It’s been suggested – apropos of the title of my last post on the federal government’s stimulus plan – that I was expressing cynicism by calling the piece “Never get between Australians and a pile of money”. Actually, that was meant to be a bit of a riff off a famous quip by one Paul Keating about Premiers… In general, if there’s one thing I dislike in political debate it’s unreflective cynicism and the post was supposed to gesture to – jocularly – what I think is a massive own goal by Malcolm Turnbull. On Tuesday, I noted a ton of people I know on Facebook discussing how they’d spend the dosh, and it was rightly pointed out on the previous thread that many people have a stake in school communities and there would have been a lot of genuine excitement about the measures for education infrastructure. I think that discussion of the package among the general public has far exceeded the way budgets are generally received, and that we’re seeing a defining moment in this electoral cycle. Everything I’ve seen in terms of newspaper headlines and tv coverage suggests that Turnbull’s stuffed up badly in getting whatever message he thought he was sending across, and I also think the heat with which people are discussing the whole thing is very significant.
But I also don’t want to be interpreted as suggesting that the measures are bad policy. I’m probably more critical of Kevin Rudd most of the time than not, but there’s actually a fair bit to praise about this package. Firstly, I disagree with the claim that this package is a back of an envelope thing – clearly it’s been worked over by Treasury for quite some time. The government’s communications strategy in keeping a tight lid on it (before fertilising the political ground) doesn’t mean that it was cooked up out of thin air yesterday. Everything we know – aside from what’s been said about the process in the Fin for example – suggests that’s not how they operate. If, as was suggested today, the Senate Committee wants to interrogate Ken Henry, I’m sure they’ll learn that and what assumptions went into it – which we already know – if anyone calmed down long enough to pay attention to the Treasury modelling about the degree to which it will stimulate GDP and the reasoning behind that modelling. It’s all out there already, and I’m also sure that the figures on retail spending for December would have been known at the time the package was finalised.
Secondly – to reinforce the point that it’s been designed carefully – from the responses from economists, there appears to be a fair degree of consensus that a focus on small ready to go projects plus a staggered cash injection is a good combination. The point’s already been made on the previous thread – but it’s worth repeating – anyone who knows anyone who works in a school will know that there are wishlists of “fix this now” put up constantly to state departments of education. It’s much easier to get these things up and running than to build a new hospital or a train line or whatever. And the assumption is that people will be more likely to spend a one off payment than $20 a week over a year – and that appears to make sense. Not to mention the fact that the quantum for the great majority of folk is higher than “bringing forward the tax cuts” would secure. And the point is to pump the money into the economy as quickly as possible while we wait for the infrastructure spend to come on stream.
Thirdly, the investment in social housing is very long overdue and very welcome.
I’m quite pleased with the package both politically and in policy terms – it’s a good Labor mini-budget. Sorry that Tories don’t like it – but hey, Howard lost the election, even if Malcolm et al haven’t really got their head around that.
On the politics, I think Bernard Keane is right – this is very close to being Malcolm Turnbull’s political suicide note. I think he’s probably toast. We’ve just seen a complex trap laid by that clever politician, Kevin Rudd, and Malcolm couldn’t have been more eager to walk into it. But, regardless of the politics, I think the package deserves support for all sorts of reasons. There’s no doubt, though, that it has changed the political equation in a very interesting fashion indeed.
It doesn’t happen all that often, but sometimes a political mistake does cruel the rest of a leader’s chances, and I note that Keane also picked up on the parallel I drew with Kim Beazley’s too cute by half 2005 budget stance. Malcom Turnbull’s whole tenure as Opposition Leader can be summed up as “too cute by half” – a lot of the time he’s been playing to two bit commentators in the Canberra press gallery rather than the electorate. I really think his ego has done him in. He can’t bear not to be at the centre of things, but right at this moment in time, when people are very worried about their economic future, he’s put himself at the centre of things with an incomprehensible backward looking message that will just translate as negativism. And ideology. At a point in time when people are paying much more attention than they usually do. It’s all manner of self-indulgent dumb, and I think we may well have just seen his “crazy brave” moment.
Update: Guy Beres on Turnbull’s play.
“…a lot of the time he’s been playing to two bit commentators in the Canberra press gallery rather than the electorate..”.
I agree with this, but I also think malcolm is constrained by his nasty hard right (Minchin et al), and the noggin-heads on his backbench (like the global warming deniers for example, who are completely out of touch with the “real” world).
Looking at Malcolm’s radidly whitening hair, I think the man has been forked by his own troops. Pity really, because I suspect that personally, he is better than this.
It’s premature to say that this is Turnbull’s political suicide, for two reasons. His party supported his stand (I know that doesn’t have to mean much, but they did so for ideological reasons, which make them less likely to consider actual evidence) and, more importantly, who else have they got? Three leaders in their first term in opposition would be criminally stupid, and while the Liberals have their fair share of outright morons and blinkered idiots, I doubt they’re sufficiently stupid as to think that the appearance of being a complete rabble will assist them in returning to government in 2010.
I would mostly agree, but do wonder why the unemployed have been just about the only ones to miss out on both packages, whereas middle-income families with children have been showered with cash repeatedly.
I do hope the Henry review might deal with this issue in the longer term.
Age poll:
Yesterday: Do you support the package: 61% yes, 39% no. About 3,300 votes.
Today: Was Malcolm Turnbull right to block the package: 38% no, 62% yes. About 2,500 votes so far.
These figures suggest that existing party allegiances are hardening around the package, which is probably good news for Rudd.
Beazley’s great advantage as Opposition Leader from 1996-1998 was he didn’t feel the need to be at the centre of things. The current opposition have the same mindset the ALP had in the Crean-Latham-Beazley Mk II years, that is “we’ve been in opposition too long, get us back in the game”. Well, the LNP have been in opposition for 15 months. They really need to take a deep breath and do the hard, quiet yards for a while, but I’ve been beating this drum for a while.
Malcolm’s performance last night on the 7.30 Report was interesting. For a few brief moments he was the self-assured potential PM he’d like us to all think he is – until Red kerry hit him with the IMF advice to all worls economies that under the present circumstances its better to do too much stimulation than too little. At which point he went to water and became the stumbling blithering fuckwit of his previous appearance. Worse, he was stupid enough to try and blame O’Brien for asking questions he didn’t like. Which was deflected the same way one would brush a fly off your arm. Silly man.
The Libs seem to be running a line about Rudd seeking parliamentary approval to increase borrowing limits to the highest figur ever. I look forward to Ken Hendry swatting the Coalition down on this one in the Senate hearing. I mean, if the shit really hits the fan – and there are indications the GFC is going to get a lot worse before it even starts to get better – we are going to need the funds to fend off the worst of it. The debt doesn’t warry me. The social impact of years of long-term unemployment becoming institutionalised does. Not to mention the soul-destroying effect the sudden plunge into absolute poverty will have on families. (Apart from which, I’ll be dead by the time it comes to pay the piper. Guess I’ll be more worried about burying beetles and maggots.)
Robert you said “wonder why the unemployed have been just about the only ones to miss out on both packages, whereas middle-income families with children have been showered with cash repeatedly.”
I dare say because that would not have had a lot of popularity with the general public…
As for the package, the slant on schools, roads, is a big winner with everyone I have talked to. Not to mention the one-off payment, though most don’t see the point in giving those with 90k+ a payment of any kind… and there is some excitement over the rebates for solar panels and home insulation, though I am not sure ultimately how well that will work in the grand scheme of things.
I would have liked to have seen more support for higher education, particularly in the light of the recent review and recommendations. Hopefully that might come…
At least one of the initiatives – the home insulation scheme – has major benefits. I would extend it to the installation of extra insulation “blankets” for hot water services especially for the over 60′s section of society.
These two measures – in particular the latter – will have a big multiplier in terms of avoided energy costs. By my calculations the saving in electricity for singles and couples could amount to as much as 30% for the oldies. You see (as a trip to the local RSL club will demonstrate) the older section of our society use a lot less hot water than say a family of six. The hot water systems are designed for; a family of six. So the heater comes on at night at 2.4 kW per hour for say 2 hours = 4.8 kWh. In the family of six every-one has a shower and uses it. In the old farts home the heat just leaks out until the next night and then the thermostat boost it up again. Thus better insulation = less leaked heat.
Just thought I would explain at this level of gruesome detail so that the academics among you would understand. Disclaimer; Huggy is over 100 years old but showers every day and does not frequent RSL clubs or old peoples haunts.
Huggy
grace, I’d actually read that Minchin thought they should support the scheme – presumably for political reasons more than anything.
Interestingly Costello is supposed to have criticised package for not doing anything for the unemployed – who’d'a thunk it.
The right is now becoming obsessed by Rudd, as the example of the left post-2001 demonstrates this is not the way to win an election. Rudd’s utterances are no picked over the same way Howard’s were.
Blocking the stimulus is a very aggressive and very risk move, quite in tune with Malcolm’s temparament. As cynical as this particular example is, this sort of all-or-nothing aggression is the only chance he has of winning the next elections. So, it makes both rational sense and conforms to my impressions of the man.
The problem is that is needs to be backed up by a coherent alternative plan. Tax cuts ain’t that (difficult to reverse, do not improve confidence etc.). This is an area where the Liberals have been a miserable failure.
Huggybunny @ 8 – wouldn’t it be far better to convert them to either instantaneous gas or solar hot water systems? Heating water to make electricity which you use to heat water is just a bit silly
I don’t understand why the stimulus package had to include road funding. Is that just pork-barelling? Surely there is other infrastructure that is of higher priority.
Huggy quipped: “Thus better insulation = less leaked heat.
Just thought I would explain at this level of gruesome detail so that the academics among you would understand. ”
oooh Huggy that was cruel! I hope you meant “the non-science/engineering academics”.
Robert M:
I agree that it’s dsisappinting the current unemployed have been passed over again. With Kevin Rudd’s early focus on the homeless, I find this puzzling. I don’t think the unemployed are social pariahs (look at the success of “Choir of Hard Knocks”, look at continued donations to broadly focussed charities like the Salvos etc.)
C’mon Mr Swan, you can do a bit better.
The rest of the stimulus package: much to admire.
wizofaus
Yes … well, tax cuts are hardly going to help the unemployed either are they Peter
I’m holding out hope the budget will contain something for the unemployed as well as the pensioners.
Yes, frog @16, it would be great. Something ongoing for both groups would be preferable to a one off payment. It would not surprise me if it is in the pipeline as Robert M suggested.
Obama defnding something similar to the insulation proposals.
Mark, I recognised the Keating quote all too well. I’ve always hated the fact that most of the services provided by government that people actually use are provided by the states, yet the feds think they’re somehow above this – Keating did it and it was pretty prevalent under Howard too. Yeah, I linked to your post because I couldn’t find The Wit And Wisdom Of Paul Keating Online, and because a few of the posts displayed the kind of reflexive cynicism we have both talked about.
Alister: there may be a bit of a delay between clambering onto the railings of a bridge and actually hitting the water, but this is not to say that the person leaping off a bridge is being brave, acrobatic or anything other than suicidal. And it does not do to give too much credit to the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party.
I agree. Turnbull’s ego has always been harnessed to a mighty brain, so I was disappointed that he didn’t come out with some out-of-the-box Christopher Joye-style solution – tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts is so 1982.
Chris (a different one)
Yes instant hot water services are used extensively by Western Power (in WA of course). WP tell me that they are more energy efficient than storage systems. You can install Solar Hot water as well.
Yes Solar Hot water should be mandatory for old farts, except that they will be overwhelmed by a surfeit of hot water and will turn into sybaritic bath takers and melt away. I guess that the Ruddster has been advised that insulation is the most energy and cost effective and job creating thing he can do.
It is this level of detail that we need if we are to make the “crisis” work for us. Turdbull and the Libs are totally fucking insane.
Huggy
I’m actually having trouble figuring out what Turnbull’s strategy is politically or economically. On the economics, I’m yet to see anyone counter Joshua Gans argument that Rudd’s approach is conservative in that it puts in place temporary measures, funding for which can be withdrawn as necessary, while Turnbull’s permanent tax cut approach, at a time of collapsing govt revenues, creates a structural rather than a temporary deficit.
Politically MT seems to be saying, I too want a stimulus, just a smaller one. Awfully redolent of Beazley’s “rollback” strategy on the GST, which just ended up looking weak. While with his “unpopular but right” argument he seems to be chanelling John Hewson and Fightback. Not sure if Beazley and Hewson would be my political role models. MT is relying on bad economic times continuing so he can say, look it didn’t work. But will the answer then be that we should’ve done less? Sure there is an argument to be had about the effectiveness of individual payments, but it seems unlikely that simply ‘spending less’ will look like a smart alternative. Esp when part of your plan has been to create a structural deficit.
Agree with Mark’s point about Turnbull playing to the gallery instead of the electorate. I quite like MT, but he is just too smarmy by half and spends too much time trying to score clever debating points rather than, god help me, articulating a narrative that is is meaningful to the electorate.
Anyway, the world economic mess is such that anything could happen and so it’s way too early to write MT and co off yet. In the short-term though, he isn’t looking good. What’s more, first-term incumbency is an enormous advantage for Rudd, so MT is behind the 8 ball anyway. When the LNP lose the next election, as they almost certainly would’ve anyway, the field will be clear for Labor to spin that victory as vindication for Rudd’s “philosophy” as per his Monthly article and the Libs will be left leaderless and standing for nothing. (Though let me at this point repeat the first sentence of this para.)
Like they didn’t get enough already?! Howard spent 11 years hosing money onto these people through the FTB, and now they’re first in line to get more when Kev goes on a spending spree.
This is what exposes both stimulus packages as political (rather than economic) measures. If Kev wanted all the money spent he would have given it to the unemployed, pensioners etc, people who have to spend every last cent. But he knows the swinging voters get the FTB, so he’s funneling money to middle income families, who will use a lot of it to pat down debt on their overpriced McMansions.
P.S. I agree Turnbull has been very disappointing. What happened to the Turnbull that was lobbing pot shots at Costello’s tax policy (and Howard’s climate change policy) from the back benches? You may not have agreed with his policy ideas, but at least it was interesting and provocative. Today he’s about as interesting as Brendan, or listening to Costello bang on deficits.
A phone call to Swan’s office yesterday confirmed that they will act on pension increases in the May budget and are highly likely to adhere to the recommendations of the Harmer Review.
The Liberals live by the ideology of primacy of the individual. Taken to its conclusion – that is, at the top of the party – Turnbull is the “perfect” Liberal: it’s all about him, him, him.
Charitably considered, it might extend to “Liberals first, everyday Australians last”.
Naturally, the poorest and weakest are to be shat on from ever rising heights.
That’s the Liberal way, for they would have no other.
“…… so he’s funneling money to middle income families, who will use a lot of it to pat down debt on their overpriced McMansions.”
I am not sure that the argument of punters “just paying off debt” is a strong one.
Anally retentive, fiscally responsible, conservative governments have stayed out of debt and watched the personal credit bill skyrocket. This is just redressing the balance a bit.
Malcolm Turnbull’s “crazy brave” stance has an echo of the time he flew to America to do a deal with the junk bond holders behind the back of one K. Packer when he did not get the deal of a directorship from Packer. As the old saying goes “revenge served cold is most enjoyed” and I’m sure there are still many around today who will be waiting their chance.
Andrew E wrote:
I dunno – that much vaunted mighty brain looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors whenever he’s asked to think on his feet. Definitely not his strong point, nor is any kind of ability to construct a longer term narrative. When actual, concrete evidence of mighty brain power appears, let us know.
I was just listening to CBS’s Katie Couric interview John McCain. It’s funny that he was saying word for word Malcomn Turnbull’s arguments are on obstructing the stimulus packages. What John McCain said: Leaving debt to the our kids, tax cuts would be better, more bi-partisanship and the repugs have brought out their own stimulus package costing …. you guest it, less that the democrats stimulus bill.
Now we know were Malcomn and Julie are getting the advice from.
Re the possibility of payments being used to pay off debt/increasing savings – that may be the case, but at least then they have their full disposable income available for maintaining current levels of spending. Without such payments, those thinking of paying off more debt or increasing savings are going to do so by cutting back on spending, which is obviously the last thing the economy needs right now.
There will be a fraction of people who both reducing spending AND use the payments to pay off debt/increase savings, but in the medium term this is no bad thing, because once the economy starts to pick up they’ll be far better placed to resume spending again.
Having said all that, I certain agree that I’d much rather see payments going to the unemployed than to, e.g. single-income families earning over $100K, at least partly because they’re more likely to spend them.
“Turnbull’s ego has always been harnessed to a mighty brain…”.
Sigh, brain the size of a planet and he has to lead the Liberal Party.
He definitely jumped the wrong way all those years ago when the ALP was a possibility.
Now, the times do not suit him.
Brendan Nyhan makes an observation about the US media that I think applies also to the Australian blogosphere:
‘The pattern here is disturbingly familiar. The Washington press focuses on political tactics rather than substance because tactics are both more entertaining and easier to cover.’
Rudds stimulus is a dud becasue it doesn’t stimulate enough.
“The Obama stimulus package has a multiplier or bang for the buck of around 1. This means
that there is around $1.00 of GDP added for each $1.00 of stimulus spent. The Rudd
stimulus package seems to have a much lower multiplier of 0.3 in its first year and no more
than 0.6 in its second year.”
Michael Knox, Chief Economist, ABN Amro Morgans
FFS – if we are going to spend +$40 Billion lets make sure we get maximum bang for the buck instead of wasting it.
Huggybunny @ 20 – I don’t disagree with ceiling insulation even prioritising it above replacing water heaters, just was thinking that paying people to insulate hot water heaters rather than replace them is probably the wrong way to go. And whilst the ceiling insulation rebate is good – why not include wall insulation as well? Kind of odd to be that specific, but it may be a sign that the plan was put together without sufficient review.
Bit of interesting Generation Y’ness for yez. Someone started a Facebook group grumpy with Turnbull yesterday, and it’s managed to get 6000 members in a day (a good 500 in the last half hour) – apparently the largest Australian political group on there. Obviously (1) the viral internet is amazing to watch when it gets the bit between its teeth, and (2) Turnbull is gonna get shredded at the next election if he’s still around.
Andrew E @ 19 – fair enough!
BoP @ 34,
Joined. Sent it out to heaps of people to join. love it!
About a month ago, Tom Switzer, Minchin and a whole bunh of others went Turnbull on climate change. There were stern alarums in op-eds, a bit of passive-aggressive work in the Senate, and Turnbull has clearly caved: ok boys, let’s do it your way and if it fails, it’s my fault.
None of you seem to care that it is an inefficient proposal. It appears you are happy to waste billions of our money.
Razor, if you had paid attention you’d see 95% of the posters here are getting money from the government.
As the previous blog was titled “Never get between Australian’s and a pile of money”.
Um, money is for spending, Razor. Or are we supposed to bury it so archaeologists of the future can collect it and put it in museums. (Always assuming there be anybody alive in the future to go to museums.)
Paul Burns – very droll.
How about debating the merits of the efectiveness of the spending.
Would you rather it spent on a once off imported consumer item or invested in infrastructure that has a long lasting impact on the economy?
So shoot me down in flames, but this GFC which the media have pretty much convinced everyone is going to be the worst possible thing ever, is being, it seems to be me, driven by an awful lot of speculation about terrible things that are yet to happen. Yes its good to ‘be prepared’, but all the talk about how bad its going to get is actually right now not much more than fantasy–i.e, it hasn’t happened yet. The reason, I suspect, we are being beaten about the head with dire financial news 24/7 is because it has hit the few at the tippy top end of town very hard.
The most serious loss of confidence is not amongst consumers but within the finance sector itself, as it should be (tossers). According to that font of wisdom, the Telegraph yesterdays’ claim was ‘We’ve never had it so good’. Petrol prices are down, mortgage repayments have plummeted and now the government are throwing money at us. Sure, if you work at Macquarie Bank or in the mining sector or your dealing in luxury goods, you may find yourself out of a job. But the sub-prime crisis and inequalities in relative wealth around the world, were hurting many more people a long time before the shit hit the fan about where their bad debts had ended up–(in the share portfolios of a number of our local councils), which must beg the question, should local councils be allowed to gamble with rate payers money and how many rate payers had any idea this was happening anyway?
And furthermore! This scary shit the Opposition are thrashing us with about every man woman and child being in debt to the tune of $10,000 if the Government are allowed to send us zillions of dollars into deficit. Get real. As if. They make it seem like every man, woman and child will be sent into the salt mines for the term of their natural lives, to pay back the country’s debt.
No Mally we’ll just up your taxes.
As I understand it the only “unemployed” who miss out on this package are those that had taxable income of over $100,000 in 2007/2008.
Unemployed with children get exactly the same as employeed people with children on the same income.
It seems unless a specific class is memtioned in the press release they have “missed out”, just like red-heads, left-handers and anybody with a birthday in the month of July.
Err, Razor, you seem to forget that the package does both. As I noted in the post, the point is to stimulate confidence and consumer spending in the short term while the infrastructure projects are geared up.
Nobullwinkle, it seems the unemployed will only receive a bonus to put towards study or training. From the ALP website:
The five one off cash bonuses includes in today’s plan are the:
- Tax Bonus for Working Australians of up to $950 paid to every eligible Australian worker earning $100,000 or less. This will support up to 8.7 million individuals.
- $950 Single Income Family Bonus to support 1.5 million families with one main income earner.
- $950 Farmers’ Hardship Bonus paid to around 21,500 drought affected farmers and farm dependent small business owners receiving exceptional circumstances related income support.
- $950 per child Back to School Bonus to support 2.8 million children from low- and middle-income families.
- $950 Training and Learning Bonus paid to students and people outside of the workforce returning to study to help with the costs of education and training.
Nick, if anyone who’s unemployed now worked at all in the 07-08 financial year and submitted a tax return, they’ll get the $950 as I understand it.
I cannot believe that the Coalition are voting against a measure which will assist ther core constituancy – especially the Nats.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Thanks Mark, still trying to find all the details.
Here’s a bit more on the Training And Learning Bonus from the Treasurer’s website.
No worries, Nick.
The Facebook group is now up to 7887 members btw:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=60357822173&ref=mf
But of course its precisely the long-term unemployed – the most disadvantaged people with the biggest barriers to employment – who are least likely to have paid income tax last year and so get nothing.
Plus people who were unemployed or studying last year and are now working also miss out, though most people would think that is less of a worry.
dd, I think what they’ve been implying is that there’ll be a boost to unemployment benefits as well as pensions after the Henry Review reports. I suspect it’ll come in the budget.
I love your article! I`ve read some comments on the SMH blog and most of it is just “what about me?”, and clearly shows they don`t have an understanding of how an economy functions. I wish more people would actually understand that the cash hand-outs (although I think it might be a little overboard) are given to people who will actually spend them, and are only a short-term boost before the effects of investing into infrasutructure and such are felt in the economy. But who could blame them? Who would’ve thought that these projects would actually take time?
Many people fail to note two important things when it comes to the economy:
(1) Fiscal Policy doesn’t “pull” an economy out of a recession, it’s supposed to be a tool that cushions the economy depending on the circumstances, hence the automatic stabilizers that are built into the policy framework. A recession only means a decline in economic activity, not that our economy is going to collpase and we’ll all be poor and unemployed. Economies will always go through periods of booms and recessions, and there is no miracle, instantaneous cure to stop this, only policies that attempt to stabilize the conditions.
(2) People thinking that suplus = good, and deficit = bad
All a deficit means is that the government is spending, and during times like these, if the government doesn’t spend, we could see a small replay of the Great Depression. Should we remind people that one of the reasons that allowed economies to come out of their slump during that time was increased expenditure?
To those people who say that Rudd’s first policy was ineffective, you’d have to see what the economy would’ve been like without the package (Note: that’s impossible). Or perhaps people would prefer it if the Australian Government did nothing, let everyone fend for themselves, and just sit back and wait for the American Economy to try and pick up the slack?
Exactly, Inori.
(2) People thinking that suplus = good, and deficit = bad
Well, we just had almost twelve years of a government whose one talent was to store up huge surpluses and to do nothing worthwhile with them. Aided and abetted by a compliant media, it’s not entirely surprising that they’ve led a significant proportion of the public to believe that surpluses are good for their own sake, rather than for what can be done with them when they (and more) need to be spent.
Besides, it’s not as bad as it looks. If Swan’s as careless with our money as Costello was, I daresay he’ll be finding a few spare billions down the back of the Treasury sofa in the next few months.
Intellectual Bogan @ 54 – I think its more likely Swan will find that someone has taken the sofa
Well, they packed John Howard’s Chesterfields off to the basement when they took over. Perhaps they should disinter them and have a look at what’s in the stuffing!
Well the ALP Trumpet Solo’s well into its second year.
.
.
Sorry for unreflective cynicism. I’m not sure you can say this has been ‘worked out by Treasure for some time. How long’s it been? Two months? It certainly seems decisive more than inspired by panic. However the alternative Liberal view, regardless Turnbull’s fate, will probably be tax cuts, fiscal restraint and weather the storm.
.
Given the dirge of argument/counter-argument viz the Great Slump it’s, I guess, an opportunity to see the ideologies in action. But I can’t help this niggly feeling that Rudd is not doing enough to get this country addressing its debt. There is a recession coming and people will, lose there jobs. Let’s not forget that it hasn’t happened yet as it already has in the States. And it’s when that happens that you get the feedback effect.
Adrien – as has already been pointed out:
(a) Retail spending in the UK and the US fell sharply in December, in contrast to the strong rise in Australia. There’s no necessity about a recession being of equal impact in other countries and this one, and the whole point of these measures is to decrease the flow on.
(b) Recessions don’t mean that everyone loses their job and all is suddenly rooned. A lot of people seem to be going into panic mode when it’s not warranted – and that also probably increases the need for state action to steady nerves (“build confidence”…)
Nick @ 45,
I’m confused. Am I an eligible worker earning less than $100,000 yr? Yes. Am I a single income family thing? Yes.
Does this mean I get 2 lots of $950?
smokey, yes indeed!
From another fact sheet at the Treasurer’s website:
Some families will also benefit from the Tax Bonus for Working Australians, why are additional payments being made to these families?
A payment to FTB-B entitled families will provide additional support to families who rely on one main income earner. Dual income households with similar incomes will generally receive the benefit of two Tax Bonuses.
The bad news, smokey, is that you miss out on the steak knives….”bugger”, I hear you say.
Update: Guy Beres on Turnbull’s play.
Perhaps it’s just me, but the thing that annoyed me most about Beazley’s stance in opposing the Coalition’s tax cuts in 2005 is that they hadn’t done in previous years with equally regressive tax cuts when they would have the potential ability to actually.
He waited until the first Budget after the Coalition gained control of the Senate to suddenly stand up and oppose them – when he finally had no power to stop them.
That to me was what made the stance seem to be solely politically motivated – but perhaps the general public wouldn’t have noticed that.
The politics of this SP here contrast sharply with the US situation. MT seems to think ‘ we are all Americans now’. Personally I think the conservatives are totally fucked in the Anglosphere…and not a moment too soon!
So the real question now is who or what is the alternative to Fukyomama’s ‘ End of history’ thesis. I suggest libertarian-socialists are…even though the Anglopshere’s anarchs are obviously not quite ready yet for prime-time.
To conclude I leave youse with this wet blanket… the state that can give you everything can also take away everything…’ And for a people seemingly unconstitutionally incapable of independence this is a monarchy…if you can keep it.
I’ve been pretty savage on the federal government for the last six months, and the states for a lot longer, so let me say here this looks pretty good to me. I’m not sure how much the labor left can take credit for this, but maybe I owe Chris Anderson an at least partial promise for the harsh words on another thread.
Nevertheless, I can see a number of things that can be improved here, and I’m sure if one delves deeper that expands exponentially. I do hope the government takes on board suggestions from the Greens and independents in the Senate, rather than taking a “like it or lump it” approach.
Nick @ 60,
OMG! A fistful of cash! I never thought a recession could be so good!
joe2, bugger the steak knives, I’ll buy my own!
Sorry about the wait, sir. Will that be TWO sets of steak knives, then, Mr Smokey sir? Here’s your $938 change, sir. Have you heard about our loyalty card, sir?
That’s right, smokey. It’s your lucky recession, go lipstick crazy!
Where’s the bloody patriotic plasma!
Hi,
I am one of the voters who did vote for Mr. Rudd but saw your stand on how money is being spend on doggy government schemes. The roof insulation scheme is the one which hurts me a lot to see as there are so many students who are into it just because of the money. I don’t want to insulate my home as I think there are a very few good installers out there. Anyhow its a waste of money on a big scale. I cannot believe when I meet a person two weeks ago who came from Sydney and he told me he made 10000$ in one day out of this scheme. That is a nonsense but the way the system is, it is possible. Very few checks and balances. Should lower the government contribution to 1000 or less.