Alberta Politics Thread

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by belsarius

And I think we are going to see C, but through freezes, not cuts. Management salaries have already been frozen for almost a year now. Word out of the teachers union is to expect a fight as the government wants to keep salaries the same for the next contract. AUPE just completed their contract so they have a few years before anything can be done.

The thing is I don't believe the public salaries are higher than market rates. Alberta still enjoys the highest weekly earnings of any province in the country, even with an 8.5% unemployment rate. Per capita the public service is expense but compared to the mean salary they are on par with other jurisdictions. Debt to pay expenses for the next 10 years would be disastrous, for the next 3 or 4 I think is acceptable to keep the economy growing.

The teacher's union is running TV ads continually, you see them every day. While they are not political in any way they go out of their way to paint teachers in a positive light - again this is not bad and what you would expect from any union, organization, or company that is advertising. But teachers do not need to advertise their services for any reason really, it's not like they are competing for your kids. It seems to me this is a PR battle they are already waging with the government for when it's time to negotiate the new contract.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

The teacher's union is running TV ads continually, you see them every day. While they are not political in any way they go out of their way to paint teachers in a positive light - again this is not bad and what you would expect from any union, organization, or company that is advertising. But teachers do not need to advertise their services for any reason really, it's not like they are competing for your kids. It seems to me this is a PR battle they are already waging with the government for when it's time to negotiate the new contract.

I'm always a little baffled when seeing commercials by unions (that teacher's union, AUPE, CUPE, Unifor, etc.) It seems pretty odd and like a waste of money to me.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

The teacher's union is running TV ads continually, you see them every day. While they are not political in any way they go out of their way to paint teachers in a positive light - again this is not bad and what you would expect from any union, organization, or company that is advertising. But teachers do not need to advertise their services for any reason really, it's not like they are competing for your kids. It seems to me this is a PR battle they are already waging with the government for when it's time to negotiate the new contract.

And based on Notley's comments to the nurses yesterday I expect to start to see ads from them coming soon. Basically given notice not to expect anything more money wise in the next contract.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm always a little baffled when seeing commercials by unions (that teacher's union, AUPE, CUPE, Unifor, etc.) It seems pretty odd and like a waste of money to me.

We'll probably also start seeing ads soon by groups that aren't affiliated with unions but do ads that are very union centric like "Friends of Healthcare" that claim third party.

We see these groups pop up usually in federal elections.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by belsarius

That teacher's aide will shop at the local store requiring them to hire staff. That staff pays taxes and shops and increases the need for more jobs. This has a cumulative effect that will help stimulate the economy. The difference between them or the construction worker is stimulus vs investment. Both together move the economy forward and have their place. The fact that a large chunk of the deficit is due to capital works shows the NDP understands this and is not just borrowing to keep the lights on.

Hiring an unsustainable amount of staff isn't going to work I agree, but I disagree that the teachers aide doesn't assist in the help of the economy.

Didn't we check the numbers earlier in the thread and that's not true at all.

The $11 billion deficit just for this year is indeed mostly "just borrowing to keep the lights on". Infrastructure spending is pretty much on the same pace as the last decade or so. It's just about 0.5 billion/year more, not new capital works in aggregate. Heck, you might pad it by include the PR spin of $2 billion over a few years in green capital spending coming from the additional carbon taxes coming.

EDIT: Wait, you even saw and thanked the post. ??

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=3943

[killer_carlson]

Wildrose Panel on Equalization.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/al...297/story.html


Lead by U of C professor and former bank of canada economist Frank Atkins. Comments on definition of equalization:

Atkins acknowledged there’s a misperception about what equalization actually is.

It’s not as though someone from each province sits down and writes a cheque to Ottawa once a year, he said, but about comparing the amount of money the federal government gets in taxes from Alberta with how much it spends here.

Report summary includes 6 recommendations:

The recommendations

1 — Reconsidering the constitutional requirement to provide equalization, and whether it’s unfair and short-sighted to displace more than $17 billion annually from productive regions.

2 — A substantial renovation of the equalization formula, adding measures to evaluate the costs of delivery and population needs in each province.

3 — Make equalization conditional, so that recipient provinces with high program delivery costs must reduce those costs to bring them in line with the national average.

4 — Include non-renewable resource revenue in equalization calculations if it’s used for ordinary operating programs, but not if it’s used for debt repayment or invested in a heritage fund or equivalent.

5 — Substantial reforms to the Employment Insurance program to reduce regional imbalances and treat similarly situated Canadians with more parity.

6 — Establish a special commission in Alberta to examine the fiscal arrangements of the federation, generating new understanding of the arrangements and possible changes.

[Tron_fdc]

That's all fine and dandy, but how exactly would you implement it?

I remember when Klein started talking about private healthcare, and the feds lost their collective minds. If you start talking about restructuring the transfr payment program (which I'm all for) I doubt the federal liberals would go along with it.

[killer_carlson]

I think the point is that the current deal expires in 3 years and to start a discussion now to address Alberta's needs.

Quite frankly I think it's a reasonable suggestion that should be non-partisan.

[Tron_fdc]

Huh. I actually had no idea that there was a "deal" that was negotiated. I was always under the impression that the feds just took what they wanted!

What happens if there is an impasse?

[AltaGuy]

It's actually an odd time for the equalization negotiations, with Alberta and Ontario both looking at not-so-great forecasts.

If real estate in Ontario has a dip, that province is really going to be in trouble. And given its size relative to the rest of Canada... oh boy.

On my cursory glace at it, it probably is a good time to look at changing the formulas for equalization, and those recommendations for discussions look reasonable.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Didn't we check the numbers earlier in the thread and that's not true at all.

The $11 billion deficit just for this year is indeed mostly "just borrowing to keep the lights on". Infrastructure spending is pretty much on the same pace as the last decade or so. It's just about 0.5 billion/year more, not new capital works in aggregate. Heck, you might pad it by include the PR spin of $2 billion over a few years in green capital spending coming from the additional carbon taxes coming.

EDIT: Wait, you even saw and thanked the post. ??

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=3943

I thank Makarov's response that maintaining capital spending with a decline in revenue is stimulus.

I also followed it up with a post showing the current budget has a 33% increase in capital plan spending, going from $6.5 to $8.5B.

In the $11B deficit is $2.5B in capital grants (included in the capital plan), $1B in disaster relief, $600M in capital debt servicing. The amortization expense also is mostly related to capital works. That's almost half of the deficit that is not related to operating the government day-to-day.

The operating expense line item is planned for about a 2% increase, which is what they are aiming for, maintaining services with inflation and population increases.

Yes they are running a deficit for operations. But it is not $11B.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I thank Makarov's response that maintaining capital spending with a decline in revenue is stimulus.

I also followed it up with a post showing the current budget has a 33% increase in capital plan spending, going from $6.5 to $8.5B.

In the $11B deficit is $2.5B in capital grants (included in the capital plan), $1B in disaster relief, $600M in capital debt servicing. The amortization expense also is mostly related to capital works. That's almost half of the deficit that is not related to operating the government day-to-day.

The operating expense line item is planned for about a 2% increase, which is what they are aiming for, maintaining services with inflation and population increases.

Yes they are running a deficit for operations. But it is not $11B.

Okay, but thats still like borrowing money to do renovations on your house but not having enough money to pay the mortgage or utilities.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, but thats still like borrowing money to do renovations on your house but not having enough money to pay the mortgage or utilities.

If you want to use a home example, laying off a bunch of public sector employees to balance the books a bit more in the short term would be like buying a couch for $700 and then selling it the next month for $500 because you need the money.

You're better off to just borrow what you need that month and pay it off because you've already paid out for the couch, and you're just going to have to buy one again anyway.

Honestly, what do you want the province to do right now, lay off 15% of the provincial workforce?

What's an appropriate solution that won't have you complaining about the direction the government is taking here?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you want to use a home example, laying off a bunch of public sector employees to balance the books a bit more in the short term would be like buying a couch for $700 and then selling it the next month for $500 because you need the money.

You're better off to just borrow what you need that month and pay it off because you've already paid out for the couch, and you're just going to have to buy one again anyway.

Honestly, what do you want the province to do right now, lay off 15% of the provincial workforce?

What's an appropriate solution that won't have you complaining about the direction the government is taking here?

I dont think you can point to any evidence where I've advocated for laying off a whole swath of public workers.

But maybe not hiring a whole bunch either would have been a more prudent decision.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont think you can point to any evidence where I've advocated for laying off a whole swath of public workers.

But maybe not hiring a whole bunch either would have been a more prudent decision.

Why?

[Resolute 14]

Because we can't afford it?

Remember, you guys are are the ones saying that Albertans need to get used to having less. That means everybody. Including the public service.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you want to use a home example, laying off a bunch of public sector employees to balance the books a bit more in the short term would be like buying a couch for $700 and then selling it the next month for $500 because you need the money.

I'd use a different example, I know people who are in deep financial trouble and stress but still paying for house cleaners to come in, yard maintenance guys (probably shifting to snow removal soon) and grocery delivery services. But of course, they couldn't possibly think to scale that back a little.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The fact that a large chunk of the deficit is due to capital works shows the NDP understands this and is not just borrowing to keep the lights on.

Originally Posted by belsarius

Yes they are running a deficit for operations. But it is not $11B.

I guess I had read the former as implying that the vast majority of the deficit as being solely targeted for stimulus, which we both agree that it is not. A portion, half or 2/3 (depending on how you want to shave it) of it being an ongoing operational structural deficit I think we also agree on. Just semantics I guess.

What's a couple of billion here or there every year between us friends on CP? Double meat subs for everybody!

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I guess I had read the former as implying that the vast majority of the deficit as being solely targeted for stimulus, which we both agree that it is not. A portion, half or 2/3 (depending on how you want to shave it) of it being an ongoing operational structural deficit I think we also agree on. Just semantics I guess.

What's a couple of billion here or there every year between us friends on CP? Double meat subs for everybody!

I totally agree with the semantics of it. The problem I have is when people call the entire thing operational and dismiss the government as doing nothing for stimulus through capital works. Its just a pet peeve because it is a political rhetoric designed to shame the NDP by exaggerating the situation. The problem is that it ends up having many people believe the situation that the NDP spending is out of control and it is all wasted. I think you get the same feeling when people try to exempt the government by claiming the entire deficit is capital stimulus, which exaggerates that spending isn't an issue and the NDP shouldn't be accountable for trying to curtail it.

When the actual truth of the situation is somewhere in between and they have increased capital spending for economic stimulus but they have also refused to cut services and reduce spending on more ideological and political reasons. They did campaign on no cuts so we at least have to give them the fact they are standing by that promise at least.

I have no problem debating the policy of not cutting expenses and having anything of an operational deficit. I believe it is worthy of debate as there are lots of different examples for each side. But its hard to properly debate when people are told either extreme and start to believe it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I totally agree with the semantics of it. The problem I have is when people call the entire thing operational and dismiss the government as doing nothing for stimulus through capital works. Its just a pet peeve because it is a political rhetoric designed to shame the NDP by exaggerating the situation. The problem is that it ends up having many people believe the situation that the NDP spending is out of control and it is all wasted. I think you get the same feeling when people try to exempt the government by claiming the entire deficit is capital stimulus, which exaggerates that spending isn't an issue and the NDP shouldn't be accountable for trying to curtail it.

When the actual truth of the situation is somewhere in between and they have increased capital spending for economic stimulus but they have also refused to cut services and reduce spending on more ideological and political reasons. They did campaign on no cuts so we at least have to give them the fact they are standing by that promise at least.

I have no problem debating the policy of not cutting expenses and having anything of an operational deficit. I believe it is worthy of debate as there are lots of different examples for each side. But its hard to properly debate when people are told either extreme and start to believe it.

I empathize with your frustration here, because I get irritated hearing that the only way to save money on services is going to be to eliminate frontline workers.