tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post285337516344900630..comments2023-10-04T06:59:20.803-06:00Comments on The Enlightened Savage: The Wildrose Alternative Budget: Fun With NumbersEnlightened Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17872131888278838737noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-44651789877256414292011-03-09T08:00:58.955-07:002011-03-09T08:00:58.955-07:00The Middle East is not going to remain anarchic? B...The Middle East is not going to remain anarchic? Bwahahahaha, that's a good one, Bwahahaha!!<br />Have you studied the countries of the Middle East lately? I mean, I would have laughed before Tunisia exploded, but after.....Bwahahahaha!!<br /><br />OK, let's look at them. Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yeman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia... Bwahahahahahaha!!<br /><br />And if you've noticed (obviously not), Iran is trying to get THE BOMB. How about the wisest policy is to make sure they DON"T get one? And if they do get one, there will be PROLIFERATION with the Saudis and other Sunnis trying to get one too.<br /><br />Bahrain, Yeman, Pakistan - all on the edge. Egypt massacring Christians. On the edge.<br /><br />ANARCHIC? We're talking freaking APOCALYPTIC - and the first to know it ARE Oil executive veterans who've been there.<br /><br />We have never experienced becoming the single most importance source of Oil in the world, but its comng to that - which is why NORWAY is investing against their liberal principles, in the OILSANDS!<br /><br />The WRA will be talking slashing while everything in the province will be expanding - and that is a worse than KLEIN disaster! When everything expands, you build - to contain the over-heating, as Lougheed said in his interview on TV, that Alberta OVERHEATED...<br /><br />These rednecks who joined the WRA, are going to find out, thank God, and not to far distant, that the world is bigger than Alberta and that Alberta is bigger AND BETTER than a bunch of washed up rednecks who can't think their way out of a paper bag. The vote will split if anything - and the WRA won't benefit - but the certainty of a more minority government for Alison Redford and a larger Alberta Party in the legislature. The WRA will just look stupid, while the world tries to cope with uncertain oil access and our province enjoys the fact - and danger - of being the largest and SAFEST supply of THE ESSENTIAL world resource!joannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02313479959447420783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-33313125417240464072011-03-09T00:21:43.782-07:002011-03-09T00:21:43.782-07:00I don't think "spending restraint is hard...I don't think "spending restraint is hard" and "extroidinary circumstances" are a particularly good defense to the government's current fiscal position. There is really no reason to believe that in the short to medium term that money is going to rain down on Alberta like mana from heaven. Natural gas prices are down and they aren't coming back up anytime soon. Nor is the Middle East likely to remain anarchic indefinately.<br /><br />Beyond the immediate deficit the problem of the aging population hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the province. The population is aging, health costs are expected to rise as the population becomes older and thus less healthy. Senior care outside of direct health costs will require more money, and all of these people will be paying less money in taxes.<br /><br />Not only are the PCs massively unready to address that looming crisis but they've put us in a position where we're already in the hole, when the only reasonable expectation is that they things left aloen are going to get worse.<br /><br />Mean Gene does not have a plan to get health care costs under control. Believe me I asked, and promptly resigned from a pc board after the answer was "umm hopefully we'll get some more prevention". Barring some sort of miracle drug that doesn't sound bloody likely to solve our current population based time bomb.<br /><br />We've already squandered a large amount of the oil resources in thi province and we've saved next to none of that for the future. The seventeen billion sacked away in the rainy day fund should have been in the heritage fund to begin with. <br /><br />If the choices are hard now, they aren't going to get easier and Tory Torpor isn't going to fix this province so by that measure a title page, some badly labelled graphs and a single page reading "Stop spending so much damn money" is a decided improvement.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08628728347599057479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-47214088089249913452011-03-07T09:18:42.841-07:002011-03-07T09:18:42.841-07:00Thanks for the mention Joey! It's amazing tha...Thanks for the mention Joey! It's amazing that the CBE didn't see this coming! Teachers will be laid off or positions that are open will not be filled, once again they will have to run a defect and dip into there saving again this year.Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371950729922540833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-87096563602375617212011-03-06T12:27:06.213-07:002011-03-06T12:27:06.213-07:00(continued from above)
"The point was to sho...(continued from above)<br /><br /><i>"The point was to show how things can be done better, how fiscal restraint can work, and I think we showed that."</i><br /><br />I think sometimes people try to over-simplify complex situations, to make them easier to digest. I know I do it all the time. The budget document the Wildrose released relied almost entirely on spending caps and cancelling previously targeted expenses to balance the budget. But Albertans deserve to have this conversation with those who lead them - and those who WANT to lead them - from an informed place. Let's talk about HOW to make the numbers work. And not the party-line "the Wildrose is going to close hospitals" claptrap - that's simply hogwash. If you're going to increase spending in Health by 2.2% instead of 6% (might be wrong on the numbers, not looking at the GOA budget right now), what will that look like? What will be effected? Will that be purely trimming the fat, or would there be facility closures or staff layoffs? What effect would the Wildrose proposal to move back to regional health boards have on operating costs, as each region would likely (as before) spend millions of taxpayer dollars to hire professional "government relations" consultants to go to Edmonton and lobby for more taxpayer dollars? <br /><br /><b>If we're going to have a REAL discussion, then let's have it. And that starts with asking "HOW will you make that work?"</b><br /><br /><i>"Nobody is saying fiscal restraint is easy."</i><br /><br />Agreed. <br /><br /><i>"Your post, and the overall tone of reaction from the Finance Minister and other Tories, is to be expected. Nobody wants to make difficult decisions."</i><br /><br />The Finance Minister is defending the budget he presented. That's part of his job. I haven't done anything of the sort - and when I DO analyze the budget, I can tell you right now there are sections I have issues with. Likely, a lot of the same ones you do. <br /><br />I'll tell you this, though: I *DO* want to make difficult decisions. I want to do it not because I'll enjoy it, but because it needs to be done for the sake of my niece and nephew and my own future kids. I owe it to them to help make these difficult decisions. But just because a decision is difficult, or takes a long time, doesn't necessarily validate it as the RIGHT decision, either. Telling the kids they can't have new winter jackets is tough. But when winter comes, as it does every year, sometimes you realize that decision was the wrong one, made for what you thought was a good reason at the time.<br /><br /><i>"There is some low-hanging fruit like the $275M for MLA offices, but even that you guys refuse to touch."</i><br /><br />I don't know how much it costs to run 83 (soon to be 87) MLA offices, but if it can be done for less, it should. And I don't know who "you guys" are - I'm not an MLA. I don't work for the PC Party, or the Ministry of Finance. If any of those roles are in my future, though, and that number CAN be reduced, I'll say right now, on the record, that it should be. That clear enough? :)<br /><br /><i>"Otherwise, you'll always find a reason to keep spending money and growing the govenment, at the public's expense."</i><br /><br />I'll end off with this statement of principle. I didn't come up with it, and can't recall who did originally, but I've loved it ever since I first heard it, and believe it with my whole being:<br /><br />You get what you pay for, but our financial resources are not limitless. What government MUST do, it should do well - but without wasteful spending. We deserve the best government services that we can afford. No more, and no less.Enlightened Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17872131888278838737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-27354989762276928282011-03-06T12:24:59.861-07:002011-03-06T12:24:59.861-07:00Brock: Thanks for your response. My heart leaps at...Brock: Thanks for your response. My heart leaps at the prospect of a substantive discussion. :) If you’re feeling froggy today, jump on down and offer some thoughts on the qOtd posts below this one.<br /><br /><i>“Spending needs to be targeted and prioritized, especially during lean years, not ramped up and scattered indiscriminately.”</i><br /><br />I couldn’t possibly agree more.<br /><br />The problem is, we came out of the (necessary) cuts of the 90’s with a pretty significant infrastructure and social deficit. You have to be careful not to run a deficit to spend on social programs, because it’s completely unsustainable and will come back to bite you. You have to try and commit to spend as little as is feasible, because as the old song goes “rain is gunna come”. Resource revenues, ideally, should never be spent on recurring social programs – that’s how we develop dependence on money that will disappear one day. It’s like paying your mortgage with your poker winnings: One day, you’re going to stop winning and the bills will keep coming. But spending money on necessary capital infrastructure when costs are low, Albertans are out of work, and (most importantly!) you’ve got the money in the bank is the BEST time to do it, in my opinion.<br /><br />I support the principle of a cap on spending increases. Just as I support the principle of reducing the size of cabinet – both ideas championed by the Wildrose. What I DON’T support is the idea of codifying those principles as law. We should TRY to avoid unnecessary spending increases not because the law says to do so, but because it’s the right and smart thing to do. When it’s not possible, for whatever reason, to follow that principle, we shouldn’t force our leaders to break the law in letter or in spirit to deal with an emergent and unforeseen situation – consider the federal Conservatives and their “sorta-but-not-really-fixed-election-dates” law. <br /><br />I believe strongly in blood donation. But should the government pass a law requiring donation simply because it’s something I believe in? What if I haven’t eaten today? If I can’t donate because I’ve got a cold, am I breaking the law?<br /><br />Unnecessary laws are almost as bad as unnecessary spending – they waste the time of our legislators, our courts, our enforcement agencies – the only people who benefit from unnecessary laws are the lawyers, and the special interests that lobbied for the law in the first place.<br /><br />Taxpayers already have the most fundamental recourse in dealing with politicians whom they feel have betrayed their trust: They can kick them to the curb when the next election comes along. No new law required. Consider: We don’t stay faithful to our spouse or partner because the law says we *must*. We stay faithful because if we don’t, they’ll kick us to the curb. As they should.<br /><br />(continued)Enlightened Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17872131888278838737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-18047647416287330362011-03-06T10:53:42.467-07:002011-03-06T10:53:42.467-07:00Thanks for this, Joey. Always nice to get into iss...Thanks for this, Joey. Always nice to get into issues. <br /><br />But I don't think your critique is very substantive. Your example of a calamitous event prompting over-budget spending doesn't jive with your government's spending problem. Spending needs to be targeted and prioritized, especially during lean years, not ramped up and scattered indiscriminately. That is the point of the Wildrose spending cap. Governments flushed with other people's money (as you correctly identified) need some constraints to keep spending reasonable and maintain trust with taxpayers. <br /><br />As for releasing our Balanced Budget Alternative the next day, it was important to show Albertans that this thing really could be balanced. Obviously, nobody is going to confuse it for the government's behemoth document, but that wasn't really the point. The point was to show how things can be done better, how fiscal restraint can work, and I think we showed that. <br /><br />Nobody is saying fiscal restraint is easy. Your post, and the overall tone of reaction from the Finance Minister and other Tories, is to be expected. Nobody wants to make difficult decisions. That doesn't change the fact that difficult decisions have to be made. (There is some low-hanging fruit like the $275M for MLA offices, but even that you guys refuse to touch.) Otherwise, you'll always find a reason to keep spending money and growing the govenment, at the public's expense. And really, that's where we are with you guys today.Brock Harrisonnoreply@blogger.com