Sunday 27 July 2014

Waiting To Exhale - Joe Hockey's Delicate Condition - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Waiting To Exhale - Joe Hockey's Delicate Condition - » The Australian Independent Media Network



Waiting To Exhale – Joe Hockey’s Delicate Condition














All political parties have their heroes.


Figures who tower over other former leaders.


For the ALP it’s Gough Whitlam. For the modern version of the LNP, it’s John Howard and Howard’s own hero – Bob Menzies.


Menzies still casts a long shadow over the LNP, and over post-war Australian history.


As the longest serving Australian Prime Minister, both critics and
admirers single out Menzies political accumen and foresight as the
reason for his unparalleled term of office.



Admired by many and reviled by just as many, his name is still
mentioned in Parliamentary debate, most recently by Christopher Pyne in
his attempts to renege on his party’s pledge to uphold the Gonski
reforms.



Which is somewhat ironic. While Pyne wheedled over the need to
privatize education in order to clean up “Labor’s debt and deficit
mess”, Menzies wholeheartedly endorsed the funding of public education.



Under Howard and Costello, and now under Abbott and Hockey, Liberal
governments constantly expound the need for budget surplus and
‘austerity measures’ through drastic cuts to government spending in
order to stimulate the economy and keep inflation and unemployment under
control.



Yet unemployment is steadily rising, and the Reserve Bank is also
forecasting inflation to increase in the next financial quarter. Why?



Why is it that under Costello and Hockey who gnash their teeth and
wail over the need for Budget surplus to fix the ‘national debt and
deficit’ through privatization and austerity measures, that these
strategies constantly fall short of achieving their goals?



How is it that a party which presided over a period of unparalleled
prosperity and political dominance, created the reputation as ‘better
money managers’ than the ALP, succeed so spectacularly where its modern
day equivalent has failed so dismally?



How was it that during the late 1940s when the economies of Britain
and the US slumped, Australia was able to boost its own economy and
create full employment?



The answer is simple – deficit.


Both Chifley and Menzies ran deficits, as did their successors, Holt, Gorton and McMahon.


When Menzies came to power in 1949, he capitalized on the National
Works Council set up by Chifley earlier that year to counteract both the
effects of the recession in the US and the threat of widespread
unemployment as a result of the National Coal Strike.



Chifley allocated £743, 357,061 (equivalent to approximately 14
billion dollars in today’s currency – an almost incomprehensible amount
in 1949) for a national works program to build infrastructure, which
included the Snowy Mountains Scheme.



When the ALP was swept from power as a result of the political
backlash from the Coal Strike, Menzies did not scream loud and long
about ‘the debt and deficit left through Labor’s mess’.



Rather, the Menzies government and its Treasurers Arthur Fadden and
later Harold Holt, utilized Chifley’s initiatives to create a burgeoning
middle class underpinned by a solid public service which fulfilled
Chifley’s promise that;



“Governments should not add to the tragic waste of our greatest,
national assets – the daily work of our citizens. If private employers
cannot offer sufficient jobs, the the government will – but not make
useless work.”



Menzies success rested in part on his political acumen, and in part
on his willingness to fulfill the Social Contract – that government’s
responsibility was to make decisions and formulate policy to benefit the
many – not just the few.



Menzies recognized the need to improve the education of lower
socioeconomic groups and set-up the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme
which enabled both secondary and tertiary study to completed at the
government’s expense while at the same time provided funding to maintain
the independence of the universities.



Menzies also established the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme,
dismantled much of the ‘Immigration Act of 1901′ (White Australia
Policy), encouraged scientific research through the CSIRO, established
the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, and funded today’s equivalent
of the NBN – a coaxial cable which linked the Eastern Seaboard and
enabled international dialling.



It should be noted that all these measures were undertaken at a time
when the Australian Pound was linked to the British Sterling at an
agreed figure of 25% less than the British Pound which in turn was
linked to the Gold Bullion Standard.



In other words, unlike the Howard and Abbott governments, Menzies and his treasurers were constrained by revenue.


Nonetheless, Fadden and Holt continued to use Keynesian economic
theory – demand creates supply – to drive the economy through judicious
use of government deficit.



Menzies and his successors were committed to creating the demand
through government funding to the public sector which served as the
buffer against private sector downturn, thereby allowing  the private
sector greater opportunity to create supply.



The strategy worked exceedingly well for three decades and witnessed a
society that led the world in social and economic benefit.



In stark contrast, the Howard-Costello-Abbott-Hockey application of
Chicago School (supply side) economic theory has witnessed a steady
erosion of social benefit and a sharp divide between lower and upper
socioeconomic groups exacerbated by a steadily rising unemployment rate
and a faltering economy.



It was the Howard-Costello regime that eagerly propagated the myth of
government deficit as debt in the same manner as private or business
debt which is an outright lie.



Government deficits are simply a record of ‘outflow’ of expenditure in order to allow the private sector to accumulate assets.


As Australia is the sole issuer of its currency (sovereignty or fiat currency) and can create more ex nihlo (out of nothing) this debt never needs to be repaid, nor is it inheritable by successive governments or successive generations.


Deficits, as Menzies and Fadden quickly realized, are necessary to
create aggregate demand (the demand for goods and services) and fuel a
healthy economy, especially so in a country with a small population such
as Australia.



When the bulk of the electorate can easily perceive that government
policy and economic management is directed toward improving their living
and working conditions through access to education, medical benefits
and the prosperity of society as a whole, then they are willing to
reciprocate through the ballot box.



This is evidenced by Menzies holding the record as Australia’s
longest serving prime minister and the party he founded, able to hold
government for nearly a quarter of a century.



The Abbott-Hockey combination on the other hand, display a willful
determination to ignore not only the Social Contract, but the
foundations of political acumen.



In the ten months of his government, Abbott has managed to destroy
almost all of his credibility not only through broken promises but also
through a budget that has been roundly condemned by the electorate and
by leading economists as well.



When faced with a less than cooperative Senate to pass his budget
measures, Hockey resorted to a petulant outburst more suited to a
truculent child than a government treasurer.



From his wildly exaggerated forward estimates of budget deficit when
in opposition, to the refutation by BusinessDay’s panel of eminent
economists, who called the ‘budget emergency’ an ‘abuse of the English
language’, coupled with his statement in New Zealand that there was no
crisis in the Australian economy, nor were there drastic cuts planned
for the health, education, and taxes for ideological reasons, one cannot
but wonder if Hockey suffers from Pathologica fantasia (the compulsion to tell lies).



While Hockey has attempted to convey himself to the electorate as a
self made man who rose to his position through hard work and
determination reflected by the title of his biography More Than Your Average Joe,
what comes across is in fact a portrait of a conceited man determined
to have his way in all things and one who is unwilling to listen to, or
accept advice from others.



From his churlish responses to Howard’s offer of Minister for Tourism
and Small Business rather than Finance and the failure by the media
especially News Ltd to endorse his ‘End of the age of Entitlement’
speech, to his reaction in having to fill out his own claim for the
‘baby bonus’, Hockey potrays himself a man who is not as much ‘delicate’
as he is precious of his own abilities and the sense of his own
importance.



In his biography Hockey reveals how he ‘inadvertently’ smoked a joint while on the Kokoda Track.


Bill Clinton claimed that while he smoked pot at college, he never inhaled.


Perhaps Joe’s delicate condition and his sense of self importance arises from not having exhaled.





Thursday 24 July 2014

Tony Abbott achieves the impossible: unity among economists | Warwick Smith | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Tony Abbott achieves the impossible: unity among economists | Warwick Smith | Comment is free | theguardian.com


Tony Abbott achieves the impossible: unity among economists




Economists
are refuting the three big picture claims made by the government: 1) We
have a budget emergency 2) We have a debt crisis and 3) The carbon tax
was ruining the economy



Prime minister Tony Abbott during a press conference.
Prime minister Tony Abbott during a press conference. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP



There’s a joke about economists: if you ask five economists the same
question you’ll get six different answers. Granted, it's not a very
good joke, but it’s a fair call. Ours is a complex field, and a growing
number of economists are acknowledging that the theory sitting behind
mainstream economics is mostly rubbish. As a result, it’s very difficult
to find consensus on real world events.


But that's where Abbott
and Hockey have achieved what many thought impossible: a true consensus.
Unfortunately for the coalition government, the consensus is entirely
against them. The Abbott government’s agenda has been driven by three
major claims, all of them economic in nature. Let’s see how economists
view these three themes:


1) There is a budget emergency

Number of economists who agree: zero

2) The federal government has a debt crisis

Number of economists who agree: zero

3) Carbon pricing is an economic wrecking ball

Number of economists who agree: zero

The
above represents a very slight exaggeration. You can find people with
some economics qualifications who agree with the government but, without
exception, they either work for the Coalition or for some entity with ideological motives (like the IPA or News Corp).


While most would agree that there are serious structural problems with the budget, none would call it an emergency. Chris Richardson, economist and partner at Deloitte Access Economics, said:

We
don’t need a surplus tomorrow, we don’t even necessarily need it in
five years’ time. I’m more than happy with us getting back to
sustainable fiscal finances over the long term. The politics would tend
to suggest moving earlier rather than later but on the economics there’s
no rush.
Saul Eslake, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said that to call the Australian debt situation a crisis was “to abuse the English language.”

Similarly, Nobel prize winning US economist Joseph Stiglitz
used terms such as “absurd”, “crazy” and “a crime” to describe some of
Hockey’s budget measures, and dismissed the perceived debt and deficit
problems, noting that any Australian who worries about debt “must be out of their mind.” Richard Holden,
professor of economics at the Australian School of Business, put it
this way: “First, Australia does not have a debt crisis. Or, to put it
another way, Australia does not have a debt crisis.”


It doesn't stop here. The Age recently conducted its annual economics survey
of 25 prominent economists. They select economists from a broad range
of backgrounds across the spectrum of economics and their views vary
widely on almost all issues. None of them agreed with the government on
any of the above three topics.


This unique consensus among
economists makes it clear that the entire government agenda is based on
false premises. How has this exposure affected the Coalition's agenda or
their messaging? Not at all. Not one bit. Not one iota. Let’s be clear
about this. We know they’re not being honest about their real motives
for policy. They know we know, too. They don’t care.


As I’ve explained previously,
the Abbott and Hockey budget, if fully implemented, would have taken us
a long way towards the free market social and economic model of the US,
and away from the social democracy model of much of Europe. But the
question remains as to why they would do this. Who benefits from a US
style free market system where government minimises its involvement?


The
answer of course is the wealthy and those who already wield power. The
greatest beneficiaries of Abbott and Hockey’s policies are their largest financial backers, including the financial industry, the mining and energy industries, gambling interests and real estate companies.


For
all the talk about this being the most ideologically driven government
in living memory, the reality is something much simpler and more
familiar. This government is simply delivering to big money what big
money wants.


One of the clearest examples of this is the winding back of the Labor government’s Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) reforms.
We know that many financial advisors have been preying on their
clients. They make use of clients’ lack of understanding of complex
investing and other financial options to direct them to financial
products that are not in their interest, but rather in the interests of
the advisor. This has been costing consumers huge sums of money, which
primarily flow into the hands of the banks.


Labor’s reforms were
aimed at making such conflicts of interest for advisors illegal in order
to address this complex problem. The Coalition have wound back Labor’s
changes and have provided not one defensible reason for doing so.
Compliance costs and red tape have actually increased, so that cannot be
used as the excuse. Meanwhile, we allow the banks to continue to profit
from ripping off their customers.


The same is at play when you
examine climate policy. You can't find an independent economist who
thinks the government’s "direct action" plan for tackling climate change
is more efficient or effective than a carbon tax or trading scheme. Who
likes direct action? The polluters of course. Instead of paying to
pollute, they get paid not to pollute. Here's the real con: one argument
we are given is that the carbon tax was too big a burden on consumers.
Who's going to pay the polluters to reduce pollution? The government.
Where do they get the money? From all of us. Consumers pay anyway.


The
clarity of these examples reveals the sad reality of this government.
They are not ideologues, they are just puppets dancing to the tune of
those pulling their strings.




Wednesday 23 July 2014

Joe Hockey grooms himself for leadership – but only in government

Joe Hockey grooms himself for leadership – but only in government








Joe Hockey grooms himself for leadership – but only in government



View from The Hill









Professorial Fellow at University of Canberra
















Joe Hockey grooms himself for leadership – but only in government





Treasurer Joe Hockey says he would not spend another stint in opposition, if the Abbott government were voted out.
AAP/Nikki Short



As Tony Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme continues to be a
millstone around the government’s neck, a new book reveals that he
briefed Rupert Murdoch in detail on the plan before taking it to his
party.




A biography of Joe Hockey also reports the then shadow treasurer was
alerted to the scheme by Abbott but didn’t take much notice, thinking it
was just an uncosted proposal.




Abbott, opposition leader from late 2009, announced the scheme on
International Women’s Day, in March 2010. When he had dined with
Murdoch, who was in Australia the month before, “he gave the media mogul
a full rundown on the scheme – supplying enough detail for Murdoch to
later have his Australian-based editors briefed” on it. “This fact was
unknown to members in the party room, who condemned Abbott’s solo
policy-making on such a fundamental issue.”




Abbott and Hockey have different versions of the heads up Hockey was given.



Abbott says: “Joe was one of the very few colleagues whom I discussed
the paid parental leave proposal with … I don’t want to verbal Joe but
he certainly saw the merit in it – that’s not quite the same as saying
he enthusiastically supported it”.




Hockey recalls the subject as a “brief add-on” in a phone
conversation, with no date or detail attached. “Joe says he didn’t think
too much more about it, believing it was an un-costed proposal, not an
opposition policy,” author Madonna King writes.




Soon after Abbott made what he described as a “captain’s call” and
announced the policy, Hockey protested to him about not being consulted
on the detail. It wouldn’t be the first or last irritant in their
relationship.




King’s Hockey: Not Your Average Joe, written with the subject’s
co-operation, highlights that once again (as with Keating- Hawke,
Costello-Howard) we have a pairing where the Treasurer’s ambition for
the top job is crystal clear.




Abbott and Hockey are firmly bonded in common cause, but it is a
marriage of convenience that could end on the rocks if circumstances
pushed it in that direction.




As in the early days of the Howard government (when Peter Reith also
had hopes), two contestants have outed themselves in the battle for
eventual succession. The eyes of Immigration Minister Scott Morrison are
as firmly fixed on the ultimate prize as are those of Hockey.




In the best tradition of aspiring leaders, Hockey has apparently been
staking out the territory since school days. When in Year 5 at St
Aloysius' College he declared (in response to a jibe) “I’m going to be
prime minister one day”. Today’s message is as clear, though more
carefully (and realistically) couched. The matter of his future will be
“in the hands of others”, he tells King.




Abbott’s chief of staff, the formidable Peta Credlin, assesses the
horse race: “Joe’s absolutely a contender and he’s probably got his head
above every other contender, but I think we’re a long way away from
saying he’s an heir apparent – and he’d say that, too”.




The biography describes the makeover, political and personal, that
Hockey – who’d already served as a minister through most of the Howard
government – has undergone in recent years in preparation for high
office in a new Coalition administration and (hopefully, in his mind)
one day the top job.




In 2012 (under a fake name) he had drastic gastric surgery to deal
with his weight. This was driven by health concerns, but also by
politics. “Everybody knows that fat people are perceived differently,”
wife Melissa Babbage says, in one of a number of frank comments (another
relates to the distrust between Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull). “People
no longer see him as the party boy.”




Hockey, who originally came from the Liberal party’s left, took steps
to define and sharpen what he stood for, “colouring in the picture of
who he was”, as King puts it. This had started just before Abbott became
leader (in a contest that turned into a fiasco for Hockey) and reached a
high point in his “age of entitlement speech” of April 2012.




The tougher, harder-edged persona is the one we see in government,
notably in the budget, though he was not able to meet what would have
been his preferred benchmarks. King reports that “the budget was much
softer than Joe would have liked. He wanted changes to pensions made
earlier and the deficit levy to net more taxpayers. But Abbott … was
taking a much more cautious approach”. (Backbenchers, looking at the
polls and hearing their constituents, might mutter “thank god for
that”.)




Mid-career biographies are often double-edged for their subjects, exposing warts as well as rounding out the profile.



Hockey warts include sharp reactions when frustrated (he considered
quitting politics because he felt dudded in the 2001 reshuffle), and a
certain “whatever it takes” attitude when pursuing goals (in the Howard
years “he believed there were few lines a minister couldn’t cross when
it came to the department they led”).




On the look out for main chances, there was one strange occasion when
an opportunity for advancement either eluded him or was a trick of his
imagination. Hockey recounts how Peter Costello told him (over dinner)
that he was going to move against then leader Malcolm Turnbull. Costello
said: “I’m ready to lead – will you be my deputy?” Hockey was more than
ready - but Costello made no move.




Costello flatly denies the conversation. “I was never coming back. I
was never doing deals with Joe or anyone else.” It is an amazing
discrepancy, given we are talking about just a few years ago.




Like Costello in 2007, Hockey (at least on his account now) would not
serve again in opposition. “Joe says that if the Abbott government is
voted out in the next election he will not spend another stint in
opposition. ‘I couldn’t do that’, he says.”




Has he forgotten that in Costello’s case, failing to hang around
almost certainly cost him the prime ministership, while Howard’s
willingness to bear dreadful dog days finally secured it?




In the account he has given King, Hockey has put a limit on what he
would do for the party, which might not go down so well with some
colleagues.























Saturday 19 July 2014

The Hockey Budget to nowhere, going nowhere - » The Australian Independent Media Network

The Hockey Budget to nowhere, going nowhere - » The Australian Independent Media Network



The Hockey Budget to nowhere, going nowhere














With the government facing a hostile Senate passing all of its Budget measures, John Massam reflects
on how wicked and unnecessary this Hockey Budget actually is. And the
contrived ‘budget emergency’ – popularly spouted by our Treasurer – also
appears to have been adopted by a State counterpart.




The Hockey Budget of May 13 seems to be the most wicked since the
budgets of the Great Depression of 1929-41.  Those cheese-paring budgets
and large wage cuts left Australia unprepared for the attempted
invasion during the Second World War. Global austerity had ruined the
lives and psyches of millions throughout the world, and had triggered
Fascist and Communist dictatorships. However, when the Second World War
broke out, after about a year, rivers of credit then appeared out of
thin air, and after the war the cash kept flowing to re-absorb the armed
forces and the male workers in the defence industries.



There is a A$97,570,000,000 Australian “Future Fund” earning
dividends.  For Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Treasurer Joe Hockey, and
the Finance Minister, the future HAS COME – pay off debts.



It is alarming to learn that the Australian national debt is $339
TRILLION (that is, $339 thousand million) and rising; the annual
interest bill is $11 trillion, according to the Debt Clock. (Each citizen’s share is A$14,450).



Soon after being elected, in October 2013 one of the new Abbott Government’s silliest actions was to give $8.8 billion (that is, $8,800,000,000) to the Reserve Bank of Australia, which had not requested any money. (See also The West Australian, page 15, Tue May 20, 2014).


That RBA $8.8 billion, plus the $97.57 billion in the Future Fund,
ought to be immediately used to pay off some of the $339 trillion debt,
thus saving trillions of dollars now and into the future.



WESTERN AUSTRALIA’S CONTRIVED CRISIS


Just like the Federal financial situation, the supposed crisis in
Western Australia’s State finances had also been carefully contrived, by
taking on unnecessary public works like digging up the Perth Esplanade,
and removing the school-children’s tiles at the Bell Tower.  Mr Colin
Barnett’s Liberal-National government plans to build ovals for
million-dollar-a-year footballers.  Another waste was spending millions
removing the Perth tunnel’s emergency lanes, just as a coroner in
another state was recommending that tunnel emergency lanes be introduced
there as a safety measure.  The ministers sold land worth $90 million
at Burswood for $60 million.



To catch great white sharks, blamed for killing several people, the
Coalition spent millions of dollars on drum-lines, but though other
sharks suffered, no great whites were caught.



Although the Barnett-Buswell government broke election promises such
as not building rail to Ellenbrook, the W.A. debt rose from
$4,000,000,000 in 2008, to $20 billion by Dec. 2013 (ST, 22 Dec 2013, p 57).



W.A.’s credit-rating fall from AAA to AA should be given a quadruple A award for deception.


The Liberal-National W.A. Government, while building a kind of palace
for ministerial offices, even abolished the Government Astronomer.  One
wonders if he and his colleagues can be “retrained” to obtain other
careers!  Coffee-making baristas, lens grinders, or government “spin
doctors”, perhaps?



While the Liberals-Nationals are planning to change the laws to
introduce mandatory minimum crime sentences, there is a judge short on
the W.A. Supreme Court, prisons are over-full, and a whole police
training intake would have been cancelled, except for a public outcry.
The compulsory amalgamation of local government councils will be forced
through, no matter what the cost, defying the spirit of the W.A. Act.



FEDERAL $7 MEDICAL LEVY FOR SENIORS, SICK, AND CHILDREN


To return to the federal scene, do the Federal Liberals’ partners,
the National Party (formerly the Country Party), really intend to saddle
the old, the sick, and children with a $7 medical levy?  Do they join
in the pretence that some of the money will go into medical research,
yet the Federal Government wants to take millions of dollars away from
Australian research bodies like the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)?



Are our country cousins supporting the trickery of acting as if the
medical researchers in our universities and teaching hospitals are not
efficient?  The W.A. burns cures discoveries alone prove their
excellence.  Yet universities are to have cuts. Are our Nobel Prize
winners and their laboratories to be “privatised”? When everything has
been sold, how will governments, State and Fedeal, “balance” their
budgets then?



Have voters for the National Party already forgotten that the
Liberal-National government was willing to allow Shepparton’s cannery to
close in Victoria, thus threatening to ruin most of the small
fruit-growers in the Goulburn-Murray Valley region?  Have Liberal
supporters forgotten that many small engineering enterprises will be
ruined as the three car-manufacturers wind down? These metal-fabrication
experts could be “retrained”, perhaps, to be prospectors?



Don’t the Coalition know that many overseas governments underwrite and subsidise industry and agriculture?


WASTE, SILLINESS, SELL-OUTS


Without consultation, Abbott’s boys (only one female minister) have
ordered a larger number of warplanes than Labor did; these planes have
no limit to their final cost, just like the Liberal-National coalition
purchase of the F111s decades ago.



Another silliness is to plan to privatise the Royal Australian Mint,
although for thousands of years governments have jealously guarded the
right to mint coins, and in later centuries they forcibly took over
banknote issuing from the private banks.  Will the sell-outs of public
assets be accompanied by the corruption that was recently uncovered in
New South Wales, causing a Liberal Premier to resign that day?



UNIVERSAL LAND TAX – OTHER TAXES MINIMISED


As was reported in recent months, David Airey, a leading Perth real
estate agent, suggested a no-exception land tax (I suggest about 5 per
cent for a start, rising to no more than 10 per cent in future) on the
land’s value (not the buildings, etc).  A side benefit would be that
this would slow down land speculation and the withholding of land.  New
home buyers might then have a chance of taking on affordable
mortgages for land and houses.



Calculations are that this could pay all the government’s expenses. 
As this huge revenue came in, a priority must be to reduce and/or
abolish the enterprise-stifling taxes like payroll tax, stamp duty, and
the goods and services tax (GST). If the land-site revenue covers the
running costs, income tax and company tax could be immensely reduced,
moving towards abolition, as debt was gradually eliminated. In the
meantime, negative gearing plus company tax evasion and avoidance could
be stopped by a few simple laws.



A universal land tax idea, backed by some academics, was recommended in the Henry Report (Australia’s Future Tax System Review)
around 2010. However, widening land tax was so unpalatable to the Big
End of Town that the recommendation was dropped at once by the
politicians.



An alternative is that Federal and State governments introduce the
Tobin Tax – a small levy on every financial transaction.  A 0.1 per cent
Tobin Tax would collect huge sums from parasites such as those who use
sophisticated computer programmes tied to the stock exchange to
manipulate share prices by speculative buying and selling of shares,
bonds, etc, in microseconds, thus cheating the ordinary Mum and Dad
investors. It would raise $135 trillion (about a third of the national
debt) at the start, but might decline markedly later.



If that tax is not acceptable, there are billions of dollars worth of
minerals being exported, so a reasonable royalty per tonne would bring
in millions or billions.  Norway and other countries levy a very large
percentage. Don’t charge on profits, because the multinational
corporations and some big Australian investors are experts at exporting
their profits overseas to places with little or no income tax.



It would be too much to expect that the politicians and their
advisers would study how money comes into being, and so adopt credit
policies, instead of debt policies.



INTERNATIONAL BANKERS, BUREAUCRATS


This is a nasty bankers’ budget.  Just read the words of Treasurer Joe Hockey, in his speech “The end of the age of entitlement
on April 17, 2012, to the Institute of Economic Affairs, in London,
when he said that bankers “have a more active role to play in policing
public policy and ensuring that countries do not exceed their capacity
to service and repay debt.



“This is playing out most dramatically in Europe where
the European Commission and the European Central Bank are either
directly or indirectly heavily influencing public policy in Greece,
Italy, Spain and Portugal, to name a few.” (page 14).

In plain speech, he was saying that the EU bureaucrats and the ECB
bankers were calling the tune for an austerity campaign. Mr Hockey seems
to be in thrall to what he called that mysterious and amorphous group
defined as “bondholders” (page 4 of the same speech).



So, Mr Hockey in 2012 thought that it was good for Australia to
accept the wrong-headed policies adopted under duress by those
countries, even though they have led to higher unemployment plus
hardship to small business in those lands, and have driven many people
to bankruptcy, crime or suicide.



Wild riots and possible takeovers by dictatorships are quite possible
in countries which take the International Monetary Fund’s poisonous
medicines.



The brave little country of Iceland refused to take the advice of
international funds and bankers, and took firm action.  Icelanders have
been saved from the artificial depression planned for them.



A most amazing fact is that when Mr Hockey took over as Treasurer
after the September 2013 election win, it was brought to his notice that
the Federal Parliament had set a debt ceiling of $300 billion, and this
had nearly been reached.



He promptly said that Australia must not have a stoppage of
government action like the United States had suffered twice in recent
years, and the debt ceiling should be doubled. The high debt level was
caused by the Labor Government, he said. Not long after he said that the
debt ceiling should be tripled.



Another version in a report of December 5, 2013, said the Liberals
wanted a $500 billion limit, but later did a deal with the Greens in the
Senate to set it at $400 billion.



Before the 2013 election the Liberals had said they would reduce debt. Voters, another promise broken!


WORK TO 70, PREVENT YOUNGSTERS WORKING


The minor parties have a duty to stop the Government from expecting
the old to work until 70, thus preventing the younger generation from
starting careers, while ordering the under-25s who can’t get jobs to
starve for six months.  At present about 25 per cent of the young are
unemployed, and this budget seems certain to increase the number of
jobless.



To dismiss 16,000 public servants would turn them out onto the
streets, and double the workload of those not dismissed.  Perhaps they
could “retrain” to be politicians?



These cruel Canberra federal policies would increase the crime rate
and the demand for more prisons – and that would cost money (a State
responsibility, no doubt!), and lead to more deaths, nervous breakdowns,
and suicides. Will overworked police be less inclined than at present
to investigate and prevent petty offences?



FOR 39 YEARS STATE LIBERALS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE MANAGERS


While in Opposition in 1975 Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser (later that
year elected as Prime Minister) said that “those levels of government
responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising
the taxes.” (Malcolm Fraser; The Political Memoirs, 2010, M.Fraser and M.Simons, Melbourne University Publishing, Carlton, Victoria, page 278).



So, if this was principled “federalism policy” 39 years ago, why
didn’t the Liberal-National Parties, which were at times running the
States and the Northern Territory, keep out of debt by levying universal
land tax, and/or revert to collecting income/company tax?  Or is it
easier to blame the Federal Government when States are reducing the
police forces, cutting the number of judges, and under-staffing
hospitals and schools?



The Liberal Party has a cheek asking the disadvantaged to stand on
their own two feet; this was exposed as hypocrisy in the news-item “Pay your way, backer tells Libs,” The West Australian,
page 3, Feb 7, 2014.  The party’s WA branch has been operating
rent-free in Menzies House, Level 4, 640 Murray St, West Perth, for
decades.  The landlord is now giving them their own medicine.



In the minds of some Australians, perhaps the only Abbott policy that
is working is Operation Sovereign Borders, which at present has stopped
the ‘illegal’ undocumented clients of the people-smugglers coming in as
asylum-seekers. But even those effective government instrumentalities
are to be chopped up and the command structure amalgamated, presumably
at great cost. Who knows if the new management will be asked to sack
people after another demand for an “efficiency dividend”?



A real cost-saver would be to cut out “457 visa”, “student visa”, and
“working visa” visitors who in a few year become Australian electors,
at least until unemployment goes down to 1 or 2 per cent, not long-term 5
per cent.



Anyone who doubts my statements about the way the Money Lords over-awe nations’ governments ought to read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, 2005, by John Perkins, Plume Publishing.


For an Australian perspective on deceit by the Big End of Town and the banksters, read Bankers and Bastards, 1992, by Paul McLean and James Renton, Hudson Publishing, Victoria, Australia.


Another eye-opener is The Secret Life of Real Estate and Banking, 2009, by Phillip J. Anderson.


My final word is that the Coalition is breaking nearly all of its
pre-election promises, including “There will be no surprises,” just like
the Labor Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government did. The latter tried to stave
off the unnecessary Global Financial Crisis with its spending on Roads
to Recovery (good) and Ceiling Batts (no OHS there! Dr Troy Delbridge
was dismissed). Fortunately, the Senate and the States, if they stand
firm, might be able to curb the Abbott-Hockey irrational and
irresponsible plans that are likely to lead to a trade depression, and a
down-spiral of budget deficits.



Related Posts

  •  
    If there was any stand-out from Joe Hockey's performance on Q&A it
    would have been his ability to permeate the studio with an overwhelming
    odor of wealthy complacency, with weasel words thrown in for good
    measure. It was with considerable smugness that Hockey admitted that the
    GP co-payment, ". . .is a new tax…
  • Like
    climbing mountains, maths is a marvellous thing.  It is objective
    rather than a matter of opinion.  It can’t be argued with.  A fact is a
    fact. But like many other powerful tools, maths can be used for evil in
    the hands of the unscrupulous. Take our present government – please. On a
    Liberal Party…
  • “TONY
    Abbott and Joe Hockey are convinced the government will be punished
    electorally if it does not produce a tough budget, and they believe
    there is a “public appetite” for decisive action to get the economy back
    on track.” Sounds good? Well let’s get real here. Nothing pisses me off
    more than getting lied to…