• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Maurice E. Adams
    January 14, 2013 - 07:07

    Cyril Rogers is right on point. Lana Payne should have had the foresight and should have opposed Muskrat Falls years ago. It did not take an Einstein to see that island ratepayers/taxpayers will be paying many, many hundreds of millions of dollars every year for the next 50 years --- UNNECESSARILY. Combined with the well know ndrop in oil production, Ms. Payne should have known that increased taxes and cuts in the public service would result. It is not too late to stop this Muskrat Madness --- for that is what it is.

  • Doug Smith
    January 13, 2013 - 09:38

    QKSLVR, how do you know our public service is too large and too well paid? I believe our MHAs are too many and too well paid, given our tiny population. What would be wrong with the MHAs switching to a Defined Contribution Pension Plan and a much lower salary as part of the premier’s cost cutting? Another good cost cutting measure would be to stop giving The Republic of Doyle millions each year. Doug Smith, GFW

  • Cyril Rogers
    January 12, 2013 - 22:09

    The large increases in the size of the public service, coupled with significant raises in recent years, isa recipe for disaster in a province that is so dependent on oil revenues. Also, the labour movement has been too cozy with this administration and its predecessors under DW, so crying foul now is not justified in my opinion. The problems being incorporated into our fiscal structure, with the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls, are well known to all and labour has been lacking in leadership in opposing this for the right reasons. Well-paying jobs for a few years will never alleviate the stench from this mess and the labour movement in general has not done enough to expose this fiasco.

  • QKSLVR
    January 12, 2013 - 13:01

    None of this detracts from the fact that our public service is too large and too well paid for our ability to pay. I see layoffs and Defined Contribution Pension Plans in their future, finally.

    • Purple Library Guy
      January 14, 2013 - 00:13

      Well, actually, QKSLVR, it does. --We started with X revenue and --We cut 1.2 billion by not charging rich people as much tax --Result is 745 miillion deficit ::If that revenue were put back, we would have --A 455 million surplus (with the existing public service) (Despite a current policy of aggressive capital spending) --Therefore: Evidently we DO have the ability to pay for the existing public service. Logic. Worth trying on occasion.

  • Foghorn Leghorn
    January 12, 2013 - 08:54

    I agree with your assessment regarding Muskrat Falls. I am sure it is only here in Newfoundland and Labrador that you would be expected to pay twice for the same thing. Increased taxes and increased electricity rates. All in the name of showing Quebec who is boss.