Sunday, June 05, 2005

Your Money's No Object

John Carpay, who is the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was talking to Bill Kaufmann at the Calgary Sun about taxpayer protection acts that would limit spending by gov't to the rate of inflation and population growth.

I think this is a great idea and one that needs to be shared with others in the blogsphere.

John states that in a host of US states, such an approach has paid dividends in curbing government spending greed. "The gov't needs to prioritize - they're saying yes to all kinds of spending and no to tax reductions".

Here are a few facts that may interest you.

Growth in Gov't Spending from 1996 - 2004:
AB - 90.4%; BC - 50.3%; MB - 71.7%; ON - 46.8%; SK - 43.1%; Cdn average - 53.2%; Feds - 47.2%(are Albertans aware that our own gov't spends more than the Libs in Ottawa)

Per Capita Provincial Spending 2004/05:
AB - $7,597; BC - $6,970; MB - $6,480; ON - $6,409; SK - $6,703; Nfld - $8,097 (propped up by equalization payments)

In the past 5 years, for every tax dollar ($1.00) that the Tories cut, they increased spending by $44.

So while Mr. Klein boasts that Alberta's fiscal situation should be the envy of other provinces, I beg to differ. Unless they like having more gov't bureaucrats for which they have to pay taxes to support.

For more information, click on my link to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.


At Sun. Jun. 05, 09:41:00 p.m. MDT, Blogger Candace said...

A question I would have on the rise in spending in Alberta would be when did they end the cutbacks that had been put in place to fix the deficit? I know there were some fairly draconian measures taken, but wasn't living here at the time so didn't pay much attention. I seem to recall my sister being bugged because kindergarten was cut back to a half day (I reassured her that I didn't see that having a major effect on my nieces' future acceptance in universities across the country).

My point being that if the cutbacks ended in 95 or 96, that would explain part of the rise in spending.

There is also the argument that oil prices continue to rise, and with it, Alberta's royalties. With $9.0 billion in the Heritage Trust Fund... why NOT spend more on infrastructure etc.? Especially since the deficit is dead?

At Mon. Jun. 06, 06:05:00 p.m. MDT, Blogger Aizlynne said...

It's not a question of the need to spend on infrastructure, etc. it's how much. A 90% increase in spending is not being fiscally prudent in my opinion. Bloated portfolio's and staffing therein (66 in one newly created dept)are indictive of a gov't that has the pig at the trough mentality.

There is only a $5.2 billion gap between spending and our non-oil and gas revenues. If they estimate the price per barrel incorrectly, we are in a deficit position again.

This gov't would be instituting zero based budgeting if they were truly fiscally conservative, in my opinion anyway.

Thanks for visiting! I appreciate your feedback and thought provoking questions.

At Mon. Jun. 06, 08:40:00 p.m. MDT, Blogger Debris Trail said...

Government spending, for Liberal Socialists, is a must. Look at the numbers. In Saskatchewan, where I live, government employment and crown corporation employment has reached such a large rate that it is becoming impossible to unseat the NDP. They spend as a matter of politics and power. Once the a certian level of people depend on government, that governments future is secured. It dependency on a massive scale.

At Wed. Jun. 08, 11:53:00 p.m. MDT, Blogger Candace said...

Hope you're not affected personally with the floods (that looks really awful for all involved).

Hopefully Ralph left something in the kitty for disasters like this.


Post a Comment

<< Home

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts" - Sir Winston Churchill.

Free Hit Counter
Free Counter