5 Random Post-Budget Thoughts

The highly-anticipated 2016 Alberta budget is now in the hands of taxpayers.  We've all seen the numbers.  $10.6-billion deficit this year.  Upwards of $58-billion in debt in three years.  The NDP government calls it a "jobs plan" which won't "slash-and-burn" the public sector (that's they're go-to phrase right now).  The opposition parties are all in shock over a myriad of things, from an increase in spending (2%) to the debt total.  Realistically, the reaction has been what we expected from all sides and really, the budget shouldn't be of any real shock to anyone who was paying attention to the promises and campaign run by the NDP in last year's election (aside from the carbon tax...errr...levy that was outlined).

Anyways, you've heard all of the politicians talk.  You've heard all of the watchdog and special interest groups.  And now you've decided to step into the world of The Vulture for a handful of random thoughts.  So here you go:

#1. Shadow Budgets
Can we get a timeline on when we'll see the shadow budgets from all of the opposition parties?  I see the Alberta Party has already released theirs, which is quite impressive, considering they have one MLA.  I'm really intrigued to see what the Wildrose, PC's and Liberals have up their sleeves, if they release shadow budgets at all.  Taxpayers should hold their opposition parties to account on this one.  If you're going to railroad the NDP budget, you should be prepared to release your own document.  I'm willing to give them a week, only because they may not have had access to all of the same numbers that the NDP had.  But all parties have some very smart people on the inside, who should be able to pour over the numbers and come up with some sort of counter-argument in a timely manner.  If not, how are we supposed to judge their ability to handle our money if their only argument would be "if you vote us in, we can show you."

#2. PST
I know this is a dirty acronym in Alberta.  No one wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole and I guess I get it.  We've never had one before and so why start now?  Let me tell you why a PST isn't necessarily a bad thing.  The key to all of this is actually making sure that you're reducing income taxes when you introduce a PST.  This forms the basis of the question I always ask: why are we getting taxed on what we make instead of getting taxed on what we spend?  If I want to keep the money that I earn (EARN is the key word here), why shouldn't I have that option?  At the same time, if I want to buy a Hummer instead of a Jeep, I can obviously afford a little more tax to buy that Hummer instead of the Jeep.  But why shouldn't I have that choice?  By no means am I saying we need a PST right now.  But I am saying it's worth having a full and educated discussion about the pros and cons.  Take it to a vote in the next election and see what happens.

#3. We're Not All Idiots
Can we please stop with the name-calling and callousness?  For example: "Anyone who voted for ___ party is an idiot" or "I'm ashamed of anyone who voted for _____."  Why?  Because they had a difference of opinion from yourself?  You do realize that you're not doing your side any good, right?  You realize that most people who did vote for _____ aren't going to sit there and go "Gee, you know, they're right, I'm an idiot" just because you said so.  This kind of goes back to my first observation, but this is where opposition parties (or the governing party supporters) need to start working together here.  Stand up for what's right, but do so in a way that is actually constructive.  It's like the old saying goes: "be the change you want to see in the world."  The saying isn't: "be the change you complain about but don't actually act on."

#4. Zero-Based Budgeting
I've been a big proponent of this for years.  I know it's really work-intensive because you're having to start from scratch every year.  But if you really want to get at the heart of the "fat" in some of the organizations, this might be the only way to go.  It seems we have some expenses that are just "assumed" every year.  We don't bother to look for efficiencies in the system because we've been told for years that this is how we do things.  But in a situation like AHS, why not give it a try?  AHS, when it was first created, was supposed to help the province save money and improve wait times, etc.  Has it delivered?  You be the judge.  Same thing goes for school boards.  How is that some are saying they are getting rid of mandatory school fees, while others are saying they're going to have to increase the fees?  Would zero-based budgeting help iron out some of the ineffectiveness in the system?  I'm not sure, because I'm not an economist.  But when something's not working, I tend to think shaking things up isn't a bad thing.  Because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result.

#5. Farming
I'll declare a pecuniary interest here, obviously being a farm kid.  But I did find it interesting that one of the only departments to get a cut in funding was Agriculture and Forestry.  A number of boards were either dissolved or amalgamated within that department.  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad thing because maybe that's what was needed.  But I did find it interesting that in a budget which saw spending increase 2%, the one department to get slashed was this one.  Is it just a coincidence that happened to the one base of voters (rural) which isn't exactly known as a hot-bed for NDP voters?  Maybe.  It's also quite possible that agriculture isn't as big of an industry to the budget as it once was.  I pointed this out on Twitter and one person claimed it was because we had a bunch of disaster funding accounted for in the last year.  Which has me a little concerned, especially if we're not accounting for disasters in 2016.  It is early in the spring, but it is bone-dry out there.  And I hope there's some contingency in place in case we do end up with a drought.  I will applaud the NDP for one thing and that is making the carbon tax...errrr...levy not apply to farm fuel.  That would have gone over like a lead balloon.  "We know that you're providing us with food and you're already facing ballooning costs to do business, so here's another expense.  Have a nice day!"

Overall, I personally would have liked to see more spending restraint by the province.  I'm not sure the sky would have fallen had they done that.  I'm curious how the budget numbers will look in 2017 once all of the new collective bargaining agreements are reached for several high-profile groups.  And I'm curious to see if this "jobs plan" actually creates the jobs that it so desires.  Because I'm failing to understand why the Notley and Trudeau governments haven't looked at what the Harper government did back in 2008-2009 with the economic stimulus plan and "Build Canada" plan and said "let's do it the same way" (or at least something close to it).

As I've said before (even on TV), Albertans don't want a handout.  They want a hand up.  Did the budget provide that hand?  I guess we'll see...

Where Do You Get Your News From?

I don’t like sounding like the old radio guy who is getting territorial over an increasing-divided audience.  I actually do believe in the power of online news sources and think there’s actually a place for them.  But what has continually been thrown into question is who will “police” those sources?  Will they be held up to the same standards that traditional media is held up to?

By no means am I even remotely alluding to traditional media being foolproof.  I don’t think the audience would be this divided if I didn’t think that somewhere along the line, we messed up.  Rightly or wrongly, potential audiences are calling our intentions into question.  Whether it’s being “in cahoots” with political parties, police departments, or anyone else, some people have grown disenfranchised with the status quo and are looking elsewhere for their information.  And that’s their prerogative, but I would hope that they would heed some caution before doing so.

Recently, I went on a bit of a rant on Facebook:

“To my Medicine Hat friends,

In the last little while, I’ve seen a few posts shared from “Community TV” and I just wanted to offer my two cents.  Please, please, please be careful sharing what is being produced.  Some of it has been walking a fine line around slander, while a recent post inadvertently interfered with police investigations.  Frankly, it lacks in professionalism on many fronts and I would hate to see one of you tied up in what could one day be legal issues for him.  I know this can sometimes sound like “the old radio guy” taking a crap on an online outlet, but I actually have some legit concerns about what he posts and what I’ve seen shared.  It’s one thing to be doing this as Joe Schmo on the street.  It’s another for someone to masquerade this as “journalism.”  It’s not being held up to the same standards as traditional outlets and I hope everyone thinks about that before sharing what’s been produced.  Thanks.”

This was in reaction to a post I ended up commenting on that particular page, where I outlined my concerns a little more concisely surrounding the police investigation.  The creator posted a raw video of an interview with the alleged child luring victim’s father, which apparently contained some “hold-back information” (information police don’t want out in the public eye for investigative reasons).  The police ended up contacting the creator, who ended up editing the video, but then made some comments about why, but not totally understanding all of the ins and outs.  My comment got a response, to which I responded and it went back-and-forth a couple more times before I realized my time would be better spent slamming my head into a concrete wall.  I simply didn’t understand why someone would try to chase after a story without fully understanding how the legal system works.  (As an aside, I realize that I’m giving this particular example exactly what he wants and that’s exposure.  But I needed a particular example to point out how stark the contrast between styles can be.)

Qualifications aside, I hope that potential audiences are looking at professionalism and tact when it comes to the news media they are consuming.  It might seem kind of nitpicky, but there’s something to be said about conducting yourself in a respectful manner.  That comes from education and training and an understanding of the business.  Simple things like getting all sides of a story, understanding the subject matter you’re talking about and overall decorum (such as doing things legally).  There are other things I’ve seen out there that make me cringe (with more than just the above example).  Things like telling the person you’re interviewing that you’re recording the conversation for public consumption (aka “on the record” vs. “off the record”) or broadcasting screen grabs of text messages (still a grey area but I’ve always assumed texts are “off the record” unless told otherwise).  Then there are the issues around publication bans in court that are, for the most part, abided by.  But I’ve seen a few examples where young people think they can say anything and everything because they’re not held to the same standards and expectations as traditional media.  One friend encapsulated it in one perfect word: ethics.  You can usually tell how seriously outlets take that word by the way they frame their stories.  Did they refer to themselves (ie the story is more about them than it is about the story they’re supposedly covering)?  That should tell you a lot about what’s most important to them, especially if you notice it more than once.

I’ve been really interested in looking at the comments to some of these pages as well.  They usually go along the lines of “thanks for telling it like it is” or “you’re the only one telling the truth.”  You know how it goes: the anti-traditional media sentiments.  The question really becomes: is it really the truth?  How can it be the truth if they’ve only gone after one interview or angle to the story?  Reminds me of the old saying about how there’s always two sides to a story and the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.

Can traditional media do a better job of protecting and standing up for its reputation?  Absolutely and that could include a number of things.  I’d love to see the day when we stop seeing political endorsements.  I’d love to see the day that we stop talking about “viral videos” and spend more time on stories that actually have an effect on people.  I’d love to see the day where we see fewer stories about weather and more “dig deep” stories on politics, education and health.

On the flipside, online news outlets need to do a better job of creating a strong and positive reputation.  Get all sides to a story.  Present yourself in a professional manner.  Show that you care about ethics, the legal system, and processes involving government.  I actually believe that in the not-too-distant future, you’re going to see more online news sources dedicated to what I call “hyper-local”, with a focus on a particular “beat”, which might have a smaller overall reach but a much more engaged audience.  But that audience won’t be served well if that news source is constantly stepping all over rules, the law or professionalism.

Both sides need to understand these points and more.  Why?  Because both sides are already being lumped in as one-and-the-same “the media”, and one misstep by any of the outlets will have ramifications for the whole lot.  This is especially true now that traditional and new media are essentially in competition.  By no means am I saying “don’t have fun” or “don’t dig for stories” or “don’t piss anyone off.”  What am I saying?  Outlets, both traditional and new, have some work to do to gain the trust of the consumer.  At the same time, consumers should carry some responsibility, in holding BOTH traditional and new news media to high standards. 

At the end of the day, we live in a world where someone with a cellphone and a YouTube channel can call themselves a “journalist.”  These very same people have Facebook and Twitter followings that rival or even surpass traditional outlets, which I suppose is a compliment for their ability to self-promote.  But I also find this interesting on a personal level because this is who I’m now competing with.  I spent two years in school and the last 10+ years in radio building my reputation as a journalist.  And yet, who do you think will have their work dismissed first?

All I ask: think about it.