The upcoming budget will demonstrate one of two things:
A) Prentice understands the strong medicine Albertans need and he's willing to use the PC's secure position to implement the tax increases that are necessary to put the province on sound fiscal footing in the long-term.
B) Prentice cares only about getting re-elected with the largest majority and will continue to pander to the most selfish and short-sighted constituents of the province by letting public services be tethered to wild swings in energy revenues, and neglecting to set aside funds for future generations.
If it's option B, I'll start considering sending my kids to college out of province for university when they grow up, because this province will be like Manitoba with mountains once the energy revenues dry up and the oil executives have buggered off to their retirements in Arizona and Vancouver Island. I know I'm weird, but I care more about the provision of schools, roads, and hospitals in 20-30 years than a trip to Hawaii or a newer car in the here and now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
It's not about the product though, it's about the mentality of government and populace. Scandanavian countries will go for things that even in Canada would be considered too left.
But what does that even mean? Scandinavians will do things that make logical sense and Albertans are an irrational group of people reaping what they've sewn? Scandinavian solutions won't work, so adopt solutions from somewhere else where it's working, like Saudi Arabia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by V
When you have a government that hasn't changed in as long as the PCs you don't really know what the populace will and won't go for. They've been so concerned with being re-elected that they don't want to lead, they just want to give people what they want.
Truth is, we have no idea just what it would take to remove the PCs from power, but if the last 5 years have shown us anything it's that it would take an awful lot. I find it pretty hard to believe Albertans would toss the PCs over a royalty or tax decision that they didn't like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
The only party that ever challenged was a party that was further right. Why would the PC's move left on royalties?
That's the sign of a powerless electorate.
Sounds like Alberta needs election reform, something the PCs also oppose.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Very thoughtful of the various public unions to promote increasing costs on private business while thousands are currently losing their jobs.
How many more people should lose their employment in the private sector to preserve the yearly salary increases, unmatched pensions, and iron-clad job security enjoyed by our public sector?
Very thoughtful of the various public unions to promote increasing costs on private business while thousands are currently losing their jobs.
How many more people should lose their employment in the private sector to preserve the yearly salary increases, unmatched pensions, and iron-clad job security enjoyed by our public sector?
You mean the salary increases and pension funding that they negotiated with the government and have a contractual right too?? I'd be damn pissed as well if that contract got broken. The people we should be pissed at are the career politicians that sign them. But like lemmings this province will vote in the PC's...again.
But what does that even mean? Scandinavians will do things that make logical sense and Albertans are an irrational group of people reaping what they've sewn? Scandinavian solutions won't work, so adopt solutions from somewhere else where it's working, like Saudi Arabia?
That's the sign of a powerless electorate.
Sounds like Alberta needs election reform, something the PCs also oppose.
Yes ... unfortunately. But it's not just Alberta, it's North America. Politics here is a team game now.
Very thoughtful of the various public unions to promote increasing costs on private business while thousands are currently losing their jobs.
How many more people should lose their employment in the private sector to preserve the yearly salary increases, unmatched pensions, and iron-clad job security enjoyed by our public sector?
You mean the last bargaining agreement that we signed which saw salary increases of 0%, 0%, 0% (with a 1% bonus) and 2%?
The Following User Says Thank You to Antithesis For This Useful Post:
You mean the last bargaining agreement that we signed which saw salary increases of 0%, 0%, 0% (with a 1% bonus) and 2%?
Not sure which union you are talking about, but definitely sure that's not the case for all the unions represented above. Beyond that, when was the last time any union made cuts in the order of 10-15% like much of the private sector is doing today? Ralph Klein days, when they were forced to, I would imagine.
It would be refreshing to see the public sector unions come out with a statement saying that in light of the fact the government is facing huge deficits, and since public sector salaries have more than doubled in the last decade, that they would be willing to match what the MLA's and cabinet have done and consider a 5% wage rollback this year in order to protect jobs.
Instead, they would apparently prefer to see even more people in the private sector laid off via higher taxes, fees, and royalties with absolutely no changes to their members compensation. Terrible optics, IMHO.
Not sure which union you are talking about, but definitely sure that's not the case for all the unions represented above.
Teachers, I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
Beyond that, when was the last time any union made cuts in the order of 10-15% like much of the private sector is doing today? Ralph Klein days, when they were forced to, I would imagine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
It would be refreshing to see the public sector unions come out with a statement saying that in light of the fact the government is facing huge deficits, and since public sector salaries have more than doubled in the last decade, that they would be willing to match what the MLA's and cabinet have done and consider a 5% wage rollback this year in order to protect jobs.
Didn't they do this during the Klein years - i.e. agreed to voluntary salary reduction in order to "protect and not lose any jobs" - only to, well, lose jobs?
If so, and my memory serves me correctly,....
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
Terrible optics, IMHO.
The Following User Says Thank You to RedHot25 For This Useful Post:
I'm speaking of the ATA. I understand this is a sensitive topic and I'm not trying to be callous or insensitive to people losing their jobs or having a cut in pay right now. You bring up the idea of public sector employees not historically taking pay cuts to the order of 10-15%. I don't recall that ever happening, if I remember right, it was 5% with Klein. I think this is part of the trade off you implicitly agree to when working in the public sector: your salary increases won't match your peers in the private sector during good times, but you are also insulated from job loss/pay decrease when times are tight. Plus, there is a bit of history behind why public employees might dig their heels in on this issue due to their experiences with Klein.
There are a couple of further points I would like to raise:
1. We have a bargained agreement through the end of next school year. I would like to see that agreement honored. I think it is a dangerous precedent for us to agree to re-open a bargaining agreement after it's been ratified due to extraordinary circumstances. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the government wouldn't re-open the agreement if they found themselves awash in revenue, so why exactly should we right now?
2. In a personal sense - and I'd like to re-iterate that in no way do I represent any one else's views other than my own, I might be more willing to listen to ideas about a 5% pay cut if we were to do away with the ridiculous flat tax scheme we have in Alberta right now. I don't understand why the revenue problem should be solved solely on the back of people like me, earning a decent middle-class wage, when those earning in the highest tax brackets should get away without putting in their share. I'm sure we disagree on that matter, but I think if the message is "We're all in this together - let's have the highest earners pay 2% more in taxes each year, while teachers earn 5% less", the concept is easier to stomach.
Anyway, I'm sure things will be interesting in here once the budget is released. I'm no expert but the last time the government tried to change royalty structures it didn't go too well, but I'm not well-versed in reasons why.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Antithesis For This Useful Post:
Is it really that unreasonable to use all royalty money to fund the Heritage fund and then in time use a portion of the interest off the Heritage Fund to pay for programs? This seems pretty weak compared to what I was hoping for.
I dunno, apples to oranges comparisons have validity when you're running a fruit stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
Not quite the same, but even if they collected $5B from sales or other tax over the past 20 years we could have $150B saved
The thing is Norway is a sovereign nation and can have a sovereign fund. I think that Alberta is in a completely different scenario because if we had a fund that was say $150B other provinces would definitely want a piece, as well as the federal government. There is no guarantee that were we to build such a fund that it would just sit there untouched by these outside forces. I don't think that we should spend every last dime, but the comparison of a province to an independent country is just not applicable IMO.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by something
Here is the address, although it does not include the time David Swann had to address the province.
What a waste of $80,000! He didn't really say much and other than there will be a health care tax/premium and no sales tax. Could have done that in a condensed interview with a TV station for free.
