Alberta PC's way out front

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well can you explain how exactly the Wildrose is going to keep taxes where they are, payoff the debt/deficit and not slash services? Don't give some BS about "finding efficiencies" or anything either; where does the money come from?

Below is a list of a few things that they proposed to cut funding.
Delaying the Royal Alberta Museum by one year
Extending some non critical three year projects over four years
— Rolling back 30 per cent salary hikes voted in by cabinet almost four years ago under former premier Ed Stelmach.
— Freezing wages for civil service workers and thinning managerial ranks, through retirement and attrition, to a 10-1 from a 4-1 ratio within five years.
— Cutting by 50 per cent the $14-million Public Affairs Bureau, the government's communications arm, which the Wildrose calls a de facto Tory mouthpiece.
— Ditching a $2-billion carbon capture and storage plan — even if it meant paying millions of dollars to private firms for cancelled contracts.
— Reducing cabinet to 16 departments from 20 and slashing severance packages for politicians.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Cut services/spending and finding expediencies are exact what a family needs to do no matter what their income is. It's call "make do". Why this doesn't apply to a government?

Because funding for these programs in general has to be predictable. You can't just fire everyone because the economy drops and then hire them all back again when things are better. "Making do" means borrowing money in these cases.

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Below is a list of a few things that they proposed to cut funding.
Delaying the Royal Alberta Museum by one year
Extending some non critical three year projects over four years
— Rolling back 30 per cent salary hikes voted in by cabinet almost four years ago under former premier Ed Stelmach.
— Freezing wages for civil service workers and thinning managerial ranks, through retirement and attrition, to a 10-1 from a 4-1 ratio within five years.
— Cutting by 50 per cent the $14-million Public Affairs Bureau, the government's communications arm, which the Wildrose calls a de facto Tory mouthpiece.
— Ditching a $2-billion carbon capture and storage plan — even if it meant paying millions of dollars to private firms for cancelled contracts.
— Reducing cabinet to 16 departments from 20 and slashing severance packages for politicians.

From the items in the "budget" they released its a grand total of $52 million (aside from the carbon capture) that is actually given a figure. Nothing else looks like they've got figures for it at all.

My favorite (as noted before though) is that $7 Million for public affairs. Basically this is the definition of pennywise and pound foolish.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Because funding for these programs in general has to be predictable. You can't just fire everyone because the economy drops and then hire them all back again when things are better. "Making do" means borrowing money in these cases.

Yes because we all know that every government service is completely efficient and that the 4:1 manager ratio is absolutely necessary.

There is no proof, whatsover, that cuts will impact service, it's simply a left wing talking point.

From the items in the "budget" they released its a grand total of $52 million (aside from the carbon capture) that is actually given a figure. Nothing else looks like they've got figures for it at all.

My favorite (as noted before though) is that $7 Million for public affairs. Basically this is the definition of pennywise and pound foolish.

Aside from the billions, its only 52 million.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes because we all know that every government service is completely efficient and that the 4:1 manager ratio is absolutely necessary.

There is no proof, whatsover, that cuts will impact service, it's simply a left wing talking point.



Aside from the billions, its only 52 million.

Lol, ya true enough. Can the project be halted entirely and save $2 Billion though or is some of that already spent? I actually don't know how that is figured or accounted for which is why I left it out. I would imagine that these funds aren't just sitting in a bank account somewhere? I admit that I barely know anything about this project in general though.


If the Wildrose can deliver better service and do so cheaper that's awesome. I just want to see how they plan to do that. Everything I've seen at this point in their release seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors.

[GP_Matt]

Delaying the RAM by a year postpones $100 million in spending. Similar results would be seen by delaying a number of other projects.

I know the money will still be spent, but delaying is a pretty legitimate budgetary move on the home front so I don't see why it won't work for the province. Who hasn't said we need to repair the car this year so we will buy new couches next year.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Delaying the RAM by a year postpones $100 million in spending. Similar results would be seen by delaying a number of other projects.

I know the money will still be spent, but delaying is a pretty legitimate budgetary move on the home front so I don't see why it won't work for the province. Who hasn't said we need to repair the car this year so we will buy new couches next year.

Delaying infrastructure is what got Alberta into problems in the first place. When you need to play catchup the costs rise over time, especially as the cost of labour rises, not to mention land and other expenditures. Just to say that they are planning on delaying it isn't enough, rather what is the plan for the long term.

If anything the idea that you proposed isn't saving any money but rather would likely cost more in the long run.

Look at the Alberta Hospital Edmonton example, in the early 90s it would have cost around 42 million dollars to renovate it, now the figure is nearly 5 times as much. Spending on well placed projects isn't an awful thing and can save major headaches down the road.

[GP_Matt]

Some things need to be built, but some things can be delayed without consequences. it is about prioritizing what is important and what is nice to have. As far as I know the only reason the RAM is going ahead on this schedule is that it was a last minute push for Ed's legacy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Delaying infrastructure is what got Alberta into problems in the first place. When you need to play catchup the costs rise over time, especially as the cost of labour rises, not to mention land and other expenditures. Just to say that they are planning on delaying it isn't enough, rather what is the plan for the long term.

If anything the idea that you proposed isn't saving any money but rather would likely cost more in the long run.

Look at the Alberta Hospital Edmonton example, in the early 90s it would have cost around 42 million dollars to renovate it, now the figure is nearly 5 times as much. Spending on well placed projects isn't an awful thing and can save major headaches down the road.

How the hell you see a museum as being equal to a hospital God only knows. So can you please just stop with the ridiculous notion that we all want to cut infrastructure spending completely? We all understand its the only straw you've got left to hold when it comes to the rather ######ed idea that running a balanced $39 BILLION dollar budget in 2012 somehow equals cutting infrastructure spending to absofrickinlutely zero.

We all know the delaying critical spending can harm us in the long-term, but that is exactly what WILL happen when ANY government refuses to make sure they run a balanced budget as much as possible, and make damn sure they don't reach the point where they need to cut critical spending because they can't borrow money anymore because the deficit has gotten completely out of hand.

Alberta is $800 million over budget. It is entirely possible to cut it from the budget. It is also possible to sit down and figure out how to start SAVING the money from natural resource royalties, instead of spending it year after year, ESPECIALLY when there is no more recession. If it means more taxes, so be it. But don't spend what you shouldn't, even as much as the ridiculous left-wing ideology somehow tells you that saving money for a year like 2008 when everything comes crashing down is somehow a bad idea.

[Slava]

Thats some serious revisionist history there Azure (your last line). The Liberals brought this up numerous times during the boom years and Taft wanted to do just that! It's long been a Liberal concern that there has been an enormous amount of money taken in and spent in the province, yet we have nothing to show for it.

Don't let that get in the way of you adoration of the Wildrose though. These people were all on the same side of the table with the PCs, squandering the riches. Its politically convenient to suggest otherwise today, but where were the calls from them to save money when it was plentiful?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Azure

How the hell you see a museum as being equal to a hospital God only knows. So can you please just stop with the ridiculous notion that we all want to cut infrastructure spending completely? We all understand its the only straw you've got left to hold when it comes to the rather ######ed idea that running a balanced $39 BILLION dollar budget in 2012 somehow equals cutting infrastructure spending to absofrickinlutely zero.

But when your way of saving money is spending more money in the future it seems like it really is a poor way of actually saving money, particularly in the case of the museum - which I believe is essential for a government to fund due to it's cultural and heritage value. So on top of spending more money later, the Federal Government of Canada has also pledged nearly 100 million dollars towards the building, something that could not be relied upon in two years time or whenever you would like it built.

So your options it seems to me are to put up 100 million dollars now towards a new museum or to wait for another 2 + years at which point it will possibly cost over twice as much when you factor in unknown funding from the federal government and increases in costs. Unless the alternative is for the government of Alberta to not fund a new museum...

We all know the delaying critical spending can harm us in the long-term, but that is exactly what WILL happen when ANY government refuses to make sure they run a balanced budget as much as possible, and make damn sure they don't reach the point where they need to cut critical spending because they can't borrow money anymore because the deficit has gotten completely out of hand.

But cutting critical spending to an unreasonable degree is what has Alberta in a continual game of catchup having to spend more money over the long run.

Alberta is $800 million over budget. It is entirely possible to cut it from the budget. It is also possible to sit down and figure out how to start SAVING the money from natural resource royalties, instead of spending it year after year, ESPECIALLY when there is no more recession. If it means more taxes, so be it. But don't spend what you shouldn't, even as much as the ridiculous left-wing ideology somehow tells you that saving money for a year like 2008 when everything comes crashing down is somehow a bad idea.

You save money in the future by effectively spending money in the current time. I don't consider myself someone who is left wing or right wing, I look to the government as an organization that should look at maintaining itself from an economic standpoint over the course of a long term, a couple years in the red and going into a deficit are not the worst things that can happen to this province, I know it is hard to believe but it is true, the worst thing that could happen would be for a return to the early 90's Klein style cutbacks resulting in poor social services and a population which costs the government more in the long run.

[Azure]

I have ALWAYS said that we should have saved more money during the boom years, and not cut as much as Klein did.

Not sure what your point is here. Just because I support the WRA doesn't mean I adore them. I'm interested in what they have to offer. If the Liberals would have a serious platform, I would gladly support them, but they have no chance of hell in winning.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I know it is hard to believe but it is true, the worst thing that could happen would be for a return to the early 90's Klein style cutbacks resulting in poor social services and a population which costs the government more in the long run.

At this point I would say it is simply delusional to think that Alberta would ever cut back to what existed in terms of spending during the Klein years.

Keep holding on to the stupid idea that any cuts will create a problem, and that we should spend, spend, spend till our deficit is similar to what Ontario has, and Alberta has HUGE burden in terms of trying to trim it and not even knowing where to start.

The government is there to provide essentials services, and in Alberta's case, because there is a lot of money to go around, they can afford to spend more on 'other' stuff, like arts. But when you start running over budget, you start cutting back on non-essential services. Like a museum.

If the people of Alberta want a museum, they should be TAXED to get one. If they want other non-essential services, they should BE TAXED accordingly in order for those services to be provided. You simply can't keep spending, spending, spending, and not increase taxes in pay for the spending. Look at the US.

And the PCs have shown no intention of slowing spending.

[SebC]

Carbon capture is the future of our economy, not a left-wing greeny luxury.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Azure

...

What is the point of having a surplus? Honest question, what is the point of having a surplus then, if you want to use the same logic, either the government should be offering more services, they should decrease taxes, or sock it away in an investment fund that lost a lot of it's value in 2008.

Ontario isn't in the position that it is in only because of Government spending, rather it is there because the manufacturing industry has fled to China and other parts of the world where you can afford to pay nickles to the dollar for workers. Unless you think that the oilsands is going to relocate to China, I don't see the huge connection.

There are inefficiencies in government spending, I don't like how money was given to education in a haphazard manner, it could have been better spent from all accounts, that being said, I don't have a problem with the actual spending, just the way that it occurred.

The government should be continually reinvesting in new technologies such as the Carbon Capture because that is a continual industry that will be a boon to Alberta. Cutting short term is getting the province nowhere in the long run.

I do like debates like this though as it does show that some people are actually interested, relative to what seems to be the masses of the apathetic.

[Azure]

Where did I say anything about running a surplus? I simply talked about cutting the $800 million and running a balanced budget, and not allocating natural resource royalties to be used as part of the budget simply because of the boom/bust cycle that our economy tends to have. Surely that is easy enough to understand.

On top of that, I would promote outside audits of government spending to make sure the money is being spent as efficiently as possible. If you have a $5 billion dollar surplus, invest it in something like carbon capture. If you don't, fine....wait till the next boom.

The Heritage Fund should be something that is stored away for times like 2008, when revenues drop like crazy, and you don't want to cut spending because of the long-term problems it causes. You use whatever you need to keep everything going, and when the economy gets better, you start saving that money again.

But simply spending it all because they need votes? Rather lame approach to governing. Lame and lazy. If they would at least ATTEMPT to balance the budget. But no, gotta buy those votes to keep the machine turning.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Carbon capture is the future of our economy, not a left-wing greeny luxury.

And like I said, if you're putting the money gathered from natural resource royalties into the Heritage Fund, and not spending it year after year on 'budget' items, then maybe you sit down and say that taking $2 billion out of the fund and investing it in something like carbon capture would be a good idea going forward. That is how that money should be spent anyways. Or maybe the surplus you're running should be spent there.

I just hate it that year after year money from those royalties is being allocated to budget items, when it should be saved, and tax revenue should be used to fund the budget. Another bust and Alberta is starting to run up a BIG debt tab.

[SebC]

Relevant: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2342075/

I don't necessarily buy that they shoudln't have seen it come. If you have a surplus, you don't have to increase spending. Looks like Alberta is heading down this path.

[killer_carlson]

I got called by an opinion poll last night, about what the top issue is and who I would vote for. THey also asked which leader would make the best premier. Not a push poll at all.

Interesting that the 4 choices left out the Alberta Party entirely, as if they were an afterthought. (not that I would be voting for them, but interesting that they were ignored).

[GP_Matt]

I think it is a catch for them. You need more support to be taken seriously by the media, but you need to be taken seriously by the media to gain more support.
The other problem is that a quick look on their website has them with 13 nominated candidates out of 87 ridings. That implies that if they do run a full slate of candidates most of them will be people who parachuted in or allowed their name to stand but have no local constituency association to support them during the election. I can't see that going well for them in the upcoming election.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I got called by an opinion poll last night, about what the top issue is and who I would vote for. THey also asked which leader would make the best premier. Not a push poll at all.

Interesting that the 4 choices left out the Alberta Party entirely, as if they were an afterthought. (not that I would be voting for them, but interesting that they were ignored).

I got that same poll and I thought that it was a push for sure. When the first option was something like "balanced budgets and no increased taxes" its pretty obvious who they're driving you to look at.