After inflation and population growth are factored in, the Klein Tories will spend 24% more on programs in 2001-02 than Don Getty did ten years ago.

According to the Alberta Government's annual reports, the Getty administration spent $11.6 billion on health, education, infrastructure and other programs in 1991-92. That amounted to $4,459 for each of Alberta's 2.6 million people. Adjusted for inflation, $4,459 is the same as $5,505 today.

Pat Nelson's first budget announced program spending of $20.8 billion for 2001-02, for a population just over 3 million. This works out to $6,819 per Albertan, 24% higher than Don Getty's $5,505.

"But Getty ran a deficit," said Ralph Klein earlier this week, as if that justifies big government. "No deficit" is no excuse, because big government with a balanced budget is still big government. Every dollar spent by a politician is a dollar taken away from a taxpayer. The taxpayer loses his choice to save, spend or invest his own hard-earned money, or give it to charity. If you want to call yourself conservative, then running the highest-spending provincial government in Canada should be cause for shame, not pride.
The progress which Albertans made towards smaller government in the early 1990s has been all but destroyed. Program spending in 1994-95 was $4,102 per Albertan, equal to $4,641 today. Spending for 2001-02, after inflation and population growth, is 47% higher.

The government claims that the $20.8 billion includes $3.2 billion of "one-time" spending on infrastructure, energy rebates and emergency farm aid. But how many times have Albertans heard of "one-time" spending If spending is ever "one-time," why is it 47% higher than seven years ago

"But infrastructure spending is different from spending on health and education," some would protest. Really A new road or bridge is a permanent benefit, but so is the surgery which saves a life, or the knowledge imparted at school. Spending on social services can also have benefits which are "long-term" or "permanent", no different from a new school or hospital. Spending taxdollars on roads and bridges is legitimate. But there's no reason to pretend that it isn't program spending.

The dollar spent on building a new nursing home is taken from a taxpayer, just like the dollar spent to
run our courts and prisons. Calling some of the spending "one-time" or "infrastructure" does not change the fact that every dollar spent by a politician is a dollar taken from a taxpayer.

The bottom line is this: total spending on programs, adjusted for inflation and population growth, is up 8% over last year, up 24% over Don Getty in 1991-92, and up 47% over 1994-95.

If per capita program spending in this budget had been at the 1991 levels under Getty, an additional $4 billion would have been available for tax cuts, debt repayment, or a combination of both. Unfortunately for taxpayers, spending went up . . . again. How much interest will taxpayers pay on that $4 billion in the next 12 months

Ralph Klein summed it up well in the early 1990s when he said "this government has a spending problem." Unfortunately, his statement remains true today.