I could say that I was suprised when I learnt that the medicare safety net threshold was being raised (despite the Liberals election promises) due to an apparent lack of funds - but I'd be lying; it's not a surprise, because I've grown quite used to the idea that anything the Libs say before an election isn't worth the newsreel it occupied, once the election is over.
The Libs claim to be superior in economic management than Labour, but they still stuffed up enough to have to break an election promise. There's little opportunity, this time, to fall back to the stale old excuse of "Oh, but that wasn't a core promise" because this time Abbott said:
This is an absolutely rock solid, iron-clad commitment.That's no paraphrase - it's exactly what he said. What exactly does Abbott mean by "rock solid" and "iron clad", one begins to wonder?
As if to dig his own hole deeper, Abbott now comes out and admits that the Liberals knew the cost of the safety net was "blowing out" during last years (2004) election campaign -
- in other words, he admits that he lied (about his rock solid, iron-clad promise) at that time. Of course Abbott probably wouldn't call it a lie, but he's really just making a distinction between telling an untruth and allowing the public to maintain a misconception (which was initiated by the Liberals anyway) - it's a fine line, a very fine line indeed.
(The ABC has some information about this if you're unlike most of the sheep and would like to get independent verification of what I'm garbling).
To me, more disturbing than the simple breaking of election promises - due to running out of money - is that suddenly the Liberals are offering all their buddies in the higher brackets some tax relief. Why? Because they've got a bit of spare cash floating around. Does it strike you at this point, dear reader, that something is slightly odd about this?
On the one hand, the government is breaking election promises because it doesn't have enough money, and with the other hand it is dissing out tax relief to high-income earners because it has too much money. It doesn't get much more blatant than that. The Libs, I muse, are trying to set themselves up as a kind of reverse Robin Hood - they steal from the poor, and give to the rich.
The arguments used to justify this sort of maneuver usually come in the form of an attempt to get us to feel sorry for those poor high-earners. These are hard working people, we're told, and they're not necessarily doing all that well, and they deserve a break!
And maybe they do at that, but if Australian high income earners are on struggle street, spare a thought for those even worse off - the low income earners.
There's a home truth to be found here, though it's not a nice one. It is this: Liberal voters, i.e. most Australians, care only for themselves and if they're going to get more money they don't really care who suffers because of it. If it's not their neighborhood, they don't want to know.
I read with disgust an on-line article from The Age today which describes the plight of a family in Kilsyth (Here's a link to the article, but you may need to register with The Age to be able to read it). Here's a quick analysis of their situation:
I'd like to see income tax reduce more and spread the load elsewhere.... and his wife Sally agrees:
The carpet is 12 years old, the house is due a repaint. We are just normal people .Well Sally, my heart bleeds. After reading about your predicament I now fully understand why people who receive even less than you don't deserve any sort of relief. I'll be sure to vote Liberal from now on, just on the off-chance that I too will one day achieve an income in the higher tax brackets and will benefit from the generosity of Howard and his like. It certainly will help keep the third car running (think I'll go for a Hummer, though).
The sarcasm tastes like acid in my mouth; I cannot go on. But I will be back with more, at some future date - and that's a rock-solid, iron-clad promise.
-- Davin McCall. Comments welcome, to davpage@davmac.org.