The Liberal Party will today officially launch their election campaign. I don’t know what they’re going to announce, but a rough guess would be a promise to spend a couple of billion dollars on families. Again.
It is depressing to watch the election coverage, with both major parties announcing new expensive government programs every day and nobody even questioning the idea of big government. Just yesterday Howard gave more money to rural families and Indonesia’s orangutans… while Rudd promised new programs on dental care and street lights.
Both sides of politics have now offered over $20 billion each in spending promises and new government programs. While many of these new programs are well intentioned and will benefit somebody, they all contribute to the steady growth in government and the undermining of individual resonsibility. The LDP is the only political party opposed to this trend.
The LDP doesn’t propose to slash all government programs. Some programs should be cut (such as corporate welfare, the baby bonus, the first home owners scheme) but in other areas we are simply calling for a freeze on new spending. As the economy grows, this would allow us to consistently cut tax rates and shrink the government as a percent of GDP.
November 12, 2007 at 2:20 pm |
I’m sure that Australians will be happy to see their $500,000 confiscated from them and being used to save our primate cousins.
I’m all for saving the orangutans, but I’d really rather do that voluntarily than because Mr. Howard thinks its a good idea.
November 12, 2007 at 3:46 pm |
Before I became a Libertarian, I occasionally yelled at the TV. I must confess, I woke the neighbours when Hewit lost the Australian Open.
Nowadays I have to refrain from putting a hole through it every time Rudd says “working families” or Howard announces more spending.
Will it take a major recession for Australian voters to embrace the need for sound fiscal policy and responsibility?
November 12, 2007 at 4:26 pm |
People usually vote in their own immediate self interest, which is why pork barrelling is so effective. If you throw enough money at every special interest group, they all feel better off.
How about every issue has to be voted on by every voter? Imagine if people from Melbourne had to vote on Sydney getting roads and vice-versa. That would be a really quick way for states to assume more responsibility.
November 12, 2007 at 5:06 pm |
Mikel, it still might not help much.
The interests of the recipients of government pork arre sufficient to make lobbying for that pork an excercise well worth their time, and while the total cost to the population of all pork is high the cost of each individual piece is not sufficient to motivate taxpayers to lobby against it.
November 12, 2007 at 5:10 pm |
Any – that was true. Until now. The LDP is prepared to lobby against it and we invite all taxpayers to join us in this cause.
November 12, 2007 at 7:33 pm |
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22744454-601,00.html
“About 951 hectares of Commonwealth land around the country would be sold after an audit commissioned by Peter Costello.”
That’s about all the good I can see in there.