Just before the last election John Howard promised to spent $500,000 over four years on orangutans in Indonesia.
While some kids ask for a trip to a theme park or toys when they are approached by the Make a Wish Foundation, Daniel Clarke, 11, who suffers from cerebral palsy, wished for help for Southeast Asia’s endangered orangutans.
While the Make a Wish Foundation could not help him save the orangutans as it was an international cause, it organised a visit to the Wallabies dressing room in Sydney in May at which he met the Prime Minister.
Daniel made a strong impression on the Prime Minister with his concerns over the plight of orangutans in Indonesia.
“He really struck me as somebody who was quite passionate about this and I admired that commitment and his bravery,” Mr Howard said in an announcement on YouTube. “I said I’d have a look at whether the Government can help.”
Howard wasn’t re-elected and the new government wasn’t bound by the promise.
Environment Minister Peter Garrett has now introduced Daniel to the realities of politics. “Dear Daniel,” wrote Mr Garrett in a letter received on May 14. “I write in relation to the former government’s undertaking to the Australian Orang-utan Project to provide $200,000 in grant funding to support the work of the orang-utan units in Kalimantan, Indonesia.
“Unfortunately, there is no funding program available to support this activity.”
“I was sad, very sad,” said Daniel. “I would ask Mr Garrett: What is stopping you? Why isn’t the Australian Orang-utan Project receiving the money? Why won’t you honour John Howard’s promise to me?”
Well Kevin Rudd did say that the reckless spending had to stop. Mind you in May 2008 the government still had a budget surplus.
Fast forward to the present day. It turns out that the Rudd government gave a million dollar grant to TERI. Yes the same organsation headed by Rajendra Pachauri. You’ve got to wonder about priorities.
A million bucks to TERI?!
Fkn criminals! I was never a supporter of that orangutan crap either – but the TERI funding is worse – that went into the pocket of arseholes.
Fleeced
25 Jan 10 at 7:03 pm
The orangutans were more credible than Pachauri.
C.L.
25 Jan 10 at 7:19 pm
The orangutans were more credible than Pachauri.
And more intelligent.
John H.
25 Jan 10 at 7:25 pm
The orangutan have better grooming than Pachauri.
Infidel Tiger
25 Jan 10 at 7:29 pm
Sincs,
I don’t know how AusAid works, but I imagine that the panel is fairly independent, and at least to me, the project doesn’t look much different to what many ARC linkage grants look like. In addition, I imagine the only reason they have Pachauri on their board is that it’s handy to have someone well known, not because he will actually do anything, so if you can forget your dislike of him for a while, you might notice that it’s probably not such a bad project (no doubt far better than a lot of other crap that the Aus government sponsors).
conrad
25 Jan 10 at 7:58 pm
Fast forward to the present day. It turns out that the Rudd government gave a million dollar grant to TERI. Yes the same organsation headed by Rajendra Pachauri. You’ve got to wonder about priorities.
And the $10-25 million to one of Clinton’s charities and later Clinton says Rudd is one of the top three leaders in the world. I spat my coffee all over the screen when i read that.
AUSAID, the Australian government’s overseas aid program, was also a 2009 giver. It donated $10 million to $25 million to the foundation over the years.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5i98y2c-oZrHYw7UUxS8TBpQZHuRQ
JC
25 Jan 10 at 8:04 pm
conrad – there are only so many ways you can slice and dice giving money to crooks. Like all other aspects of public finance, the government is responsible irrespective of how many so-called independent panels are set up. The parliament appropriates the money upon prsentation of a bill from the executive.
Sinclair Davidson
25 Jan 10 at 8:05 pm
It seems the Clinton one is pretty bad as it appears to be a buy some influence racket.
JC
25 Jan 10 at 8:07 pm
Does anyone else think it was a little unfair on John Howard for the Make A Wish Foundation to put him in that position? I feel very sorry for the sick kids, but I hope not too many of them have a wish to spend taxpayer dollars.
asf
26 Jan 10 at 10:32 am
JC – “It seems the Clinton one is pretty bad as it appears to be a buy some influence racket.”
How is that a bad thing? Such comments from Bill would have given Rudd significantly greater status & negotiating strength among other world leaders not least the USA. Its a bargain at that price.
Andrew Carr
26 Jan 10 at 12:14 pm
So forms of bribes between lefties is a good , Andrew, is it?
That’s the objective of aid now.. Use it to buy the PM influence?
Sure is a bargain.
JC
26 Jan 10 at 12:28 pm
The world was certainly enthralled with Rudd and everything he and his 140 staffers had to say at Copenhagen.
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 12:34 pm
“there are only so many ways you can slice and dice giving money to crooks. Like all other aspects of public finance, the government is responsible irrespective of how many so-called independent panels are set up. The parliament appropriates the money upon prsentation of a bill from the executive.”
.
I agree, but unfortunately the alternative is that we have ministers that know absolutely nothing and no doubt that are equally as corrupt choosing winners, and that’s hardly better (especially because then it’s going to be local politics too). Given JC’s observations, perhaps it really isn’t as independent as I was guessing it to be. In this respect, it’s easy for me to see the justification for some project where the CSIRO collaborates with some other group, but I’m surprised they can just drop money on charities, especially ones with multiple missions.
conrad
26 Jan 10 at 12:35 pm
Hey, but according to Andrew Carr, aid rackets and bribery is ok as long as it gets Rudd on the world stage. It’s “at a bargain price” as Carr describes it.
JC
26 Jan 10 at 12:37 pm
if we avoid the stupidity of Forrest what is the problem of this.
You haven’t enunciated any at all.
The CSRIO and this charity will be engaging in what looks to be interesting research which will benefit for Indians first of all.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
26 Jan 10 at 2:04 pm
Homernomics again:
Liberal spending bad.
Labor spending good.
It’s that simple.
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 2:08 pm
well CL as USUAL, you cannot point out the problem in this.
A bit like you cannot point out what policies of Obama has tripled the Deficit.
You really do not know very much do you!
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
26 Jan 10 at 2:11 pm
Here’s the WaPo/CBO graph showing that Obama has tripled the deficit.
The deficit which you claim is Bush’s fault and which you also claim has saved the world economy.
Odd that you don’t want to give Obama credit for the spending that saved the world.
But that’s Homernomics:
Republican spending bad.
Democrat spending good.
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 2:17 pm
The CSRIO and this charity will be engaging in what looks to be interesting research which will benefit for Indians first of all.
Why did the funding have to be directed through Clinton’s Charity, Homer? If it was so good we could have done the funding ourselves or gone side by side without any need to go through his charity and thereby purchase Rudd influence with taxpayer money.
Of course you’d support it seeing your level of honesty and integrity these days is lower than zero.
———
well CL as USUAL, you cannot point out the problem in this.
A bit like you cannot point out what policies of Obama has tripled the Deficit.
I’ve already explained it to you perhaps 4 times now and each time your early onset of dementia takes over and causes you to lose short term memory.
Obama’s last budget saw real material spending increases in all areas except farm subsidies. This occurred in every major section of the budget dealing with discretionary and non-discretionary spending. At the same time tax receipts have collapsed.
The accumulated $12 trillion, this administration will incur, is coming from CBO estimates with the assumption that the administration will do nothing to curb entitlements throughout its period
I hope this is now the last time we have to raise this and that part of your brain still works.
Failing that, print this out and refer to it next time you’ve forgotten.
You egg nog, Homer.
JC
26 Jan 10 at 2:26 pm
As you can imagine, if Howard dropped $10-25 million into a charity run by Bush, Homer would be crowing about the abuse of public finance which that entailed.
But that’s Homernomics.
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 2:31 pm
Firstly CL you still will NOT State what policies have lead to this. Why is this?
Forrest you blithering idiot. No-one id disputing Obama has increased spending .I want to know what POLICIES had led to the tripling of the Deficit.
Apparently both you and CL have no idea.
As yet no-one has spelt out why money to this charity is a bad thing.
No I really do not care who the person behind a charity is I look at what they do.
Given that no-one has spelt out why this is a bad charity I will take it there are none.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
26 Jan 10 at 3:30 pm
Here’s the graph that shows that Obama has tripled the deficit in a year. The CBO has also warned he may end up quadrupling the deficit.
Strange that you don’t want to give Obama credit for the spending which you say has “worked” and saved the world.
Why’s that?
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 3:37 pm
In 2004, the US budget deficit was $412 billion. Bush would eventually slash that by 60 percent so that prior to the outbreak of the Democrat financial crisis, the deficit was $162 billion in 2007. In 2004, though, Andrew Sullivan was complaining:
This was blogged about by Tim Blair in January 2004. Guess who showed up to make the first comment denouncing “the greatest spendthrifts ib history”?
That’s right: Homer.
Fast forward to 2009. Democrat Barack Obama triples the deficit to nearly $2 trillion – thus becoming the worst fiscal deadbeat in American history.
Homer’s view now: hey, no worries.
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 3:56 pm
Homer:
Unlike you I’m not a “budgetician” amd have no interest in looking at the individual policies that will turn this into a dog’s breakfast of an accumulated $us 12 trillion deficit by the end of his term.
Using the “which part of the budget is causing it” when I have already told you that the entire discretionary and non-discretionary spending went up while tax receipts collapsed doesn’t seem to be enough for you.
Why is that, I wonder?
You goose, Homer.
JC
26 Jan 10 at 3:57 pm
Yep it sure is the children that will suffer. Bill Gates finally makes the point that Lomborg has been making for a long time and being crucified for his clarity.
Deficits are not the only reason that aid budgets might change. Governments will also be increasing the money they spend to help reduce global warming. The final communiqué of the Copenhagen Summit, held last December, talks about mobilizing $10 billion per year in the next three years and $100 billion per year by 2020 for developing countries, which is over three quarters of all foreign aid now given by the richest countries.
I am concerned that some of this money will come from reducing other categories of foreign aid, especially health. If just 1 percent of the $100 billion goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases.
In other words we still live in a world of relative scarcity and hard decisions need to be made about where the money goes.
JC
26 Jan 10 at 4:07 pm
2008:
Flashback Obama Ridicules McCain’s Call for Spending Freeze.
Today:
Obama to seek spending freeze to trim deficits.
But it’s only a stunt.
The Wall Street Journal:
“White House Plan Applies to Only 17% of Spending; Small Impact on Deficit.”
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 4:09 pm
Monko made that point this week, JC. Warmenist policies will inevitably kill hundreds of thousands of people by taking money out of real-world aid programs and priorities. But when you’re Al Gore in your power-guzzling mansion or Tim Flannery flying around the world at the behest of Richard Branson or Ross Garnaut spending a fortune on a second house behind your heritage-listed property in Princes Hill – hundreds of thousands of dead black people is no big deal.
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 4:16 pm
here we have it.
Neither Forrest nor CL can provide any evidence that Obama’s policies have tripled the Deficit.
I am not surprised as I said previously neither possesses the knowledge to do it.
CL continues to show his ignorance however.
He believes deficits in good economic times are a good thing because they were delivered by Republicans.
On the other hand he thinks a deficit in very bad economic times is a bad thing because a Democrat is president but cannot tell us whose policies has led to the deficit.
Only CL could be so double minded.
We shouldn’t be surprised despite clear and unambiguous evidence that the Earth is warming CL denies this too funny thing is he didn’t say this when another government was in indeed few did
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
26 Jan 10 at 5:17 pm
Homer:
Are you totally senile? Is anyone supervising you these days?
JC
26 Jan 10 at 5:19 pm
I will give you a small bit of advice Forrest do not spout claptrap from some baseless blog.
If they cannot nominate any programs that Obama has implemented that has ‘tripled’ the deficit there is a reason for it.
Each time you and CL refuse to nominate any programs that has caused this ‘tripling’ of the deficit you look even more stupid than usual
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
26 Jan 10 at 5:24 pm
Here’s that WaPo/CBO graph showing that Barack Obama has tripled the deficit in a year.
Homer in 2004 on Bush’s $412 billion deficit:
“Republicans have proved themselves to be the greatest spendthrifts ib history.”
Homer’s reaction to Obama tripling the deficit, thus becoming the worst fiscal bum in the history of the United States:
NO BIG DEAL!
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 5:33 pm
will give you a small bit of advice Forrest do not spout claptrap from some baseless blog.
Homer, you’re the moron that’s been peddling skanky ho as an Asian warlord’s mistress.
You should not be giving advice to anyone even 3 year old kids.
If they cannot nominate any programs that Obama has implemented that has ‘tripled’ the deficit there is a reason for it.
Why? I’ve already said that there was a material increase in discretionary and non-discretionary spending couple with a collapse of tax receipts. This is of course supported by the CBO.
Each time you and CL refuse to nominate any programs that has caused this ‘tripling’ of the deficit you look even more stupid than usual
Homer , you’ve gone senile. Seek help.
JC
26 Jan 10 at 5:48 pm
Speaking of Reagan:
Obama spending more on defense than Reagan had at peak.
That’s from the CBO.
C.L.
26 Jan 10 at 5:59 pm
If they cannot nominate any programs that Obama has implemented that has ‘tripled’ the deficit there is a reason for it.
.
Homer, you’re up against Ockham’s Razor here. It tripled on his watch, therefore he’s responsible. So cut the Socratic shit, we’ve been going around in circles with you for weeks on this. Would you care to explain, simply, the non-Obama reasons why the deficit soared? Spell it out for us dummies. Who ot what exactly blew out the deficit? Because as you can see, plenty of people here think it was Obama.
daddy dave
26 Jan 10 at 7:29 pm
JC -”That’s the objective of aid now.. Use it to buy the PM influence? Sure is a bargain.”
CL” – The world was certainly enthralled with Rudd and everything he and his 140 staffers had to say at Copenhagen.”
I’ve quoted CL because he makes the argument against JC for me. Copenhagen actually was enthralled with Rudd. He had significantly more influence than a middle power country like Australia, responsible for just 1% of emissions ought to have had. That a deal wasn’t struck is irrelevant to measuring the influence Australia had. But in the terms argued, we can see Rudd’s fingerprints, just as Howard’s were over Kyoto even though we didn’t join.
Australia spends about $22 billion a year on defence, rising towards $30b after a decade. Sure much of that is for critical defence of the country, but a lot of it is also about a projection of power and influence.
And yet you want to complain about $10million which has both a clear humanitarian benefits and might have helped buy influence with the USA and other world leaders ?
There’s definite hierarchies of world leaders, driven by both the size of their country, their key relationships & the length of their time in office. So while Howard was ignored early on, by winning several strong elections and Australia’s strong economic performance he earnt a higher reputation and hence influence internationally.
This re-sets with each new PM, yet Rudd has already got a significant international status (helping make G-20 the major finance body, with Australia on the inside), and if your claims are right that it was a off-hand bribe for influence (of which you haven’t shown any evidence) then that’s a fantastic deal.
Even if you don’t believe in Climate Change, the national interest still demands Australia have as much influence as possible to secure a good local deal. And I doubt any of you would reject such power when it comes to negotiating trade deals with the DOHA round coming up again.
It’s amazing how much libertarians share with the Green-left in wanting Australia to be pure, innocent and ignored in international politics.
Andrew Carr
27 Jan 10 at 9:21 am
Andrew, so your case against JC – that aid shouldn’t be used to pay bribes – is made by quoting CL – that Rudd had a lot of clout in Copenhagen.
Is that right?
Just clarifying.
daddy dave
27 Jan 10 at 10:18 am
Andrew:
You’re now advocating a form of bribery and rackets to get our voice heard on the “world stage”?
Aren’t delving into Homer territory?
JC
27 Jan 10 at 11:17 am
Copenhagen actually was enthralled with Rudd.
LOL.
C.L.
27 Jan 10 at 11:22 am
Copenhagen actually was enthralled with Rudd.
It’s comedy gold.
JC
27 Jan 10 at 11:24 am
World leaders pretending to be enthralled by Kevin Rudd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vmuSZtiG4A
C.L.
27 Jan 10 at 11:36 am
Interesting table: nobody gives a rat’s arse about global warming anymore.
This explains why Rudd’s focus group guru has told him to shut up about “the great moral challenge of our time.”
C.L.
27 Jan 10 at 11:39 am
Here is a challenge both CL and Forrest always renege on.
They both spout that Obama has tripled the Deficit.
When asked to nominate any programs that have done this they do not.
It is pretty easy. ARRA certainly increased it.
What are the other programs.
Unless you can nominate them, which you haven;t and always avoid doing, you should always be ignored on this point.
In other words either put up or shut up
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
27 Jan 10 at 12:10 pm
In other words either put up or shut up
.
back at ya. It tripled under his watch. It’s up to him (or you) to explain why it’s not his fault.
Here’s a simple question, Homer, for which you have no answer: What blew out the deficit, if not Obama & the Dems?
daddy dave
27 Jan 10 at 12:17 pm
here are the CBO figures showing that Obama has tripled the deficit. Homer believes this was Bush’s fault but he also believes the spending saved the US economy. Strange that he doesn’t want to give the credit to Obama.
How to explain?
Simple. It’s Homernomics:
Republican deficits bad.
Democrat deficits good.
C.L.
27 Jan 10 at 12:19 pm
Homer:
The “challenge” has been met. lol In fact I nicely explained it to you the first time it was brought but you have an aversion to the truth.
Discretionary and non-discretionary spending materially increased in real terms under Obamanation with the exception of farm subsidies. The loon raised spending during a year when tax receipts fell substantially.
It seems you’re too fucking stupid to figure what this means even though I have explained that every single category save farm subsidies rose.
But you keep making the same stupid point over and over again.
This isn’t Skanky Ho, Homer and it isn’t some website where you’re allowed to get away with crap.
JC
27 Jan 10 at 12:34 pm
Uh-oh. Or, as Homer prefers, OOPS:
Officials Say Stimulus Bill to Cost $75B More.
Smoke, meet mirror.
C.L.
27 Jan 10 at 3:08 pm