Flawed Levy Stress

In 1996 the Howard Government, in response to the shocking massacre at Port Arthur, introduced a gun control policy that banned semi-automatic firearms. To assure that those who owned such weapons were not put at a financial disadvantage, Howard offered a 'buyback' scheme, where gun owners would sell their soon to be illegal rifles to the Government who would then destroy them. Howard had decided to use the political will of the moment to quickly introduce reform, a poll put national wide support of this action at around 90%.

The buyback was estimated to cost in excess of $500 million, the Government was in debt (as they kept telling us, remember 'Labor's black hole'?), and half a billion dollars back in the mid nineties was a lot of money (roughly 5% of the overall debt). They didn't want to pay for it, because they'd spent so much time whinging about debt and how they didn't like it. So if they borrowed money they'd look like what they were: hypocrites. So what did Howard do? He introduced a one-off levy, or more correctly he increased the Medicare Levy for the 1996-97 financial year to cover the cost. Aside from a bunch of farmers in North Queensland, clinging to the M16s they regularly use to blow a rabbit's arsehole through its face, there was a relatively low amount of bitching about the policy and the tax increase. Why? - Because it was a good cause, and a relatively small amount of money.

In 1999, Howard did it again, finding it necessary to increase the Medicare Levy to bolster the nation's defence budget for the upcoming excursion to East Timor after its independence vote. This time the increase levy would bring in $900 million. In both of these cases the opposition agreed almost without question.

Back to the present, and the Gillard Government is faced with an estimated $5.2 billion rebuild of infrastructure in southern Queensland. That cost is in addition to the millions already spent on emergency cash for flood victims and the rescue effort. The Government is in debt, and has spent a lot of energy saying they will have it paid off soon. So, like Howard, they've decided that a one-off levy in addition to the rollback of programs is in order. For some reason though, this has set everyone off, this has apparently never happened before and is some sort of shocking travesty. The Opposition isn’t playing ball either, instead preferring to drag out their same tired lines and score some points. Clearly Australia's collective memory has been pissed away on that rock at the back of Dave's house, during his last annual meat, beer and misogyny party.

The first issue raised is people who have already contributed to the various victim charity funds. "I've already given money (I'm awesome that way), so why should I have to pay more?" Well, you gave money to the victims of the flood (good on you by the way) BUT the cost of the flood to the victims is a drop in the ocean compared with fixing all the roads, rail, sewers, power, pipelines and other general infrastructure damaged by the flood. That's what the Government wants your money for, not for getting all the mud out of Nanna's kitchen. People have actually said they want their donation back, and to them I give a big middle finger…right in your eye you heartless prick. Charity is not conditional, either you give or you don’t. Do not swan around like you now own the place. You are not the messiah and your family secretly hates you.

The second issue raised is the financial heat on tax payers and a negative affect on consumer spending. I've got two words: bull and shit. If you earn $50 000 a year, admittedly not middle of the road, you will pay $1 dollar a week or around $52 extra tax for the year. So instead of the $9050 you would usually pay in tax (if you don't have a HECS debt) you will pay $9102. If you earn $100000 a year, you will pay roughly $5 a week or $260 extra for the year. So instead of the $26950 you would usually pay in tax (if you have private health), you will pay $27210. If that piddling amount reduces overall consumer spending for the whole year then we're already in deep shit.

The third issue raised is that the levy shows poor planning on behalf of the Government. Well…it perhaps shows a lack of flexibility in the budget and there is a reason for that. The implementation of such levies reveal how terrified Governments are of going further into debt, because some people hate Government debt so much they would rather sell every public asset in existence before the nation borrows fifty cents. The fixation on surplus in this country borders on the insane. People seem to think that if the Government is in debt, they will soon be living in a failed state. Like they think Government borrowing is the bureaucratic equivalent of failing at life. This view is juxtaposed with the fact that most Australians cannot wait to get into debt themselves by purchasing an over-priced monstrosity of a house, situated only 20 minutes from the middle of nowhere.

The Government had three choices after the flood: Borrow more money, cut $5.2 billion worth of Government services, or issue a levy. Given that the fist option is just plain unthinkable, they went with a combination of options two and three. Was that the right decision? Was it justified? All things being equal, the answer is no, but things are far from equal. This is politics.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie Annoy-oi-oi-ing?

The flags are out. The clichés are flowing. Obnoxious, witless (yet rhythmic) chants dominating the first two rounds of the Australian Open. The lamb ads are set to intolerant. Just like End Times, Australia Day will be here shortly.

People with a sense of history will understand why nationalism can be bad, and there's probably no need to go into what seemingly innocent national pride can turn into. That doesn't mean that all nationalism is systematic of something darker, just that it can be disturbing to some people who have seen it in other contexts. Of course there are many ways in which people express nationalism, some of them harmless (demurely supporting your national sports team), some of them harmful (wearing your nation's flag as a cape and walking the streets in groups of 5 or more), and some of them creepy (waking your children up at 12.01am on Australia Day to sing Waltzing Matilda in hushed tones while worshipping a plastic idol of David Boon). Look you get the idea, you can like your country, just don't be an arsehole about it.

Many people like Australia Day, and well yeah…that's fine. I don't begrudge people a national day, but I just can't help but feel that this particular national day (i.e. January 26th) is somewhat tainted.

Now I know what you're thinking: "He's going to crank out the phrase 'Invasion Day', I'm going to roll my eyes and head over to Cracked or Failblog or somewhere else where funny stuff happens, not preachy leftist bullshit . I don't need this, what did I do? I don't even put flags on my car, who does that? I'm not the fucking Prime Minister. Yes, yes, yes colonialism, very bad, many indigenous people killed/dispossessed/disenfranchised/forgotten etc. I've been to uni and I've drunk that particular brand of Coolaid before."

Before that series of thoughts play out to completion, please take note: for once I'm not attacking anyone. All I'm saying is that if we're going to have a national day (and why not I suppose), why don't we have one which is inclusive and that does not actively alienate large swaths of the population. Let's have a day to mark the birth of a modern western democracy which still trying (well, some of us are trying) to right the wrongs of the past, present and future, instead of marking the arrival of English colonists with a bunch of rapists and murderers in tow who would later claim to have only been convicted of stealing bread. Many would have us believe that there was an epidemic of bread-stealing in that late 1700s, as opposed to the stuff that was actually happening.

Anyway, I for one think that the main reason that Australia Day has not been moved is that Federation (you know: the actually significant date for Australia's nationhood) occurred on New Years Day 1901 and there is no way in hell we are going to let them double-dip on a public holiday. Social awareness is good, but work days sure do suck a whole lot of arse.

The only solution appears to be to become a republic, and then to not be so stupid as to do so on any existing state or federal holiday. That day will become whatever we decide to make it, based on a date without historical baggage. Will it get rid of the flags? Will it rid us of the vile insular nationalism that has been creeping into the Australian consciousness? Will it finally make all your progressive friends shut their pie holes and have fun for once? Well, maybe not, but it would be something right?

Come in Spinner

The frankly indescribable floods in Queensland, while far too serious a subject to be discussed in this 'forum', have presented a rather surprising turn of events: praise, and yes even fondness for Anna Bligh. It is of course, thoroughly deserved. Bligh has provided exactly what was needed in the face of impending and ongoing disaster: honesty, heart and information. What is surprising about it is that if Queenslanders were asked to list Anna Bligh's attributes a month ago, the exact opposites of those three words would have been used. Anna Bligh was gone, she was seen as disingenuous and incompetent, and people were pumped to vote her out. They were looking forward to it.

So what was different about the way Bligh presented herself over the last few weeks? Number 1: She was not thinking about how she was presenting herself. Number 2: The media were not thinking about how she was presenting herself and Number 3: No one in Queensland was concerned at all with anything to do with that sort of bullshit. What we witnessed was Government working without spin, the media reporting without spin and everyone being better off for its absence.

We must realise however, that there is a reason for that: The situation dictated it. Anna Bligh and the media did not just learn simultaneously that this is what people like. It is because that for once there is enough 'news' occurring to satisfy the 24 hour cycle, and that has simply removed the more speculative news journalism. Just like that, away goes the spin and the pseudo-psychological over-analysis of your local journalistic crumb-bum.

It's a common misconception that it is solely politicians and the corporate sector who deal in spin, but in fact it is the media itself who is the true master of the dark arts. Spin was invented by the media, and it has since leaked into every orifice of public and private bodies. Long gone are the days when an event happens and somebody reports on it. There are many 'phases' now to major news stories that tend to blow things out. They are: the 'pre-event speculation' phase, the 'event is about to start, I wonder if the speculation was right' phase, the 'event has started' phase, the 'event is continuing' padding, the 'approaching the middle of the event' further padding, the 'middle of the event' rest and recap, post-middle discussion, continuing post-middle, nearing climax, climax, post climax, repeat of what happened at climax in case you just joined us or were in a coma, nearing end, end, analysis, end of year montage preparation. These 16 phases must be filled with a narrative of some sort or the audience will get bored and turn over to Two and a Half Men or My Kitchen is Pretty Good to blast away their feelings of inadequacy with food, tears and quasi-humorous misogyny. If there's no actual narrative, you spin one. It's that easy!

Anyway, the point is (I think): if we like our politicians to be straight-forward, honest and to tell it like it is, if we like them to be rough around the edges and free of those greasy PR types, if we want them to speak like real people, then why aren't they like that all the time?

Why?

Because if they were, the news cycle would destroy them. The media would be more likely to punish them for it than praise them, and so would we. If it wasn't during an event of the magnitude of these floods, where people feel uncomfortable talking about something so debauched as politics, then we would punish MPs for exhibiting these qualities.

Making flippant remarks, being glib, wrong tie, looked funny, looked bored, was laughing, wasn't laughing, looked asleep, bad hair, no hair, fat, not fat enough, ate a burger, ate the wrong burger, mixed up the red heads, stumbled on a community leader's name, actually stumbled over a community leader, stepped in dog shit, drank a foreign beer, looked awkward hugging someone, hugged someone they weren't meant to, kicked a football badly, hit a kid in the nuts playing cricket, has an ugly family, has a hot family, has a second family, has one of those rat dogs, plays badminton, referenced a slightly daggy musical act, eats cheese…in bed, is one of those people who thinks the phrase 'rocket surgery' is still funny, drinks, doesn't drink, in middling on drinking etc. These are all the things that get jumped on when there is not enough real stuff going on to feed the media beast.

If you want to know why your representatives look like robots, and say the same keywords five times over every time someone shoves a camera in their gob, then there's your answer. The only thing that fights spin is more spin, with some repetition to boot. The less you say, the less interpretation there is, and the less bullshit you read about yourself tomorrow morning.

You have to go robot, just don't go full robot.

Year of the Slog

As our 'friends' in Canberra dive snout first into the final week of Federal Parliament, it's a good time to reflect on the dog shit of a year that was 2010. A year that has consisted of progression, followed by regression and is ending in stagnation. In fact, we are without a doubt behind where we finished up last year. The country is split, one side says this, the other says that, and the vast majority says so what.

In the year up until now, we've gone from a popular, if dictatorial, Prime Minister, challenged by a progressive and thoroughly wet Liberal Opposition Leader, to a fledgling PM finding her feet amongst a hung parliament and up against a hard line conservative member of the A-team.

We've gone from almost certainly having an ETS, to almost certainly not knowing what the fuck is going on. We've gone from quiet resentment of refugees to full blown yelling at town meetings followed by leaflet dropping fits of hysterical fear. We've gone from patting ourselves on the back for how our banks got through the GFC, to wanting to rip them apart. We've gone from kowtowing to the mining industry, to kowtowing to the mining industry. We've gone from having polls every month, to having one every five minutes, despite the fact that they all tell us the same thing: We don't know what we want, but we want it now. Fast.

We have to start all over again. Issues that had consensus last year are now back to square one style bickering. Everything is back in committee. The status quo is fighting back, and it's winning. 2008 and 2009 were epitomised by the word 'change', 2010 introduced the qualifier 'as long as I don't have to'. It does not bode well for 2011.

In the mean time, you can look forward to some interesting announcements over the Christmas break. They usually slip them out while people are still too busy digesting their stodgy Christmas lunch, and the media are obsessed with fluffy cat-stuck-in-a-tree-happy-good-times. As for myself I will take a break until the New Year, or until something interesting happens, and by interesting I mean bad.

Merry Christmas and my God have mercy on us all.

The Tides They Are a-Changing

At the end of 2006, a somewhat surprising thing happened. John Howard went on the 7.30 Report and completed a very slow u-turn on the issue of climate change.

"I accept that climate change is a challenge, I accept the broad theory about global warming…[t]he truth is, I'm not that sceptical. I think the weight of scientific evidence suggests that there is significant and damaging growth in the levels of greenhouse gas emissions."

The cynics on the progressive side of politics, myself included, immediately thought that these were the words of a man spooked by the imminent rise of Kevin Rudd, a man that looked almost exactly like him, except almost 20 years younger. The conservative side of politics however, seemed stunned, almost…sad. Andrew Bolt looked lost, confused. He didn't know what to say, and he always knows what to say.

It was the same for numerous other conservative, slightly camp talk back radio hosts who spent a large amount of their air time laughing up the 'bullshit' scenarios of the climate change believing nut bags. All while the John Howard battle standard remained hoisted proudly atop their station's AM transmitter. All of the sudden, JWH had said something that conflicted with their views and they were punch drunk. When Rupert Murdoch joined the climate chorus the whole of 2GB went on suicide watch.

That was four years ago and since then we've had a change of government with climate change as a major issue in the election, an abortive attempt to do something about it, wrist-slashing and nashing of teeth from the opposition, and now a concerted fight back from the climate sceptics.

Momentum was lost, and many people have started to second guess themselves. People have tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. There has been a sudden realisation that things would have to change, that stuff would cost more, and that lifestyles were at stake. Then someone mentioned Australia's population and immigration figures, and climate change policy was well and truly fucked.

It's not surprising that the asylum issue has again raised its predictable head, as the 'other' is always first to cop it when lifestyles are under threat. The only way to protect an unsustainable lifestyle is to prevent anyone else from getting it. It seems that many people have decided that it's time to get selfish.

It's become fashionable because people believe it is unfashionable. Believing in climate change has become akin to that horrible thing of being politically correct. Believing in climate change will soon be in the same social dust bin multiculturalism, tolerance and basic human decency. It's the easy decision to take, and above all it's comfortable. It's easy to be sceptical, because then you don't have to do anything.

We're back where we started, an argument between a side desperate for action, and another who have decided they just don't care.

Everything is fine, now what's on TV?

Stand for Nothing, Win at Everything

There's nothing like a big foreign visit to perk up a Government that's a bit down in the dumps, and Hilary Rodham Clinton's bright orange pants-suit is just the distraction the PM needs at the moment. The Gillard Labor Government have copped it in the last few weeks, because despite being in Government, and having technically 'won' the election (because the side in Government are the people who won - always), they apparently lost it. And people who lose are losers. And losers suck. Winners are the ones we like, and the people who won are in Opposition, even though they lost.

In the weeks following the election people have spoken of Labor like they are in Opposition, like they are once again in the political wilderness, wherever the fuck that is, probably somewhere in South Australia.

However strange or unfair as that may be, as sure as higher socio-economic tax avoidance and everyone's inevitable lonely death, the Labor Party are once again having a good old soul-search. Young up-and-comers are providing hints that things could be better. Greg Combet, still basking in his post Bastard Boys ABC jerk off session of three and a half years ago, has declared a need for a return to core Labor values. Fan-fucking-tastic, lets do it. That sounds great. Parties should stand for something, right? So lets stand up and do it, for something! YAY SOMETHING!

People always claim they want parties to stand for something, particularly Oppositions. But do they? Does that ever work? If that were true then the small target strategy position occupied by the majority of Oppositions would have been dumped decades ago. When Rudd won the 2007 election, he stood for not being John Howard, when Howard won in 1996, he stood for not being Paul Keating etcetera. Governments love to be known retrospectively as 'reformist', because that is code for 'achieved something', but they do not necessarily win Government by preaching reform. They win it by being competent, standing still and allowing the other mob to run themselves into the ground. Governments stand for governing, Oppositions stand for being in government. What occurs in between is completely dependent on the public, who are so filled with trepidation, that second terms are almost a forgone conclusion.

As time goes on the Major parties bleed votes to minor parties like The Greens, because they do stand for something. This usually does not last. In 2010 The Greens won 11.7% in the House of Representatives and 13.7% in the Senate, because they stood for something. In 1990, the Australian Democrats won 11.2% and 12.6% respectively for the same reason, but as soon as they got to the big table and had to put their name on decisions their vote went south. Quickly.

The Greens are not the Democrats, but they are at the big table. And we'll see very quickly what, and how much, people want them to stand for.

A United State of Election

It's times like these that I enjoy not being American. The current Midterm Elections are at the same time shockingly depressing and thoroughly unsurprising. It has been almost two years since Barack Obama took office, and America is still in trouble. Not good enough say the voters of America, who have promptly put back in power the people who got them in trouble in the first place.

What's worse, the misleadingly named Tea Party is the growing force in American politics, and moderate Republicans are quickly disappearing from the political landscape. There has been a Tea Party tidal wave which will end in a wet slap on the forehead of anything that is decent.

It was obvious that the hype surrounding Obama was overblown. It was like people forgot that this was politics they were taking about. He's not a God. One man cannot pull an entire nation out of an economic black hole of its own creation, reverse egotistical cultural malaise in months, not years, no matter how good his speeches are. People got disappointed very quickly when miracles did not occur immediately. Thus the Democrats have lost control because people could not be bothered voting for them. Used to instant gratification, they were disgusted when it was denied them.

This is the sort of thing that happens when the nation is kept in a near constant state of 'Election'.

In the US there is a Presidential Election every four years, which also includes House, Senate, Mayoral and Gubernatorial elections. In between these are Midterm elections, where every house bar the white one is involved. Prior to these proper elections, the major parties hold primaries, in which candidates are voted on by registered members of the parties, and any registered independents who lean that way. These tend to occur in the six months leading up to the election in question. So at the very least, the electioneering goes on for a year before hand. Recently it's been getting longer and longer, with every second of it picked apart and analysed by 24 hour cable news cuntery. Every poll means something, every misspoken word a disaster, every speech broadcasted all the time, constant attack ads paid for by some unscrupulous bastard, constant pleading for money, more money, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.

You can see why some people just say "fuck it, I'm not voting"? It's all too much. No wonder nothing happens. At all times, a large amount of people are trying to get re-elected. Everyone's playing defence.

Can you imagine an Australian campaign going for over a year? There would not be enough rope for everyone to hang themselves. People's life-force would ebb and disappear into a fog of bullshit. We'll get there in the end because it's already started. The official election campaign may only go for six weeks, but the unofficial campaign starts months before, and gets earlier every time. We now have two 24 hour news channels, and there are plenty of arseholes queuing up for both. Campaigns are becoming more negative, less informative and nastier.

America is our future, so watch, and get depressed.