DomPost at it again

The DomPost is a highly manipulative paper. If they publish a piece that is in conflict with their own editorial viewpoint some trick will be employed to twist it.

Today's prime example is the appearance of this headline in BusinessDay:

Living wage good for singles


Naturally I look first for the author. Eric Crampton. Well there is no way Eric Crampton would be plumping for the living wage.

The guts of his column deals with how the living wage is not an effective tool for lifting the living standards of those with dependent families because of the commensurate loss of WFF assistance. The majority of council workers are not supporting families so the living wage fails in targeting those most in need. He says central govt is better placed to design income support via the tax system. He then works through some of the negative but "logical" effects of the WCC imposing the living wage on contractors (ruling pending in the courts).

The implication can be drawn that the living wage is good for singles despite not helping the partnered-with-children.

But is isn't good for the ratepayers (everyone directly or indirectly, including singles) if it leads to "higher rates, fewer services, or more debt" .

It also won't be good for singles, particularly the young, if it drives up unemployment.

KidsCan talk up a problem they can't solve

A brief piece in today's DomPost describes how a "crisis" at KidsCan is leading to nearly 600 Wellington school children going without "basic healthcare, food and clothing from the charity".

Chapman said it cost about $8000 a child each year to provide the support. 

That is a staggering sum which poses the question, how much does it take to operate KidsCan?

The report then goes on to say that 260,000 children are living in poverty; 180,000 children are living without the basic needs of food, clothing and warmth.

To attend to all the need, KidsCan would require over $2 billion.

No wonder they had to get into the business of child sponsorship. Unfortunately they have over-promised and under-delivered. Which says something about what potential donors think about the cause.

I'll stick with funding the most-basic education of a  Nigerian child whose family is being provided with a hygienic toilet to prevent sickness and death.

"...being a beneficiary is a type of servitude"

Over a month ago I wrote about Tuhoe's desire to be paid out benefit money up front to invest in job creation. Today the NZ Herald has finally written about it. 

This post is simply to draw attention to a stunning statement from Tamati Kruger. He echoes what I and many others have come to believe. It's long been behind my opposition to welfare. I've hated being labelled a' beneficiary basher' for attacking welfare, though you can get used to anything. A white middle-class, middle-aged woman presents an obvious target for derision and denigration, but how does the leftist, pro-welfare lobby deal with the same expression of frustration when it comes from the heart of a subjugated community?

Tuhoe chief executive Kirsti Luke said a majority of Tuhoe people in that area were on benefits, and tribal leader Tamati Kruger said the iwi aimed to change that.
"We are declaring war on dependency," Mr Kruger said. "Our motivation is that if we want to be a vibrant people, to be a productive people who live up to their beliefs and to their faith as to what life is all about, and the honour that has to be part of humanity, then this is clearly what we have to overcome - because being a beneficiary is a type of servitude."

If best attack is hypocritical statistical manipulation, Labour's stuffed

From Question time today:

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the 46,000 long-term unemployed is the highest level since 1999, other than two quarters in 2012?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would certainly want to investigate the number, because, as the member will be aware, in the welfare reform process there has been a lot of reclassification of people, and the product of that reclassification is that a lot more people are now regarded as available for work. They used to languish on the sickness benefit under the Labour Government, which decided they were hopeless and gave up on them. We do not give up on people like that. Even if they cannot get a job immediately, we try to help them get ready to get a job.

It was National that put a definition on "long-term" unemployed. In fact, long-term on any benefit was defined as 1 year plus.

There were 65,652 Jobseeker claimants who had been on a benefit for more than a year at September 2015. A substantial drop from 82,006 in September 2010.

Labour never officially defined long-term dependence on a benefit. Not until Robertson - in Opposition - decided it was 26 weeks or more....well, at least for the unemployment benefit.