Calvert's Spending vs Inflation
posted by deaninregina at 1:01 PM
Monday, May 07, 2007
Previous Posts
- Provincial Spending: Romanow vs Calvert
- NDP Campaign poster
- Ramblings
- One of these things is not like the others, One of...
- Calvert goes to far
- Al Gore to help generate socialist sentiments for ...
- Political Patronage in Saskatchewan open forum for...
- Carriere victim speaks out
- Typical of radical left wing NDP supporters leftdo...
- Lorne Calvert’s ultra left wing NDP budget by the ...
15 Comments:
Without some commentary your post are just distorted facts. You need to start operating in REAL $, not nominal $. Then your "research" would be more accurate, but that's not your intention.
Like I posted in your last post, the increase in REAL $ from 200 to present is 14%, not alot of spending increases. That and taking into account the massive cuts that took place prior to Calvert, and the economic boom that happened with Calvert, leads me to believe that most of the increases have been to re-infuse the departments that had cuts or freezes. Or would you prefer that roads not get fixed, police not be hired, etc., etc.
Inflation has run by around 14 per cent since 2000. Government spending rose by 30 per cent between 2000 and 2006.
That's a lot of catch up, no?
Well David, that depends on the amount that was cut or length of spending freezes but averaging less then 3% per year in increased spending is not big spending.
Mayor, that's hogwash. The cuts and freezes that took place in the 90's didn't have to be "re-infused" up to the old deficit budget times.
All reinvesting in waste does set up future gov'ts to either deficit spend or cut again.
The idea is to save in a boom and spend in a bust, not the other way around.
Cheers,
lance
Lance, You are a Keynesian I didn't know that wow, so how does it deal with stagflation, again ?
Get out of the 70s lance.
Ahhh Quimby, your analysis never amazes me.
Firstly, you are not being upfront about your 14%. I would suspect your 14% is 2.3% compounded annually, correct? You should really be upfront with your numbers and how you come up with 14%.
Now if I take the numbers and calculate them according to inflation, I get an increase in spending of 15%, give or take. So our spending has gone up, our revenues on royalies have risen, and the gov't is spending like crazy. This government is dependant upon the royalty revenues, revenues that may not be here in a year or two. Whya re we using royalty revenues to prop up day to day operations of the government with royalty revenues? We should be spending this cash to pay down long term debt that was assumed by the Blakeney and Devine governments, not to pay for highways or education. he government needs to be able to operate on it's tax revenues and if there are one time payments made to the government, then spend them on one time capital improvements.
So spending has increased 14%, eyt the highways are crumbling, the hospitals are being brought to their knees and severence packages are being paid out to incompetent and dishonourable employees. The NDP needs to go so hey can get their priorities straight.
Are you an economist, Quimby?
LHC,
As I stated, I got my numbers by taking the total budget spending for 2007, put it into to the Bank of Canada inflation calculator to see how much it was in the year 2000 dollars. Then proceeded to divide the 2000 spending by 2007, in Real 2000 $, to arrive at the percentage over 5 years, then divided by 5 to get the average for each year. Pretty clear, no ?
Quimby, make sure you are comparing apples to apples. If you are going to compare budgeted spending, you have to compare to the budgeted spending in 2000.
This government tends to over shoot budget projections by around 10 per cent a year.
I recommend using actual spending numbers, which can only be seen in the provincial auditor's volume 2 report. The most recent report is almost a year old.
The next report comes out this summer.
Thanks David, thats where I got those numbers.
Provincial Auditor's 2006 report volume 2
So we are talking about a 0.5-1% more over 5 years ?
Not a big deal, this government has not been spending too much. 3% annual increases above inflation is not big spending. Especially since many expenses are in areas that are well above the rate of inflation , or the CPI. Items like fuel, natural gas, electricity, etc.
If the market is king, David, then one must accept these increases as being mostly market driven.
Actually, no I don't. The market determines CPI.
Increasing spending twice as fast as CPI is not, by definition, responding to market.
Sure it is, when the CPI for certain products is twice the general CPI. Regardless 3% over CPI is not a big spending, no matter how you want to spin it.
Listen to the Dipper, phaw: "3% isn't big spending"
3% of 7B dollars is a crap-load of money. Period.
Cheers,
lance
You really get off on putting these graphed statistics up, but they have such limited scope as to be meaningless.
Calvert spending more? Good! We are rolling in money, and the government should be spending more for a variety of projects.
I'd like to see your provincial deficit graph...for the past 20 years.
Hey Jeff, thanks for visiting. Yes as you can tell I enjoy graphs. Sometimes a graphs says things better than I ever could.
I do have a graph of provincial surpluses and deficits and I will post it soon. It is worthy to note that in the past 20 years the NDP have been in power for 16 of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home