April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

While I am a fan of efficient spending of government revenue and I think that the PC's have had their fair share of warts over the past 5-10 years, I still have concerns regarding a party who is so intent on avoiding going into deficit that they are willing to slash funding towards important infrastrucure developments such as public transportation. If Calgary wants to be a world class city they need to continue to develop the LRT and continually reinvest in public transportation. The costs associated with this development are going to continually rise in the future due to higher material cost and higher labour rates and it is something that every study says we need to invest in - so why would we cut funding now, seems penny wise and pound foolish.

Actually that phrase can be used in order to describe a lot of the Wildrose "plans" I think.

Ignoring the facts that Wildrose isn't cutting public transportation spending and infrastructure spending is a rather small portion of provincial expenses (salaries being the number one), why is it ok to mortgage your childrens future to pay for infrastructure today? Are future needs not important as well? Who is going to pay for infastructure in greece now that they've exhausted their capacity to borrow?

I think your reasoning is rather selfish. We need to live withing our means today so that future generations are guaranteed to be able to make the same decisions.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Ignoring the facts that Wildrose isn't cutting public transportation spending and infrastructure spending is a rather small portion of provincial expenses (salaries being the number one), why is it ok to mortgage your childrens future to pay for infrastructure today? Are future needs not important as well? Who is going to pay for infastructure in greece now that they've exhausted their capacity to borrow?

I think your reasoning is rather selfish. We need to live withing our means today so that future generations are guaranteed to be able to make the same decisions.

Why is it OK to mortgage your childrens future to keep taxes low today? Why are we using resource revenue for no other reason?

This frustrates me to no end! We have a one-time shot at this, and billions of dollars in revenue. Why won't someone step up and do the right thing here; increase taxes to pay for the services that people want. Instead this "no new taxes" line gets pointed to as "fiscally conservative". Heres the thing; there is no "conserving" going on!

Frankly, its the most selfish policy we could pursue. We have an embarassment of riches, and the only thing we can point to is that the same mediocre healthcare and education cost us less in taxes. We all know that we're behind in infrastructure (in terms of transportation, but have a look at the massive infrastructure deficit in the education system for a real eyeopener) and yet we continue to pursue this silly policy. This is where the vote buying takes place in Alberta; while we are quick to laugh at places like Ontario and Quebec with programs that eat their revenues we spend it on tax reduction instead.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is where we have the point of departure though. The Wildrose isn't fiscally conservative. (Its a poor label to begin with, as every party would say that they are). Instead the plan is to cut spending and delivery of services along with infrastructure. This is purely to keep taxes low, which is an ideological bent, but not a sensible policy for the future. The shocking thing though is that none of this is costed. I've asked the party (as you know) when we can see a line by line breakdown and had no response. Some of us refer to that line-by-line breakdown more commonly as a "budget".

Fiscal Conservative is only a poor label if you want to discredit it. Generally, being fiscally conservative contains elements of this:

• no deficit spending
• balanced budgets
• deregulation of economy
• reduction of government spending
• low taxes

Jeesh, it looks pretty much like the Wildrose Platform!! And yes, clearly they are the only party representing these ideas.

As for a budget, just because you don't like their numbers doesn't mean they arent there. You can keep railing on and on about how they don't have every item costed line by line, but the only party with a full budget, the PC's, is clearly based on false projections and assumptions. So whatever.

As for the socially moderate that has to be a joke. In a party where candidates have written articles saying that the church should decide who should be allowed to be married I fail to see how you can make that claim. That is a large concern for me; rather see a separation of chruch and state you have candidates who actually want the church to make societal decisions for us. I'm not sure how that jives with the libertarians in the party, but it has to be an uneasy coaltion.

You mean the Wildrose Party allows members to have their own opinions? The SHAME! Apparently they should not allow anyone to speak their opinion without first clearing the party approval? Or maybe, we should respect the opinions of everyone and then judge the party based upon their actual policy, which is the reflection of all members and not just one or two people (IE: Nanny Redford almost having half her caucus quit over her .05 law).

Bottom line is, the Wildrose welcomes many viewpoints and encourages those viewpoints to be heard, even if some may disagree, with the understanding that the party will reflect the will of its members and thus far that has been a very libertarian live and let live approach.

Muffling viewpoints is not socially moderate, no matter how you paint it.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Glad to see you are admitting they are moderates now.



This illustrates how people see things thru the lens they choose.

- October we put out a huge (132 page) Policy Green Book

- Leading up to the election we released 5 key Commitments to Albertans.

- We have nearly daily press releases; many dealing with policy.

- Over the course of election there will be Wildrose Pledges

- And we have 87 candidates out there meeting Albertans & discussing our platform.

Thanks for providing the links - makes it easier to find everything. There is some good stuff in there and a lot I agree with. There are also quite a few things I'd be pretty strongly opposed to though:
- The education funding model; I believe taxpayer dollars should focus on the public system only
- Some of the environmental policies - in particular the wording suggests climate change denial (any sort of science denial pretty much guarantees loss of my vote)
- Implied support for practices like naturopathic treatment in the health policies (not direct funding, but rather tax-free accounts that can be used to pay for it, which still indirectly amounts to taxpayers funding quacks) - though at least there's not mention of homeopathy

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why is it OK to mortgage your childrens future to keep taxes low today? Why are we using resource revenue for no other reason?

This frustrates me to no end! We have a one-time shot at this, and billions of dollars in revenue. Why won't someone step up and do the right thing here; increase taxes to pay for the services that people want. Instead this "no new taxes" line gets pointed to as "fiscally conservative". Heres the thing; there is no "conserving" going on!

Frankly, its the most selfish policy we could pursue. We have an embarassment of riches, and the only thing we can point to is that the same mediocre healthcare and education cost us less in taxes. We all know that we're behind in infrastructure (in terms of transportation, but have a look at the massive infrastructure deficit in the education system for a real eyeopener) and yet we continue to pursue this silly policy. This is where the vote buying takes place in Alberta; while we are quick to laugh at places like Ontario and Quebec with programs that eat their revenues we spend it on tax reduction instead.

The point is to cut spending, keep taxes low, and STOP WASTING MONEY.

Your insinuation that there is a huge infrastructure deficit is not based on fact, but leftwing talking points. Opening up some of our services to private delivery could solve many of these issues regardless.

Growth in spending has been mainly in Salaries and benefits for public sector employees. The wasting of our revenue dollars has been on paying for pensions and raises, which definately has not helped our health or education systems.

Reduction of waste and focus on efficiency is the only way to improve our services. It's time for a Wildrose government.

[bosox_fan05]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I see the PC's as very left on fiscal things and conservative on social issues (see any of the restrictions they've implemented). Whereas Wildrose is fiscally conservative and socially moderate (some might say libertarian). From what I've seen most Albertans fall into the latter.

I would say that I definitely fall into the Libertarian group, so I've been struggling on which party better represents my views. I agree with your assessment of the Wildrose being fiscally conservative, but I haven't seen much evidence to ascertain that they are socially moderate. Can you provide some examples in their policy that could help me out?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

Thanks for providing the links - makes it easier to find everything. There is some good stuff in there and a lot I agree with. There are also quite a few things I'd be pretty strongly opposed to though:
- The education funding model; I believe taxpayer dollars should focus on the public system only
- Some of the environmental policies - in particular the wording suggests climate change denial (any sort of science denial pretty much guarantees loss of my vote)
- Implied support for practices like naturopathic treatment in the health policies (not direct funding, but rather tax-free accounts that can be used to pay for it, which still indirectly amounts to taxpayers funding quacks) - though at least there's not mention of homeopathy

Thanks for the feedback. I think the party recognizes we can't be everything to everyone.

In any election you will never find a party/candidate that matches everything you believe in. The best you can hope for it one that is as close as possible and one you have confidence in.

[darklord700]

I think the fact that WR and PC going neck to neck now is going to hurt PC. A lot of right wing supporters, myself included, voted for PC to keep the left in check. Now if people sense that there's real hope for WR to win, people won't support PC for simply fear of the RED (no pun intended).

[killer_carlson]

Slav a

If you're against mortgaging the future to keep taxes low when resource revenues are high, then surely you can admit support for the wild rose platform of putting 50% of any surplus into the heritage fund for future generations.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The point is to cut spending, keep taxes low, and STOP WASTING MONEY.

Your insinuation that there is a huge infrastructure deficit is not based on fact, but leftwing talking points. Opening up some of our services to private delivery could solve many of these issues regardless.

Growth in spending has been mainly in Salaries and benefits for public sector employees. The wasting of our revenue dollars has been on paying for pensions and raises, which definately has not helped our health or education systems.

Reduction of waste and focus on efficiency is the only way to improve our services. It's time for a Wildrose government.

Really? A left-wing talking point that there is an infrastructure deficit? Pretty clearly we can't have an adult conversation about these things because you can't even see where the problems are. I don't know where you live, but just drive around Calgary during rush hour. Or maybe have a a walk through some of the schools or hospitals in the your area. You don't have to go far at all to see where aging infrastructure needs repair/replacement or to be built in the first place.

If that desrire for effective public infrastucture makes me a left-winger in your eyes, so be it. I would just note that effective infrastructure makes Alberta a place where business can operate more effectively and efficiently.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Slav a

If you're against mortgaging the future to keep taxes low when resource revenues are high, then surely you can admit support for the wild rose platform of putting 50% of any surplus into the heritage fund for future generations.

I just want to know where they cut to get that surplus though. I'm in favour of increasing the Heritage Fund though. I don't disagree with it based on the party proposing it; good policy is good policy regardless of where it comes from.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by bosox_fan05

I would say that I definitely fall into the Libertarian group, so I've been struggling on which party better represents my views. I agree with your assessment of the Wildrose being fiscally conservative, but I haven't seen much evidence to ascertain that they are socially moderate. Can you provide some examples in their policy that could help me out?

The over arching premise of all of our policies is freedom of choice and individual freedoms.

I've challenged others (like Slava) to show me our socially conservative policies and it always comes back to the same thing; Conscience Rights stance. They see it as a back door route to some agenda. I (and most others) recognize it is acknowledging equality of rights for everyone. Sometimes its not easy to accept the rights of others, in particular when one doesn't agree with them. However that doesn't make them any less valid.

[Hatter]

I've always voted PC in the past, but the .05 law broke the trend for me. I'd support a complete change to make .05 the legal limit if science supported that the benefits would outweigh the increased cost and burden on the justice system, but allowing police officers to perform the role of judge and jury without due process. I believe that infringes on our charter rights and cannot be accepted. Hopefully the WRA would repeal said law.

Slava, although I personally support same sex marriage, I don't see how individual party members' stance on the matter is of such concern. I don't believe the WRA has any intent to debate the matter. Canadians generally accept SSM, I don't see why the WRA would attempt to re-open the issue.

[Yeah_Baby]

Personal stance matters if there are more free votes in the legislature. If WRA want to allow this, personal stance is more important to be aware of as a constituent.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why is it OK to mortgage your childrens future to keep taxes low today? Why are we using resource revenue for no other reason?

This frustrates me to no end! We have a one-time shot at this, and billions of dollars in revenue. Why won't someone step up and do the right thing here; increase taxes to pay for the services that people want. Instead this "no new taxes" line gets pointed to as "fiscally conservative". Heres the thing; there is no "conserving" going on!

Frankly, its the most selfish policy we could pursue. We have an embarassment of riches, and the only thing we can point to is that the same mediocre healthcare and education cost us less in taxes. We all know that we're behind in infrastructure (in terms of transportation, but have a look at the massive infrastructure deficit in the education system for a real eyeopener) and yet we continue to pursue this silly policy. This is where the vote buying takes place in Alberta; while we are quick to laugh at places like Ontario and Quebec with programs that eat their revenues we spend it on tax reduction instead.

And this is what frustrates me and a lot of others. When it has been proven over and over that more money merely maintains the same level of mediocre health care and education, we would rather increase taxes to cover this expenditure rather than change the delivery model (because of the "private" bogeyman.)

"Fiscally conservative" also means providing services more efficiently in order to maintain fiscal control. You cannot have this debate without introducing the core issues of improving efficiency of delivering these services. Otherwise, there is no basis to introduce fiscal responsibility, because these things cost what they cost. Looking only at "no new taxes" or allocation of resource revenues to operational line items is not enough to determine whether a party can or cannot lay claim to the label of "fiscal conservative".

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by llama64

Keep in mind the Wild Rose has been campaigning for over a year at least while the PC's have been going through leadership votes and running the actual government - their campaign didn't really start until this past month, really just this week.

Keep in mind that they have been promoting themselves with tax paid ads for quite a while now. I was watching Dragons Den on the CBC website a month or two ago and their were commericials saying how great Redford and the PC government was and how their upcoming budget would protect the vunerable blah blah blah.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Personal stance matters if there are more free votes in the legislature. If WRA want to allow this, personal stance is more important to be aware of as a constituent.

It shouldn't be, as the MLA is supposed to be representing the will of his/her local constituents, not their own personal perspective. In this case, more free votes should translate to a better representation of all Alberta constituents rather than whipped votes.

However, the key word is "shouldn't".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Hatter

I've always voted PC in the past, but the .05 law broke the trend for me. I'd support a complete change to make .05 the legal limit if science supported that the benefits would outweigh the increased cost and burden on the justice system, but allowing police officers to perform the role of judge and jury without due process. I believe that infringes on our charter rights and cannot be accepted. Hopefully the WRA would repeal said law.

Slava, although I personally support same sex marriage, I don't see how individual party members' stance on the matter is of such concern. I don't believe the WRA has any intent to debate the matter. Canadians generally accept SSM, I don't see why the WRA would attempt to re-open the issue.

The issue with gay marriage though isn't only that issue. There seems to be a disconnect with how these issues are appraoched by the Wildrose. They're more than happy to point to someone like Redford and say that she is an NDP or the line "REDford" that we've seen in this thread. Then when you point to someone like Link Byfield and his thought that the church should be in charge and tell us who is allowed to be married, the position changes to "letting their MLAs have their own thoughts".

Pretty clearly there is a disconnect there. The Wildrose would rather talk about the personal beliefs of a few on one hand and ignore those same thoughts for their own.

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Personal stance matters if there are more free votes in the legislature. If WRA want to allow this, personal stance is more important to be aware of as a constituent.

I absolutely agree, but SSM seems an odd example to use. It's (rightly) entrenched in Canadian identity now that we give minorities, ethnic or otherwise, a fair shake. It would be disastrous to attempt to change that, free votes or not. I just don't think this issue in particular is very relevant.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by zuluking

And this is what frustrates me and a lot of others. When it has been proven over and over that more money merely maintains the same level of mediocre health care and education, we would rather increase taxes to cover this expenditure rather than change the delivery model (because of the "private" bogeyman.)

"Fiscally conservative" also means providing services more efficiently in order to maintain fiscal control. You cannot have this debate without introducing the core issues of improving efficiency of delivering these services. Otherwise, there is no basis to introduce fiscal responsibility, because these things cost what they cost. Looking only at "no new taxes" or allocation of resource revenues to operational line items is not enough to determine whether a party can or cannot lay claim to the label of "fiscal conservative".

You won't get disagreement from me on that point either. That argument falls apart for the Wildrose though when we have no idea what they would actually spend on anything; that is why a budget document is so necessary.

Before anyone tells me how impossible is, I would note that the Liberals managed to provide this before the election and I fully expect that the NDP will as well. Putting ideology and whether you agree with those budgets the reality is that if they can put this together then we should expect the same from a party that is planning on winning government.