Danielle Smith and her three-member Wildrose Alliance caucus present an alternative budget Wednesday. (CBC)The Wildrose Alliance says the Alberta government would have been able to record a surplus rather than the $4.7 billion deficit in Tuesday's budget — if it had been more careful about limiting spending increases over the past seven years.

"Experts were warning the PCs years ago that we needed to keep a close eye on spending," said Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith.

"I think that's the shame that we've gotten ourselves into such a difficult position that even when we were crunching the numbers, the best we could do was get into a balanced budget within two years."

In Tuesday's budget, the government projected $38.7 billion in spending during the 2010-11 fiscal year, with revenues of $34 billion. It has promised a return to surplus budgets by 2012-13.

Wildrose budget changes

If her party was in power, Smith said, it would bring in a number of budget changes, including:

• Spreading the $20.1 billion capital budget over 4.5 years rather than three years.
• Bringing in legislation to limit spending increases in departments like health and education to match inflation and population growth.
• Canceling the $2 billion Carbon Capture and Storage program.
• Reducing the size of cabinet to 16 from 23 members.

"You can't just keep a fingers-crossed strategy, you can't just keep on hoping that oil and gas will recover," Smith said.

The Wildrose Alliance, formed in January 2008, has three members in the 83-seat legislature.

'A simplistic view'

An economist at the University of Alberta said the proposals might not be as fiscally sound as the party believes.

"It's quite a simplistic view," said David Caron. "Spending might have to follow other costs, the cost in health might be increasing faster than the rest of the economy."

Delaying spending on things like roads, bridges and other infrastructure might also be a mistake, he said.

"If you slow the amount of infrastructure … spending this year, and say 'we'll just spend it later,' well, later might also mean costlier infrastructure."