There is one good thing about spin. I really get a good laugh from time to time. Check this one out.
A DRAFT of the forthcoming defence white paper has justified the cuts in the defence budget, arguing that the return to budget surplus is important to Australia’s defence.
The extract says “a strong national economy is fundamental to a strong Defence Force. An economic surplus is Australia’s best defence against the uncertain outlook”.
Referring to the reviews that have paved the way for defence budget cuts, it declares: “The government has taken direct action to protect and bolster Australia’s economic security to seek to ensure the foundation for a strong Australian Defence Force.”
Mr Hockey said the comments in the white paper illustrated the seriousness of the government’s decision to abandon its commitment to reach a budget surplus. “By their own words, Labor has admitted that breaking its solemn pledge to return the budget to surplus not only damages our economy, it is compromising the defence of our nation.”
Who ever is responsible for these words should hang their heads in shame. Or is this some sort of joke?
The one time it is reasonable for a government to pile up the debt and run deficits is during war – eg. WW2. Is this author being serious?
It’s not reasonable even then. If the money is available to be borrowed, it is available to be taxed. The preference for financing war by borrowing arises simply because the rich would rather be borrowed from, and repaid through taxes on other people, than taxed themselves.
Gavin R Putland
11 Feb 13 at 10:56 am
I haven’t read the white paper but massive deficits and debts in peace time project weakness not strength and make it less capable of threat deterrence.
If that had been said I would have applauded.
Labor poisons public service from top to toe.
JamesK
11 Feb 13 at 11:06 am
….make us less capable of threat deterrence
JamesK
11 Feb 13 at 11:07 am
Wasn’t it Theodore Rooselvelt who said “Tread lightly, and carry a big surplus” ?
Harold
11 Feb 13 at 11:49 am
Source please?? The Cat keeps forgetting to provide links. And yes, absolutely ridiculous not to mention contemptuous of our armed forces
Dan
11 Feb 13 at 12:00 pm
Still it would be nice if all the other mobs with their hands out had the same qualification, i.e. that balanced books was vital to their particular cause.
Imagine a parallel-universe Gonski Report, or better still a ‘grants to struggling inner city white Aboriginals’ white paper that said, “first and foremost, balance the books before you give us money. If you need to give us less.”
papachango
11 Feb 13 at 12:05 pm
You know, I dunno.
Who the hell is ever going to invade us anyway?
Best course of action: run down our (already) Mickey Mouse army and buy nukes.
C.L.
11 Feb 13 at 12:47 pm
You know, I dunno.
Who the hell is ever going to invade us anyway?
Best course of action: run down our (already) Mickey Mouse army and buy nukes.
C.L.
11 Feb 13 at 12:47 pm
So armed forces only prevent a country being totally overrun by an invading force? Well we already have no control of our borders so forget that, but access to maritime resources would be somethig to defend
Rob
11 Feb 13 at 1:40 pm
C.L. the main role of DOD is to effectively raise the bar as to what is a credible invasion force to the point that it is unaffordable.
The problems with a nukes only force are many, what if an opponent negates the delivery system? What can such a force do against an a raiding force (would we nuke china if they attacked an oil platform in the Timor sea?) and could we be sure that an enemy would believe that we would kill millions as our first and only response? Because if they don’t believe it, it has already failed.
Lastly, do you believe that Gillard (for example) would authorise first use with the Greens having the balance of power?
I’d like to see us get WMD given that the nutcase nations have them, but not as a single line of defence.
harry buttle
11 Feb 13 at 3:11 pm
Hell, CL, strategic reasoning that simplistic and infantile was rejected by the Colonial Premiers decades before the 1889 Colonial Conference.
You really should read the strategic appreciation they took to that Conference (it resulted in the 1891 Naval Agreement and the Auxiliary Squadron), or the one we did before the 1923 Imperial Conference (which led to the Bruce Government’s 5 year military buildup of the mid to late 20s)… or any of a dozen others.
ALL of them show common threads, among which is the one that nobody needs to invade Australia to defeat us.
They just need to sever our sea communications.
Which is why our army has always been an expeditionary force (see ‘Sudan 1885′ and onwards) and we have always made ourselves an indispensable ally of the globally dominant naval power.
All of which vastly magnifies the criminally incompetent conduct of the Lying Slapper’s ‘government’. I’d actually call it treasonous conduct myself.
Mk50 of Brisbane
11 Feb 13 at 6:07 pm