Tag Archives: julia gillard

Pride Is The Root Of All Evil

19 Feb

254502_287222121392119_2147028512_n

Yes, I know that St. Paul is oft-quoted as instructing that “the love of money is the root of all evil”.

I tend to disagree.

For some years now, it has been my sense that the real root of all evil is Pride.

From the Canberra Times:

The polls don’t lie. There is no hard data yet, but one of the country’s best pollsters says he’s begun to pick up a hard edge in the qualitative responses that isn’t being fully reflected (yet) in the quantitative results. There is no drift back to Labor. It seems the ‘bounce’ the government received over Christmas (a) wasn’t real, and (b) was simply because people were seeing less of Gillard and Swan. But they don’t accept this yet.

And so the chess game remains in stalemate. Every move to try and build up the party is countered by another blocking move from those in power. No one can advance. In the meantime, Tony Abbott creeps closer and closer to government until, when he finally walks into the Lodge, a great sigh of relief will be heard around the country. Not necessarily because voters want the Coalition, you understand, but simply because they are so sick and tired of the puerile, wretched and pathetic collection of such obviously self-interested people making up today’s Cabinet…

Currently, with Gillard leading and Swan as Treasurer, Labor will be booted so far into the outfield its remaining members will take on the appearance of a self-help group labelled ‘’Politicians Anonymous’’.

This doesn’t concern the self-interested cabal that’s currently in charge of the party. Swan knows in his heart of hearts that the job is beyond him; that he’s electoral poison – he just can’t bring himself to admit it. Gillard knows the same thing and there is even a bizarre rumour that, if the polls don’t change (and they won’t) she’s prepared to stand down at the last moment and let somebody else take the party to the election. That would deprive voters of the one thing they really want to do: kick the government.

Both Gillard and Swan need to swallow their pride and depart.

Mind you, since pride is, I think, the universal evil, merely seeing the back of Labor won’t change much.

As we have seen previously (The Sociopaths Who Are Drawn To Leadership), it takes a certain kind of person to become a politician. Even moreso, a successful one.

Are Gillard Govt Insiders Really Saying This?

16 Feb

Via Catallaxy Files reader and commenter “Mk50 of Brisbane”.

On the budget:

Just got a friend on the line from Finance. The whispers there are for a deficit of $30-35 Billion this FY if the lunatics continue running the asylum.

I DO stress these are just rumours.

On the government:

From an email just received from a contact in PM&C:

“… In all my years I have never seen anything like this. … The Gillard government are filthy, vicious, dirty, disease-ridden, perverted, corrupt, ghastly, disgusting, mendacious, revolting, retarded, thuggish, loathesome, atrocious, abhorrent, awful, beastly, contemptible, accursed, deviant, repulsive, despicable, foul, grimy, hateful, inferior, cretinous, hellish, horrible, appalling. lousy, thieving, nauseating, obnoxious, odious, sleazy, offensive, micromanaging, repellent, reprehensible, arrogant, repugnant, kleptocratic, rotten, stinking, terrible, vile, wretched, incompetent, sociopathic, schizophrenic, worthless, pretentious, wretched, arrogantly cretinous unhinged societal parasites of the foullest kind. Now, let me elaborate each point with multiple examples…”

It’s not a short email.

Top rant.

Humbling stuff.

And difficult to dispute.

When Was Gillard’s TV Dirty Deal Really Made?

15 Feb

On July 13 2010, journalist and radio personality Michael Smith interviewed then newly-ascended prime minister Julia Gillard to discuss “her” new mining tax deal:

“Now, the debate [with the mining companies] got bogged down in a lot of, uh, you know, some name calling, some conversations that lacked respect and good will. What I did as prime minister was got the good will back into that debate by cancelling the ads on TV…”

No doubt Gillard was here referring to her (apparent) post-ascension offer to the Big 3 miners, to cancel the government’s pro-mining tax advertising. She says that she did so as a gesture of “good will”.

In your humble blogger’s opinion, this claim does not pass the sniff test.

Three weeks prior to the Michael Smith interview, the following article appeared in the Australian Financial Review; it was the very day after Rudd’s ousting –

June 25, 2010 – Rio Tinto Ltd says it has suspended its anti-resources super profits tax (RSPT) advertising campaign and is “cautiously encouraged” by Julia Gillard’s pledge to negotiate with the sector.

Ms Gillard, who ascended to the prime ministership after Kevin Rudd declined to contest a leadership ballot, told her first press conference as parliamentary leader she would throw the doors open to negotiate with the mining sector.

She also suspended the government’s pro-RSPT advertising campaign, provided the mining sector shelved its ads against the tax.

BHP Billiton Ltd, the Minerals Council of Australia, the Queensland Resources Council and the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies Inc all pledged to immediately suspend their anti-RSPT ads.

“As a sign of good faith, we have suspended our advertising,” Rio Tinto said in a statement.

“This commitment is, of course, dependent on the government’s willingness to properly engage on the threshold issues.

In other words, their “sign of good faith” was clearly conditional on Gillard playing ball, and renegotiating (ie, “properly engage”) the core elements (“threshold issues”) of the mining tax design.

There is something else quite interesting to consider here.

Apparently it is possible to suspend a multi-million dollar TV and print media advertising campaign within 24 hours.  That is the implication from Rio’s statement “we have suspended our advertising” in swift response to new PM Gillard’s supposedly impromptu “good will” gesture.

It gets more interesting when we look at how quickly BHP Billiton, the prime mover in the anti-RSPT campaign, apparently managed to pull their advertising campaign. From ABC News, first posted June 24 2010, 12:32pm AEST:

Gillard, BHP can ads in mining tax truce

Julia Gillard will can the Government’s mining tax ads as one of her first acts as prime minister, and has called on the mining lobby to do the same.

Mining giant BHP Billiton, which is among the companies leading the campaign against the tax, has responded by suspending its ads.

The second biggest, Rio Tinto, followed later in the day

Sky News is reporting that the mining industry’s main lobby group, the Minerals Council of Australia, is also suspending its advertising campaign.

Impressive.

Barely 2.5 hours prior, the ALP caucus had chosen Gillard to be the new prime minister.  BHP was very quick-off-the-mark to suspend their advertising in response to Gillard’s gesture of good will, wouldn’t you say?

There is a Big Question arising out of all of this.

Was there any discussion or deal made with any/all of the Big 3 – particularly BHP – to suspend their advertising prior to Rudd’s knifing by Gillard?

It is an important question.

Because some have claimed that Gillard was “given the nod” by the Big 3 foreign miners to topple Rudd, and have suggested that the issue (promise?) of the withdrawal of their anti-mining tax advertising was already on the table prior to the coup; that Gillard knew the miners would pull their TV advertising before she made the decision to challenge Rudd for the leadership:

JULIA Gillard was “given the nod” by the big three mining companies – Xstrata, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton—to challenge Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership, knowing the advertising campaign against the mining tax “would be pulled”.

… The revelations come from an article written by Mr Rudd’s friend and actor Rhys Muldoon, published in the latest issue of The Monthly magazine. He questions whether “the party backroom boys” could “have sought tacit approval from the miners for a change at the top to seek an end to the damaging impasse” on the tax.

Does anyone seriously believe that BHP Billiton et al only decided to hastily suspend their advertising campaign in response to new PM Gillard’s immediate gesture of “good will”?

Does anyone seriously believe that Gillard and/or the ALP “faceless men” did not come to an agreement with the Big 3 miners on the specific issue of stopping their politically damaging TV advertising, prior to the knifing of the prime minister?

If Gillard knew that BHP was prepared to pull its TV advertising campaign on the condition that the mining tax be negotiated from square 1, then why not tell PM Rudd?

If Gillard knew that BHP – a foreign-owned mining corporation – was prepared to pull its TV advertising campaign on the condition that a democratically-elected PM be removed from office, why not tell PM Rudd?

Why not help the national leader to whom you had repeatedly and publicly declared your loyalty, with devising a strategy to deal with this foreign corporate “threat to democracy”? (Swan’s words, directed at Aussie miners)

Why challenge for the leadership … other than out of sheer greed and selfish opportunism, a preparedness to sell out the best interests of the nation’s citizens (and the very concepts of representative democracy and national sovereignty) for the fulfillment of your own naked ambition?

The widely-propagated story that Julia Gillard, the loyal deputy PM, the Great Negotiator, reluctantly agreed to be elevated to the prime ministership because “a good government has lost its way”, and only then made a brilliant, impromptu gesture of good will towards the Big 3 foreign-owned mining giants by suspending the government’s TV advertising and calling on them to do the same, simply does not pass the sniff test.

Your Super Screwed By The Laboral Party

8 Feb

Oh dear.

The way things are going, your humble Cassandra may be forced out of retirement.

Just to say “I told you so” and “Uh huh, here it comes, folks”.

Superannuation is in the news.  Lots of news.

There’s two “angles” to this super news.

Firstly, the obscene largesse manifest in the retirement benefits enjoyed by politicians (and public servants) at the taxpayers’ expense. For life. Tax free.

Secondly, the hot new story (long predicted at this blog) that these same politicians, not content with leeching off the public throughout their sordid lives of so-called “public service” before retiring to quieter lives of richly undeserved luxury, are … surprise surprise … looking to dip their greedy fingers into your super savings. Why? Well, if for no other reason than that the miserable vermin simply can’t balance a budget, for love nor (borrowed) money.

Let’s resist the temptation to immediately launch into a completely justifiable rage-filled rant on the first “angle”, and begin with a look at the second.

Former regular readers of this little blog will doubtless recall the many proffered warnings that both the Labor and Liberal parties – henceforth to be known as the “Laboral Party” – have their eyes firmly set on stealing your super.  Indeed, their plans are well advanced to do just that –

Stealing Our Super: I DARE You To Ignore This Now
Labor Begins To Steal Your Super
It Has Begun – Labor Steals Liberal’s Idea To Steal Your Super

That was back in 2011. There’s more where they came from (see “Search” function at top right of this page).

The latest news revolves around speculation that the Labor(al) Party would like to fiddle the tax system with intent to grab a larger chunk of “wealthy” Australians superannuation when they retire. Here’s Business Spectator’s Robert Gottliebsen:

Treasury and the politicians are canvassing the taxing of those with superannuation fund balances of over $1 million, forgetting that the $1 million, if invested in bank deposits, would yield only $38,000 in income.

Retiring Attorney General Nicola Roxon’s parliamentary superannuation is worth at least $10 million but she would not be taxed under the proposal being canvassed because her pension (like that of senior public servants) is virtually free so it is not declared “middle class welfare”.

To tax unfortunates who receive no ‘free’ money but set hard earned cash aside to fund their retirement via superannuation, but are now struggling, is simply grossly unfair.

Note well, that was “Treasury and the politicians”. Let’s not forget that arguably the greatest rort of all is not so-called “middle class welfare”. It is UPPER class welfare. And upper class welfare goes largely to the quietly swelling hordes of “public servants”, such as those aforementioned Treasury officials. Here’s The Australian’s Adam Creighton a week ago:

A more blatant example of upper-class welfare is found in Canberra, among the bloated senior ranks of the public service. Thousands are paid exorbitant sums grossly disproportionate to the social value of their output. Taxpayers lavish salaries between $200,000 and $750,000 a year on almost 2900 senior public servants. Another 13,230 are paid about $150,000 a year.

Whole suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne pay tax to support this artificial, taxpayer-created upper class, whose incomes dwarf similarly employed public servants in London and Washington DC.

And that is just their incomes.  Their superannuation “entitlements” (what a multi-faceted word that is, for politicians!) are equally scandalous.  Here’s Robert Gottliebsen last year:

Former superannuation minister Nick Sherry has blown the lid on Australia’s greatest rort, the $210 billion unfunded public sector defined benefit superannuation schemes.

The Canberra public service beneficiaries of this rort are often the very people who are attacking legitimate savers in the private sectors who put money aside to pay for their retirement.

…it is outrageous that “protected” public servants should be plotting against private savers whose level of retirement savings depends on investment returns.

And at that time, many others including The Australian’s David Crowe weighed in:

Labor’s budget strike on wealthy Australians has opened a hornet’s nest of inequity, as politicians, senior public servants and judges are spared the full force of changes that will raise $2.5 billion from superannuation.

The Gillard government scrambled to clarify its tax plans late yesterday as experts slammed the measures for hurting workers trying to save for their retirement without imposing the same penalties on others.

As the Coalition accused Labor of waging “class warfare” with its budget handouts, industry groups declared it unfair to extract tax revenue from superannuation in ways that could not be levied equally on everyone earning the same income.

Indeed.

The latest round of speculation about the Laboral Party dipping their hands into private citizens’ retirement savings has culminated in the usual scramble of hastily issued denials and butt-covering.  But make no mistake, the real war between the ruling class and We The People over superannuation will not go away:

Julia Gillard’s move yesterday to rule out taxes on income from superannuation balances over $1 million may have cut off one new revenue raising option for the May budget, but like a hydra-headed monster, other options to milk the $1.4 trillion industry are set to emerge.

The possibilities now under consideration include new taxes on contributions for higher income earners and a possible increase in the 15 per cent tax on investments in superannuation.

But the increasing anger over the past week at the prospect of a tax on withdrawals on superannuation funds worth more than $1m, or even a mooted $800,000, highlights the political risks of the government’s persistent meddling…

Now here’s the thing.  One of the reasons this is a hot story in the media, is because it is controversial.  It plays beautifully into the “Us vs Them” false paradigm that is the heart of social engineering.  And on more than one level.

It’s not just the broader public “Us” versus the smaller political class “Them”.

The media (and so, much of the public) have engaged in a hot debate about low-middle-income “Us” versus high-income-earning “Them”.

On more considered inspection, what I am seeing is the slow rise and rise of yet another false paradigm.  One that I think is perhaps even more insidious than the old revolutionary standbys, the “workers vs capitalists”, “proletariat vs bourgousie”, and “people vs politicians”.

What I am seeing is a new variation on the theme. Generation X + Y + Z “we don’t have much super yet” “Us” … versus Baby Boomer “those bastards DO have a lot of super” “Them”.

In other words, what we are seeing being fostered here is inter-generational warfare.

It is another very useful weapon in the armoury of social engineers, with which to bring about the “social revolution” needed to usher in their self-serving dystopian fantasies.  It is a subtle weapon that works in exactly the same way as “female empowerment” and “same-sex equality” … by creating and fostering a false paradigm of social dis-harmony and division.

I’ve been seeing the same basic argument raised all over the news comments and financial blogosphere, by poor downtrodden oppressed (note, sarcasm) Gen X-Y-Zers like your humble blogger – that tax concessions on superannuation for “wealthy” baby boomers should be withdrawn.  A common argument being bandied about is that “Sure, $1million may only represent $38K per annum and that’s not much to live on in retirement, BUT that is calculated by NOT drawing down the principal; those greedy, lazy Baby Boomers should be calculating their superannuation drawdowns so they are stony broke when they kick the bucket.”

I take issue with that rationale.

Once upon a time, it was … scary old-fashioned word coming up … traditional, for adults of the species to aspire to leave an inheritance for their children. And for society to consider such aspirations admirable, and conducive to social stability.

(Indeed, our very own Laboral Party politicians all solemnly proclaim that they want a free and independent society of self-reliant individuals, and that they wholeheartedly support the noble and worthy aspiration to succeed in life, save, and so be able to support oneself in retirement, and so NOT become a burden on the taxpayer.  Until they start running out of other people’s money to squander, that is. Then, you are magically and instantly transformed, by the power of self-serving political “necessity”, into an evil “wealthy” person who needs to be taxed more, in order for society to be made more “fair” and “equitable”)

No longer is it fashionable, indeed conscionable, to leave an inheritance for your children, or so it seems.  Now, in these modern advanced times, such notions are deplorable.  Calculate your entire wealth to the last penny, and make sure you die penniless.  Ungrateful offspring be damned.

I do wonder whether those same Gen X-Y-Zers who are eagerly falling for the “greedy Baby Boomers” inter-generational-warfare-as-tool-of-social-revolution-and-control nonsense, and want to see their parents’ retirement savings taxed harder, have really thought this thing through.

But I digress.

What I am most interested in is the obscene, unconscionable hypocrisy of the ruling class in this country.

The politicians, of every bent.

And the armada of “senior public servants” who really run the country.

So, rather than wading into the inter-generational warfare trap that others so readily fall into, let us retain our love of each other, our parents, and our friends’ parents.

And look instead to the real enemy.

Those #&^%$! on the telly –

Retiring MP’s have income for life

Nicola Roxon will leave parliament with a six-figure pension.

The former attorney-general and former Senate Leader Chris Evans will each be rewarded in their political retirement with incomes more than $50,000 above the average wage.

Ms Roxon could receive more than $120,000 a year for life, while Mr Evans’ pension could exceed $140,000 a year.

More Lies From Gillard

18 Apr

The lying is without end.

From Yahoo!7 News:

Ms Gillard said both state and federal revenues had been hit hard by the global financial crisis and were in the same boat.

“For the federal government, our revenues have been hit by $140 billion – it’s an extraordinary amount of money.

“(But) we have matched all of our expenditure with savings since mid-2009 – that’s the hard work of government.

No, that’s two lies in two sentences.

First, as we have seen previously ( Wayne’s “Per Cent Of GDP” Lies Debunked, Our Media In $140 Billion Lie For Wayne ), “our” total government revenues have actually gone up, by $23.67 billion in 2010-11 vs 2007-08 (pre-GFC).  And for this year 2011-12, the government’s November ’11 forecast was for an increase in Total Revenue of $37.41 billion vs 2007-08. The truth is, the only thing that has been “hit”, is the Treasury department’s wildly exaggerated May Budget forecasts. You know … those grand annual smoke ‘n mirrors performances, where the Treasurer tells the nation what a great job he is going to do in the next year, using deceitful words that project an appearance that he has already achieved it … and then, never actually does it.

About Gillard’s second lie.

As we have also seen previously, the government’s Expenditure has blown out by a whopping $91.64 billion versus 2007-08. But in Gillard’s statement, she claimed that the ALP has “matched all of our expenditure with savings since mid-2009”.

Oh really?

In the 2009-10 financial year, the government spent $339.23 billion.

In the 2010-11 financial year, the government spent $356.1 billion.

And this year, the government most recently forecast that they will spend … wait for it … $371.74 billion.

So, they spent $16 billion more in 2010-11 than they did in 2009-10. And they expect to spend $31.58 billion more this year, than in 2009-10.

But Gillard claimed that Labor has “matched all of our expenditure with savings” since mid-2009?!

If we took her words 100% literally, we would rightly ask, “Ok, show us where you saved $356.1 billion in 2010-11 and $371.74 billion this year?”

But let us be generous.

Can Gillard show us where the government actually “saved” $16 billion in 2010-11, and $31.58 billion this year? That is, savings equivalent to the extra government spending in those years, versus the year she referenced, 2009-10?

Of course not!

The simple truth is, this government has spent more (borrowed) money, every single year since coming to power.

Far more.

And, they are bringing in more Total Revenue than ever before.

This government’s mode of lying about the budget is very simple.

Every claim they make about “falling” revenue, or “write-downs” to revenue, or “hits” to revenue, or revenues supposedly “lost” to “global economic turmoil” or “the floods” or this or that or the other, is a lie.

Actual government revenue in total, is UP.  It is only “down”, or “lost”, by comparison to their wildly exaggerated annual May budget “forecasts”.

And every claim they make about government spending, is also a lie.

They are spending literally tens of billions more money now, four (4) years after the GFC, than any Australian government has ever spent.

Every statement uttered by this government about the budget, and its economic management, is a lie, distortion, or misdirection.

I have never witnessed a more corrupt, more blatantly and repeatedly dishonest pack of politicians in this country in my lifetime.

Governments To Sue Climate Change

12 Apr

Governments.

Is there anything they can’t do (h/t Homer Simpson):

The inaugural COAG Business Advisory Forum has agreed on six priorities, including national environmental reform, as a way of cutting government red tape.

The other areas include the treatment of major development proposals, the rationalisation of climate change litigation programs, further energy market reform, development assessments, and best practice approaches to risk-base deregulation.

“We are determined to get this done,” Prime Minister Julia Gillard told reporters in Canberra on Thursday.

The priorities will be put to a leaders’ meeting of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on Friday.

Julia’s Education Revolution sure has worked wonders with the Australian Associated Press (AAP).

Julia’s Delusional Disorder Diagnosed In 23 Seconds

31 Mar
%d bloggers like this: