Thread by @DrAndyHolt

I'll preface this comment by saying that I'm a scientist, not an economist.
I've read many tweets claiming that "the @albertaNDP almost bankrupted Alberta last time".
So I looked at the Government of Alberta Annual Reports since 2011 & graphed their own non-partisan data. (1/21)

These annual reports are available to everyone, at alberta.ca/government-and… (2/21)

I graphed total revenue from all sources, total expenses (i.e what they govt of the day spent over 12 months), and the average price for a barrel of West Texus crude.
It's very simple, arguably simplistic, but that's more likely to open people's eyes.
Four things jump out.
(3/21)

1) Expenditure has gone up linearly, regardless of the govt. Because things cost more. With respect to that point, the UCP has spent more every year for the past 4 years than the NDP did. Just as the NDP spent more every year than the PCs did. That's just the way it is. (4/21)

Costs go up. The next govt will be spending over $70 Bn/yr by the end of their term. The NDP spent exactly what you would have predicted, and exactly what a PC govt would have spent had they won the 2015 election. So the NDP did NOT "overspend" or almost bankrupt us. (5/21)

2) Given that expenditure is almost "non-negotiable" (more on that later), deficits/surpluses depend very much on income. It's clear that when oil drops, revenues drop, and when oil goes up, revenues go up. The NDP deficits were clearly due to world oil prices collapsing. (6/21)

The UCP ran up bigger deficits in their first 2 years in office than the NDP ever did. At the time, they blamed the NDP - which is nonsense. But I'm not going to turn it round and blame the UCP. Those deficits were inevitable. Costs had risen higher & WTI tanked further. (7/21)

3) Despite being hamstrung by revenue that was consistently $10 Bn/year lower than was required to keep pace with expenses, the NDP were able to keep healthcare, education, social supports etc. in working condition, while also repairing/replacing infrastructure. (8/21)

4) Thanks largely to a rebound in oil prices, almost to levels of a decade ago, the UCP are now working with record revenues that are outstripping expenditure by some distance. You would like to think that Albertans who have been struggling for several years would benefit. (9/21)

Those are the 4 points. So back to the issue of "non-negotiable" expenditure. Under the PCs when oil was high & revenue was decent, the choice was made to maintain healthcare, education etc. at functioning levels. Far from great, but working, modest conflict, no strikes. (10/21)

Under the NDP, oil revenue plummeted. The NDP made the choice to maintain funding to healthcare, education and social programs. Yes, it would mean a deficit, but a morally justifiable one. (11/21)

We know what would have happened to healthcare under a conservative government, with oil averaging $50/barrel between 2015 and 2019.
WE WOULD HAVE GONE INTO A COVID PANDEMIC WITH A HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN GUTTED. Fewer docs, fewer nurses, FEWER ER BEDS. (12/21)

We also know what would have happened to education under a conservative government, with oil at $50/barrel.
We would have gone into a pandemic with fewer schools, fewer teachers, fewer mental health supports, LARGER CLASSES, & CONDITIONS PERFECT FOR RAMPANT VIRAL SPREAD. (13/21)

Under the UCP since 2019, expenditure has continued to rise linearly & predictably.
But wait; how can that be, when billions have been slashed from healthcare, education & social programs?
Those $$ were spent instead on a failed pipeline bet, on a war room, on "Tylonel", (14/21)

on bribes to big oil to clean up their mess, on fights with doctors, nurses, teachers, public servants, and the Federal government, on worthless "PPE" made by their donor friends, and so on, and so on, and so on.
(15/21)

The amount involved, although totalling several billion, is relatively small compared with the annual expenditure of $65 Bn. The UCP *could* have funded healthcare, education, social programs and firefighting resources rather than pipeline bets and war rooms.(16/21)

And had they done so, our budget bottom line would have been exactly where it is now - but we would all be in a far healthier state in every sense.
This year, they're anticipating a $20 Bn SURPLUS.
But they STILL want to make further cuts to healthcare, education etc. (17/21)

This would be (almost) understandable if they were working with similar deficits in revenue that the NDP were faced with. But they're not. Far from it.
What they need to cut out is wasting our money. Spend it on healthcare, education - the things that benefit Albertans. (18/21)

They could do that, improve all of our lives, and still save that $20 Bn surplus.
But they won't. They'll slash services further, hand over that surplus to their friends, and ride off, pockets bulging, into the sunset.
They've shown us who they are. Believe them. (19/21)

The NDP made the ethical choice to continue to fund critical services when revenue had tanked. And we now have to choose a party to trust to make the right, ethical decisions on how to spend OUR money when revenue is up. (20/21)

Only one party has earned the opportunity to show how they can make things better for everyone and build for the future when not hamstrung by record low revenues.
Hint - it's not Smith and the UCP. (21/21)

For those who asked, here's the graph w/ WCS rather than WTI $. Data are from #abgov annual reports except 2023 revenue, which is a projection from the 22-23 #abgov mid-year update, and the 2023 WCS which is for 06/22-03/23 calculated from monthly data on statista.com.

Fiscal summary on page 3 of open.alberta.ca/dataset/9c81a5… shows revenue and expenditure forecasts. Interestingly, they budget for $63 Bn revenue but forecast $76 Bn. Looking at WCS $ per barrel, it's hard to see where that forecast comes from.
Again, though, I'm not an economist.