Politically a very nice piece of work

Economically the budget is hastening slowly. The trend is right and really is a matter of taste. I wouldn’t expect any serious revival before 2015 but this has hardly been the savaging everyone was talking about. After 2015 it sets us up for a quite good recovery. As with everything in economics, there are so many unknowns of the known and unknown variety that nothing can be certain. But it puts us in a good position to catch any passing wind.

Politically, however, it looks even better. I teach of a Tuesday night so don’t get home till late and had to catch up by watching ABC News 24. And what struck me was the extent to which the critics were pretty subdued. No real heavyweight venom and anger, just the usual negativity about trying to repair what everyone knows needs repairing. We are the lucky country in the sense that the harder we work the luckier we get. Just as in 1931 the Lyon Government cut deeply into public spending allowing Australia to be the first economy in the world to emerge from the Great Depression, so the cuts and crafting of expenditure this time round will allow us to put ourselves on a very solid foundation for growth.

Even the supposed nasties, listening to some woman worrying whether she might be able to find the $7 to get to the doctor came across as a pretty weak and whiny complaint. The co-payment is designed to make you think twice in a way that a freebie doesn’t. For 98% of the country, if your illness isn’t worth paying $7 for the medical advice you get, you either have your priorities wrong or you have been wasting a lot of our precious medical resources because you’ve treating them as a free good. Well, it might have been free to you but not to the rest of us.

Same with cutting Newstart for the under-30s. Luckily again we are a community that doesn’t look benignly on living off the earnings of others although there are many still trying to expand this constituency. But what is more important is that it will mightily discourage many from a wastrel style of life. Falling into a welfare trap young and early is a disaster. Maybe it will save a bit of money but more importantly it may save a few lives from being lost and wasted.

We’ll see over the next few days and months how the politics plays out in the real world. In the meantime I think it is a job well done.

The politics of economics

A budget is a political document dealing with economic issues. But it is politics first. I also read Henry’s post and now the comment by Sinclair and thought I might buy in as well.

The economics of this budget we shall see for ourselves tomorrow night. From everything we so far know, it’s not the budget I would have brought down but I am in sympathy with its aims. The problem will, however, be the politics. So far, and especially on economic matters, this government does politics very badly.

I understood why they decided to run a silent operation on border protection. But on other matters, what has drawn most of my attention is how on just about every issue I can think of, little has been done to shape the narrative. Labor was a catastrophe, enough for three Liberal terms in office. But the way the politics and the engagement with the community has gone, they will be lucky to survive in 2016.

The horrors of the Labor economic mismanagement ought to have been a constant theme from the day the election ended. The horrors at what was found in the books should have been drummed time and again by the government. These are genuine horrors, so why we didn’t continuously hear about NBN and company, or the unfunded nature of the NDIS, or the additions caused by Gonski, or the bank of unfunded promises that will sink us, or the carbon tax and its destructive capabilities, or any of the rest I do not know. They will therefore bring in a pain-for-everyone budget that may appeal to some but will alienate a good many others.

No one will understand the economics of this budget without instruction. The instruction should have begun months ago. Whether in regard to its economics it is a good budget or a bad one, the reality is that professional politicians though they may be, the politics has been dreadful.

You must control debt before it controls you

If a country goes into debt, no one gets sent to debtors’ prison, no one is declared bankrupt, the furniture is not sold off to recover the money. It’s more subtle, but in the end the country is forced to draw down on its capital and over time living standards fall. If you have debts you want to pay off you divert income into repayment and cut expenditure. One way or the other, those are the choices.

The picture below is not Australia’s debt, it is the timeline for American debt stretched out to 2024. It’s the same kind of picture we have here but in Australia we have a government that is intending to do something. And the picture comes with a story about Janet Yellen, the new Chair of the Fed in the United States.

yellin us federal debt

The only bit that is ridiculous in the story is that the timeframe is projected into the future, Fed Chair: ‘Deficits Will Rise to Unsustainable Levels’. What do they think happens when the government diverts output down various plug holes, that the entire country disappears into thin air? What happens is that over so slowly real incomes begin to fall and the communal environment begins to crumble. There will certainly still be many wealthy people, but the average will move in only one direction. Detroit becomes the national future.

In the US they pretend that time is on their side but it isn’t. Things are long past being just line ball. There will be a fall in living standards, in fact, it is already happening. The only question is whether there will be a recovery and if so when. Personally I do not see the slightest evidence of a will to change things around in the US.

But at least here we do have just that chance. We are dealing with a junior version of just this debt problem ourselves. The ALP talks about what geniuses they had been since debt-to-GDP was only about 37% when they left office. They never dwell on the figure when they came into office – ZERO – nor where debt levels are likely to go if nothing is done about the legacy they left.

This stuff is hard and generally uninteresting for most people. Just gimmee the loot or I’ll bring in the other mob who will. We here may not quite be at that stage but perhaps we are. What Janet really would like to say is what Joe Hockey’s been saying: THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE! THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE! but she can’t because she does not wish to bite the hand that fed her. But she knows. Keynesian though she is, she knows perfectly well that debt is a problem, and it is pure sophistry to argue that it’s not a problem because we owe it to ourselves. And when it comes to Australia, I can only hope that enough of us here know it as well. And looking at our own debt projections, it is certainly not an argument to say that that fire’s not all that big at the moment so why worry?

A failure to deal with debt

yellin us federal debt

The only bit that is ridiculous in this story is that the timeframe is projected into the future, Fed Chair: ‘Deficits Will Rise to Unsustainable Levels’. What do they think happens when the government diverts output down various plug holes, that the entire country disappears into thin air? What happens is that over so slowly real incomes begin to fall and the communal environment begins to crumble. There will certainly still be many wealthy people, but the average will move in only one direction.

In the US they pretend that time is on their side but it isn’t. Things are long past being just line ball. There will be a fall in living standards. The only question is whether there will be a recovery and if so when. Personally I do not see the slightest evidence of a will to change things around in the US.

But at least here we do have just that chance. We are dealing with a junior version of just this debt problem ourselves. The ALP talks about what geniuses they had been since debt-to-GDP was only about 37% when they left office. They never dwell on the figure when they came into office – ZERO – nor where debt levels are likely to go if nothing is done.

This stuff is hard and generally uninteresting for most people. Just gimmee the loot or I’ll bring in the other mob who will. We here may not quite be at that stage but perhaps we are. What Janet really would like to say is what Joe Hockey’s been saying: HELP! HELP! HELP! THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE! but she can’t because she does not wish to bite the hand that fed her. But she knows.

You want to see lying in politics, I’ll show you lying in politics

Let me come back to this business about political lying. This is from Rush Limbaugh discussing how the Media Knew the Truth About Obamacare:

Do you think that Obama would have been reelected in 2012, do you think Obamacare would have passed if the news had gotten out to everybody that your employer could legally cancel your insurance, drop you from your plan, and force you to go to the government? Do you keep that bill would have passed? There is no way.

Because what was happening while all this was going on? Obama was lying for three years. “You like your doctor? You get to keep your doctor! You like your plan? You get to keep your plan!” All along, the law said that businesses, starting in 2014, could dump their employee-covered health plans over to Obamacare or to the exchanges, whatever they called them. So people believed the president, and the president lied. . . .

The same news organizations lied when the individual plans were being canceled. I mean, the individual plans were gonna be canceled all along. Remember, everybody thought, “No, no. I can keep my plan. I can keep my doctor. Obama said so!” Everybody knew that that wasn’t true when he was saying it!

But still they love their President, at least the media do, specially the media. To hear the media discuss political lying is beyond irritation since they are the worst offenders.

“There will be no balanced budget under a government I lead”

Suppose Gillard had said that, suppose she had said there would be no balanced budget under a government she led, and had then broken the promise. Suppose she had done that. You know what? It wouldn’t have bothered me a bit.

The problem with the broken promise on carbon taxes was not just that she had lied but that it was bad policy. The carbon tax has sent manufacturing industry out of this country, made Australia a very expensive place to live and do business, and raised government revenue which it was able to squander at every turn.

The carbon tax lie was a game changer. It brought the ALP into government in a hung Parliament. If she hadn’t said it, Tony Abbott would have been Prime Minister three years sooner than he was.

The last election did not turn on whether or not there would be tax increases as part of a package to balance the books. The last election turned on whether we could get a decent set of economic managers, along with a slew of other things such as stopping the boats.

The Government we now have looks set to deliver an adult government. I have plenty of bones to pick with what it is doing (or not doing) but nothing they do to taxation will make the slightest difference to my wish to seem them succeed as the government of this country which so far they are doing infinitely better than the mob they have replaced.

Read my lips: no new taxes

Here’s some interesting news from just yesterday for those capable of learning from history: George H.W. Bush honored for courage with 1990 tax hikes, honoured by Democrats, that is:

Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush showed courage in breaking his “read my lips: no new taxes” campaign pledge to broker a 1990 budget compromise that may have cost him re-election two years later, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation said on Sunday.

The organization honored the 41st U.S. president with its 2014 Profile in Courage Award, praising the Republican leader’s “decision to put country above party and political prospects” in the deal with congressional Democrats.

“America’s gain was President Bush’s loss,” Jack Schlossberg, grandson of former president John F. Kennedy and a member of the award committee, said during a ceremony at the library in Boston. . . .

In September 1990, two years into George H.W. Bush’s first term, the United States was saddled with a $200 billion budget deficit. Months of partisan wrangling over possible tax increases and spending cuts had ended in a stalemate.

Despite the potential political backlash, Bush announced a compromise with congressional Democrats that would cut $500 billion from the deficit in five years, in part by raising “luxury taxes” on items including yachts and pricey cars, among other tax hikes.

“The time for politics and posturing is over,” Bush said in an October 1990 speech. “The time to come together is now.”

The budget passed, but Bush’s concession on a tax increase rankled members of his party and stood at odds with his “no new taxes” campaign promise. He lost re-election to Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992.

Getting with the program

Well, here we are heading for the fiscal falls. The Government has locked in their strategy, not one I would have chosen but they have made the decision so over the falls we will go.

Let us try to be positive. First and foremost, it is better than anything that Labor might have done. For all their maunderings about balancing the budget and getting their house in order, there was never the slightest chance they would. The Swan-Wong team of economic managers had no will at all to stop the fiscal rot. The spending ministers overwhelmed those who thought about prudential outcomes, assuming any thought that way at all.

Second, the budget will be a tough sell but it can be done. Abbott has credibility. No one will be in any doubt that the fiscal horrors left by Labor are an Augean stable that were not the Coalition’s doing. I don’t think they have set this narrative up anyway near well enough but even at this late stage they might be able to convince the country (or at least 50.1%) that these are steps that must with absolute necessity be taken.

Third, the steps to be taken are decided by cabinet so no point in dwelling on what I would have done. That’s a lot of people amongst whom the right compromises must be found. No doubt the PM and Treasurer are leading the way, neither of whom is an economist but there have been other hands on the tiller as well. Everyone in the Ministry is frightened by the size of the deficit they must deal with and are thinking about how this is to be done. They cannot see economic growth as the road to balance, and in fact, don’t really seem to have much idea about how to generate that growth. This must be looked at as a distant second best solution but with Treasury a dead zone for economic thinking, maybe that’s all that can be done. I imagine very few in Cabinet think that a program of cuts to public spending, pulling down regulation, and freeing up industrial relations would do the trick. So this is the way they have chosen to go forward.

Fourth, the major issue is the politics. If there weren’t an election to come in 2016, for which these decisions will be anthrax and strychnine for a large proportion of the voting public, it would not be all that hard to accept that this is how it will have to be. Since this seems to me like a poor approach to the economics and a very dangerous approach to the politics these decisions fill me with dread. If they lose office on the back of these decisions, they will be deposited in the very lowest depths of our political inferno. To have misjudged the politics will be unforgivable. Three and out would repel me and anyone who seeks good governance into the long term. If it brings Labor back to office after three years and not six or nine, there is nothing they can do or will have done that would be anywhere near fair compensation. All they will have done is hand over a more solid foundation for future Labor Party waste. Bill Shorten is far and away the strongest supporter of these policies in the country.

Nevertheless, this is their call and they may pull it out. Economic policy is not the only thing that affects the direction of an economy so there might really be a strong economy leading into the next election. Even more impressively, the country might even appreciate someone taking responsibility for the horrors that the ALP left behind. There may be a constituency for people saying that we must pull together for the national good. The media won’t help them but the Government does have its friends. The die is obviously cast so there’s no point in going on about it. So for me, I will hope things work out for the best.

A hairshirt budget

Well, get ready for it, an experiment in democratic politics, an unpopular budget aimed at no constituency at all:

Radical reforms to health and education will be outlined today in a searing assessment of federal finances that also calls for the family home to be included in the asset test for the age pension.

Action on the asset test is a key recommendation in a far-reaching review that identifies huge cuts to “middle-class welfare” to prevent budget spending climbing to $690 billion within a ­decade.

Tony Abbott will also be urged to scrap federal agencies and ­delegate more services to the states as part of a blueprint from his commission of audit that is ­already sparking resistance from key cabinet ministers.

The closely held report stops short of calling for the dismantling of federal health and education departments but warns of a massive cost to taxpayers from the duplicated effort between Canberra and the states.

In a deeply controversial finding, the commission identifies billions of dollars in savings from including the family home in the eligibility test for the age pension, arguing it is unfair for ordinary workers to subsidise pensions for the wealthy.

Four Prime Ministers in Four Years?

They bring down a budget with a tax increase they said they’d never have and their re-election chances go from 90% to 10%.

Their expertise is politics but mine is economics. Economically it would be idiocy, the worst imaginable mistake. The politics we shall see for ourselves but bad economics cannot be good politics.

If Bill becomes PM in 2017, we will have had four Prime Ministers in four years.

The tax increases will be in aid of paying for the NBN, the NDIS, Labor’s stimulus debts and other gross mistakes. You are doing what no ALP Prime Minister would ever do. They just leave this to you so that they can return in three years with the by-then-fresh promise of honest government. We will not lie to you, unlike the Libs, we tell the truth where it counts. As he resigns from Parliament, the Prime Minister may have that warm inner glow that he did the right thing, or at least the right thing as he saw it. For the rest of us, all we will see is that he could have been there for a decade and barely made it to three. And the media will make another Coalition unelectable for as far as the eye can see.