Alberta budget news

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jammies

Probably because MLA salaries are a miniscule portion of government spending. It's like asking "Why don't they have a option for having penny collection jars in the clinics to defray the cost of health care?"

So what if it's miniscule. It doesn't look good when everyone else is asked to tighten their belts or take a cut and the govt itself escapes scrutiny.
It would also go along ways to getting the doctors and teachers on board with a wage freeze.

[Husky]

Anyone know if the government hedges any of their production or is most of it not Taken in Kind and they let others market for them? If the government marketed all their own royalty volumes and hedged it...definately help with price swings.

[darklord700]

This coming from AHS must be true. Shows that there're a lot of room for cuts.


"Alberta is running an expensive medical system compared to its provincial counterparts, paying more for drug costs, hospitals and physician compensation, he said. Growth in health-care spending averaged 10 per cent a year over the past decade, Horne said, compared to about three per cent elsewhere in the country."


http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/...383/story.html

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by fotze

That reads like you were the salesguy who lost out on the commission on selling the new piece of equipment.

My experience working for the government was waste through the hiring of "consultants" to do absolutely brutal "studies". They ranged from old friend/chronies hired for junk that went nowhere to respected research houses who would hold their nose while collecting the fees and the only conclusions reached were 'need more study'.

Building was full of giant binders full of printed pages of the data we gave them with a two page conclusion in the front.

Embarassing.

The government is famous for having 4 times as many managers per employee as private firms yet they still are unable to make decisions, instead preferring to outsource everything and, if possible, avoid any and all responsibilities. And of course we are all aware the public service has expanded enormously over the past decade, with government employees growing at twice the rate of the population!

It's yet another example of why downsizing government is important. Cut the fat and let the good employees shine instead of drowning them in bureaucracy and cronyism.

[Zarley]

It's really unfortunate that we have to endure four more years of the Alison Redford government.

I don't think the Wildrose were quite ready for prime-time last around, but I really wish the PCs had won a minority mandate. I have lost all confidence in their ability to govern this province.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by yads

A few things on the Norway comparison. In addition to not being our own country, we don't have what basically amounts to a government owned oil company like Statoil.

Another question I have is what should the plan be for the Heritage fund? At what point is it acceptable to start spending it? Is the plan to have everyone employed by the government once industry packs up and leaves? If anything I would support spending a percentage of the money we make from resource revenue now to invest in alternative industry: high tech, manufacturing, alternative energy, etc. So that when the resources run out/become worthless, the entire economy doesn't collapse.

The principal of the Heritage Savings fund should never be withdrawn and spent. We as a province should be investing a significant portion of yearly royalty income into the fund, with the aim of creating an endowment that will yield enough interest income (in perpetuity) to replace royalties in the distant future once the oil dries up. Essentially converting a non-renewable revenue source to a renewable one via investment.

This was Lougheed's initial goal for the fund, but subsequent governments have unfortunately lost sight of this.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

This. Add to that I think there is an option to cut some of their supports and such (I can't recall how its worded, but I cut it in my submission). Let's say you cut the MLA pay in half though...it would save you about $5 million a year. Chump change in the grand scheme.

And?

There are a lot of options on there that are worth $5 million.

The fact that it is chump change doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option to cut.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

And?

There are a lot of options on there that are worth $5 million.

The fact that it is chump change doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option to cut.

Its $5M if you cut 50% of their salary (which by most peoples standards would be pretty ridiculous, regardless of your party).

Plus, as I've pointed out many times, you have the option to add other suggestions on basically every page of the survey. Factor in the $5M or less savings that this would give you and do the rest of the exercise? I had no trouble in finding enough areas to cut and balance the budget, and frankly with some taxation that I think should be there I also ended up with a sizeable surplus.

One question about "living within our means" as that phrase keeps coming up. Does that mean that if we put in a sales tax/fuel tax and raised another chunk of cash that we're living within our means? In the same vein if I make $40k this year and made $30k last year then my spending the extra is still "within my means" right?

[chemgear]

Part of me is amused that they're looking for input from the general population who are most likely terrible with managing their OWN finances. Heck, this might be their first exposure the budgeting process.

Joking aside, it's better to have the discussion than not. Darn democracy!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Dion

So what if it's miniscule. It doesn't look good when everyone else is asked to tighten their belts or take a cut and the govt itself escapes scrutiny.
It would also go a long ways to getting the doctors and teachers on board with a wage freeze.

No, it wouldn't. Would it make you personally ok with having your wages frozen? The MLAs wages have about the same relevance to the doctors' and teachers' wage expectations as they do to mine or yours - none.

Say you worked for a huge company with dozens of separate divisions. One day it is announced that the management team from one of the other divisions has cut their own pay to help that division's bottom line. Meanwhile your own management is rolling right along with no changes to their salary, and then your union is approached with the idea that they should accept a wage freeze. Do you really think your union leadership would think "well gee, those other managers in division XYZ took a pay cut, therefore we should maybe agree to this?" Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Azure

And?

There are a lot of options on there that are worth $5 million.

The fact that it is chump change doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option to cut.

You are being disingenuous. Your point presumed that the MLA salaries not being included was "framing the debate", which implies that there are areas of the budget that are not being exposed in the exercise for the purposes of protecting someone's interests. I propose that there is a different set of reasons: for one, it's an easy target because no matter what politicians are paid, people think it's too much, so you're not learning anything useful; for two, it reinforces the happy myth that if only the people at the "top" made sacrifices, everyone else will happily fall in line.

Speaking of myths, one main reason Alberta spends more than other provinces in many areas is because the majority of the budget is spent on salaries, and salaries are higher in Alberta for almost all jobs, and not just because the government likes to give people money for no reason. To illustrate, what if we compared Alberta to, say, Cuba, and then demanded why we can't get teachers and doctors here for the same cash as they can there? I guess we'd look pretty bad - look at all that money we're wasting not paying our teachers $20 a month!

It's a lot more complex than the "they be making too much for their jerbs!" mantra endlessly espoused by those who think government is nothing but pigs snuffling at a trough. Not that you cannot save money by looking for places to do so, but I'm immediately suspicious of anyone espousing any simplistic and vacuous "argument" along the lines of "there's always fat to be cut", "the problem is politicians are greedy", "it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem" and the like.

[Sylvanfan]

I agree that rolling back MLA salary's isn't going to accomplish a lot. But these are the people that you need to show leadership. If they accept a two year wage freeze and something like 3% raises for the next two years after that, it does at least set a bar for negotiating raises for other civil servants. Whereas if they continue to give themselves 10% raises...it seems hypocritical to ask others to freeze their wage which is the perception that a lot of people seem to have.

I do think that Alberta does need a more stable means of generating revenue, and that some tax increases are likely inevitable. Problem is that there is not a single politician you can trust to do give more money and not squander a sizable amount of it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I agree that rolling back MLA salary's isn't going to accomplish a lot. But these are the people that you need to show leadership. If they accept a two year wage freeze and something like 3% raises for the next two years after that, it does at least set a bar for negotiating raises for other civil servants. Whereas if they continue to give themselves 10% raises...it seems hypocritical to ask others to freeze their wage which is the perception that a lot of people seem to have.

I do think that Alberta does need a more stable means of generating revenue, and that some tax increases are likely inevitable. Problem is that there is not a single politician you can trust to do give more money and not squander a sizable amount of it.

I don't disagree. The problem is that its all spin. The MLAs didn't get a huge raise this spring, it was just spun that way by the opposition and sounded good in the media. They basically get the same amount, its just that they don't get the same committee pay and things like that. So while the base pay increase at the end of the day its not a raise at all.

Does that mean they should have their wages cut? Sure. Its just that you have to look dollar for dollar at what was going out before and what goes out now and base the cuts on that.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by jammies

No, it wouldn't. Would it make you personally ok with having your wages frozen? The MLAs wages have about the same relevance to the doctors' and teachers' wage expectations as they do to mine or yours - none.

Our company was struggling a few years a go when gas prices started to really drop. In order to hold onto staff we went down to a four day week for a while for a lot of divisions. Management took a 10% wage cut for the entire duration. I am sure that the 7 managers salary cut had almost no bearing on the bottom line but it was symbolic in that everyone stands together. Their wages weren't reinstated until everyone was back to full shifts.

[Tinordi]

Straw man effectively deployed.

Instead of talk about Alberta's real budget issues we've now devolved into mouth breathing populist bilge about the gubament and how much they pay themselves.

[GP_Matt]

I don't think it is.
It comes down to leadership in my opinion. You are suggesting that taxes should be raised so that we are not so dependent on royalties. Resource revenue should instead be put away for future generations. It may surprise you, as I am a Wildrose supporter, but I agree with your thoughts. We are a very lucky province and we should be doing more with what we have.
Where we disagree is that I don't trust the government to manage this fund. I think they will fritter it away on vote buying and legacy projects. One only has to look at the Sustainability fund for proof.

True leaders would have the courage to lead by example and inspire people. If the PC's could find a leader who can do that they will have a much easier time convincing the electorate to trust them.

[jammies]

Personally I'd be happier paying twice as much to the MLAs if they were thereby inspired to fix the structural problems with the deficit that have been going on for the last quarter century. Tinkering with their own salaries is a waste of time that could be better spent trying to save real dollars elsewhere.

If you want a symbol, hire a mascot.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

True leaders would have the courage to lead by example and inspire people. If the PC's could find a leader who can do that they will have a much easier time convincing the electorate to trust them.

Sorry, but doesn't this automatically disqualify Danielle Smith? Seems to me she had many opportunties to show courage of leadership during the campaign (Leech, Hunstperger, Global Warming), and chose to pretty much pass on all of those. She's a great politician, but as always, the better the politician, the worse the leader.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Sorry, but doesn't this automatically disqualify Danielle Smith? Seems to me she had many opportunties to show courage of leadership during the campaign (Leech, Hunstperger, Global Warming), and chose to pretty much pass on all of those. She's a great politician, but as always, the better the politician, the worse the leader.

It doesn't disqualify Smith. To her credit she did later admit it her handling of the Leech, Hunstperger situation was wrong and most likely cost them the election. So far all we get from Redford is her typical blame game and nothing from her saying that we made mistakes. It's always someone elses fault with Redford.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jammies

Personally I'd be happier paying twice as much to the MLAs if they were thereby inspired to fix the structural problems with the deficit that have been going on for the last quarter century. Tinkering with their own salaries is a waste of time that could be better spent trying to save real dollars elsewhere.

If you want a symbol, hire a mascot.

I'd be much happier if we had the right of recall on our MLA's and Premier. Other than an election some 3 1/2 years away we can't make them accountable for thier actions.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

Personally I'd be happier paying twice as much to the MLAs if they were thereby inspired to fix the structural problems with the deficit that have been going on for the last quarter century. Tinkering with their own salaries is a waste of time that could be better spent trying to save real dollars elsewhere.

If you want a symbol, hire a mascot.

And this is exactly the problem. MLA's already made a fine salary before the wage bump, and despite not delivering any kind of effective leadership, they still increased their own wages.

Now they want to make the poor, helpless and needy a focus of budget cuts, but ignore that their own wages, small of a cut they might be, should ALSO be part of the debate.