Provincial Spending: Romanow vs Calvert
Nuff said.
posted by deaninregina at 1:42 PM
Friday, May 04, 2007
Previous Posts
- 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 ...
- Where's deaninregina?
16 Comments:
WOW spending under Calvert did go up alot. these numbers are very intersting.
Have these been adjusted for inflation ?
I would like to see revenue over the same time line. Also, could you add the 8 years before Romanow to get some perspective ?
Does the Romanow spending include debt repayments ? It must be remembered the province was nearly bankrupt and they were austere times.
Quimby,
If you would pay attention to previous discussion threads, I asked Dean to ensure any numbers presented were discounted for inflation. As a finance type person, my pet peeve is presenting numbers without accounting for inflation.
These numbers are in fact discounted for inflation. As we can well see, spending is up....are we getting our money's worth from our government? I say NOT!
LHC
I would like to see revenue over the same time line.
Also, could you add the 8 years before Romanow to get some perspective ?
Does the Romanow spending include debt repayments ?
Still would like to know this much ?
Does anyone else from the NDP ever leave comments besides Quimby or is he the only one out there trying to defend the NDP, I guess the lone NDPer whats to have a fight until the end, even though he is the one loseing the battle.
Good work anon,
When you lack any real evidence, attack the messenger. Typical Saskatchewan Party Neo-conservative fascist crap.
Quimby why don't you bring some of your Socialist Friends over hear to counter debate us conservative's ? It would at least be more of a balance if there were a few more of your type hear to try to Defend the NDP.
Anonymous:
Your spelling is atrocious.
And the rest of us NDP types are hanging out at more high profile blogs, spending our time discussing politics and policy and not arguing with a bunch of Sask Party apologists.
Quimby has asked for some interesting information, and I'd like to see that provided before we continue.
HLC: This does not take into account inflation. However I do have a graph comparing spending increases per year during Calvert's term as premier to the yearly inflation. Needless to say spending rose faster than inflation while our population decreased.
As a finance guy you should recall from your econ classes that inflation is not a cut and dry number. I don't have my econ 101 text book with me so I can’t expand on that just yet.
mayor quimby: No Romanows spending does not include debt repayments. I'm glad you realize the point of this blog entry. Romanow's government was more fiscally prudent than Calvert's. There are distinct differences in Calvert's handling of the provincial finances and Romanow’s. I am not saying I agree with all of Romanow's policies but Calvert’s are worse.
I got these numbers from the provincial auditors report. The previous 8 years are not included in the reports available online nor are the 8 before that under Blakeney.
deron: I understand poor spelling takes away from a persons argument. I find that frustrating because I too am no spelling bee champion. However, just because someone can't spell does not mean they do not realize that our provincial government should be honest with the people of Saskatchewan and should not try to buy the vote in a 700 million dollar deficit budget.
Romanow's government had no choice, if they hadn't the province would have went in receivership and became a territory not a province. This was due massive mismanagement by the previous government.
Once the debt load was reduced, the government was able to free up more dollars for tax relief and initiatives and programs. If you want to really know why Saskatchewan lags behind Alberta's economy. It was due to having to rebuild our credit and reduce debt that left us 10 years behind everyone else.
Current spending in 1994 dollars is about $6.9 billion or 17% increase over 13 years, or 1.3% per year on average. Not really a big spender.
Try this link for more accurate assessments. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html
Quimby:
Who's not a really big spender? I thought we were comparing Calvert and Romanow's spending and then you throw out an average of both their spending increases. Please stay on topic.
Program spending under Calvert has risen 33% or 2.4 Billion dollars. That is three times the amount his 'imagine' campaign was asking for and that's ten times the amount it would cost to implement a flat personal income tax rate of 10%.
But do the NDP cut taxes, nope, they go on a spending spree.
Has debt actually decreased. Calvert increased our net debt by 1 Billion dollars in the last provincial budget.
Alberta decreased and then eliminated their debt. But ours goes up during times of prosperity. Its time for a change.
You mean minus inflation and debt to gdp is well below 20%.
Like I said after inflation, the 2007 total is only $1 billion over 1994, not alot over 13 years.
Quimby stay on topic. This blog is comparing Calvert and Romanow's spending.
2001 total spending is around $6.9 Billion and 2007 spending,in 2001 dollars is around $7.9 Billion. In 5 years spending as increased by 14% or 2.8% per year on average, still not a big spender.
Yet another piece of bad SaskParty propaganda. Everyone in society is spending, spending is in fact a way of life at the moment. If people were losing jobs/not moving back/going bankrupt, then alarms should be sounding.
My question to all of you, are you spending more these days? Or do you still spend the same amount of money as 10 years ago?
Anonymous,
This is not Sask Party 'propaganda.'
It's called the facts.. Face it, spending is growing while the populations and empoyed population is declining. If we are spending more than we can afford, then quit spending. This would also take into account future spending. If we as a government is unable to take into account future sustainability, then they need to go. I do realize that forecasting is a very inexact science, but there is a base that needs to be appraised.
Less people = less taxes = less spending.
It's that simple.
LHC
Post a Comment
<< Home