I'm pretty sure that several someones in the Provincial budgeting process could use some remedial math and problem-solving lessons.
Pop Quiz:
1) An Education department is responsible for funding the operations of school boards with approximately 553,000 students and 36,000 teachers in the 2011-2012 fiscal year. In 2012-2013, the number of students is expected to increase by 1.5% and the salaries for teachers are expected to increase 5.0%. If the actual cost in 2011-2012 was $5,884,134,000 how much should be budgeted for 2012-2013 in order to maintain the same student-teacher ratio? (Choose the best/closest answer.)
A- $6,082,000,000
B- $6,270,000,000
C- Some number that we can claim is a 3.4% increase in spending
D- None of the above
I claim the answer is B: 5,884,134,000 * 1.015 * 1.05 = $6,270,000,000 (approx.) If you answered A or C then you are a Departmental Minister or someone involved in creating the budget. (Source: 2012 AB Budget - pg. 26)
Obviously education IS important. It helps us balance our budgets. It helps us solve problems.
Considering this is just one example of bad budgeting, I dread to think how badly forecast the entire budget is!
I'm just saying.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
So the criminal code of Canada states (in part) "202 (1) Everyone commits an offence who (d) records or registers bets or sells a pool" and that "(2) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable (a) for a first offence, to imprisonment for not more than two years"
It also states "213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
Now why do we set up stings for summary conviction offences, but not prosecute indictable offences like football pools?
I'm just asking.
It also states "213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
Now why do we set up stings for summary conviction offences, but not prosecute indictable offences like football pools?
I'm just asking.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Recently, on the intertubes, a same-sex divorce case has got some knickers in some knots. A couple of views on the case are this: this and this. I recommend doing your own research and forming your own opinions. For what it's worth, here's what I think.
Two people who desired and intended to be pair-bond partners vacationed from their homes to be married in a jurisdiction where it is generally permitted for same-sex couples to be married. Years later the same two people no longer want to be legally (civilly) recognized as pair-bond partners.
Enter the law. It turns out that if you live in Ontario, Canada and you want to get married to same-sex person, it is permissible. If you are from somewhere that it is not legal and you are not going to stay afterward, then it is not permissible. At it's heart... the people got their ceremony when they wanted it and years later when they don't want to be married they discover they aren't. Problem solved.
Yeah... no. It seems now that folks are foaming at the mouth because this undermines a lot of forward progress. And if gay marriages are without legal standing if it is illegal in the homeland then Egyptians in Canada may not blog and Lower Slobbovian women may not drink Fresca on Tuesdays. These mouth-foamers seem to suggest that the solution is "Even if you may not do this in your own country, it is permissible in our culture so everything is fine!". Problem solved.
Yeah... no. Consider the universal application of this. Suppose I have a hankering for a northern right whale (Eubalena glacialis) steak... I can't do that here that is an endangered species. IT IS ILLEGAL! So I fly over to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal, kill the whale, make a steak for myself and completely use every possible part to feed, clothe, heat, or whatever, the poor people of Lower Slobbovia. And no one should complain.
You say, "But, Stephen, that is different! We were talking about people getting married."
So try this... Suppose I want to marry my brother in the Province of Alberta. I can't do that here, he is my brother, it is illegal! So we fly to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal to marry a sibling, tie the knot, etc. And no one should complain. Or suppose I want to have 3 wives... or marry a 12-year-old... or marry a corpse...
In the true big world picture of things, I think we want other jurisdictions to respect our laws so we should respect theirs. In the specific case that started my rant... if they wanted to be married and the laws of the home jurisdiction were so prohibitive, perhaps they should have lobbied to change the law (like in Canada) or move to where the laws are more to their liking.
Gay marriage, straight marriage, whatever marriage from where I sit should be so much more than the legal standing. It should be about love and mutual support and growth. And for the record... I don't want to marry my brother, a 12-year-old, a corpse, nor 2 more wives! I am exceedingly satisfied with the one spouse I have. I wish everyone could be as fortunate as I have been.
I'm just saying.
Two people who desired and intended to be pair-bond partners vacationed from their homes to be married in a jurisdiction where it is generally permitted for same-sex couples to be married. Years later the same two people no longer want to be legally (civilly) recognized as pair-bond partners.
Enter the law. It turns out that if you live in Ontario, Canada and you want to get married to same-sex person, it is permissible. If you are from somewhere that it is not legal and you are not going to stay afterward, then it is not permissible. At it's heart... the people got their ceremony when they wanted it and years later when they don't want to be married they discover they aren't. Problem solved.
Yeah... no. It seems now that folks are foaming at the mouth because this undermines a lot of forward progress. And if gay marriages are without legal standing if it is illegal in the homeland then Egyptians in Canada may not blog and Lower Slobbovian women may not drink Fresca on Tuesdays. These mouth-foamers seem to suggest that the solution is "Even if you may not do this in your own country, it is permissible in our culture so everything is fine!". Problem solved.
Yeah... no. Consider the universal application of this. Suppose I have a hankering for a northern right whale (Eubalena glacialis) steak... I can't do that here that is an endangered species. IT IS ILLEGAL! So I fly over to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal, kill the whale, make a steak for myself and completely use every possible part to feed, clothe, heat, or whatever, the poor people of Lower Slobbovia. And no one should complain.
You say, "But, Stephen, that is different! We were talking about people getting married."
So try this... Suppose I want to marry my brother in the Province of Alberta. I can't do that here, he is my brother, it is illegal! So we fly to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal to marry a sibling, tie the knot, etc. And no one should complain. Or suppose I want to have 3 wives... or marry a 12-year-old... or marry a corpse...
In the true big world picture of things, I think we want other jurisdictions to respect our laws so we should respect theirs. In the specific case that started my rant... if they wanted to be married and the laws of the home jurisdiction were so prohibitive, perhaps they should have lobbied to change the law (like in Canada) or move to where the laws are more to their liking.
Gay marriage, straight marriage, whatever marriage from where I sit should be so much more than the legal standing. It should be about love and mutual support and growth. And for the record... I don't want to marry my brother, a 12-year-old, a corpse, nor 2 more wives! I am exceedingly satisfied with the one spouse I have. I wish everyone could be as fortunate as I have been.
I'm just saying.
Monday, May 2, 2011
A Hypothetical Workaround for Tracking a Canadian Election in "Real Time"
Imagine an open source application that has two functions:
1) Allows the user to make a post to Twitter with a hash-tag indicating how that user voted (like #VotedCPC #VotedLPC #VotedNDP #VotedGRN #VotedBLOC #VotedOTHER) , and
2) Aggregation, for personal use of that user, of the counts of all the hash-tags in the set for a period of time (for example Election Day).
Then the permitted action of "the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his or her personal political views." would be enabled and the aggregated, publically avaliable information, which is not an "opinion survey of how electors voted or will vote at an election or respecting an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated" could be viewed by an individual without being transmitted.
I'm not a lawyer, but this would seem to get around a number of restrictions. It would not be valid statistically, but it might be interesting.
Maybe for the next go around, if they don't change the law.
I'm just saying.
1) Allows the user to make a post to Twitter with a hash-tag indicating how that user voted (like #VotedCPC #VotedLPC #VotedNDP #VotedGRN #VotedBLOC #VotedOTHER) , and
2) Aggregation, for personal use of that user, of the counts of all the hash-tags in the set for a period of time (for example Election Day).
Then the permitted action of "the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his or her personal political views." would be enabled and the aggregated, publically avaliable information, which is not an "opinion survey of how electors voted or will vote at an election or respecting an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated" could be viewed by an individual without being transmitted.
I'm not a lawyer, but this would seem to get around a number of restrictions. It would not be valid statistically, but it might be interesting.
Maybe for the next go around, if they don't change the law.
I'm just saying.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Education is Our Obligation
So, my daughters are embarking on a the exciting path of revolution. It makes me so proud to see them have at the Provincial Government and the School Board.
The Alberta Government in its wisdom, and on our behalf, have decided that it isn't necessary to pay for the current levels of teaching and support staff. The current budget for Education is insufficient to maintain the status quo.
Perhaps this is left-over from previous inadequate funding; poorly educated administrators and politicians at the departmental level. At least when it comes to math.
According to the recent budget release (http://education.alberta.ca/department/budget.aspx), there is a suggestion that education costs are spiralling out of control. "Over 10 years, funding to the education system has increased by 63 per cent while student enrolment has increased by three per cent." They even have graphs to prove it and on the surface it seems correct. Reality is, however, that if you look at the money spent in terms of the cost of inflation, it looks like about 4.5% per year (approximately). This number seems really close to the AWEI. In other words: this is what we would expect.
Or consider this: If we know that the cost for staffing will go up about 4.4% next year, the enrolment is estimated to go up 1.1%, and the forecast cost for operating support in 2010-2011 is 5,452,711,000 then the budget for 2011-2011 should be at least that much times 1.044 * 1.011 or 5,749,556,000.
It isn't. In fact, it is about 39,109,000 less than that (http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/budget/budget2011/education.pdf, the page numbered 48). This is equivalent to about 375 teachers.
Overall, the expenditure on Education is only going up about 2.8% over last year. If the cost of delivering education is going up, we need to pay that bill.
I'm just saying.
The Alberta Government in its wisdom, and on our behalf, have decided that it isn't necessary to pay for the current levels of teaching and support staff. The current budget for Education is insufficient to maintain the status quo.
Perhaps this is left-over from previous inadequate funding; poorly educated administrators and politicians at the departmental level. At least when it comes to math.
According to the recent budget release (http://education.alberta.ca/department/budget.aspx), there is a suggestion that education costs are spiralling out of control. "Over 10 years, funding to the education system has increased by 63 per cent while student enrolment has increased by three per cent." They even have graphs to prove it and on the surface it seems correct. Reality is, however, that if you look at the money spent in terms of the cost of inflation, it looks like about 4.5% per year (approximately). This number seems really close to the AWEI. In other words: this is what we would expect.
Or consider this: If we know that the cost for staffing will go up about 4.4% next year, the enrolment is estimated to go up 1.1%, and the forecast cost for operating support in 2010-2011 is 5,452,711,000 then the budget for 2011-2011 should be at least that much times 1.044 * 1.011 or 5,749,556,000.
It isn't. In fact, it is about 39,109,000 less than that (http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/budget/budget2011/education.pdf, the page numbered 48). This is equivalent to about 375 teachers.
Overall, the expenditure on Education is only going up about 2.8% over last year. If the cost of delivering education is going up, we need to pay that bill.
I'm just saying.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Canadian Election 2011 Research Part I
Well, we're off, again!
I don't know who to vote for so I am doing research. This is leading me to new frustration. I like the spin that parties get on some topics.
"Liberals call for immediate action to protect rail shippers; releasing a report does not constitute implementation" POSTED ON MARCH 21, 2011 (http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/liberals-call-action-protect-rail-shippers-releasing-report-constitute-implementation/)
The article suggests that the Government, formed by the Conservative members of Parliament, are responsible for the lack of cost review. “The last costing review was conducted in 1992”
It does not mention that the last costing review was conducted under a Conservative Government. It also does not mention that from 1993 until 2006 the Liberal government did not do any costing review.
I do not like being misled this way.
I'm not saying I support the Conservatives nor am I saying I do not support the Liberals...
I'm just saying...
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Parking
The position of aldermanic candidate Joe Mauro on the subject of downtown parking: "Let the BRZ "patrol and police and make secure" their area, just like the malls do their own." He then goes on to say, "I believe the downtown is it's own little entity,".
What else would you offload in this sovereignty association? Do they need to process their own sewage and collect their own garbage, too? Is this kind of divisive talk and disowning of part of the city really productive?
I'm just asking.
(For the full context, be sure to read the LethbridgeAccountability responses)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)