Redford, Mason, and Sherman don't want you to have your fair share of the Alberta government's oil revenue

This week, the Alberta Wildrose party promised that 20% of provincial surpluses will be dished out annually to Alberta residents. Danielle Dollars the press dubbed them (after the infamous Ralphbucks) and instantly the opposition was galvanized:

NDP Leader Brian Mason called it an “election stunt,” while Liberal counterpart Raj Sherman said the move shows the Wildorse has no real idea how to manage the province’s wealth.

“It is a repeat of an old trick of Ralph Klein’s to pass people’s money back to them,” Mason said. “It is giving this generation benefit of the oilsands rather than future generations. We would prefer to see that money invested.”

Klein’s initiative, which provided $400 was lauded by many, but also heavily-criticized by those who said it showed a lack of planning amid the resource boom. Critics suggested much of the money wound up being wasted on electronics and other trinkets, when it should have been put in a government savings account or spent on schools or health facilities.

Progressive Conservative Leader Alison Redford echoes those complaints, saying the Klein dividend did not provide great long-term benefit for the province.
Well, they sure dedicated themselves to that. Red Redford, presumably running on the 40+ years of history the "Progressive "Conservative" Party has amassed, is quick to claim that the popular move was a bad idea. Much more sensible, in the Red Redford world, that she keep all of your money and spend it how she sees fit -- even though this money is by definition supra to the provincial budget and therefore more money than she already thought the Crown should be spending in the province.

It's an "old trick" of Ralph Klein says Mason-the-Moron, apparently not a fan of the idea. After all, it's collecting money from oil royalties (the major component of tax revenues in Alberta) and giving it to the citizens of Alberta. It's not just an old trick of Ralph Klein's though: Alaska has been doing something very similar for years: it's Permanent Fund Dividend pays out anywhere from $300-$3300 per citizen per year. Unlike the Alberta fund, this fund only comes from the royalties Alaska collects off its oil reserves. (It also it will not go to criminals). It originally was a graded scale based on the number of years of residence, but that was quashed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Alaska oil dividend is pretty popular, though. In particular, how Alaska handles its oil royalty revenue is something a major political party in Alberta is jealous of. The Wildrose, who proposed a similar scheme? No: Brian Mason's Alberta NDP:
8. The NDP is the only party pushing for full value of our oil royalties. We make a fraction of what other jurisdictions like Alaska get. We are getting crumbs while oil companies are making record profits.

You'll find this a common theme listening to the extremist left-wing parties in Alberta. Here's former Liberal leader and fake doctor David Swann:
In an example of why the Liberal Party will likely never form a majority government in the conservative province, prominent Liberal legislator David Swann has suggested that Alberta spread the wealth: "Alberta needs to step up and share," said Swann. "The feds will do what they need to do in the interests of Canada - they don't need to apologize for that."

"Fair share" is typically a big buzzword for these extremists. Here's Swann again:
With the recent release of Auditor General Fred Dunn's report, the secrecy and mismanagement of Alberta's energy royalties is even more evident. The Auditor General's report shows a government that is deliberately misleading Albertans. Under existing arrangements he found that at least $1 billion in additional royalties could have been collected annually since 2000.

Alberta's non-renewable resources belong to all Albertans including those of generations to come. Companies are contracted to develop this resource on behalf of Albertans in a business arrangement in a free market. Albertans deserve their full share. Once these resources have been extracted, they are gone forever and we have a duty to think of the future, when our non-renewable resource base may be less robust.
Well will you look at that? According to Swann, Alberta's non-renewable resources (and their revenue) belong to "all Albertans". Brian Mason has similarly gone off about "fair share".

Yet give either man a plan to actually give "all Albertans" that money, and like Red Redford they gets their panties in a knot. Now suddenly such a move is short-sighted. It's foolhardy. "Alberta should be more like Alaska!" cries the Alberta Liberals. "Albertans should get their fair share!" cries the Alberta NDP. [the Alberta Party whispered something, but as of press time nobody has heard it -ed] Well here's the fair share you folks were talking about. A Wildrose government will try to budget as realistically (yet as conservatively) as possible. In an individual year, if the surpluses are quite high then a Wildrose government will take a mere 1/5th of this money (that they didn't think was needed to administer the province anyways) and give it out to you, the citizens of Alberta. And Mason-the-Moron and Raj Sherman and Red Redford are all against this.

Why? Because when they talked about giving you your "fair share" they didn't really mean it. They were just lying to you in an effort to get your vote. Once they have to go on record regarding such a proposal, the truth comes out. They wanted that "fair share" themselves. They want that "fair share" in the government coffers, and all three (Mason, Sherman, Redford) are interested in having the top job whereby they control every penny of it. Under Danielle Smith's plan, Brian Mason may have 300 extra dollars to spend on his faggy pet projects. Under Brian Mason's plan, Brian Mason gets forty-three billion dollars (of your money!) to spend on his pro-faggot platform. $43 billion!

Instead, you get this money ($300, not $43 billion, though with the NDP you can never be too sure how much they promise you) to spend the way you like. Call it your "fair share" of the royalty revenues. Even after every unnecessary public hospital and unnecessary public school has been overfunded, even after every useless unionized provincial employee is overpaid, you get a portion of a percentage of what's extra in the kitty. None of this is Danielle Smith "short-changing" programs, or even cutting the size of government. This extremely modest proposal of giving you your money has been viciously attacked by the four extreme-left parties.

Why? Because they don't really believe that money belongs to you. They think it belongs to them. They want to spend that money on their idea of where it should go, not yours. They don't think you're smart enough to have it. Their entire philosophy is that every penny you earn in a year (taxed or not) belongs to them, and that they only let you keep what is absolutely necessary. Danielle Dollars threatens that sick ideology, and it gives you control that they don't think you deserve.

As for the actual Wildrose proposal? Well, I'm not entirely for it, though for opposite reasons as the Red Redfords and Raj Shermans of the world are. For one thing, Canadian courts would not be troubled by the the "interstate burden" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment that the United States Supreme Court used to shut down the original Alaska proposal. The Alberta government would be totally within their rights to scale this based on number of years residence in Alberta: say,
  • no money to a resident of less than 5 years
  • no money to somebody who did not have Permanent Residence
  • money given to any resident not to exceed the provincial share of their last year's income tax
  • no money for those who had spent more than 60 days in prison over the previous year
  • no money for those under the age of 14 (the standard legal age to begin work)
  • for residents between 5-20 years the money would start at 50% of the total cap (at 5 years) and increase 2 percentage points per year to a total of 80% after 20 years of residence (residence would include years spent under the age of 14)
  • for residents over 20 years the payout would begin at 80% of the cap and increase by 4 percentage points per year to "max out" at 100% after 25 years of residence
  • residence "freezes" for any period out-of-province at one year or longer but does not recede
  • residence payouts are not given to anybody who resided outside the province during the previous year
This would minimize one of the primary problems with the Danielle Dollars (and the Ralphbucks, for that matter): money given to recent immigrants (from Queerbec or Nigeria is irrelevant to this question), money going to those who paid no money in taxes and therefore didn't do anything to contribute to the provincial coffers anyways (remember that this dividend is from general revenues -- not from oil), and that children and other dependents also receive money which means that welfare hags get a bigger payout than the single guy who works full-time as a derrick hand.

Tax cuts in general are preferable to the payouts schemes, though obviously both are better than the plans put forth by Red Redford, Mason-the-Moron, and Raj Sherman. So long as Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party are the only ones who are even committed to the principle that money seized by the government actually belonged to you the whole time, and that the money seized should be as small as possible, and that all things considered you and not a central government can determine the best path for economic activity, then the Wildrose Party is the only one to whom you should be committing your vote.