XPost: can.politics, ab.politics, us.politics   
   XPost: edm.general   
   From: dave-no_spam@unixhome.net   
      
   "John Fleming"  wrote in message   
   news:1lbs149kl71n3nd99ma81u2iv3mdonj6ik@4ax.com...   
   > On Sun, 04 May 2008 21:06:40 GMT, while chained to a desk in   
   > the scriptorium "Canuck57"    
   > wrote:   
   >> $"John Fleming"  wrote in message   
   >> $news:hj0q14l9kq95g9q6vhrdeg5cmjoev7r5gs@4ax.com...   
   >> $   
   >> $> The money still exists.   
   >> $>   
   >> $>     Third Quarter figures released for Heritage Fund   
   >> $>     February 19, 2008   
   >> $>   
   >> $>     More than $1.5 billion is forecast to be added to the   
   >> $>     Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund in 2007-08.   
   >> $   
   >> $Great.   
   >> $   
   >> $I say this as while part of me says the Heritage Fund is a great idea,   
   >> it is   
   >> $mismanaged.   
   >> $   
   >> $10 billion in 1980 isn't 16 billion in 2008.  A GIC at the bank could   
   >> have   
   >> $beat that.   
   >   
   > You're right.  The fund should be a *lot* bigger today than   
   > it actually is, even with just "inflation proofing".   
   >   
   > While you use 3.5% below, and compounded over the 28 years   
   > since 1980 with no additional investment it should be $26B,   
   > in the 1980s and early 1990s you could get much higher   
   > interest rates on a GIC.  Heck, I was buying GICs in the   
   > early 90s for my RRSP that yielded over 10%.   
   >   
   >> $If I put 10B in the bank or other government debt instruments in 1980.   
   >> Then   
   >> $just got just a small 3.5% interest, it would be about 26B now.  It is   
   >> $obvious they skim off of this for "program" spending.   
   >> $   
   >> $Still, refreshing to know at least one government in this land is   
   >> net-debt   
   >> $free.   
   >   
   > Mind you, in the 1990s, the government really painted itself   
   > into a corner vis-a-vis adding additional money to the   
   > Heritage Savings Trust Fund.  After all, in the early 1990s   
   > they were taking a chainsaw to the civil service to cut   
   > staffing levels.   
   >   
   > Saying on the one hand you are going to add $1B to the HSTF   
   > while saying on the other hand you are going to lay off a   
   > *lot* of civil servants just isn't going to fly politically.   
   > And I don't care what party is running the show.   
      
   I remember those days too.  That civil service cut was needed, and one of   
   the few governments this country ever had with the courage to do the   
   obvious.  Government should be run more like a business as the customer   
   being the taxpayer.   
      
   Just before those layoffs, government money was easy.  It was a prudent   
   move.  First and last time in my life I have ever seen government really   
   make a cut.  Oh, you hear them say they are cutting 10m here or there but   
   then turn around and spend 20m on something else.   
      
   Something like what is happening today.  Harpo says he is managing tightly,   
   but then why is record revenues and record spending occurring?  I might   
   submit Harpo is a fair weather big government liberal in a blue suit.  I say   
   this as if it were not for gasoline doubling in price that increase Ottawa   
   revenues and the economy being good in resources he would be just another   
   big fat government lamer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)