PC Leadership Race- Redford wins.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yet you haven't been able to actually attack them on any of their policies. You just keep saying you're not sold on them.

Maybe you're a bit cynical, so as not to expect that a new party can jump into the game and actually be fiscally conservative, while at the same time spending money on mental health to help a certain group of people who really need it. I get that.

But, that isn't any different from screaming 'hidden agenda.' At the end of the day, the WR Party has a pretty remarkable platform, and IMO they are the best direction for Alberta to go.

They are adding a voice to the discussion that needs to be heard. Alberta is not on a sustainable path, and its better that the problems get fixed before it becomes an even bigger problem.

Does the ridiculous "alternative budget" not count? That was basically a high school attempt to provide what they would do if they were government. If that is any indication of what they would actually do in power then its really quite simple to attack them. Its was a complete joke...no hidden agenda required. We might agree that this was "remarkable" but I would expect that the remarks we would make would be quite different!

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not going to dispute the numbers and the per capita spending you quoted is probably right. But why shouldn't the government spend more per capita? We don't have the debt issues that those other provinces have, and we all know that we want more services.

Why shouldn't the government spend less per capita? Just saying 'spend because we have it' is a rather pointless exercise in itself?

Government spending should be tied to results, and wanted programs. Simply saying, well we have lots so we should spend it all is not a policy anyone should support?

I guess I can't really argue with the "spend what we need to spend and spend it smartly" tactic....except that it doesn't mean anything. Its just rhetoric. The only thing that I've read that shows any change was the alternative budget they released this spring, and frankly that was a joke.

If people had complaints about the PC budget (and they did) thats nothing compared to what the WRA was proposing. We're talking about spending that couldn't even keep up to the very small amount of inflation that we had/have. Its one thing to say that you're a fiscal conservative but entirely another to push todays problems further down the road because you want to score a few political points.

I think tying an increase in spending to an automatic solution to today's problems is a huge fallacy in modern political thinking. Very much akin to the problems in Health Care, the answer from the left over the past decade is simply to throw more money at the problem and it will fix itself. However, we've seen spending increase at unprecedented levels (and not only in health care but in all social programs) and yet there's been very little change in outcomes.

The WRA party clearly recognizes this fact and thats why they propose to limit spending increases. Spending more money does not automatically solve anything!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Why shouldn't the government spend less per capita? Just saying 'spend because we have it' is a rather pointless exercise in itself?

Government spending should be tied to results, and wanted programs. Simply saying, well we have lots so we should spend it all is not a policy anyone should support?



I think tying an increase in spending to an automatic solution to today's problems is a huge fallacy in modern political thinking. Very much akin to the problems in Health Care, the answer from the left over the past decade is simply to throw more money at the problem and it will fix itself. However, we've seen spending increase at unprecedented levels (and not only in health care but in all social programs) and yet there's been very little change in outcomes.

The WRA party clearly recognizes this fact and thats why they propose to limit spending increases. Spending more money does not automatically solve anything!

I don't disagree with this point actually; except that the only answer from the right has been privatization....which continuously appears to cost more! The reality is that the creative and innovative solutions are either ridiculed, pigeon-holed or not even a part of politics these days. The Wildrose has brought nothing to bear in this area that I've seen.

I'm not for enormous spending per capita, but my point is that its a pointless statistic. It looks like it matters, but there are many factors. I might spend more than my neighbours also, and frankly thats my decision; but if I make more money than they do and have less debt then it doesn't mean that I'm on the road to financial ruin.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

We probably don't even disagree on much here. Its just that I'm not sold on the Wildrose as some great panacea to fiscal restraint and conservatism. I think that they got lucky in terms of timing and the recession and its easy to take shots at the current government at this point. No government can entirely stop a recession from having any effect, so no matter what they do you either (a) promise you would've done more and avoided the pain entirely or (b) say the government did too much and that this has prolonged the pain.

Its a good political strategy, but isn't enough for me to give them a vote.

I think the problem here between you, bizzaro and myself here is not so much moral, analytical or even policy driven, but rather you have a much greater faith in the ability of polticians and the civil service to do their jobs and provide said services. I think that the mere fact that it's WAY WAY WAY easier to spend more money than to show restraint the default position should be that Government is something that should always have to justify itself for every dollar it spends all the time. Viewing finances any other way in this province is going to lead to utter collapse when the commodity cycle eventually collapses.

Kaynesian economics does not work because the nature of democratic government doesn't allow for saving when times are good for what got spent for when times are bad. What ends up happening is that the government departments that were created during the 'Stimulus' spending phase continue on or have to be wound down at great cost. The reality in Alberta is that we should have a massive Heritage Fund, a balanced budget, per capita spending inline with other provinces, and services that match other provinces as a result of the buttload of cash we take in vis-a-vis O&G royalties and the offshoot increases to personal and business incomes. And don't bring up an 'Infrastructure deficit' BS arguement many spendhappy wonks talk about. Take a trip to Ontario, Quebec, BC, et al and tell me their infrastructure needs are less on a per capita basis, in fact when you view their crumbling interchanges and bridges it might be apparent that their infrastructure needs are actually greater than ours.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't disagree with this point actually; except that the only answer from the right has been privatization....which continuously appears to cost more! The reality is that the creative and innovative solutions are either ridiculed, pigeon-holed or not even a part of politics these days. The Wildrose has brought nothing to bear in this area that I've seen.

Actually, the Wildrose has brought much more to bear in this area. Danielle talks extensively about successful health care models from Europe blending private and public health care delivery. However, the media likes to reinforce the viewpoint that they only want private health care.

I'm not for enormous spending per capita, but my point is that its a pointless statistic. It looks like it matters, but there are many factors. I might spend more than my neighbours also, and frankly thats my decision; but if I make more money than they do and have less debt then it doesn't mean that I'm on the road to financial ruin.

It's not a pointless statistic at all, it's the only way to create a realistic measuring stick for public efficiency?

Again, just because you have more money doesn't mean you should spend it all. It's a silly proposition altogether. Spending needs to be tied to things people want and need and can be measured. Overtaxation leads to wasteful spending and porkbarreling. Just ask the federal Liberal party.

Public spending should be based on results and efficiency and limiting the burdens of the taxpayer to acceptable levels. Clearly, Alberta is one of the worst provinces for spending outrageous amounts and being unable to deliver results to citizens.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

No government ever manages to cut as much spending as they say they will. The nature of the beast is that people defend their vested interests bitterly. If they propose a flat budget before they're in office, it'll grow by inflation just on inflation indexed union contracts and escalation of construction prices.

I might be remembering things with rose coloured glasses, but I am pretty sure Ralph Klein was able to do so.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It's not a pointless statistic at all, it's the only way to create a realistic measuring stick for public ?

Again, just because you have more money doesn't mean you should spend it all. It's a silly proposition altogether. Spending needs to be tied to things people want and need and can be measured. Overtaxation leads to wasteful spending and porkbarreling. Just ask the federal Liberal party.

It doesn't accurately measure efficiency at all. To measure efficiency you would need to compare services offered as well, which would be a drastically more complex calculation. Like you said, if the people of Alberta want or need more than the people of Ontario, then our costs will be higher.

Public spending should be based on results and efficiency and limiting the burdens of the taxpayer to acceptable levels. Clearly, Alberta is one of the worst provinces for spending outrageous amounts and being unable to deliver results to citizens

On what basis do you make this claim? Is there some sort of index for services offered?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

Does the ridiculous "alternative budget" not count? That was basically a high school attempt to provide what they would do if they were government. If that is any indication of what they would actually do in power then its really quite simple to attack them. Its was a complete joke...no hidden agenda required. We might agree that this was "remarkable" but I would expect that the remarks we would make would be quite different!

I am curious what makes their budget so ridiculous?
http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/wildros...t-alternative/
I was impressed with the fact that they actually put something in writing. Most opposition parties stand up and say we would have done it better but never elaborate. The implementation of the budget might not have been perfect but it was a great starting point.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think that the mere fact that it's WAY WAY WAY easier to spend more money than to show restraint the default position should be that Government is something that should always have to justify itself for every dollar it spends all the time.

Quoted for truth. It's way easier to spend money without giving it due care and attention when it's not your money.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

It doesn't accurately measure efficiency at all. To measure efficiency you would need to compare services offered as well, which would be a drastically more complex calculation. Like you said, if the people of Alberta want or need more than the people of Ontario, then our costs will be higher.

On what basis do you make this claim? Is there some sort of index for services offered?

I'm confused, there's plenty of literature out there debating public services. Health Care, the biggest spending single spending item in every province, is compared endlessly by Universities, think tanks, and media. The Canadian Institute for Healthcare Information would be the best I can think of off the top of my head.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is constantly doing provincial comparisons in public spending. Some excellent analysis there.

But quite likely the average Albertan can make a good general comparision. Public service spending has basically doubled over the past 10 years, has service in any of our public services increased much, or at all? Alberta has, on a per capita basis, hugely outspend every other province over that decade, yet are our programs the envy of every Canadian?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'm confused, there's plenty of literature out there debating public services. Health Care, the biggest spending single spending item in every province, is compared endlessly by Universities, think tanks, and media. The Canadian Institute for Healthcare Information would be the best I can think of off the top of my head.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is constantly doing provincial comparisons in public spending. Some excellent analysis there.

I don't know, which is why I asked if there was some sort of index for these things that made them comparable. I am glad Universities debate Health Care, and the taxpayers federation are doing provincial comparisons, but unless there is some conclusion related to level of public service as a function of per captia dollars spent, it doesn't help you make your point. If there is such a stat or study that you could provide somewhere that shows that your claim that Alberta isn't efficient in this regard, then I would gladly change my position.

Even if there is, that doesn't change the fact that per captia spending by itself is a near meaningless stat by itself.

But quite likely the average Albertan can make a good general comparision. Public service spending has basically doubled over the past 10 years, has service in any of our public services increased much, or at all? Alberta has, on a per capita basis, hugely outspend every other province over that decade, yet are our programs the envy of every Canadian?

I don't know, I don't live another province at the same time as being in Alberta, nor do I consume every single service that the province has to offer. No one does.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am curious what makes their budget so ridiculous?
http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/wildros...t-alternative/
I was impressed with the fact that they actually put something in writing. Most opposition parties stand up and say we would have done it better but never elaborate. The implementation of the budget might not have been perfect but it was a great starting point.

So basically because its in writing you think it has more merit? Thats a new one!

My issues with it are pretty basic. While they would be saving money they would clearly be cutting services. They are cutting most of the money from Education and Healthcare. I am not going to get into the healthcare debate in this thread (again) but cutting from education means cutting teachers. Cutting teachers means increased class sizes and poorer student learning conditions. People can say what they want about healthcare being bloated or whatever, but you don't hear that about education.

What education in Alberta needs (amongst other things) is a stable and predictable funding model. Cutting here just because is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

The other thingI don't care for is the move to more tax credits. These things are generally not cost effective as the government has to oversee them and as a whole not worth it as a result.

Lastly, as more of a general comment though, the whole things saves what...2.8%? So this government with out of control spending and horrible fiscal management (just coming out of a recession mind you) is basically spending about 97% of our money fine, but that extra few points is enough that we should all vote Wildrose?

All I can say is that if the fine line between fiscal prudence and out of control spending is a mere 3% then our financial system could collapse at any time.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze

Figures a guy who sells mutual funds would think 3% is nothing.

I don't only sell funds...I lost more than 3% on some stocks today!

[GP_Matt]

I am not saying it has merit because it is in writing, just impressed that they took the time to put their ideas down instead of standing up and saying we can do better (I am thinking of the federal liberals here)
As someone who sells mutual funds you should know that an additional 3% per year compounds quickly.
If the PC's had stuck to population growth plus inflation as their budget limit every year from 2003 on we would spend 7 billion less this year and would have had a surplus each of the last three years.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

My issues with it are pretty basic. While they would be saving money they would clearly be cutting services. They are cutting most of the money from Education and Healthcare.

Are we looking at the same document?

It clearly states that there would be an increase to education and health care funding.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am not saying it has merit because it is in writing, just impressed that they took the time to put their ideas down instead of standing up and saying we can do better (I am thinking of the federal liberals here)
As someone who sells mutual funds you should know that an additional 3% per year compounds quickly.
If the PC's had stuck to population growth plus inflation as their budget limit every year from 2003 on we would spend 7 billion less this year and would have had a surplus each of the last three years.

Thanks, I do know about compounding. We've seen the effects of compounding cuts to education going back many years here. In fact you can have a look at the state of some of the schools in the province to see that first hand.

Originally Posted by Jacks

Are we looking at the same document?

It clearly states that there would be an increase to education and health care funding.

We're looking at the same document. The PC budget alloted approx. $500M more than what the Wildrose would've offered...so I call that a cut. You could call it "not enough of a raise" annd I guess that would be as accurate.

The thing is with these cuts that we have a growing province as well. So what seems minor really has more of an impact. I know that the school system is already having difficulty meeting class size targets...how does less money do anything to alleviate this? Its really just an easy solution to the budget, but not the best solution for the province.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

We're looking at the same document. The PC budget alloted approx. $500M more than what the Wildrose would've offered...so I call that a cut. You could call it "not enough of a raise" annd I guess that would be as accurate.

The thing is with these cuts that we have a growing province as well. So what seems minor really has more of an impact. I know that the school system is already having difficulty meeting class size targets...how does less money do anything to alleviate this? Its really just an easy solution to the budget, but not the best solution for the province.

You are totally ignoring that the WR budget increases spending proportionally to every new student.

You are arguing that each new student should cost more than the previous student, which is an entirely unsustainable model.

Compound growth, remember?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't know, which is why I asked if there was some sort of index for these things that made them comparable. I am glad Universities debate Health Care, and the taxpayers federation are doing provincial comparisons, but unless there is some conclusion related to level of public service as a function of per captia dollars spent, it doesn't help you make your point. If there is such a stat or study that you could provide somewhere that shows that your claim that Alberta isn't efficient in this regard, then I would gladly change my position.

There are several reports, as listed above.

Even if there is, that doesn't change the fact that per captia spending by itself is a near meaningless stat by itself.

This doesn't make sense at all. Any stat is meaningless by itself. Per capita spending shows exactly what is spent per capits. If it was meaningless, every province wouldn't track these things.

I don't know, I don't live another province at the same time as being in Alberta, nor do I consume every single service that the province has to offer. No one does.

Nope, but it's quite easy to compare them and see when Alberta is spending double what some other provinces are and getting similar or less bang for the buck it begs the question why are we spending so much?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

The PC budget alloted approx. $500M more than what the Wildrose would've offered...so I call that a cut.

Okay, say a different party said they would spend 5 million on a community centre. The PC's get in and don't build the community centre because they didn't promise it. Is that a cut?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Okay, say a different party said they would spend 5 million on a community centre. The PC's get in and don't build the community centre because they didn't promise it. Is that a cut?

Well its the exact rationale that we saw during the federal election. The Liberals were going to hold the line on taxes and this was branded an increase because the CPC wanted to cut. Semantics to be sure, but the same premise.

It doesn't really matter what you call it though. Every party at this point recognizes that education (in particular) needs more funding and yet here we have a party looking to reduce the now current funding for a measly couple percent. Call it what you like, but its a straight policy issue I have with the Wildrose.