Election
Like a somnolent, muck-covered hippo arising from its riverbed, the 2007 election loometh large, poised (or rather, bulked) to claim more victims than one might, at first appearances, suspect. As things stand, it looks like Kevin Rudd will win, and I for one count this as a very good thing. Amidst the endless cycle of speculation as to the potential impact of a Labor leadership on our sunburn country, I would like to put up my hand, claim the podium and state, for the record: shut up. I'm a hairsbreadth from not giving a flying farnakle whether actual government spending (gasp!) on social issues that should be actual government priorities (double gasp!) leads to a recession or not. Things need to be bloody well fixed.
Here's the fact of the matter: Howard has spent eleven years running Australia as though every major utility and public service in the country was privately owned, when, despite his best efforts (Telstra ahoy!) most aren't. The very good reason for this is that certain vital services - such as public transport - can never be run at a profit; or rather, in order to run at a profit, the costs to the consumer would have to be so prohibitively huge as to render the intended function of that service moot. Where privatisation is possible, however, the higher prices can be dealt with where people have more money to balance out their increased cost of living; hence Mr Howard's fondness for tax cuts - which, in a more privatised state, governments can afford because they are paying for fewer services.
However.
Most major services in Australia aren't privatised. Utilities used by the vast majority of the population - schools, hospitals, nursing homes, childcare, infrastructure and public transport - are largely government funded. In order to run a surplus, John Howard has spent eleven years effectively not spending on anything bar the defence budget. At the same time, this lack of government spending (and, therefore, a lack of money sloshing about in the public purse) has coincided with a rise in petrol prices, Howard's GST and a housing crisis in most capital cities. In turn, these factors have led the Reserve Bank, somewhat expectedly, to keep interest rates rising, so that the whole thing becomes a viscious circle. Cost of living has gone up while government spending on services has gone down, which means more and more, people have to rely on the private companies in areas such as health and childcare simply because they have no other viable option. The tax breaks don't cover it; and now everything has been left to rack and ruin for so long that no matter who gets the next term of government, money will need to be spent before even more time passes and makes the problems increasingly more expensive to fix.
Which means that with a sudden influx of government money into the economy after eleven years of effective drought, we will probably have some form of recession.
But people have always cheered tax breaks, and even when you object to them in principle, it's hard to say no, because they do, in the short term, pose a benefit. Politicians offering regular tax cuts should, in this sense, be compared to parents giving their kids regularly large doses of chocolate. Sure, the kids won't complain - they like chocolate. In the short term, it's a lovely thing, and in moderation - every once in a while, under the right conditions - it's even better. But keep eating it all the time, and no matter how nice it tastes, you'll still get fat.
Here's the fact of the matter: Howard has spent eleven years running Australia as though every major utility and public service in the country was privately owned, when, despite his best efforts (Telstra ahoy!) most aren't. The very good reason for this is that certain vital services - such as public transport - can never be run at a profit; or rather, in order to run at a profit, the costs to the consumer would have to be so prohibitively huge as to render the intended function of that service moot. Where privatisation is possible, however, the higher prices can be dealt with where people have more money to balance out their increased cost of living; hence Mr Howard's fondness for tax cuts - which, in a more privatised state, governments can afford because they are paying for fewer services.
However.
Most major services in Australia aren't privatised. Utilities used by the vast majority of the population - schools, hospitals, nursing homes, childcare, infrastructure and public transport - are largely government funded. In order to run a surplus, John Howard has spent eleven years effectively not spending on anything bar the defence budget. At the same time, this lack of government spending (and, therefore, a lack of money sloshing about in the public purse) has coincided with a rise in petrol prices, Howard's GST and a housing crisis in most capital cities. In turn, these factors have led the Reserve Bank, somewhat expectedly, to keep interest rates rising, so that the whole thing becomes a viscious circle. Cost of living has gone up while government spending on services has gone down, which means more and more, people have to rely on the private companies in areas such as health and childcare simply because they have no other viable option. The tax breaks don't cover it; and now everything has been left to rack and ruin for so long that no matter who gets the next term of government, money will need to be spent before even more time passes and makes the problems increasingly more expensive to fix.
Which means that with a sudden influx of government money into the economy after eleven years of effective drought, we will probably have some form of recession.
But people have always cheered tax breaks, and even when you object to them in principle, it's hard to say no, because they do, in the short term, pose a benefit. Politicians offering regular tax cuts should, in this sense, be compared to parents giving their kids regularly large doses of chocolate. Sure, the kids won't complain - they like chocolate. In the short term, it's a lovely thing, and in moderation - every once in a while, under the right conditions - it's even better. But keep eating it all the time, and no matter how nice it tastes, you'll still get fat.