Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Update: Sask budget advertising

The total budget for the Saskatchewan budget advertising is $445,000 -- and the primary audience are Saskatchewan voters...I mean....Saskatchewan people.

UPDATE: CTF news release here.

32 comments:

Mike Stefaniuk said...

They're after me lucky charms:

http://citizensfederation.blogspot.com/2006/04/maclean-on-provincial-budget.html

David MacLean said...

That's hilarious mike! You are no Robert McLelland but you'll get there some day!!!

Mike Stefaniuk said...

(Sounding like Dr. Nick Riviera) "Stop you're embarassing me".
The next question is will you respond to my challenge? What specific spending items would you cut out, how much would you dedicate to debt reduction and what taxes would you cut?

The only thing I would cut out is the $15million for Maple Leaf foods. Either own it or don't, joint public-private ownership is a bad idea (and yes that extends to the PA mill as well).

But other than that, there are a lot of worthy initiatives (check out my blog). The budget wasn't perfect, but it was still pretty good, pragmatically speaking.

David MacLean said...

I have a question for you too...you said on your blog that the government is taking an equity position in maple leaf foods. I can't see that in the documents I'm sorry to say. Can you point me to where it says that?

In the past the CTF has made several recommendations to cut spending -- some big, and some small.

But, as you probably know, you can't do much without addressing the big envelopes like health and education.

In terms of health, most of the support services ought to be outsourced. Services will need to be de-listed, and private insurance made available. A private health system has to be developed to provide market-based incentives. That's big picture, but it's a fact.

I think a shift toward a voucher system would be great for controlling education costs at the secondary level.

Crown corporations should be opened up to private investments, the proceeds of sales going toward permanent debt reduction. Cutting the deb in half would benefit the GRF bottom line by a quarter mill.

For capital, which is a big issue right now, PPPs ought to be pursued and embraced.

Liquor stores should be privatized -- which would save taxpayers 10 mill a year.

If health spending were reduced by 10 per cent we would save $320 mill.

We should implement a hiring freeze, and allow government employement levels to gradually drop through attrition. Depending on who you talk to, salaries and benefits eat up 70 per cent of government budgets.

If we held spending just to inflation increases since 2001, we'd be sitting on a $2 billion surplus.

My next question for you is -- how big should government get? If all government spending is as virtuos as you seem to imply, how did we get by in those lean days of 2001?

government spending has increased by 30 per cent over that time, while the population has declined and inflation runs at around 19 per cent.

Fair questions though.

Mike Stefaniuk said...

I'll answer your questions (and they are fair) a little later when I have more time.

But my question to you is, why didn't you provide what you just said to the press at the conclusion of the budget? These are pretty much right-wing boilerplate policies so it wouldn't be hard to just tweak amounts to respond to the budget. It would then give people more chance to discuss what less spending would entail (and I suspect they wouldn't like it).

But I'll post later tonite with my answers to your questions.

David MacLean said...

It's not that easy. The CTF looks at the budget when everyone else does. We have a chance to look at the budget and form some general thoughts. That's no place to deliver a treatise on cutting spending. The media asks, and I answer as best I can at the time.

A lot of it is common sense Mike, and history repeats itself. We say the same ramp-up during the Grant Devine years. When the market place delivers some bad news, it leaves taxpayers exposed.

To you, I think, government spending is an end in and of itself. Government spending is seen as abstract "investment" into something or the other. Unfortunately, that investment rarely pays off in the form of a more prosperous economy.

Spending is, more often than not, electioneering -- even if that means running a defict, as is forecast for Saskatchewan for the next two years.

Bottom line is governments have to live within their means, as do the rest of us. That's not the case right now.

As for spending restraint -- we make recommendations to government each year, and often make suggestions for spending cuts.

And I agree that the maple leaf foods thing is a joke -- as is the entire "meat strategy." You can't subsidize your way into an economy...it just doesn't work that way.

David MacLean said...

And as for the boiler plate conservative messages...what if I flipped the question around and asked you "where would you cut spending?"

First you would disagree with the premise, since you obviously think current spending levels are fine and sustainable. Obviously, you think the current level of spending and debt can be sustained and indeed increased well into the future.

But what if you HAD to, as Romanow did? Where would you cut spending?

Brick Wall said...

Hey, David wasn't that R.B. Bennett's platform you just regurgitated ?

Mike Stefaniuk said...

Okay, first a comment on your proposals, then answers to your questions.

Regarding health, sure private insurance will cut the government's expenses, but it will result in higher private expenses for citizens. Why cut taxes just so private expenses can go up? Single payer is the most efficient way to pay for health care. Grab an econ textbook and look up: adverse selection, economies of scale, assymetric information, market power, homogeneous goods. Healthcare is not like other goods, it doesn't respond well to market incentives.

The only thing that might save money is outsourcing support services, but then you will likely see a drop in quality (and wages...which I understand is the point, but its easy for others to demand pay cuts). A better approach would be to reform health delivery, much like the Alberta Hip and Knee Project (and others in Winnipeg and Toronto). Dr. Michael Rachlis has an excellent paper on public solution to cutting wait times and costs.

Vouchers are still up for debate. One study in Florida says they fail, one study in Philadelphia says they work (I think that's right). But again, education is another instance where market incentives don't work properly. There are positive externalities associated with education, and when those exist, the market undersupplies unless there is government intervention. That's why public schools have been instrumental in the past 50 years of economic growth and human development. P3s aren't all bad, but you have to look at the market structure, and health and education aren't conducive to them.

Crown privatization: First Power and Energy are natural monopolies, you can privatize and regulate but that will cost more not less. SIPP has an excellent paper on the market structure of electricity (another term for you to look up, inelastic demand). There's a reason was SGI is cheaper than private insurers, and its for the same reason why single payer health is more efficient than private insurance. So there's three that make no sense to privatize. SaskTel is the only one that you could make a legitimate argument for, but again, there's a reason why Saskatchewan has the most advanced network in North America, its because the economics of the matter allow it to make capital investments that privately owned telco owners won't make (because their shareholders are converting them into income trusts). Further, SaskTel doesn't keep private competitors out, it receives no subsidies or special treatment from the government. Now granted, the government should stop taking dividends from Power, Energy and the AutoFund, but SaskTel operates just like Bell or Telus, the only difference is, the profits allow us to pay fewer taxes (and I would think you would get behind that).

P3s are dangerous. Funding for CBOs is a very good P3. P3s for corrections are a disaster. There are also sorts of hidden costs associated with P3s (namely the enforcement of performance).

How would liquor store privatization save $10million/year? SLGA pays $300million plus to GRF. There should certainly be more consumer choice in terms of product, and I think private stores should be able to carry the products that the LBs don't. But isn't this just more ideological than anything? I've seen studies that have said Alberta privatizations were great or a disaster. I don't think there's a compelling case either way (a bit of a cop out I realize) but how would we save $10million/year?

Holding spending just to inflation and setting other TBOR like rules is a disaster, any competent economist will tell you that legislating spending based on certain metrics (no surpluses, no deficits, can only increase by x%) either overheats a hot economy, or overcools a struggling one.

Public servant levels aren't necessarily a bad thing. There's certainly always room for efficiencies, but I think the new resources being brought in for the AEE department are much needed. Its a good investment.

Now to answer your questions.
The $15million for Maple Leaf. Perhaps I misread the intenet, I thought they were putting in equity? Perhaps not, but if its a profitable business, it doesn't need money. As for the meat strategy, inital subsidies can and do work. Governments just have to have the discipline to pull the plug at the right time. Again it depends on the market structure (damn economics).

What is the correct size of government? I don't believe setting a percentage of GDP is appropriate. I think at a minimum, spending increases should accomodate inflation, pop growth and GDP growth (even with a stagnant pop, a growing economy places demands on the government, i.e. more infrastructure). We spend 7.7billion (less debt servicing) on an economy of 35billion (roughly). Scandanavian countries spend 50%+ and their human development outcomes are best in the world. We spend less than 25% (but admittedly you have to combine that with the federal figure, which still puts us far below). I think a more appropriate question is how is it best to raise funds. Again read Kesselman, or better yet my MPA project (go the UofR library and check it out for yourself). Government should be as big as it needs to be. If the benefits of taxation and spending on a particular program outweigh the costs, then do it. Keep doing so until the benefits no longer outweigh the costs.

FSF is a deficit, but keep in mind the government, rather than putting all that money in a low interest bank account they put against the debt, yielding a far greater return to taxpayers. FSF is just prepaid debt (kind of like overpaying your VISA, you save the massive intereste expense when you dip into this "fund"). In this budget, there's an FSF drawdonw, but the last 3 budgets have had this in the estimates, and by the end of the year, there was no drawdown, so I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

Where would I cut spending? I think there are inefficiencies in SK, but not with the provincial government. We have too many towns, school divisions, health regions, RMs and highways. This is the fault of the Libs from 1905-1930 (read the Heavy Hand of History). Sadly no government has had the cajones to deal with this (the NDP has started, but they haven't gone far enough). So there are lots of efficiencies there. There are efficiencies to be had in health, but on the delivery side. We can become much more efficient in how we deliver healthcare, and save costs that way.

For me government spending is just like regular spending. I vote for a government that will use my tax dollars to make my life better. I'm better off using the efficiencies of government for things like health and education than i would be if i kept those tax dollars and had to go it alone. Taxation from me, is good for me (provided it doesn't go to Liberal cronies).

Is government perfect no? Is the market perfect, no? Those who distrust markets know little about them. Those who aggressively promote them, know even less.

Social democracy, where the government lets the private sector lead the way, but corrects the major market failures and ensures a reasonable level of equality has proven over and over again to be the successful formula. Governments fail true, but more often than not they do a good job. Ignoring market failure though, is disastrous (and sadly, that's what you guys do).

Anonymous said...

Hi Dave,

Agree with most of your points, except this one:

We should implement a hiring freeze, and allow government employement levels to gradually drop through attrition. Depending on who you talk to, salaries and benefits eat up 70 per cent of government budgets.

A bit part of the problem the government is facing is that they have allowed the public service to not properly represent the demographics of the province, by only hiring the middle aged into positions, when they receive applicants from thousands of younger, more highly qualified individuals.

Nearly everyone who works for the Government is at the top of the pay scales. Only thinning out these ranks, while reducing the overall headcount of the civil service, and reinvigorating it with young blood holds promise.

As an aside, hiring younger hires into the civil service will help stem some of the outmigration problem.

Yes, up-front there will be costs (the Crown Employment Contracts Act limits severance to a maximum of 18 months), but the net present value of replacing a $100,000/year employee (don't forget that 6 weeks paid vacation) with a $50,000/year employee very easily is positive, with significant benefits to the economy.

A $180,000 severance payment would be recouped in under 4 years, plus the province recovers a significant portion of it in taxes anyways. There would also be other benefits, in terms of productivity, efficiency, and in many cases, more appropriate use of resources.

Anonymous said...

But what if you HAD to, as Romanow did? Where would you cut spending?

SaskPower would be a good start. Headcount keeps rising, yet sales and production isn't in a meaningful way. One would think that the hundreds of millions they spent on computers would allow them to decrease headcount, not increase it.

I fully imagine you would find the same at SaskTel and SGI, and probably at the treasury crowns as well.

CIC -- its another administrative structure that adds no value for the province's portfolio of investments. If each Crown Corporation has its own minister responsible, its own Board of Directors, and its own management team, what is the point of CIC anyways? Other than to keep some NDP hacks employed at $200k/year.

Also the operations of many departments could be outsourced or amalgamated with their Alberta/Manitoba/BC counterparts. Do we really need to spend millions on curiculum development each year in the Department of Education, when similar work is being done elsewhere? King Ralph and the crew next door are begging for western Canadian cooperation in a lot of these areas, but they are mostly falling on deaf ears in Saskatchewan due to partisan differences.

David MacLean said...

Wow...we actually got some quality comments. Mike, I will look at your comments later.

But I will say this about liquor stores...privatization is a no brainer. It saves money by outsourcing the cost of running stores to the private sector. Sure, we would have to cut the government's take by 15 per cent, give or take in order to keep prices from rising, but we could easily save $10 million by losing the stores alone -- that's leaving the existing warehousing operations in place.

I wrote more about it in my paper on liquor privatization that's at Taxpayer.com. As for the studies on privatization that come out against it...flawed.

Mike Stefaniuk said...

What about the ones before it?

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/sobering_result.pdf

And your study was flawed as well. Pricing comparisons based on one chain? Since privatization drunk driving is down? Really, you ran regression analysis to determine that's why? Is drunk driving down perhaps because of greater enforcement, tougher laws, more spot checks?

The other studies may have been flawed, but so is yours.

Sask.taxpayers federation said...

The only thing right wingers privatize are departments that make money. Buisness won't run something that loses money. Look at potash,oil,forests,utilities anything else than can make a buck. Dave you're a misguided young man who believes whatever you're told to believe by buisness. You believe the American BS ideal. I have friends in Alberta and they tell me booze costs more.(a cop) They have sales on one or two items a month. There are more liquor stores than ever. I've visited a few times. Their drunk driving rate is high just like here but there are more people so per capita is lower. Anyone can stack statistics.

David MacLean said...

The price comparison was never intended to be the silver bullet, but a way to easily debunk the disinformation. But it's not as flawed as you think. Yes, we focus on one chain...but that chain is VERY representative of Calgary -- the biggest city in the province. Also, according to the consumer association of BC, the price variation between large communities and smallest town is insignificant. So the price comparison we did is a guideline. And the point of free markets is, yes, you can shop around and find better prices. That's the point in the market place.

Also, we surveyed the most popular brands in each category. The government cherry picks brands to suit their agenda -- and it's important to note that the government has never published a comprehensive price comparison of their own -- despite having lots of negative things to say about mine. Put up or shut up, and show your work.

I'm quite familiar with the CCPA stuff...I'll take some time to go through it.

Let's go through their conclusions. Page V.

First -- higher consumption leads to social ills. Debatable. But for now we'll take it. Alberta's alcohol consumption is high compared to the rest of canada, therefore, there is greater risk of social problems. Not true -- the data shows that alcohol related crime is down in alberta.

Second: Because the governmetn doesn't really care about profit, they will be less inclined to sell alcohol to minors. Well, incidents of charges relating to minors with alcohol have actually dropped in alberta, so there's not much there to support them. Besides, the incentive for a private operator (preserving his livelihood) could be said to be much stronger than a government employee letting his neighbour's underage kids buy beer. Regardless, good legislation can end this tendency. I'm 33, and I still get IDed for cigarettes? Why? Because the store closes down if they screw up.

Private retailing means higher enforcement costs: Maybe, but the benefits outweigh the costs.

Alberta government revenues from alcohol sales have declined: I'm OK with that, regardless. But the reason revenues have remained constant is that Ralph Klein cut taxes on booze 4 times during the 90s.

Privatization leads to inneficiencies and "redundancies": You know what those inefficiencies and redundancies are? Store space, equipment purchases, employees, computers, delivery costs. This is called an economy. Only a communist would look at these inefficiencies as a negative. These "redundancies" make the world go round. These same innefficiencies exist in the grocery food industry -- should we nationalize the food industry?

Liquor privatization has been handicapped by government policy: That's true, they gave the big chains a big hand up when they tilted the market. They should have imposed no restrictions.

As of 2003, prices are comparable between Alberta and British Columbia: Why didn't they compare to Sask? Because the numbers aren't comparable.

In the body of their text, they talk about the relationship between privatization and increased consumption. I've reviewed the source material and the evidence is scant. IF you look through all the bibs you will see a lot of references to two studies. One looked at consumption and privatization in six american states -- and has been thoroughly debunked -- and another is from Scandinavia...and I'm not sure about them.

The entire argument that privatization leads to consumption is weakly based on a handful of studies that have been seriously debunked, or are so out of date that they are silly.

The kicker is that consumption in Saskatchewan has increased much faster than Alberta's, so therefore public liquor stores lead to higher consumpetion.

You mentioned elasticity...alcohol is fairly inelastic -- especially beer.

Read the whole thing...the study by CCPA is kind of funny now that I look back on it. Follow the references, dig deep my friend.

Mike Stefaniuk said...

Who has debunked these studies? I'm not saying you are wrong, but you have to do better than saying these have been debunked. The SGEU "debunked" your report so isn't it just as fair to say that your report is worthless as well? Please indicate who debunked these other studies and why they are crap. (if you turned in your paper to a public policy class, you would fail...you need more background on why others are wrong).

As for the liquor market, let's go through an exercise, let's wipe the slate clean and construct our own (i'm an economics guy, I like these things).

Looking at the liquor market, it is a fairly standard market, the forces of supply and demand should work nicely to create an equilibrium. There are certainly negative externalities associated with drinking, so some government intervention is required. Options range from public ownership, to simple taxation.

Since demand is fairly inelastic, as you concede, it stands to reason that simple taxation will not deter consumption. Regulation is probably a better measure, and we do that with drunk driving laws, stop sell times, drinking age limits etc. etc. But this still doesn't address all of the issues like alcoholism, crime etc., so combining taxation with regulation should probably do the trick.

The next issue is whether or not stores should be publicly owned. Since it is a fairly straightforward market structure, its probably not necessary. But what is interesting is that you take issue with the CCPA claim of inefficiencies. You state this is economic development (which it is to a certain extent, just like paying 15% of GDP for health with 40million uninsured versus 10% of GDP with everyone insured is economic development). And I agree, it does increase GDP, but the inefficiencies are still there, and owners aren't going to eat those inefficiencies themselves, because they know demand is inelastic. So there are potential inefficiencies, looking at the market from a macro perspective, that could contribute to unnecessarily higher pricing.

Now the disadvantage of government ownership is that there are fewer outlets, and higher wages for employees do lead to higher prices for booze. So in both instances, there are inherent inefficiencies.
But keep in mind, the economy is essentially zero sum (yes it grows, but in general an increase in cash flow one way has to have a corresponding decrease somewhere else). Higher wages mean higher prices, lower wages mean lower prices. To get cheaper booze, people have to lose good middle class jobs. Is this a good or a bad thing, that's a subjective judgement (and we each know where we stand on that).

Ideally, I think the best scenario would be to have the government handle to warehousing side, so that efficiencies can be gained there, and that liquor sales be handled by the private sector. Further, to ensure desirable market outcomes, I would keep the ad valorem tax (creates fewer market distortions) and would have regulation in place to ensure adequate competition (no Wal Mart or Superstore selling booze). As a final step, I would encourage the development of a centralized bargaining unit to ensure wages of workers in these establishments are fair.

Labour markets in the service sector exhibit considerable market power for employers, so a centralized bargaining strategy would ensure the market for labour is closer to equilibrium.

The restrictions on booze available are also problematic, so I would allow private retailers to sell "specialty booze" that isn't carried by the warehousing function. I would also review pricing at the government level to ensure it isn't creating market distortions.

Seems reasonable to me.

David MacLean said...

So we agree, basically. Nice work. Those are my recommendations to the letter, pretty much.

SGEU debunked my paper? I guess I missed that. But it's a fair question, and I'll try to show my work a little better in a short time.

In that paper I included a broader discussion of of the literature on the availability VS consumption issue, but sliced it out it because I thought I detracted from the central theme, and, after all,p this isn't an academic paper.

Most of the literature that argues that privatization leads to increased consumption is routed in one assumption: That privatization leads to increased availability, and therefore increases consumption. It's true that, in Alberta's case, availability increased as the number of stores quadrupled.

Even the World Health Organization has adopted this idea. Now, the literature that makes this case is rooted, as I mentioned earlier, in a couple key studies.

In particular, the work Alexander Wagenaar of the Minnesota School of Public Health.

Wagenaar and a guy named Holder studied the effects of WINE privatization in New Zealand and Iowa.

The flaw in his methodology, as pointed out by Fitzgerald and Mulford in their 1993 study, is that wagenaar never controls for the fact that these were PARTIAL privatizations.

Here's the rub -- when you look at wine privatization -- in terms of liters of beverage alcohol sold, you will see a sudden jump in alcohol sales in the years after privatization. What wagenaar never considered is that store shelves were filled with wine products -- resulting ina huge bump in sales. In the first couple years after privatization in Iowa, wine consumption fell back to normal consumption levels. This is an enormous and embarrassing methodological error, and the WHO never even acknowledges the work of Mulford on this.

All other health lobbyists and unions have glommed on to the WHO report without actually checking their references.

And here is the big kicker -- alberta consumption was lower in 2004 than it was in 1989 -- four years before privatization, despite having a younger demographic.

Consumption in Saskatchewan was up 11 percent over that same time....my lying eyes!!!

At best you can call the available research on this "inconclusive." But if you were just to look at the live test case next store, wagenaar has been totally refuted.

So the conclusion you must come to is that privatization will have a negligible impact on consumption, and therefore crime.

The relationship between consumption and crime, for that matter, deserves discussion. As the old NRA bumper sticker said -- booze doesn't kill people -- people do.

But that's neither here nor there.

Mike Stefaniuk said...

See now that's a bit better, and if you included footnotes in your report, that would have been even better.

For the record, you and I will agree that the social concerns argument is probably not the best anti-privatization argument. The best one is the loss of middle class jobs.

I would certainly prefer all goods to be cheaper, but I am willing to pay more to ensure workers get a decent wage (you I take it are not).

There is some agreement but not complete. You would disagree with centralized bargaining, you would disagree with the ad valorem tax (but you can't deny that per unit taxes increase economic distortions), you would disagree with the government still running warehousing.

Public ownership isn't always good and it isnt' always bad. But I will agree with you that unless there is a serious market malfunction (i.e. Hudson Bay monopoly up north in the first half of the century) there is no compelling argument for public ownership of retail outlets.

On another point, I see you have avoided responding to my critique of your budget proposals or my analysis of liquor markets. Your thoughts?

sask.taxpayers federation said...

Why do we look to an American system of education that is failing? We had a good system here till you american right wingers told us it's no good. A lot of brilliant people were taught in our public school system. The leaders of Canada past and present. I think we can all thank free trade for all our social woes. The only good thing that comes out of the states is music. To Mike I think you've lost Super Dave.

sask.taxpayers federation said...

I've been to Alberta a few times and have friends there. Booze went up in price when privatized. They have sales otherwise it costs more. My police friend in Alberta told me so. Now there are liquor stores on every corner. The government sold it because that's their policy. They had to pay back some supporters. No other reason.

Robert McClelland said...

Now here's today's lesson on how to tell if someone is a dishonest partisan hack. Watch and learn kiddies.

“With a by-election expected in June, this whole campaign smacks of politics,” added MacLean.

First off, this is standard political boilerplate rhetoric used by everyone. Sometimes it's true but more often it's not and only dishonest partisan hacks will spout it without first making that determination.

So is it true in this case? Well let's look at the situation in Saskatchewan. The NDP holds a 2 seat majority and the seat in question belonged to the Saskatchewan Party who took it by a margin in excess of 10% of the popular vote. Plus the riding is in an area of the province that is dominated by the Sask Party. So a half million dollar ad campaign is not going to result in this seat changing hands.

So to answer the question, no, this campaign has nothing to do with politics, especially not the by-election which goes to show the CTF employs nothing but dishonest partisan hacks. And Mike's assessment is spot on. The CTF does do nothing but scream the government is out to get their lucky charms.

Thus endeth the lesson, kiddies.

David MacLean said...

Wow...A comment from Robert. I think we've made it!

Mike Stefaniuk said...

David, any response to my critiques of your spending cuts or my analysis of the liquor market?

Anonymous said...

I see some of the American-hating, Alberta-hating, capitalist-hating socialists have descended here.

The people who are saying that Alberta's liquor prices are higher than Saskatchewan's are LIARS. I have lived in both places and Alberta's liquor board stores have lower prices and far more variety.

Additionally 2000 extra jobs were created as the private sector catered to the public, not the public being handcuffed by the public sector. There are liquor board stores in Saskatoon that close at 6 PM. WTF?!

Why won't these Canadian socialist children ignore the brainwashing they receive from their university professors (I figure about 5% of the U of S profs were conservative, 25% were leftwingers, and 70% were outright Marxists)?

Take a look at Alberta; take a look at the USA, then take a look at the poor downtrodden socialist Saskatchewan where the most important thing in life is having your utilities a few bucks a month cheaper than Alberta. They have to be a bit cheaper because there are so many poor people here.

Alas, that is socialism's legacy; everyone is poor and struggles from day to day to make ends meet while socialist elitists get filthy rich sucking off the teat of the taxpayers.

Really children; this isn't rocket scientist. All you have to do is open your eyes.


--A former resident of Calvert's Cuba.

Mike Stefaniuk said...

You know you're on the right track when someone breaks out a rant about socialism/marxism/communism.

Chad Moats said...

2,000 more jobs, wow, and spread out over the same market means everyone is taking a massive pay cut, because of the inelastic situation. I would rather pay a couple dollars more to insure everyone makes a decent living. I have no need to horde.

PA Grizzly said...

I assume Moats is a really big tipper then -- even at mcdonalds. Give me a break.

I'd rather have 200 new businesses than 600 civil servants.

Fool.

Mike Stefaniuk said...

pa grizzly, td....same person?

Robert McClelland said...

Dodge noted, David.

Anonymous said...

I agree: SK is a poor province: and I agree: the socialists are to blame. budget advertising is designed to entrench the mediocrity, and entrench the socialists that are at the trough. Shame on you Steph. for not seeing it, for changing the subject.

Sask. Taxpayers Federation said...

Grant Devine's Tories had free radio time courtesy of one Regina's radio stations so they didn't have to pay. The NDP aren't so lucky. There's hardly any mention of the budget in the news media.

Anonymous said...

stf, your NDP friends just take taxpayers money for their propoganda: just listen to the radio or watch local tv.
and the fact that you are obsessed with things that may have taken place in the 80's is facinating.

CTF You Tube Channel

Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box