you can turn to cuts. But if you start with cuts and that doesn't work, do you really think taxpayers are going to want to have taxes raised after you've already cut programs?

Its important to recognize that the tax revenue is a moving target though. So increased taxes doesn't automatically result in a certain amount because there are a lot of factors. People will find ways to avoid paying the increased rates, they will have less income reported and things like that.

Second, why does it always have to go right to program cuts? Why is there never anywhere rationally to trim other than front line staff, or chopping programs? Surely there are some areas where savings could be had. It just gets disingenuous right off the bat though.

Originally Posted by Makarov

With so many graduates of "Economics 101" posting in this thread, I'm surprised that more posters aren't familiar with the classic economic case for government spending to stimulate a sluggish economy. Agree with it or not, it's not some crazy, novel idea.

I am all for stimulation of the economy and Keynes. I think it's proven to work. Can you just let !e know how borrowing money for operations is stimulating things wisely? As far as I can tell that's a comp!ete disaster and frankly if people think that's a great idea they could use Economics 101.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

So you would support a 3 X 0 wage freeze for all government contracts coming up?

3x0? Like 3 years at 0% raise? It depends on too many factors to give an across the board yes or no answer. But regardless this is something that does happen when circumstances are right. I wouldn't oppose it if it made sense to do it, but I also wouldn't support it if it didn't. Every contract is different. Different length, wages, rights, benefits, etc... It's a matter of making it work for both sides.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

3x0? Like 3 years at 0% raise? It depends on too many factors to give an across the board yes or no answer. But regardless this is something that does happen when circumstances are right. I wouldn't oppose it if it made sense to do it, but I also wouldn't support it if it didn't. Every contract is different. Different length, wages, rights, benefits, etc... It's a matter of making it work for both sides.

Your answer in visual form:

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Your answer in visual form:

A blank square?

[CaptainCrunch]

running a deficit on your operating budget in no way stimulates the economy it just kills the tax base.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

running a deficit on your operating budget in no way stimulates the economy it just kills the tax base.

His missed ECON 101 pewpew shot aside, I would be up for a blind $11 billion cash money toss in the streets of Calgary ala 1989 Batman. Then again maybe not, I sorta remember it ending kinda badly. It's been a while.

And to be fair, I just took ECON 101 and 201 as easy side electives to fill out the schedule. I'm not remotely any kind of expert, Slava must be far and away much more familiar than any of us.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

A blank square?

Yummy. I'd buy that for $11,000,000,000.

(Image is coming through for me, I assume it was/is a broken link on some computers? Not sure.)

[Coach]

I want waffles.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Second, why does it always have to go right to program cuts? Why is there never anywhere rationally to trim other than front line staff, or chopping programs? Surely there are some areas where savings could be had. It just gets disingenuous right off the bat though.

I'm not being disingenuous, obviously that is the best option, if it is possible. If you have any examples of what types of changes that could be made to programs or business to reduce costs by all means share them with us, better yet make your voice heard with politicians and the public so they can implement these changes. I'm just going on the assumption that the people running these programs are doing what they can to run these programs as cost efficiently as possible, in which case jobs or program cuts are typically the cost cutting measure of choice.

Bringing in cheaper workers is likely the option people will argue for, but you need to keep in mind if we are reducing wages it has a ripple effect on tax revenue and is trading one problem for another in the system and therefore is more of a sideways move in my opinion. That being said that can vary situationally.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I want waffles.

We need a Waffle House

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

We will have more tax revenue coming in, this will potentially help stop the bleeding.

Why do you think this is the case?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dion

We need a Waffle House

In Canada, drunk people just fight wherever. They go to Denny's after the fight. Waffle House is Affle.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by chemgear

His missed ECON 101 pewpew shot aside, I would be up for a blind $11 billion cash money toss in the streets of Calgary ala 1989 Batman. Then again maybe not, I sorta remember it ending kinda badly. It's been a while.

And to be fair, I just took ECON 101 and 201 as easy side electives to fill out the schedule. I'm not remotely any kind of expert, Slava must be far and away much more familiar than any of us.

The ECON 101 bomb was a nice touch. It smelled of rich mahogany and fine scotch.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Stimulating the economy with deficit spending is usually targeted in specific spheres with the goal to nurture, develop the base economy with the hope that it grows to strengthen the tax base and ultimately create a rising tide to bring it out of a recession.

The mere act of spending more than you have isn't stimulating the economy. The government isn't spending $11 billion in infrastructure, investing it in start up businesses, new business incentives, nurturing fledgling companies or investment. The Alberta overspending is just to keep operating, it's a structural deficit. It's not a capital investment, it's just keeping the dang lights on.

Again, to drag out the dual income family scenario with the recent layoff example - it's like that person taking out a short term loan to go back to school to get new skills and ultimately employment in a higher paying field. Not the current government scenario of continuing on the exact same unsustainable spending path of hookers and blow, paycheck to paycheck. That is not stimulating the economy (the hookers, maybe).

If it were, you might as well literally borrow another $11 billion and dump it on the street for people to pick up or just give cheques to every Albertan for $3,000 tomorrow.

Actually, the province is spending $37 billion on capital infrastructure projects over the next five years.