Alberta Politics Thread

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by belsarius

They are. Spending increases are being restricted to under 2%. Employees are having everything cutback from office supplies to water and coffee. Firing people is more harmful to the economy then anything else. Our whole system runs on consumers, they are the only job creators in capitalism.

Putting these people out of work will just increase unemployment, decrease GDP, increase expenditures on EI and social services. I get having to take on some debt to keep the lights on sucks, but someone has to explain to me how firing people does any good for the economy?

It's not going to lower taxes so it's not like it will increase other people spending. It won't increase investment as there are less consumers for goods. What are the positives?

Keeping the public service stable and growing at inflation makes sense to me.

You do know the NDP have been hiring like crazy?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You do know the NDP have been hiring like crazy?

I'd like to know where because everyone I know in the public service tells me they are on hiring freezes except to backfill.

[belsarius]

Here's a little story from May 2015. Notley wasn't even sworn in yet and Suncor and Cenovus were lobbying for a carbon tax. I guess they must be NDP on the inside and brainwashed by socialist doctrine.

Complain all you want about the carbon tax but maybe complain that the NDP bowed to industry pressure, not internal NDP policy pressure. Or maybe they were aligned because in the long run both the NDP and industry leaders know the carbon tax is the best way forward.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-...erta-1.3083832

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm not sure, in the rest of Canada?

Really? Where? Ontario is running record deficits, Quebec hasnt balanced a budget since the days of....actually, have they ever? These two provinces account for more than half of our National debt.

Do you want to know what else they have in common? I'll give you three guesses and the first two dont count.

Oh, thats a mean game because you're going to lose so I'll just tell you: The Highest Taxes in the Country.

So your 'Magic Bullet' of High Taxes doesnt seem to be a solution.

But thats okay, its just an easy cop-out to hang your hat on without actually having to do the real work.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I'd like to know where because everyone I know in the public service tells me they are on hiring freezes except to backfill.

It's hard to find but Stats Canada shows a significant increase in bureaucrats in July 2016 - 30486 versus a low of 27718 in Jan 2015.

Also workers in ELementary and secondary schools. Includes non-public as well but still...

91,077 as of June 2016 versus 86,917 in June 2015.

Large increases in health care too:

194541 July 2016 versus 184111 July 2015.

You can try it out at

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26...9#customizeTab

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

Really? Where? Ontario is running record deficits, Quebec hasnt balanced a budget since the days of....actually, have they ever? These two provinces account for more than half of our National debt.

Do you want to know what else they have in common? I'll give you three guesses and the first two dont count.

Oh, thats a mean game because you're going to lose so I'll just tell you: The Highest Taxes in the Country.

So your 'Magic Bullet' of High Taxes doesnt seem to be a solution.

But thats okay, its just an easy cop-out to hang your hat on without actually having to do the real work.

Wow, and people think that I'm an #######.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Wow, and people think that I'm an #######.

Fair enough. That was harsh, I apologize.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Locke

'Tax the Rich!'

Where have I heard this before?

It's "Kill". "Kill the Rich!"

Morally dubious, but so much catchier a slogan.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jammies

It's "Kill". "Kill the Rich!"

Morally dubious, but so much catchier a slogan.

We could eat the rich but I fail to see how this is going to solve a number of fairly glaring issues.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Shazam

It's hard to find but Stats Canada shows a significant increase in bureaucrats in July 2016 - 30486 versus a low of 27718 in Jan 2015.

Also workers in ELementary and secondary schools. Includes non-public as well but still...

91,077 as of June 2016 versus 86,917 in June 2015.

Large increases in health care too:

194541 July 2016 versus 184111 July 2015.

You can try it out at

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26...9#customizeTab

Thanks for the link. Comparing beaurocrats from Jan to July doesn't exactly work because the data shows an seasonal trend, most likely from student and part-time summer contracts. That being said I do see the increase of 1,500 this July compared to last so I am interested in how that plays out for the winter months and how much it reduces.

Comparing July to July Education has 2,996 more employees in 2016 than 2015, Administration is 1,346 and Health has 10,430 (1/3 of which where for nursing homes). The 47,000 number Ezra tosses around still eludes me but I am sure it is in there somehow.

Education increased by 2.5% which is normal for the past 5 years. Health at 5.4% was a spike from the average 3% and yes the admin staff was the biggest spike at 4.4% as compared to 1% but I think summer hiring to help with the Fort Mac situation might be in there.

Yeah you are right they have been hiring, I wouldn't exactly call it a spree as it is on pace for what the PCs did and I will hold judgment on the administrative staff until some winter numbers as I am sure a lot were hired this year to help deal with the Fort Mac fires.

Thanks again for the link for the table, I hate statscan website but I love crunching the numbers.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Here's a little story from May 2015. Notley wasn't even sworn in yet and Suncor and Cenovus were lobbying for a carbon tax. I guess they must be NDP on the inside and brainwashed by socialist doctrine.

Complain all you want about the carbon tax but maybe complain that the NDP bowed to industry pressure, not internal NDP policy pressure. Or maybe they were aligned because in the long run both the NDP and industry leaders know the carbon tax is the best way forward.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-...erta-1.3083832

Actually all these guys want a Carbon tax so that junior to intermediate companies can fail, and the the big majors can scoop up their land and minerals for pennies on the dollar. Its actually a great ploy.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Actually all these guys want a Carbon tax so that junior to intermediate companies can fail, and the the big majors can scoop up their land and minerals for pennies on the dollar. Its actually a great ploy.

It's like the Anti-WildRose

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

More dispatches from Captain Crunch's fantasy land.

Prentice Raised taxes before the NDP took power.

Yes, but he also promised cutbacks in spending. Notley kept all of Prentice's tax increases, and also increased spending at the same time.

I think a lot of us would be okay with tax increases if the government also showed restraint in spending. Right now, with Notley's tax increases, it literally feels like it's going straight from my pocket, to some teacher/nurse/bureaucrat's pocket.

And frankly, depending on how public union contract negotiations look, it seems like more and more of my money will go straight to public sector salaries.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Yes, but he also promised cutbacks in spending. Notley kept all of Prentice's tax increases, and also increased spending at the same time.

I think a lot of us would be okay with tax increases if the government also showed restraint in spending. Right now, with Notley's tax increases, it literally feels like it's going straight from my pocket, to some teacher/nurse/bureaucrat's pocket.

And frankly, depending on how public union contract negotiations look, it seems like more and more of my money will go straight to public sector salaries.

Honest question. Why is it bad when you feel your money is going into a teacher/nurse/bureaucrat's pocket for doing a service for the public good but not have the same problem with it going into a billionaire's yacht when you buy something from somewhere like Wal-mart?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Yes, but he also promised cutbacks in spending. Notley kept all of Prentice's tax increases, and also increased spending at the same time.

I think a lot of us would be okay with tax increases if the government also showed restraint in spending. Right now, with Notley's tax increases, it literally feels like it's going straight from my pocket, to some teacher/nurse/bureaucrat's pocket.

And frankly, depending on how public union contract negotiations look, it seems like more and more of my money will go straight to public sector salaries.

But why is it a foregone conclusion that increasing spending during an economic downturn is always a bad decision?

When the private sector is laying off tens of thousands of employees I don't think it's prudent for the other major employer in the province, government, to do the same, and there are studied economists who feel the same way. Further to this point, it's not just engineers in office buildings in Calgary being layed off, the construction industry in the province is in the toilet. That's an industry where public investment in infrastructure can actually make a tangible difference in the economic fortunes of communities all over the province.

University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe said he thinks the numbers are “optimistic” but not necessarily unreasonable.

While he has some skepticism toward the GDP modelling, Tombe notes it is similar to assumptions used by both the current Liberal and former Conservative federal governments, as well as the Bank of Canada.

Job estimates have even more uncertainty, he said.

“Specific job creation estimates resulting from new government spending are difficult to make and it is still an active area of research,” said Tombe in an email.

“While the government’s job creation estimates aren’t obviously wrong, there is a large error band around such estimates. We should interpret them with caution.”

Ron Kneebone, director of economic and social policy at the U of C’s School of Public Policy, also said the numbers are hard to evaluate but that they don’t seem unreasonable.

But Kneebone said that while the government is following a common path of boosting spending to deal with a temporary recession, the current downturn may not be short-term unless there is a prolonged, significant turnaround in oil prices.

That makes current overall spending levels and ongoing deficits a concern, with debt a growing issue in the coming years, said Kneebone in an email.

The NDP, like the PCs before them, are borrowing extensively to fund the infrastructure spree, with the provincial debt forecast to reach $57.6 billion by 2019.

The government is buttressed in its approach by a report it commissioned from David Dodge last year, with the former Bank of Canada governor arguing that low interest rates and lower construction costs due to the stagnant economy make this the right time both to borrow and spend on capital.

The total tab for public sector infrastructure for this year actually comes to nearly $8.5 billion, including $858 million in self-financed investment in the schools, university, colleges and hospital (SUCH) sector.

The government says that at the end of June of 2016, there were 133 school projects, 15 health facilities and eight post-secondary projects under construction while more than 400 transportation projects were in the planning engineering or construction phase.

The equivalent numbers from a year earlier were 77 schools, nine health facilities, four post-secondary projects and 360 transportation projects.

But Paul Verhesen, president of the Alberta Construction Association, said the vast majority of projects being worked on this year were launched by the former PC government, so the impact of the NDP’s spending is difficult to gauge and there are questions whether the new money is getting out the door.

Verhesen said the industry is grateful for the NDP commitment on capital.

But he said it is a “drop in the bucket” compared to the activity the industry has lost because of the downturn — activity that will only return with stronger oil prices and renewed confidence in the economy.

“Oilsands, private development, those have all dried up and we’ll come to a grinding halt and the only thing that’s out there is government infrastructure projects,” said Verhesen, president of Edmonton-based Clark Builders.

“I’m not condemning or suggesting this government isn’t doing what it can. I’m suggesting there is a bigger issue at play here.”

The drop-off in construction in Alberta has been steep, according to capital and repair expenditures tracked by Statistics Canada. While the province is still first in private sector investment, at an estimated $55 billion this year, that’s down from $66 billion in 2015 and a whopping $90 billion in 2014.

Meanwhile, from July 2015 to July 2016, overall construction jobs dropped by 11,000, part of a 49,000 decline in jobs in Alberta over that period.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...cture-spending

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Honest question. Why is it bad when you feel your money is going into a teacher/nurse/bureaucrat's pocket for doing a service for the public good but not have the same problem with it going into a billionaire's yacht when you buy something from somewhere like Wal-mart?

Partial answer is because you can choose which billionaire to give the money to and how much you are going to give them. You do this by purchasing or not purchasing their goods and it is essentially entirely voluntary. When times are tough we can cut back spending. That is not the case with taxes, we pay the same amount regardless.

Taxpayers entrust and expect the government (all levels) to spend their money prudently and I think many people do not see it this way at the moment.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Honest question. Why is it bad when you feel your money is going into a teacher/nurse/bureaucrat's pocket for doing a service for the public good but not have the same problem with it going into a billionaire's yacht when you buy something from somewhere like Wal-mart?

But that's not the issue. The issue is how to narrow to enormous gap that has opened between government revenues and government spending. A balanced approach is to increase taxes while also cutting spending. And when we cut spending, once we're past the ever-popular 'cut waste', we have to decide whether to cut A) capital spending on infrastructure, B) the breadth of services offered (classrooms and hospital beds), or C) public salaries, which make up the bulk of operational spending.

Personally, I would be reluctant to cut A because we still have huge infrastructure needs to catch up to this province's rapid growth, and infrastructure projects create jobs without committing to ongoing spending. I would be reluctant to cut B, because again, we're still catching up on the growth of the province. I would favour C, but not to the extent that those cuts make it difficult to attract qualified teachers, nurses, etc. I happen to think public sector salaries in Alberta today are quite a bit higher than market rates, so they could be cut (or frozen) without a significant reduction in the quality of service.

Or I suppose we could take the Ontario approach and just keep running massive deficits and let our kids sort out the mess in 20 years, probably through draconian cuts and sweeping privatization.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Partial answer is because you can choose which billionaire to give the money to and how much you are going to give them. You do this by purchasing or not purchasing their goods and it is essentially entirely voluntary. When times are tough we can cut back spending. That is not the case with taxes, we pay the same amount regardless.

Taxpayers entrust and expect the government (all levels) to spend their money prudently and I think many people do not see it this way at the moment.

That's a good point. I can see where you are coming from and I am not by any means saying the government spends as prudently as they should. Some days I hear stories that remind me of Office Space in it's ridiculousness. I can't believe how much some of the executives in AHS or the AER make and wish I had a way to cut back my spending on them.

For me it's the us vs them mentality against the public service. Most rank and file Teachers/nurses/beaurocrats don't do the job to make money but to help the public good, and I just can't get behind the attacks on them for getting paid to do a job that benefits society as a whole.

[VladtheImpaler]

[QUOTE=Flash Walken;5977246
Albertans voted for corporate tax increases over healthcare premiums and status quo corporate tax rates.[/QUOTE]

You are giving the people way too much credit. The people are selfish idiots. They voted for someone else (corporations) to pay, instead of them.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You are giving the people way too much credit. The people are selfish idiots. They voted for someone else (corporations) to pay, instead of them.

Exactly.

Democracy in action.