Catallaxy Files

There have been several comments in threads about an aspirant prime minister. Piers Akerman asked the individual about those rumours last week.

Since last September, at least, there has been a pretty bitchy snippet doing the rounds that makes the claim that a federal minister has fathered an illegitimate child by a staff member.

During Tuesday’s budget lockup I had the opportunity to sit down with the minister concerned.

We have known each other for close on 10 years, well enough to have Sunday lunch with mutual friends, well enough to attend the footy in company, and well enough to talk quite frankly about relationships.

I asked him about the rumour and it was immediately clear that it distressed him as he pulled his chair closer and told me of the distress it had caused his wife.

According to most versions of the rumour, she has left the family home and is with her mother.

Not so, he said, she is at their home in the electorate.

I have no reason to disbelieve his total dismissal of the rumour about his extramarital affair but the damage is clearly hurtful – and it would be to anyone.

Let’s speak no more of this.

(HT: Tim Blair)

On Thursday this was the news:

The Coalition narrowly lost the vote to force Mr Thomson to make a statement to parliament of up to 10 minutes.

Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott voted with Labor and Mr Thomson to oppose the motion, winning the vote by 72-70.

So why the delay?

After often fiery debate on the issue, Mr Thomson rose and said he intended to make a statement of about 15 minutes.

He said as he had only recently received the 1100 page Fair Work Australia report detailing the allegations against him and it would be unfair to ask him to address the matter without fully viewing it.

Sounds reasonable – Thomson needed time to review the FWA 1100 page document. Yet he was able to speak to Laurie Oakes just two days later. So Thomson can appear on Nine but can’t make a statement to the Parliament?

Have Oakeshott and Windsor been taken for fools or are they taking the rest of us for fools?

Interview here.
Part I

Part II

Part III

I find a number of the posts in Business Spectator very useful.  Stephen Bartholomeusz, in particular, almost always writes very good pieces.  But when it comes to Climate Spectator, it is completely different.

Check out this piece from Climate Spectator from this weekend.

Overall business interests have showed themselves to be fair weather friends in the whole debate over reducing the rate of business taxation. Sure they want government to reduce the rate of tax but they aren’t willing to argue for the measures necessary to pay for it. Nor have they demonstrated to the government that they’ll reward them for delivering on their demands.

In the face of a dishonest campaign by Tony Abbott, heavily encouraged by business lobby groups, about the carbon price crippling households – is it any wonder the Gillard government chose to sacrifice a tax cut for business to handouts for families?

So there you have it.  Unless companies grovel to the government and endorse their loopy policies, don’t expect any favours in return.

But hang on just a minute.  A central thrust of the Henry Tax Review – you know the one that the government pretends to be implementing – was that it is necessary to reduce the tax burden on mobile capital  in order to increase the size of the economic pie and increase incomes.  The evidence is very clear – the burden of company tax falls on WORKERS.

But here we have some turkey telling us that companies should not expect any ’favours’ from the government because they have been prepared to suck up to them.

This proposition quite takes my breath away.

Mary: Miss, Penelope has been saying mean things about the other girls.  She has been telling everyone that she doesn’t like Jane and Anne and Alison and Therese and sisters, Rosie and Annabel.  And she is even saying mean things about Andrea and she left school ages ago.

Teacher: Now, Mary, you know you shouldn’t be spreading gossip.  If Penelope says something to you in confidence, then that is where it ends.  And you must remember the motto of the school: if you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all.

Mary: But, Miss, Penelope says she wants to be school captain and she is pressuring Jackie to withdraw her nomination.  I don’t thinks that’s right.

Teacher: Now, Mary, I really don’t want to hear any more on this matter.  I am sure Jackie can stand up for herself.

Mary: But, Miss, I am at my wit’s end.  Someone needs to tell Penelope to stop saying these things.

Teacher:  As I have told you, Mary, you should keep these matters to yourself.  There can be no good from spreading idle gossip of such a personal nature.  It reflects very badly on you.  And, frankly, I would expect more of you.  This is the end of the matter.  I will be very displeased indeed if I hear any more on this matter.

An interesting exchange has occurred between Treasury deputy secretary David Gruen and economist Adrian Pagan.

Pagan says that the Budget forecasts are not credible. Gruen has reacted strongly, saying

We didn’t make it up. The idea that it is in some way comparable to what Greece has been up to I find deeply offensive. You shouldn’t make comments like that.

Gruen demonstrates both excessive sensitivity and a misunderstanding of the Budget. In fact the Budget is the responsibility of the Government and  the Treasury is required to produce the forecasts that the Government (and Treasurer) demands.

Treasury is not an independent agency, it is an arm of the Government. It operates under the instructions of the Government and it provides recommended forecasts to the Government, which is free to publish whatever it sees fit – either accepting or changing the recommended forecasts.

I think that the Budget forecasts are not credible. The previous forecasts have consistently overestimated revenue and underestimated expenditure. I think that the present forecasts repeat this pattern.

Pagan is right, Gruen is wrong. But Gruen should not be so sensitive – we are not accusing him of manipulating the forecasts; instead we accuse the Treasurer of doing so. Gruen is a dedicated servant of the Treasurer (as he should be), following his instructions to the letter. This is the responsibility of the ethical public servant: to provide robust advice to the Government, but to faithfully implement the Government’s decisions.

Wayne Swan has never, and will never deliver a budget surplus. Under Wayne Swan’s stewardship, the Treasury has been depleted faster than any time in history. Swan’s profligacy has destroyed Australia’s natural advantages, including its strong fiscal position. He has exposed Australia to excessive risk to foreign contagion.

I expect that David Gruen has provided sound advice to the Treasurer, which has been ignored. If so, Gruen has acted as a responsible public servant who serves the government of the day faithfully.

Drudge in a banner headline and in scarlet letters:

B A C K L A S H: POLL: OBAMA TRAILS ROMNEY 7%

Well the answer to whether endorsing gay marriage is all that great a political idea seems to have been revealed rather swiftly. The fate of the world, American foreign policy and economic management being determined in this way is quite incredible. Obama’s own polling must have told him how badly he was slipping because it did seem a very large risk to take a punt on this issue, specially after the vote in North Carolina.

This might well have been the dirtiest campaign of all time had there been any serious dirt to find about Mitt Romney. But if all you have is tying a dog in his basket to the roof of your car when going on holiday and being mean to a fellow high school student when you’re 16, you haven’t really got all that much dirt to throw.

Drudge provides no details as yet but will happily forward as they come to hand.

The Details: It’s the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll so it’s one of the good ones.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided.

Dick Smith wants to be protected. Finding that Dick Smith Foods is uncompetitive, Smith wants the Government to offer his firm protection against imports.

Meanwhile we find that Australians are paying too much for technology and motor vehicles. This is my experience too – Australians consistently pay a higher price for many goods and services compared with comparable countries. Good on Steve Wozniak for pointing this out.

We need more competition in Australia, not less. We need more people to buy through the internet, sourcing directly from overseas. And we need further microeconomic reforms to increase competition and reduce the barriers to trade.

Dick Smith made his fortune as a capitalist. It is a great irony that he now pushes for population control and protectionism.

If Smith wants the full autarky experience, he could move to North Korea. I’m sure his political and economic views would be welcomed by Kim-Jong-Un.

ricardian ambivalence has very kindly updated a Treasury graph that I critiqued in 2010 budget. Treasury had misplaced 8 observations that turned a statistically insignificant releationship into a positive significant relationship. I wrote up the incident here.

Here is the updated graph.

(HT: dr page)

Chris Berg has written a book on freedom of speech that will be posted out to all IPA members next week. A kindle version is available from Amazon for $9.99. That’s US$ – so buy soon before the Gillard government’s dodgy budget makes it more expensive.