Alberta's royalties and tax policies discourage investment

According to  U of C's head of School of Public Policy...

Jack Mintz ... told a Calgary audience that Alberta ranks last among provinces such as B.C., Saskatchewan and the Maritimes -- and lower than states such as Texas -- after factoring in combined royalty and tax payments to government

BC & Saskatchewan have a more attractive royalties and tax policies than Alberta.

... as reported today in the Calgary Herald - "Alberta tax, royalty regime ranks last..."

Alberta's Premier Ed Stelmach

It was proven that governments receive higher revenues when taxes are cut. This may be contrary to intuition, but Presidents Regan, Clinton, and Bush all used this principle and cutting taxes resulted in increased revenues not a decrease. Clinton followed the advice of the conservative economist Arthur Laffer, with very positive results for the US economy.

When governments cuts taxes, businesses grow and consequently hire more people, who in turn buy more good and services and pay more income tax. Increased purchases of goods and services further boosts the economy and creates a multiplier effect.

Liberal and leftist ideology favours government spending, but it tends to have little or no multiplier effect, for the simple reason that governments do not create wealth - they only appropriate it on the peoples' behalf. First for every dollar taken in taxes for use in a government program, a hefty percentage is taken to administer that money by the government itself, or by a government agency. (Take a $ in tax money and put 45 cents into the economy after government waste and expense).

Second, government is inherently inefficient compared to the free market.With lib-left policies we see an increase in government employees, which then typically vote for lib-left parties with policies which increase government spending and therefore taxes to support that spending.

I believe we could apply the same principle to Alberta's royalties and tax policies.

Reducing profits and revenues, discourages investment in drilling, or new projects, this results in decreased royalties. Gas companies such as EnCana prefer to invest in shale plays in the US or BC than in Alberta. Why? They can make a better return on investment in BC or Pennsylvania than they can in Alberta.

The new royalty regime is hurting, especially with respect to conventional oil and gas investments," Mintz told reporters. "I think we have been worse off in the sense that it's not entirely clear the government is going to collect as much new revenue as they hoped because of the investment impacts. I think we need a better fiscal framework to attract investments for Alberta when you have a very competitive global environment for oil and gas investments."

There is still a lot of unemployment in Alberta and a budget deficit, perhaps we should look at the Conservative Government as being responsible; they have not cleaned house and I am considering Wild Rose next election.

Greg Stringham, who is the vice-president of markets and fiscal policy for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers' said 

Mintz's numbers underscore the need for the province to reconsider its fiscal policies.

BC and Saskatchewan are attracting investment and Alberta is missing out...

Stringham said favourable fiscal policies could help spur costly unconventional oil and gas development in Alberta, which has seemingly bypassed the province as oil companies flocked to the Horn River gas shales in B.C. and the Bakken oil play in Saskatchewan.

See also here from December 29, 2009: Alberta’s energy industry urges new royalty review.

This is not a new issue - but how long will the Premier take to actually do something?

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Climategate - Won't Go Away So Report it CBC

Are the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and the French Language arm RDI (Radio Canada) reporting Climategate?


What would your guess be? Would your answer be:

"Of course this is a huge story and this is a publicly funded media corporation committed to objective reporting - so of course they will report it"

Or would your answer be:

"I doubt it the CBC has been a devoted cheer-leader for the man-made global warming fraud for years, true to their liberal-leftist biases."

A Google search of "climategate" on the CBC site revealed three entries - that means there are only three pages on the whole CBC website with the word climategate.

One entry is buried in their technology section, and two entries from the CBC blog. Hmm that's very odd - the CBC does not have a front-line news story on this, so the only reporting is by way of their blog; at least we can be thankful that the CBC has a vestige of decency and did not suppress these two entries.

I like this comment post by a gentleman named Alan Forsythe

Okay we get it, the CBC has become the official spokesgroup for global warming hysteria.

Last week you did a drive by on Lawrence Solomon and promoted the message that there's a global warming cover-up. Yet we can't open a newspaper, turn on a radio or TV without hearing about global warming. And still, not a peep about climategate, wherein the so-called science is settled crowd admit their 'science' was never settled and that they have cooked the books.

I've listened to Suzuki talk and his message is much more about taking on the Conservatives than it is about environmentalism; he never mentions the Liberal Party's failure to pursue Kyoto goals when they were in government. His agenda is clear as is Gore's, who as others have mentioned, will soon be the first enviro-billionaire.

Many more have lined up at the gravy train or have joined the legions of useful idiots. But as the hysteria grows as we approach Copenhagen, most Canadians are deciding they don't want to be 'saved' by Gore and Suzuki and prefer their lives as they are now to lives led under the dictatorial hand of the UN.

The mainstreet media, or lamestreet media as I call it, is suppressing the story. It is not a side-show, governments are contempltating diverting trillions of dollars into useless programs, and the voting public needs to hear about the scam.

There is misinformation on the Internet, but at least one can sift through and find out what is happening, rather than relying on the lamestreet media.

With all due reverence: Thank God for the openness of the Internet

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Does the US Want Obama Health-Care Reform?

For Canadians the information has been somewhat distorted; I hear Canadians talking as though there is no safety net in the United States; that is not really true; they have Medicaid and Medicare.

Medicaid is available to certain low-income individuals and families  (see here)

Medicare is for people over 65 and some disabled people (see here)

Both programs are administered by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), both of which are generous programs and certainly not inferior to our general services here, possibly better.

Here's what the HHS says about itself:

The is the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves.

My understanding is that there are other safety nets, programs and clinics; stories that people get turned away from hospital and die in the streets are not true.

Canadians also seem to be under the misapprehension that the Republican Party, or GOP (Grand Old Party) as it is sometimes called, does not want reform, but the Obama Government does.

That is incorrect, both the GOP and the Democrats are in favour of reform; the GOP had a 4-point plan proposed by Senator McCain, whereas the Democrats have tried to implement a "universal" or "socialised" health-care system in the past.

President Clinton put forward a plan in 1993, however the Democratic Party itself  offered a number of competing plans of their own, and the plan was declared dead in 1994 by Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, who is the current special envoy to the Middle East for the Obama administration.

But where do the American people stand in the issue? Here's the results from "Pollster.com".

We see that there is a clear margin of Americans who oppose the Obama plans over those who support it.

Oppose = 47.8%

Favour = 44.9%

A word about the approach used by Pollster.com .
 
They do not conduct their  own polls, but analyze the results from a number of other major pollsters to arrive at a mathematical representation of all the polls under consideration. It is like an average, but it is more mathematically rigorous than that, and uses techniques used in science and statistics to properly treat the data (such as linear regression, least-squares regression); Pollster.com explains their methodology here, and the full result can be found here here.

Both Parties Propose Reform

The Official GOP Plan can be read here, but it's more instructive to look at the commentary by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post from August of this year; his opening statement summarises the Obama plans:

In overhauling any segment of our economy, the 1986 tax reform should be the model. Yet today's ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high-quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health-care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity -- employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions -- with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs.

4-Point Reform favoured by Republicans (simplified)

1. Tort Reform
2. Real health-insurance reform
3. Health Insurance Across State Lines
4. Reduce fraud and waste in Medicare / Medicaid
   

1. Tort Reform: A significant portion of US health costs result from the huge awards by US Courts in malpractice suits. These awards result in much higher premiums than would otherwise be required, and forces doctors to practice overly defensive, and unnecessary, medicine to reduce the chances of litigation. Kruathammer calls it "an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune."

Tort reform has been proposed by the GOP for some time but it has been blocked by the Democrats because a significant part of their revenue comes from litigation lawyers; the Democrats will not embark on reform to avoid alienating their supporters.

Here's the extent of the problem:

An authoritative (study by the) Massachusetts Medical Society, found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits.

Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance). 

This one area of reform alone could have a huge impact on US health-care, but the Democratic party blocks it to protect their support base.

2. Real health-insurance reform (see the whole discussion here):

Tax employer-provided health-care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.

There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.

So why doesn't the Obama administration reform it?

Repealing the exemption has one fatal flaw, however. It was advocated by candidate John McCain. Obama so demagogued it last year that he cannot bring it up now without being accused of the most extreme hypocrisy and without being mercilessly attacked with his own 2008 ads.

3. Health Insurance Across State Lines: the current laws prohibit competition across states lines. This adds costs by duplication, causes problems with portability, and greatly adds to costs by eliminating widespread competition ensuring that rates remain high. This approach has also has been previously blocked by the Democrats.

4. Reduce fraud and waste in Medicare / Medicaid: the Democrats have blocked reforms to address this also on previous occasions. But savings have been included as part of the CBO's (Congressional Budget Office) financial plan for Obama's reform. The question is why wait for a massive, complex new bill to reduce fraud and waste? Why not start action on reducing fraud and waste the day after inauguration?

Obama's Plan
The core of Obama's plan is to ultimately replace the the US Medical Insurance industry with a single-payer, government run and controlled plan.

Chief objections to this are:

1. Governments are inefficient and wasteful, (example Medicare and Medicaid) therefore this will result in far higher costs than from private companies.
2. Government will be taking over control of one sixth of the US economy; Government control of business is opposed by many Americans on Constitutional grounds
3. Many people think that their health is a private matter between them and their doctor, therefore the Government should play no part in it. People see this as another intrusion by the Government into their private lives. 
   
4. It will be massively expensive (estimates of 1 -2 Trillion dollars, but nobody really knows), and will not reduce costs, which was Obama's original reasons for reform . The actual costs are likely to increase far more than estimated, probably by a factor of 2 or 3 or more (example Maine)
5. Emphasis should be on other more urgent issues, jobs, the war in Afghanistan, Iran and the burgeoning US deficit
6. The bill itself is not being developed along bi-partisan lines, and this is causing some concerns not only to Republicans, but also to Democrats. Members of both houses feel that the way to produce pass such major legislation is along bi-partisan lines. That is, both Republicans and Democrats work together to forge a bill.
7. Coupled with the lack of bi-partisan input, is the concern that the bill is being rushed through, and that such a large piece of legislation, with such major impact to the US economy and the US people, should be given proper time for consideration, debate, development and finally passage into law. Without proper time this presents an unreasonable risk without a corresponding benefit to the American people. The reason for the haste is political.
8. A very real concern is the complexity of the bill, which exists in 5 different versions and some as long as 1,500 pages. Can the bill administered effectively once passed into law? Or will the complexity lead tp  problems with administering this bill

Finally, Obama promised for open government - that was a very big point in his campaign. Obama said he would introduce a new way of government. In reality this bill and associated negotiations, have been done behind closed doors.

It was requested that the bill would be made available on-line for an adequate period of time to review. This request has been denied; the reason given is that it would be too complicated and too time consuming to do it. This is laughable.

Will it pass? Congressional elections are coming next year and many Democratic representatives fear for their seats and are unwilling to back an unpopular bill, so it is going to be interesting to see how this develops. My own hope is that the final bill is not the socialised form of medical care, but contains the reforms necessary to increase efficiency and lower overall costs, all of which will be good for Canada.


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

When Pravda Says It - You Know It's Bad

The polices of this US Administration are vitally important to Canadians.

When Pravda Says You Are Too Liberal - you know that things are bad.

The economics of the Obama administration are vitally important to Canada and the whole world, so when Pravda criticizes the economic "tax & spend" liberal policies of the US, it should be time to wake up.

The deficit in the US has tripled in the first year of this administration. It is now three times what it was when Obama took office.

Why worry say some liberals? Well the answer should be obvious: foreigners hold nearly half the $7.5 trillion U.S. public debt. That means that the American taxpayers not only paid a massive $383.4 billion dollars in interest charges during the Obama's first year, but fully half of that money went overseas, without any benefit to the US economy whatsoever. Money down the drain - out the window - just to maintain the debt where it is.

$383.4 billion dollars in interest charges over the first year of Obama's administration; that averages to almost $32 billion per month in interest charges. Not one cent of that goes to schools, health care, roads, or to paying the ever increasing government payroll.

The data is taken from the US Treasury here

That $383.4 billion dollars is money that comes from the tax-payer; money that doesn't go to buying homes, paying off mortgages, or buying goods and services that help build the US economy. But here is the worst part - fully half of it goes overseas.

You have to be an ostrich if that doesn't frighten you.

BUT, it is going to get worse, because the Obama administration want to increase spending even more. There is the energy bill, the Cap and Trade bill that will add billions in costs to the economy, which must be born by industry and private citizens - it will be a disaster. (Millions of green jobs? Does anyone believe that?) Plus there will be a massive increase in costs to the US taxpayer as a result of the proposed health care reform in is current form, which will result in a further restriction on growth and recovery.

Cutting taxes helps the economy; increasing taxes slows down and stifles the economy.

It has been shown in the past that the best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs is to cut taxes. A cut in employment tax for example, provides an immediate boost to industry, by reducing their costs. This produces a direct stimulus which acts fairly quickly. However, the current economic policy is exactly the opposite. That is why we should all be concerned; if the US economy falters the whole world will feel the effects. (Think of the huge amount of US aid that currently is distributed all round the globe; if the US economy is not strong how can they sustain this giving?)

The US with its massive spending is lagging the recovery of the rest of the world - not leading it. That should be proof enough. But tax and spend is at the heart of liberal dogma. It doesn't work but they are not about to let the facts get in the way of their liberal  ideology.

Where are the conservatives in Canada? We seem to be complacent up here.

If the US economy falls - we will be drowned in the tsunami.

"The American Self Immolation, Truly a Sight to See" from Pravda:

It can be safely said, that the last time a great nation destroyed itself through its own hubris and economic folly was the early Soviet Union (though in the end the late Soviet Union still died by the economic hand).

Now we get the opportunity to watch the Americans do the exact same thing to themselves. The most amazing thing of course, is that they are just repeating the failed mistakes of the past. One would expect their fellow travelers in suicide, the British, to have spoken up by now, but unfortunately for the British, their education system is now even more of a joke than that of the Americans.

While taking a small breather from mouthing the never ending propaganda of recovery, never mind that every real indicator is pointing to death and destruction, the American Marxists have noticed that the French and Germans are out of recession and that Russia and Italy are heading out at a good clip themselves.

Of course these facts have been wrapped up into their mind boggling non stop chant of “recovery” and hope-change-zombification. What is ignored, of course, is that we and the other three great nations all cut our taxes, cut our spending, made life easy for small business…in other words: the exact opposite of the Anglo-Sphere.

That brings us to Cap and Trade. Never in the history of humanity has a more idiotic plan been put forward and sold with bigger lies. Energy is the key stone to any and every economy, be it man power, animal power, wood or coal or nuclear. How else does one power industry that makes human life better (unless of course its making the bombs that end that human life, but that's a different topic).

Never in history, with the exception of the Japanese self imposed isolation in the 1600s, did a government actively force its people away from economic activity and industry.

Even the Soviets never created such idiocy. The great famine of the late 1920s was caused by quite the opposite, as the Soviets collectivized farms to force peasants off of their land and into the big new factories. Of course this had disastrous results. So one must ask, are the powers that be in Washington and London degenerates or satanically evil?

Where is the opposition?

Where are the Republicans in America and Tories in England?

 Where are the conservatives in Canada? If the US economy falls - we will be drowned in the tsunami.

Read the "The American Self Immolation, Truly a Sight to See" here


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

Prophetic Words from George Washington

History Repeats Itself - Prophetic Words from George Washington.
 
I received this quote from a contributor – stunning in its relevancy for today... History repeats itself.