 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Parliament House | |
Johnny waited until Simon (16%) Crean was in Jakarta before announcing a
big reshuffle in the front benches, indicating that this was the line-up for the
coming election. Kay (weakest-link) Patterson gets dumped from Health because Johnny doesn't
want to have to do the job himself. She was obviously total ineffectual in the
last round of bickering health negotiations with the states but in her new role
in 'Families', she can wring her hands and say 'what about the little
children?' a lot. Little Johnny wants to wind down gracefully to his
retirement, and needs a hard hitter for the next round. So he's rung the bell
and moved Tony (punch-drunk) Abbott into the health portfolio. Phil (cash-for-visas) Ruddock moves into Attorney General. Maybe he'll be
able to do something about all the judges who try to deal themselves back into
the law-making game when it comes to immigration hearings. He's replaced by Amanda (Queen-of-compassion) Vandstone, who waddles into
Immigration and Indigenous Affairs. She is aggressive and generally answers
questions by making the questioner look stupid - a useful skill when taking
criticism over sinking children and cash-for-visas. Richard (still-no-digital-TV) Alston is calling it a day and quitting
politics. His main contribution to politics is making a total fiasco of digital
TV and helping to retain Australia's entrenched media-baron oligopoly. His
'promotional' efforts have delayed digital TV in this country for about a
decade, and having realized that no amount of slithering self-justification or
government money could make this incompetence look like a success, he's decided
to take his parliamentary pension and run. And Wilson (Iron-bar) Tuckey might think about running too, after being
dumped as territory minister for his little ministerial indiscretions. Trying
to use your ministerial powers to influence legal action against your
children is considered in bad taste by many, and even Teflon Johnny got a bit
stinky when that one hit the fan. Iron-bar's departure is a sad blow for the liberals who used his
appointment to demonstrate their disdain of Canberra. What better way to annoy
Canberra's politically correct population than to appoint someone famous
for bashing an Aborigine with an iron bar? Of course it wasn't all bad for the Canberrans - most Canberrans fondly
remember the time that Iron-bar strutted up to a suburban Canberra house in
front of the TV cameras and demanded that the occupant remove the swastika he
had painted on his own garage door. Tuckey and the Canberra Collective found
common ground that day - a deep-seated passion for preventing individualism and
free speech. Free speech, of course, is discouraged in the nation's capital
unless The Collective agrees with the speaker. And Sweet-16%-Simon? After gloating that (unlike Little Johnny) he managed
to tee-up a meeting with Megawati (i-hate-Australians) Sukarnoputri, got
stood up. She canceled the meeting! She doesn't care if the ALP would suck up
to the Indonesians more than the Liberals or not - they ain't gonna win. Her
domestic political interests are better served by being seen to snub yet another
Australian politician. Simon, Simon, you've just been outmaneuvered again.
|
|
 |
| Maddog | |
With ALP policies in short supply, it falls to the intellectual elite to
keep the ideas rolling to promote a 'progressive' socialist economy, and Mark
(Maddog) Latham has risen to the call. Accordingly, he has come out with a
policy: ownership incentive. Admitting that 'Marx got it wrong', Maddog
says that the key to breaking the poverty cycle is acquisition of capital, and
that this can be broken by ownership incentive schemes - having the government
'contribution match' for assets. Details are sketchy, but the pilot scheme would involve 150 people and give
them 3 years to save 1500 dollars, and if they made the target, the government
(that means you, dear tax-payer) would put in an equal amount. It's not clear how the 150 lucky people will be chosen. Friends and family
perhaps? Or some kind of weird Big-Brotherish Australia-wide lottery taken from
the electoral rolls? Would the eligible participants include all Australians,
or would it be means tested? If it were means tested, would the test be on
income or assets? If it were income based, then many
of the participants would already have assets - and so what would be the point?
If it were assets based, then this would effectively mean refusing
someone on a lower income because they were able to save. What is the justice
in refusing to give money to someone on a lower income just because they manage
their money better? It's also not clear what 'savings' means. If maxing out the credit cards on
the last day and putting the cash-advance into the bank qualifies as 'saving',
then the pilot study is bound to be a success! Likewise if holding off on buying a home (and putting the money into the
bank instead of using it to pay off a mortgage) qualifies as 'saving' then the
study will be equally successful. Not so successful though for the taxpayer, who has to pay for this idiocy. Maddog hasn't said how much the taxpayer would pay for such a scheme, but he's
determined not to be a small target going into the next election. He's pretty
well assured of that - even his fellow ALP members are embarrassed by this
proposal. Many idiotic government policies can be polished up to look successful ('if
they only had a little more funding'). This one cannot. It is a
fluffy-dog policy. It sounds good, and uses attractive rhetoric, but as soon as
a concrete proposal emerges, it will be cut away to reveal nothing but fluff. Ownership incentive cannot be created through theft. The best form of ownership
incentive is to let people keep their own money without stealing it through
taxes, regulation and compulsory acquisition. Maddog will have to let this one die a quiet death, or allow his credibility as
shadow treasurer suffer a serious blow. This is just the kind of boost Peter
(Smirky) Costello needs to survive Little Johnny's retirement after the next
election.
|
|
 |
| Your favorite government department | |
With Simon (Mr-16-percent) Crean at an all-time low in the popularity
polls, the number crunchers in the ALP are doing some serious
thinking about their voter base, and have clearly come to same the conclusion
that the rest of us came to a long time ago: their True Believers are truly
stupid. There can be no other explanation for Wayne Swan's response to the
not-so-shocking revelation that 1 million Aussie Battlers have an
effective marginal tax rate of 60 cents in the dollar.
Hard-working Australian families don't go to work to have Peter Costello and
John Howard take sixty cents in every additional dollar they earn. They don't
sacrifice their family time to have John Howard take sixty cents in every
dollar of overtime they earn.
Effective
marginal tax rate, of course, is the amount of money you actually get to keep
when you earn an extra dollar of income. It's not just the marginal rate of
income-tax, but also the welfare benefits you lose because of your higher
income. Some low income earners only keep 10c for every extra dollar they earn
- not because the tax rate is so high, but because they lose so much in other
benefits. People generally accept that affluent, educated and motivated
people wouldn't bother to earn an extra dollar if they only got to keep 10c of
it. Should it surprise anyone that low skilled, uneducated unmotivated people
wouldn't bother either? Disincentives to work and production do not actually
happen as a result of high taxes, but high effective marginal tax rates. The ALP is quite right to criticize the welfare system for its poverty traps, and the fact
that the 'small government' Liberals have entrenched
rather than removed them, and it's great to see little Johhny squirming and
saying that 'It has always been the case that ... as people's incomes rise,
.. benefits are reduced''. And he made vague promises about 'tax relief'
in the middle of next year. As if another $4 a week tax cut was going to solve
the problem. But the funny part is the ALP's solution - more welfare for richer people.
That is, more middle class welfare! Never mind the fact that giving more
welfare will mean raising more tax, and therefore (you guessed it) raising
marginal tax rates! The ALP seems determined to create a society in which
everyone is on welfare! Socialist utopia! The ALP know that John and Jane Average are annoyed about losing so much of any
extra dollar they earn, but they are banking on their True believers not
actually thinking it through. Unfortunately, with Simon Crean's approval rating at 16%, many Australians
do seem to be thinking it through. This is really the fallout from the ALP
fighting so hard on the GST. So
many people were so focused on taxation for so long that they actually worked
out where taxes actually came from, and suddenly the question 'where are you
going to get the money for that?' was understood by 51% of the voters. Some of
them even understood the answer. But there are still many True Believers out there. And the great thing about
being a True Believer is that once you believe it you don't have to think about
it any more.
|
|
 |
| Carr loses control! | |
John (Rich Bastard) Singleton - fallen Libertarian, and well
known advertising baron has crossed swords with New South Wales' rather taxing
premier Bob Carr. Carr, ever eager to get his snout into the tax trough to fund his pork barreling agenda,
and knowing that sin taxes are generally a good target had his heart set on a
new Pokies Tax, which would enable him to quietly lift over a billion dollars
from New South Welshmen who like to dabble in a spot of gambling. That is, until John (Singo) Singleton phoned him and promised
to spend 5 million dollars on an advertising campaign even more vitriolic than
the one which made John (remember me?) Hewson lose the unlosable election over
the GST in 1993. The normally controlled Carr, threw a tantrum and started to use words like
'blackmail' and 'intimidation' to describe Singleton's threat. Apparently
citizens in the happy Carr-led gulag don't have the right to run advertising
campaigns criticizing government policy. Your ABC reports that Carr
claimed:
"It was a direct threat that I would be hurt in this if I didn't accede to their demands,"
Yes Bob - it's called politics, and when you dip
your hand in five million people's pockets you have to expect criticism. You
can stop it whenever you like. And he went on:
"Now a Government cannot change its taxation policy and recast a budget in the
face of such self-interested threat and I won't."
Apparently citizens wishing to keep their own money is called 'self-interest',
but a greedy government wanting to take it off them isn't. Scratch the surface,
put him under a little stress, and Carr's socialist mindset comes
bubbling to the surface almost immediately. Clearly Carr thinks taxes are too low - if citizens were taxed highly enough,
none of them would have the money to fund these kinds of
anti-government campaigns. Only the government would have the funds to run
campaigns, and these would be unlikely to be anti-tax. Few Australians associate Singo' with personal freedom - he is a shark who
will sell himself to the highest bidder, (like the right wing faction of the
ALP) However many of his views are quite Libertarian, and his book Rip Van
Australia (1977) offers a powerful and provocative insight into libertarian
issues, even though it's a little dated. After much huffing and puffing, both sides eased up on the rhetoric, and it
looks like some kind of compromise was reached behind the scenes. Singleton
would be a pretty tough nut to crack, and Carr would be in for a bumpy ride if he
tried to roll over him. A short drive to Canberra may be Carr's best option.
|
|
 |
| Not my fault! | |
The more intellectually minded of the readers of this forum might
have been under the impression that this site was off-line for a
record 48 hours from Wednesday to Friday AEST. This is a malicious
fabrication. We don't even know about it, and if it happened to you,
it was clearly a problem with your computer.
|
|
 |
| From boxer to mud-wrestler | |
Tony (Punch-drunk) Abbott is normally known as a hard-hitter, but his
slithering behavior over the One Nation scandal makes him look more like a
female mud wrestler. Punch-drunk Tony seems to have helped to bankroll the the civil action against
One Nation which snowballed into into Pauline's criminal trial. Nothing wrong with that of course - Punchy can bankroll whatever
court cases he wants to, but lying about it on national TV isn't likely to win
him the Prime Ministership after Johnny's expected departure after the next
election. In 1998 Tony was interviewed by Tony Jones:
TONY JONES: So there was never any question of any party funds --
TONY ABBOTT: Absolutely not.
TONY JONES: Or other funds from any other source --
TONY ABBOTT: Absolutely not.
TONY JONES: Being offered to Terry Sharples?
TONY ABBOTT: Absolutely not.
And last night's 7:30 report on the ABC was a classic piece of slithering
political sophistry:
TONY ABBOT: strictly speaking no money at all was ever offered to Terry
Sharples. Pro bono lawyers were arranged and someone had offered to stand a costs order,
should a costs order be made, but, no, no money was ever offered to Terry
Sharples.
In other words "I'll give you money if costs are awarded against you" is
not the same as offering money. Right - "I didn't shoot him, Your Honor, I just pointed the loaded gun
at him and pulled the trigger". And calling the fund "Australians for Honest Politics" is a bit rich if you
lie about its existence. Now little Johnny has weighed in, accusing the the ALP of 'secretly
supporting' the campaign. With this much mud, there's plenty to throw around.
And claiming "there was no conspiracy, but the ALP was part of it
too"? That's a bit rich Johnny. And last night Punch-drunk Tony had the hide to say "Well, I think that
I can live with my conscience." No-one is likely to doubt that.
|
|
 |
| Distressed, sedated and broken | |
Anyone who misleads the Australian population to
take their hard-earned tax
money to satisfy their own desire for power surely deserves severe
punishment. It is reprehensible and unforgivable act, well deserving of the
full severity of the law, and a
long prison sentence. Of course that would put every politician in Australia
into prison. A good start, some might say, but not something that most
politicians would agree to. Maybe that's why so many politicians have criticized the 3 year prison
sentence given to Pauline
Hanson, recently convicted of electoral fraud. Everyone from Johnny ('a bit
harsh') Howard down to Natasha ('I don't agree with her but ..') Stott Despoja
has joined the chorus of 'awwww's as soon as they realized which way
public opinion has gone. With 85% of public opinion against a prison sentence, showing
sympathy is the vote winner for the major parties, particularly with reports of
Pauline suffering a nervous breakdown in her less than comfortable
prison environment. Pauline's defiant spirit has finally been broken. Only Mark (Maddog) Latham was crass enough to point out the irony - that
Pauline had spent the last ten years lobbying for tougher prison sentences, and
then got what she demanded. Pauline Hanson has been convicted for what many see as a technicality. She
(along with fellow One Nationite David Ettridge) received $AU500K to spend on
electioneering, which they did - just like all the other politicians who get
electoral funding. Pauline's crime was her organization wasn't actually a
political party according to the bureaucratic definition, and of course
individuals are not eligible for funding - just political parties. In other words, gentle taxpayer, your money is taken from you by force, and allocated according
to a formula which favors the existing major parties. Surprised? Rightly or wrongly, people will interpret Pauline's imprisonment as what the
system will do to people who try to take on the major parties through fair
electoral means. This overwhelming force, in many people's eyes, will legitimize the use of
force to change the system. Far from protecting our democracy, this decision has
undermined it. The memories of Timothy (Oklahoma Bomber) McVeigh, and Theodore (Unabomber)
Kaczynski are fading too quickly in the shadow of September-11 and Bali. It is not only members of the Religion of Peace who resort to
acts of terrorism.
|
|
 |
| Avoid being bashed - install a baby capsule | |
Another appalling crime has shocked Sydney. Jeremy Nunes was carrying his
baby daughter home in a baby-pouch when he was attacked by a gang of four or
five youths who beat him (and in the process his baby daughter) to the
ground. Jeremy escaped with bruises, but his baby daughter sustained a
fractured skull. 'An unavoidable tragedy' some may say, 'these things just
happen' others will cry, along with 'why doesn't the government do
more?'. A closer examination suggests that perhaps the government (once
again) did too much. Jeremy dined out with friends, and afterwards needed to get home. The only
car available didn't have a legally mandated baby seat, and transporting babies
in cars without a government approved child seat is, as we all know, illegal.
Parents, it seems, are not qualified to make decisions about the safety of
their children - that can only be done by the all-knowing and all-powerful
government. So he was faced with a choice: either break the law by transporting
his daughter in a relatively safe car, or obey the law and brave the city
streets on foot. Foolishly, perhaps, he chose to obey the law and was attacked
within 50 meters of his home. Almost as sick as the attack itself was the appearance of an apparently
outraged Bob Carr. He was taking the photo opportunity, but not taking any
responsibility for his governments legislation. Another example of the nanny state making us safer.
|
|
 |
| Calling the tune | |
At the Pacific Island Forum in Auckland Johnny (paying-the-piper) Howard
has indicated a new approach to giving aid to failed Pacific
nations by linking aid money to 'good governance' - specifically, reducing
corruption. Johnny has realized that in the political climate of 2003 it is
acceptable to say that much of the aid money given to corrupt tin-pot pseudo-democracies has been
'wasted'. Giving money to governments who have
squandered their entire nation's wealth, and expecting them to spend it wisely
may seem like foolishness to anyone who has thought it through, but in the
past, the few voices of reason were drowned out by the many amid popular calls
for 'self determination' of our 'less fortunate' neighbors. Reducing corruption is a good start - corruption undermines private property
rights - the key to production and prosperity. Unfortunately Johnny's
vision of 'good governance' is unprecedented high taxes, which undermine growth and
prosperity just as much as other kinds of theft. But Johnny's plans don't just stop there. He is also pushing for unification of
the pacific nations - a kind of United States of the Pacific. All proudly using
Australian currency, and engaged permanently on the Australian welfare tit. The only sensible comment came from Fiji's representative who said that
Australia had the right to attach whatever conditions she liked on aid money,
but equally that Fiji had the right to refuse that aid. He appears to be the
only man in the Pacific who understands the free market, and its relationship
with corruption and his bank balance. In corrupt countries, politicians get kickbacks (one of the perks of office).
They get benefit from the kick-backs (money in the bank), and benefit from
Australian aid money (it buys electoral pork). If these two
become negatively linked (corruption kickbacks means no electoral pork) they
must choose one or the other. Johnny must make sure his corruption-reduction
demands lose the politicians less money than they can get from the extra
electoral pork. Johnny can win this one, but only over a long period of time (like several
decades), by reducing the corruption bit by bit, continually waving the
carrot and only occasionally bringing out the stick for the worst of the
Pacific delinquents. That's why today Johnny stepped back from the brink, and denied any
direct link between corruption and aid cutbacks. He's also been quick
to insist that the new push 'isn't neo-colonialism, it is just just common
sense'. Actually Johnny - they are both. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and Johnny's demanding we all march
to the beat of 'good governance'. If only he wasn't paying the piper with other
people's money.
UPDATE: 2003-08-16 19:00 Money truly does talk! Johnny (do-ya-wannit-or-not) Howard got his way and
had Australian Greg Urwin appointed as the Pacific Island Forum's new
secretary-general. Common sense would suggest that Australia (not normally
considered a Pacific Island) wouldn't be eligible for this position, but the corrupt little tin-pot
countries pulled the forelock and succumbed to the man with the cheque-book. In a surreal twist, Johnny has described the changing emphasis as
'enhancing sovereignty'
for these struggling nations. Ahh, the things you have to do for money.
|
|
 |
| Another casualty | |
Many enlightened folk admire the U.S. of A. for her views on freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately the
occasional distortion of this view makes the soaring eagle look more like a
vulture - as US citizens who made themselves 'human shields' in operation Iraqi
Freedom face hefty fines for violating the embargo against Iraq. It's just as well we already know the US are the good guys, otherwise it
might be hard to tell. Clearly a country which promotes liberty and individual
freedom has an obligation to prevent its citizens going to other countries -
allowing people to go to other countries would restrict liberty and
freedom. Just like the iron curtain protected the liberty of the proud citizens
of the Paradise Soviet
Socialist People's Utopia
from capitalism and
individualism. Sarcasm aside, it is difficult to see why the US couldn't reach the rational compromise with
these people - ie allowing them to go to Iraq and then simply bombing them to
oblivion along with the targets they were 'protecting'. Any country truly committed to liberty and individual freedom would happily
have let them make this choice. Particularly as the human shields were such
champions of freedom. Your ABC reports that ex- school teacher and human shield
Faith Fippinger of Florida wrote to her government explaining "please be
aware that I will not contribute money to the United States Government to
continue the build-up of its arsenal of weapons". Apparently Faith feels that no-one has the right to force someone to pay for
something they don't want to pay for - truly a laudable position. One wonders
if she applies the same reasoning to the other 90% of taxation expenditure - like
expenditure on wages of school teachers? Why are those who embrace the notion of collectivism so strongly
always the first to scream when the collective will chooses something they
disagree with?
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
