From the Gisborne Herald,
Re-entry of Sir Roger into active politics adds election interest
Monday, 16 June 2008
By Iain Gillies
Surprising as it seemed when first canvassed, the re-entry of Sir Roger Douglas into national politics has assumed serious proportions with his announcement that he will contest Hunua for the ACT party.
"He's on fire," proclaimed party leader Rodney Hide. "I've struggled to keep up with him."
Mr Hide's enthusiasm is understandable given Sir Roger's track record, so much so that those who may initially have written off Sir Roger as a political has-been are having second thoughts.
Those under-estimating Roger Douglas do so at their peril for there is much truth in the adage that: "No one in politics should ever be under-estimated -- until and unless there is evidence to the contrary."
For Sir Roger, no such evidence exists or ever did for that matter.
More than 20 years after his heyday in the finance portfolio he remains one of the most dominant political forces of the past generation, revered by some and poison to others, but never one to be ignored.
His legacy has been policies which have stood the test of time and never been overturned: floating the New Zealand dollar, introducing GST, halving the top tax rate, establishing state-owned enterprises to be run on business lines and making the Reserve Bank independent to control inflation.
Those who have read his book "Unfinished Business" will appreciate he has not run out of ideas, and the challenge for other parties is to judge the electorate's receptivity towards them.
With Sir Roger in the forefront, ACT has several things going for it in the lead-up to the election, one being space at the Right end of the political spectrum which John Key has seemingly overlooked in his wooing of middle New Zealand.
Another is the sheer radicalism of ACT's policies, including a 20-point pledge card with a plan to out-perform Australia by 2020 and a matching macho slogan: "The guts to do what's right".
Third is Sir Roger's undiminished drive, conviction and personal magnetism. Another is the prospect of luring former supporters back into the ACT fold.
It adds spice to the election!
Monday, June 16, 2008
Selective quoting
About the In Work payment that the Child Poverty Action Group is challenging in court, Tapu Misa writes, "There's little evidence that such incentives work. It's true the number of people on the unemployed benefit or DPB has fallen since 2000, thanks largely to a strong economy, but the proportion of children in severe and significant hardship increased 36 per cent between 2000 and 2004. As the OECD has noted, employment isn't the full solution."
Taspu Misa is possibly unaware that two OECD representatives are appearing for the government.
In 2007, on the back of extensive international research exploring the comparative effectiveness of using benefits or work to reduce child poverty, the OECD recommended to New Zealand 'reforms to reduce joblessness among families with children should be a priority.'
This paper compared the effectiveness of a 'benefit' strategy and a 'work' strategy in achieving reduction in child poverty. It concluded that a work strategy would be more effective in New Zealand. Hence I believe it is the authors of this paper that the government are going to use to defend their current strategy.
It is benefit dependence that creates child poverty. When benefits are increased, more people opt for them over work. Isn't it strange that when carbon emissions are widely accepted as contributing to global warming (rightly or wrongly) there is a clamour from the political left to reduce them yet the same logic is not applied to benefits.
Ironically Tapu Misa's chosen analogous headline, "Kids are not gambling chips" probably provoked a more direct response in many. Exactly. They are not meal tickets for feckless parents looking to increase their incomes to squander on, amongst other things, gambling.
Taspu Misa is possibly unaware that two OECD representatives are appearing for the government.
In 2007, on the back of extensive international research exploring the comparative effectiveness of using benefits or work to reduce child poverty, the OECD recommended to New Zealand 'reforms to reduce joblessness among families with children should be a priority.'
This paper compared the effectiveness of a 'benefit' strategy and a 'work' strategy in achieving reduction in child poverty. It concluded that a work strategy would be more effective in New Zealand. Hence I believe it is the authors of this paper that the government are going to use to defend their current strategy.
It is benefit dependence that creates child poverty. When benefits are increased, more people opt for them over work. Isn't it strange that when carbon emissions are widely accepted as contributing to global warming (rightly or wrongly) there is a clamour from the political left to reduce them yet the same logic is not applied to benefits.
Ironically Tapu Misa's chosen analogous headline, "Kids are not gambling chips" probably provoked a more direct response in many. Exactly. They are not meal tickets for feckless parents looking to increase their incomes to squander on, amongst other things, gambling.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Time for a laugh
How do these people survive?
ONE Recently, when I went to Mc Donald's I saw on the menu that you could have an order of 6, 9 or 12 Chicken McNuggets. I asked for a half dozen nuggets. 'We don't have half dozen nuggets,' said the teenager at the counter. 'You don't?' I replied. 'We only have six, nine, or twelve,' was the reply. 'So I can't order a half dozen nuggets, but I can order six?' 'That's right.' So I shook my head and ordered six McNuggets
TWO I was checking out at the local Wal-Mart with just a few items and the lady behind me put her things on the belt close to mine. I picked up one of those 'dividers' that they keep by the cash register and placed it between our things so they wouldn't get mixed. After the girl had scanned all of my items, she picked up the 'divider', looking i t all over for the bar code so she could scan it. Not finding the code she said to me, 'Do you know how much this is?' I said to her 'I've changed my mind, I don't think I'll buy that today.' She said 'OK,' and I paid her for the things and left. She had no clue to what had just happened.
THREE A lady at work was seen putting a credit card into her floppy drive and pulling it out very quickly. When I inquired as to what she was doing, she said she was shopping on the Internet and they kept asking for a credit card number, so she was using the ATM 'thingy.'
FOUR I recently saw a distraught young lady weeping beside her car. 'Do you need some help?' I asked. She replied, 'I knew I should have replaced the battery to this remote door un-locker. Now I can't get into my car. Do you think they (pointing to a distant convenience store) would have a battery to fit this?' 'Hmmm, I dunno. Do you have an alarm, too?' I asked. 'No, just this remote thingy,' she answered, handing it and the car keys to me. As I took the key and manually unlocked the door, I replied, 'Why don't you drive over there and check about the batteries. It's a long walk.'
FIVE Several years ago, we had an Intern who was none too swift. One day she was typing and turned to a secretary and said, 'I'm almost out of typing paper. What do I do?' 'Just use copier machine paper,' the secretary told her. With that, the intern took her last remaining blank piece of paper, put it on the photocopier and proceeded to make five 'blank' copies.
SIX A mother calls 911 very worried asking the dispatcher if she needs to take her kid to the emergency room, the kid was eating ants. The dispatcher tells her to give the kid some Benadryl and should be fine, the mother says, I just gave him some ant killer..... Dispatcher: Rush him in to emergency!
Life is tough...
it's tougher if you're stupid.'
ONE Recently, when I went to Mc Donald's I saw on the menu that you could have an order of 6, 9 or 12 Chicken McNuggets. I asked for a half dozen nuggets. 'We don't have half dozen nuggets,' said the teenager at the counter. 'You don't?' I replied. 'We only have six, nine, or twelve,' was the reply. 'So I can't order a half dozen nuggets, but I can order six?' 'That's right.' So I shook my head and ordered six McNuggets
TWO I was checking out at the local Wal-Mart with just a few items and the lady behind me put her things on the belt close to mine. I picked up one of those 'dividers' that they keep by the cash register and placed it between our things so they wouldn't get mixed. After the girl had scanned all of my items, she picked up the 'divider', looking i t all over for the bar code so she could scan it. Not finding the code she said to me, 'Do you know how much this is?' I said to her 'I've changed my mind, I don't think I'll buy that today.' She said 'OK,' and I paid her for the things and left. She had no clue to what had just happened.
THREE A lady at work was seen putting a credit card into her floppy drive and pulling it out very quickly. When I inquired as to what she was doing, she said she was shopping on the Internet and they kept asking for a credit card number, so she was using the ATM 'thingy.'
FOUR I recently saw a distraught young lady weeping beside her car. 'Do you need some help?' I asked. She replied, 'I knew I should have replaced the battery to this remote door un-locker. Now I can't get into my car. Do you think they (pointing to a distant convenience store) would have a battery to fit this?' 'Hmmm, I dunno. Do you have an alarm, too?' I asked. 'No, just this remote thingy,' she answered, handing it and the car keys to me. As I took the key and manually unlocked the door, I replied, 'Why don't you drive over there and check about the batteries. It's a long walk.'
FIVE Several years ago, we had an Intern who was none too swift. One day she was typing and turned to a secretary and said, 'I'm almost out of typing paper. What do I do?' 'Just use copier machine paper,' the secretary told her. With that, the intern took her last remaining blank piece of paper, put it on the photocopier and proceeded to make five 'blank' copies.
SIX A mother calls 911 very worried asking the dispatcher if she needs to take her kid to the emergency room, the kid was eating ants. The dispatcher tells her to give the kid some Benadryl and should be fine, the mother says, I just gave him some ant killer..... Dispatcher: Rush him in to emergency!
Life is tough...
it's tougher if you're stupid.'
You can go too
I have seen no media reports about this. (Details here)
If Dyson wanted it in the news, it would be there.
Almost looks as if the government are trying to keep it quiet. Even NZ First hasn't been jumping up and down claiming credit. Perhaps they haven't been told. Or they aren't sharp enough to pick it up.
Perhaps the government is keeping it low key because they don't want superannuitants living overseas to start lodging claims for their increased entitlement.
But they should be making a big noise. If more superannuitants retired overseas the taxpayer could save a fortune on health and care services!
Seriously, with the rate young New Zealanders are leaving at, their parents will probably jump at the chance to follow them. Perhaps that's the political implication the government is trying to avoid being splashed all over the media.
"You can bugger off too!"
If Dyson wanted it in the news, it would be there.
Almost looks as if the government are trying to keep it quiet. Even NZ First hasn't been jumping up and down claiming credit. Perhaps they haven't been told. Or they aren't sharp enough to pick it up.
Perhaps the government is keeping it low key because they don't want superannuitants living overseas to start lodging claims for their increased entitlement.
But they should be making a big noise. If more superannuitants retired overseas the taxpayer could save a fortune on health and care services!
Seriously, with the rate young New Zealanders are leaving at, their parents will probably jump at the chance to follow them. Perhaps that's the political implication the government is trying to avoid being splashed all over the media.
"You can bugger off too!"
Vouchers villified. But why?
In Washington DC teacher unions are trying to stop a voucher system for the poorest black and Hispanic children. Yet 90 percent of parents are apparently very happy with the scheme. What's the problem?
Opponents claim there is no evidence that the D.C. scholarship program is raising academic achievement. The only study so far, funded by the federal Department of Education, found positive but "not statistically significant" improvements in reading and math scores after the first year. But education experts agree it takes a few years for results to start showing up. In other places that have vouchers, such as Milwaukee and Florida, test scores show notable improvement. A new study on charter schools in Los Angeles County finds big academic gains when families have expanded choices for educating their kids.
Does it cost more?
The $7,500 voucher is a bargain for taxpayers because it costs the public schools about 50% more, or $13,000 a year, to educate a child in the public schools.
Does it prevent choice?
Many of the parents we interviewed describe the vouchers as a "Godsend" or a "lifeline" for their sons and daughters. "Most of the politicians have choices on where to send their kids to school," says William Rush, Jr., who has two boys in the program. "Why do they want to take our choices away?"
Because just like New Zealand's teacher union and New Zealand's political left, the US unions are frightened that success in the private sector will mean parents abandon public schools. It's not about children and it's not about parents.
The teachers unions have put out the word to Congress that they want all vouchers for private schools that compete with their monopoly system shut down.
It's about unions protecting their patch, whether it grows weeds or prize winning pumpkins. ACT's education vouchers policy is anathema to monopolists (including National?). We will be pushing it with passion.
Opponents claim there is no evidence that the D.C. scholarship program is raising academic achievement. The only study so far, funded by the federal Department of Education, found positive but "not statistically significant" improvements in reading and math scores after the first year. But education experts agree it takes a few years for results to start showing up. In other places that have vouchers, such as Milwaukee and Florida, test scores show notable improvement. A new study on charter schools in Los Angeles County finds big academic gains when families have expanded choices for educating their kids.
Does it cost more?
The $7,500 voucher is a bargain for taxpayers because it costs the public schools about 50% more, or $13,000 a year, to educate a child in the public schools.
Does it prevent choice?
Many of the parents we interviewed describe the vouchers as a "Godsend" or a "lifeline" for their sons and daughters. "Most of the politicians have choices on where to send their kids to school," says William Rush, Jr., who has two boys in the program. "Why do they want to take our choices away?"
Because just like New Zealand's teacher union and New Zealand's political left, the US unions are frightened that success in the private sector will mean parents abandon public schools. It's not about children and it's not about parents.
The teachers unions have put out the word to Congress that they want all vouchers for private schools that compete with their monopoly system shut down.
It's about unions protecting their patch, whether it grows weeds or prize winning pumpkins. ACT's education vouchers policy is anathema to monopolists (including National?). We will be pushing it with passion.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Just desserts on both sides
A troublesome 16 year-old schoolboy promises to "shit on" his teacher's lawn and waits outside his home to ostensibly do just that. He waits on hour. The teacher arrives home and first checks his own children are OK. Then an argument develops between the two and the teacher punches the kid eight times. The teacher is prosecuted, given diversion and sent on an anger management course. He was demoted and ultimately fined by the Teacher's Council.
When I try to think about such a case, acknowledging all I know is what the media discloses (How badly hurt was the boy? What were his previous misdemeanours?), I find it useful to put my own players in the picture. My 14 year-old and a teacher for instance. Notwithstanding I am finding it almost impossible to imagine him in this scenario (but teenagers can go off the rails very quickly and kind, patient teachers can be pushed beyond their limits) I feel some sympathy with both parties.
The teacher's reaction is over the top but it is a rare man or woman who hasn't "snapped" at some point in their personal or professional lives. The problem lies in how the explosion manifests. In my younger days, I clearly remember hitting a bathroom wall so hard once I bruised by fist. I have never hit a person. And there seems to be something "missing" when a person hits someone repeatedly rather than taking their enormous anger and frustration out on something inanimate or simply turning their back and walking away. The teacher may have tried the second and been further provoked. We don't know.
As for the youth, if my son was carrying on like this I would think he was off his trolley. That he was in need of help possibly beyond that I could provide. I don't accept threats of that nature and waiting outside someone's home are just "infantile" pranks.
What I really, really, really want to know is, did the teacher's actions make an impression on this boy? Did they make his behaviour better or worse? I suspect that the father may have nullified any positive effect. I would have been very "agitated" if my son had been punched eight times but I wouldn't be making excuses for him. I would be telling him that he just learned a valuable lesson about human nature. Based on the degree of provocation I probably wouldn't have pressed assault charges. But no account seems to be taken of provocation these days. Especially if it is female provocation of a male.
Based on what we do know I am happy that the teacher was allowed to continue in his job. Violence is never desirable but if it had been 'horrendous' I doubt the man would still be teaching. We need all the male teachers we can get.
When I try to think about such a case, acknowledging all I know is what the media discloses (How badly hurt was the boy? What were his previous misdemeanours?), I find it useful to put my own players in the picture. My 14 year-old and a teacher for instance. Notwithstanding I am finding it almost impossible to imagine him in this scenario (but teenagers can go off the rails very quickly and kind, patient teachers can be pushed beyond their limits) I feel some sympathy with both parties.
The teacher's reaction is over the top but it is a rare man or woman who hasn't "snapped" at some point in their personal or professional lives. The problem lies in how the explosion manifests. In my younger days, I clearly remember hitting a bathroom wall so hard once I bruised by fist. I have never hit a person. And there seems to be something "missing" when a person hits someone repeatedly rather than taking their enormous anger and frustration out on something inanimate or simply turning their back and walking away. The teacher may have tried the second and been further provoked. We don't know.
As for the youth, if my son was carrying on like this I would think he was off his trolley. That he was in need of help possibly beyond that I could provide. I don't accept threats of that nature and waiting outside someone's home are just "infantile" pranks.
What I really, really, really want to know is, did the teacher's actions make an impression on this boy? Did they make his behaviour better or worse? I suspect that the father may have nullified any positive effect. I would have been very "agitated" if my son had been punched eight times but I wouldn't be making excuses for him. I would be telling him that he just learned a valuable lesson about human nature. Based on the degree of provocation I probably wouldn't have pressed assault charges. But no account seems to be taken of provocation these days. Especially if it is female provocation of a male.
Based on what we do know I am happy that the teacher was allowed to continue in his job. Violence is never desirable but if it had been 'horrendous' I doubt the man would still be teaching. We need all the male teachers we can get.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Silly advice
From the NZ Herald editorial today,
Act, however, must campaign in a way that does not make life difficult for National. Sir Roger and his economic programme may be its chief branding weapon, but it must recognise that every vote lost by National diminishes its own chances of being in government.
What bollocks. ACT has to campaign hard on its ideas and plans. National can take care of itself. Winning matters. This is an election campaign. It isn't kiddies sport where it's the "taking part that counts". ACT doesn't exist to be a bit-player to National. Increasingly the two parties have less in common but it isn't ACT that has moved away from its founding principles. The most important message ACT has for New Zealanders is that a mere change in government will not change the direction of this country. The more MPs ACT has, the more real change we can effect.
Act, however, must campaign in a way that does not make life difficult for National. Sir Roger and his economic programme may be its chief branding weapon, but it must recognise that every vote lost by National diminishes its own chances of being in government.
What bollocks. ACT has to campaign hard on its ideas and plans. National can take care of itself. Winning matters. This is an election campaign. It isn't kiddies sport where it's the "taking part that counts". ACT doesn't exist to be a bit-player to National. Increasingly the two parties have less in common but it isn't ACT that has moved away from its founding principles. The most important message ACT has for New Zealanders is that a mere change in government will not change the direction of this country. The more MPs ACT has, the more real change we can effect.
Reality
A comment from yesterday,
The rate of crime is a function of the profits divided by the chance of being caught or killed.
Also yesterday my mother rang to tell me that whilst he is in hospital recovering from open heart surgery, my brother's house has been burgled.
The police have not attended and there is nobody available yet to take fingerprints.
The rate of crime is a function of the profits divided by the chance of being caught or killed.
Also yesterday my mother rang to tell me that whilst he is in hospital recovering from open heart surgery, my brother's house has been burgled.
The police have not attended and there is nobody available yet to take fingerprints.
Fooling fools
Yesterday I had just read a piece by Roger Kerr in the Dominion Post about the futility of Cullen's tax cuts - "Clayton's cuts" - when I glanced down and saw this.
What followed was one of those 'pass me a bucket' moments.
"The Inland Revenue plays a critical role in improving the economic and social well being of all New Zealanders."
Since when??? The role of the IRD is to collect tax - no more, no less.
Oh get with it Lindsay. The IRD is now a key player in redistributing income to 'needy' families. It is the WINZ of the middle class. And we all know how much Work and Income contributes to well being by the number of security men they employ.
But this is an ad for an Investigator. Not a plunket nurse.
"Serving as an Investigator is highly rewarding through the contribution it makes to improve our customers' understanding of, and compliance with tax and social policy laws."
Seriously now, this is disgusting and scary stuff. If you ever struggle to envisage big government, this is it. First the IRD has recast itself into a so-called social organisation with one of the "largest workforces in New Zealand," when all it should be doing it collecting tax. If we had flat tax most of this workforce could be doing something productive instead of being the monkeys on the back of the engine house.
But almost worse than the size of this monolith is the language it uses to fool itself and the public into regarding it as a bastion of beneficence. In truth most people would behold the visit of an Investigator with great trepidation. We wouldn't be putting on the kettle in anticipation of a nice chat.
We've got to wake up in this country. All big government is good for is producing make-work jobs and make-believe descriptions. Voting National won't put an end to this sort of nonsense.
What followed was one of those 'pass me a bucket' moments.
"The Inland Revenue plays a critical role in improving the economic and social well being of all New Zealanders."
Since when??? The role of the IRD is to collect tax - no more, no less.
Oh get with it Lindsay. The IRD is now a key player in redistributing income to 'needy' families. It is the WINZ of the middle class. And we all know how much Work and Income contributes to well being by the number of security men they employ.
But this is an ad for an Investigator. Not a plunket nurse.
"Serving as an Investigator is highly rewarding through the contribution it makes to improve our customers' understanding of, and compliance with tax and social policy laws."
Seriously now, this is disgusting and scary stuff. If you ever struggle to envisage big government, this is it. First the IRD has recast itself into a so-called social organisation with one of the "largest workforces in New Zealand," when all it should be doing it collecting tax. If we had flat tax most of this workforce could be doing something productive instead of being the monkeys on the back of the engine house.
But almost worse than the size of this monolith is the language it uses to fool itself and the public into regarding it as a bastion of beneficence. In truth most people would behold the visit of an Investigator with great trepidation. We wouldn't be putting on the kettle in anticipation of a nice chat.
We've got to wake up in this country. All big government is good for is producing make-work jobs and make-believe descriptions. Voting National won't put an end to this sort of nonsense.
Monday, June 09, 2008
What now?
Can anybody imagine the grief or anger of the relatives of Navtej Singh.
In the Dominion Post there are pictures of the family of the polish tramper who lost his life just over the hills from us last week. Their pain is palpable; their faces crumple. But he lost his life because of an accident. He was pursuing his passion.
What of poor Mr Singh? Only 30. Gunned down by someone who values booze more than life, or at least someone else's life. Who will step up to make excuses for the murderer? Some bleeding heart counsel will no doubt make submissions about upbringing, poverty and more generically, skin colour. There is every possibility Mr Singh also came from an impoverished background and his race have experienced disproportionate poverty. But he was a worker. He was trying to make a crust legitimately - as far as we know.
He must have thought about the possibility of violent robbery. May have even experienced it before. He must have consciously decided that he would follow police advice and submit to the violation. He took a calculated risk, not just by choosing this course of action but by the very act of living and working in what is purportedly a dangerous area. He lost the gamble. Who to blame?
Where are the liberal left who remonstrate against apportioning blame? It's not about blaming someone, they say. The problems in South Auckland are systemic, they say. It's the gap between rich and poor driving violent crime. But there wasn't much of a gap between the perpetrator and the victim, was there?
And what next for the police? Don't defend yourselves they say. Call us. Too late. But where were you anyway? A neighbourhood as dangerous as this needs a constance presence. What am I saying. If there was a constant police presence this wouldn't have happened. If the neighbours are too terrified to speak because of gang recriminations the police are probably too scared to police.
I am sick at the state of parts of this country. I am sick at poor people being victims of other poor people who have lost all traces of humanity. But mostly I am sick of our seeming inability to deal with them. RIP Navtej Singh. I am sorry.
In the Dominion Post there are pictures of the family of the polish tramper who lost his life just over the hills from us last week. Their pain is palpable; their faces crumple. But he lost his life because of an accident. He was pursuing his passion.
What of poor Mr Singh? Only 30. Gunned down by someone who values booze more than life, or at least someone else's life. Who will step up to make excuses for the murderer? Some bleeding heart counsel will no doubt make submissions about upbringing, poverty and more generically, skin colour. There is every possibility Mr Singh also came from an impoverished background and his race have experienced disproportionate poverty. But he was a worker. He was trying to make a crust legitimately - as far as we know.
He must have thought about the possibility of violent robbery. May have even experienced it before. He must have consciously decided that he would follow police advice and submit to the violation. He took a calculated risk, not just by choosing this course of action but by the very act of living and working in what is purportedly a dangerous area. He lost the gamble. Who to blame?
Where are the liberal left who remonstrate against apportioning blame? It's not about blaming someone, they say. The problems in South Auckland are systemic, they say. It's the gap between rich and poor driving violent crime. But there wasn't much of a gap between the perpetrator and the victim, was there?
And what next for the police? Don't defend yourselves they say. Call us. Too late. But where were you anyway? A neighbourhood as dangerous as this needs a constance presence. What am I saying. If there was a constant police presence this wouldn't have happened. If the neighbours are too terrified to speak because of gang recriminations the police are probably too scared to police.
I am sick at the state of parts of this country. I am sick at poor people being victims of other poor people who have lost all traces of humanity. But mostly I am sick of our seeming inability to deal with them. RIP Navtej Singh. I am sorry.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Poor Expectations
Sometimes numbers just breeze right past me. Then I do a double-take and think twice. One such number just presented itself in a reply to a written question from Judith Collins to the Minister of Social Development.
3,099 clients aged 16-17 years receive a main benefit (excluding partners).
There are around 120,000 16-17 year-olds. That means more than 1 in 40 is on a benefit. That's like one in a large school class. Hell, that's a lot. And it doesn't auger well for the future because many are just starting on a lifetime habit.
Yesterday a friend sent me some research from the University of British Colombia which shows that availability of welfare encourages kids to leave school.
Bill Warburton had observed that the dropout rate for children at risk of receiving income assistance rose with B.C.'s welfare caseload through the early 1990s and fell when a substantial package of welfare reforms was introduced Jan. 1, 1996, which removed about 100,000 people from the welfare rolls.
Using data from the B.C. ministries of education and employment and income assistance, Warburton found that when the New Democrats began a program of welfare reform in the mid-1990s, high school dropout rates began to fall and continued to fall for several years.
Arguably the most important aspect of welfare reform is it wards off those who would otherwise have become enmeshed. It makes them consider better options.
A good chunk of those NZ 16 and 17 year-olds on welfare are either pregnant and on a sickness benefit or a teenage mum and on the emergency maintenance allowance. Until the system changes expectations the problem-producing benefit lifestyle will continue unabated.
3,099 clients aged 16-17 years receive a main benefit (excluding partners).
There are around 120,000 16-17 year-olds. That means more than 1 in 40 is on a benefit. That's like one in a large school class. Hell, that's a lot. And it doesn't auger well for the future because many are just starting on a lifetime habit.
Yesterday a friend sent me some research from the University of British Colombia which shows that availability of welfare encourages kids to leave school.
Bill Warburton had observed that the dropout rate for children at risk of receiving income assistance rose with B.C.'s welfare caseload through the early 1990s and fell when a substantial package of welfare reforms was introduced Jan. 1, 1996, which removed about 100,000 people from the welfare rolls.
Using data from the B.C. ministries of education and employment and income assistance, Warburton found that when the New Democrats began a program of welfare reform in the mid-1990s, high school dropout rates began to fall and continued to fall for several years.
Arguably the most important aspect of welfare reform is it wards off those who would otherwise have become enmeshed. It makes them consider better options.
A good chunk of those NZ 16 and 17 year-olds on welfare are either pregnant and on a sickness benefit or a teenage mum and on the emergency maintenance allowance. Until the system changes expectations the problem-producing benefit lifestyle will continue unabated.
Books
That's put me over my limit. Can I manage two whole books in one year? I can generally get through one. Last year it was Rodney Hide's highly readable biography.
But last week I purchased Bob Jones', Jones on Management which is very good. In fact I may finish it today. I read a good chunk last night whilst not watching the All Blacks.
And tomorrow I will buy Michael Bassett's latest, Working With David. This piece has further whet my appetite.
From the start, the clandestine affair between the married prime minister and his speechwriter aroused feelings of foreboding among his staff.
It was "like a crow on your shoulder all the time, because you're never quite sure when it's going to shit on you", former Lange press officer Ross Vintiner told historian Dr Michael Bassett.
Jolly good. This promises to be a book that goes deep into the ways in which relationships affect thinking. The too real overlay of human frailty on political actions that reach out across populations and time.
But last week I purchased Bob Jones', Jones on Management which is very good. In fact I may finish it today. I read a good chunk last night whilst not watching the All Blacks.
And tomorrow I will buy Michael Bassett's latest, Working With David. This piece has further whet my appetite.From the start, the clandestine affair between the married prime minister and his speechwriter aroused feelings of foreboding among his staff.
It was "like a crow on your shoulder all the time, because you're never quite sure when it's going to shit on you", former Lange press officer Ross Vintiner told historian Dr Michael Bassett.
Jolly good. This promises to be a book that goes deep into the ways in which relationships affect thinking. The too real overlay of human frailty on political actions that reach out across populations and time.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Street preventing choice and efficiency
The view of the author is that the privatisation process delivered benefits to:
• ACC by creating a more efficient and focused organisation,
• the overall scheme by properly defining the entitlements,
• insurers who made profits from the experience,
• employers by reducing premium rates,
• employees overall through improved rehabilitation and reduction in injury rates.
That is an excerpt from a review of the Privatisation of New Zealand
Accident Insurance Workplace Cover 1999/2000.
ACC Minister Maryan Street, who loathes the idea of competition and profit, is harassing National over any policy to re-privatise employers accounts. What caught my eye was her snide and petulant claim that National was simply "lining the pockets of their insurance company mates.”
Now that really is a fine example of the 'politics of envy' and what turns thinking people off Labour.
• ACC by creating a more efficient and focused organisation,
• the overall scheme by properly defining the entitlements,
• insurers who made profits from the experience,
• employers by reducing premium rates,
• employees overall through improved rehabilitation and reduction in injury rates.
That is an excerpt from a review of the Privatisation of New Zealand
Accident Insurance Workplace Cover 1999/2000.
ACC Minister Maryan Street, who loathes the idea of competition and profit, is harassing National over any policy to re-privatise employers accounts. What caught my eye was her snide and petulant claim that National was simply "lining the pockets of their insurance company mates.”
Now that really is a fine example of the 'politics of envy' and what turns thinking people off Labour.
Friday, June 06, 2008
National's nineties record on welfare
A commenter from yesterday disagreed with my statement that National's recent record of getting people into the workforce is worse than Labour's.
The anonymous commenter says;
Again wrong. The single best effort here is Ruth Richardson in 1990 - all else pales beside this.
There seems to be a misapprehension about what National achieved during the nineties in respect of dealing to unemployment and general welfare dependence.
For the period 1990 to 1999 (October) the unemployment benefit numbers went from 139,625 to 143,707 peaking in 1992/93 at around 170,000.
Numbers on all other benefits continued to rise through the same period.
DPB 94,823 to 110,315
Sickness 19,511 to 33,043
Invalid 27,824 to 57,127
We all know that numbers on the unemployment benefit have plunged under Labour. Yes, they have enjoyed strong economic conditions in spite of their increasing regulation and interference. Yes, their achievements in respect of the DPB have been rather pathetic. Yes, there is a very real problem with the growth in the invalid's and sickness benefit, some of which represents what the OECD calls the "medicalisation of labour market problems."
But don't try and tell me National was a world beater at reducing benefit dependence because it simply isn't true.
The anonymous commenter says;
Again wrong. The single best effort here is Ruth Richardson in 1990 - all else pales beside this.
There seems to be a misapprehension about what National achieved during the nineties in respect of dealing to unemployment and general welfare dependence.
For the period 1990 to 1999 (October) the unemployment benefit numbers went from 139,625 to 143,707 peaking in 1992/93 at around 170,000.
Numbers on all other benefits continued to rise through the same period.
DPB 94,823 to 110,315
Sickness 19,511 to 33,043
Invalid 27,824 to 57,127
We all know that numbers on the unemployment benefit have plunged under Labour. Yes, they have enjoyed strong economic conditions in spite of their increasing regulation and interference. Yes, their achievements in respect of the DPB have been rather pathetic. Yes, there is a very real problem with the growth in the invalid's and sickness benefit, some of which represents what the OECD calls the "medicalisation of labour market problems."
But don't try and tell me National was a world beater at reducing benefit dependence because it simply isn't true.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The "major difference between Labour and National"
John Key was in Taranaki last night talking to supporters;
''I personally believe we're going to win the next election,'' he told the packed conference room.
New Zealanders could see the one major difference between the Labour and National, he told them.
While National's were the politics of aspiration, Labour believed in the politics of envy and it was not taking them anywhere, he said to hearty clapping.
This is the Nats election catch cry. I first heard it from Mark Blumsky sitting on the Face Off panel on NewstalkZB. (Slightly ironic it should come from a disillusioned one-term MP)
I can't disagree that Labour is besmirched with envy politics. A disdain for "rich pricks" and discomfit with private success seems to have gathered momentum this year.
But is National really "aspirational"? It's one thing to lay claim to a moniker but breathing substance into it is another.
There is a world of difference between the two types of worldviews but there is not a world of difference between what happens in New Zealand when either a Labour or National government reigns. I know National-supporting bloggers have listed differences but I can never remember what they are. Not a good sign.
What should a government be aspiring to? Surely to lift New Zealand's comparative economic standing in the world would rank right up there. But we haven't seen the Nats commit themselves to achieving the rate of economic growth it would take.
It is broadly accepted that education is the key to prosperity and independence but National are happy to largely preserve the status quo with the abandonment of their earlier bulk-funding policy and retention of elitist zoning. Meanwhile literacy declines.
It is best practice to let the private sector run services yet the Nats have run a mile from privatisation.
And Working For Families might help people in the short term but it traps them in the long. It is the very antithesis of aspiration. Yet the Nats will keep it.
So what am I left to think? That the so-called "major difference between National and Labour" - the politics of aspiration over the politics of envy - is nothing more than a seductive slogan.
''I personally believe we're going to win the next election,'' he told the packed conference room.
New Zealanders could see the one major difference between the Labour and National, he told them.
While National's were the politics of aspiration, Labour believed in the politics of envy and it was not taking them anywhere, he said to hearty clapping.
This is the Nats election catch cry. I first heard it from Mark Blumsky sitting on the Face Off panel on NewstalkZB. (Slightly ironic it should come from a disillusioned one-term MP)
I can't disagree that Labour is besmirched with envy politics. A disdain for "rich pricks" and discomfit with private success seems to have gathered momentum this year.
But is National really "aspirational"? It's one thing to lay claim to a moniker but breathing substance into it is another.
There is a world of difference between the two types of worldviews but there is not a world of difference between what happens in New Zealand when either a Labour or National government reigns. I know National-supporting bloggers have listed differences but I can never remember what they are. Not a good sign.
What should a government be aspiring to? Surely to lift New Zealand's comparative economic standing in the world would rank right up there. But we haven't seen the Nats commit themselves to achieving the rate of economic growth it would take.
It is broadly accepted that education is the key to prosperity and independence but National are happy to largely preserve the status quo with the abandonment of their earlier bulk-funding policy and retention of elitist zoning. Meanwhile literacy declines.
It is best practice to let the private sector run services yet the Nats have run a mile from privatisation.
And Working For Families might help people in the short term but it traps them in the long. It is the very antithesis of aspiration. Yet the Nats will keep it.
So what am I left to think? That the so-called "major difference between National and Labour" - the politics of aspiration over the politics of envy - is nothing more than a seductive slogan.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Begging for regulation
Outrageous.
How should unhealthy food be regulated?
Ban advertising during children's TV (1658 votes, 23.4%)
Ban sports sponsorships (166 votes, 2.3%)
Label junk food (624 votes, 8.8%)
Tax junk food (898 votes, 12.7%)
Nothing - what we eat is a personal choice (3745 votes, 52.8%)
Now I ask you. How can what we eat be a personal choice?? It is the responsibility of the state to direct our diets. Everybody knows people are too stupid to look in the mirror and make any connection between too much KFC and being blobby. Last time I had a piece of KFC the fat it was cooked in dripped down my chin. DRIPPED DOWN MY CHIN. What we need is a Ministry of Mustn't Eat. It should be tasked with educating people that just like school choice and health choice, food choice is too much of a responsibility to be shouldered by the individual. It makes no sense for the state to own your life and your money and not your body too. We should all be grateful that those with better instincts than ours are preparing to step in and relieve us of our last vestiges of autonomy.
Bugger the majority.
How should unhealthy food be regulated?
Ban advertising during children's TV (1658 votes, 23.4%)
Ban sports sponsorships (166 votes, 2.3%)
Label junk food (624 votes, 8.8%)
Tax junk food (898 votes, 12.7%)
Nothing - what we eat is a personal choice (3745 votes, 52.8%)
Now I ask you. How can what we eat be a personal choice?? It is the responsibility of the state to direct our diets. Everybody knows people are too stupid to look in the mirror and make any connection between too much KFC and being blobby. Last time I had a piece of KFC the fat it was cooked in dripped down my chin. DRIPPED DOWN MY CHIN. What we need is a Ministry of Mustn't Eat. It should be tasked with educating people that just like school choice and health choice, food choice is too much of a responsibility to be shouldered by the individual. It makes no sense for the state to own your life and your money and not your body too. We should all be grateful that those with better instincts than ours are preparing to step in and relieve us of our last vestiges of autonomy.
Bugger the majority.
Yes or no?
My mother was a teacher. She had a habit (and still does) of pulling me up on grammatical errors. A favourite was my misuse of the word 'borrow' when I meant 'lend'.
But one I always got her on is using a double negative. And it's very common. People will often fall into the trap by making a negative statement and then tacking "I don't think" on the end. So what is all this nit-picking about?
A report about Rodney Hide's Regulatory Responsibility left me struggling to draw a conclusion with this statement;
However the commerce select committee said it did not think the bill would not work as it would create legal headaches.
Perhaps we can find out exactly what is happening to this bill today when Rodney takes Leighton Smith's place for the morning as talkback host on NewstalkZB.
For Wellington and Christchurch listeners live-streaming is available here. Select Auckland.
But one I always got her on is using a double negative. And it's very common. People will often fall into the trap by making a negative statement and then tacking "I don't think" on the end. So what is all this nit-picking about?
A report about Rodney Hide's Regulatory Responsibility left me struggling to draw a conclusion with this statement;
However the commerce select committee said it did not think the bill would not work as it would create legal headaches.
Perhaps we can find out exactly what is happening to this bill today when Rodney takes Leighton Smith's place for the morning as talkback host on NewstalkZB.
For Wellington and Christchurch listeners live-streaming is available here. Select Auckland.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Effects of raising benefits
This is a summary of some of the research into the effects of increasing benefit payment rates. It is from the Colorado Independence Institute during the early 90s. AFDC was the US equivalent of the DPB.
Though the issue is contested, many researchers believe there is a direct link between welfare and illegitimacy, and therefore a long-run link between welfare and crime. For example, a study by M. Anne Hill and June O'Neill (currently director of the Congressional Budget Office) found that a 50 percent increase in afdc and food stamp benefits led to a 75 percent increase in the number of women enrolling in these programs, a sharp rise in the number of years spent on afdc, a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births, and a 117 percent increase in crimes perpetrated by young black males. Researchers from the University of Washington found that a difference of $228 in monthly welfare benefits more than doubled a white teenager's probability of bearing an illegitimate child. Other U.S. and Canadian investigations show that even small increases in welfare benefits raise the odds of women going on welfare and becoming single parents. Roughly half the increase in black illegitimacy since the mid-1960s can be attributed to increased welfare benefits and easier eligibility standards, according to Hill and O'Neill.
Though the issue is contested, many researchers believe there is a direct link between welfare and illegitimacy, and therefore a long-run link between welfare and crime. For example, a study by M. Anne Hill and June O'Neill (currently director of the Congressional Budget Office) found that a 50 percent increase in afdc and food stamp benefits led to a 75 percent increase in the number of women enrolling in these programs, a sharp rise in the number of years spent on afdc, a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births, and a 117 percent increase in crimes perpetrated by young black males. Researchers from the University of Washington found that a difference of $228 in monthly welfare benefits more than doubled a white teenager's probability of bearing an illegitimate child. Other U.S. and Canadian investigations show that even small increases in welfare benefits raise the odds of women going on welfare and becoming single parents. Roughly half the increase in black illegitimacy since the mid-1960s can be attributed to increased welfare benefits and easier eligibility standards, according to Hill and O'Neill.
Removing any incentive to work
According to the Dominion Post today a solo mother with two children on the domestic purposes benefit received $23,000 net a year - less than 55 per cent of the average income...
Currently working a 40 hour week on the minimum wage nets $24,960; a 30 hour week $18,720. The effective rate of taxation on earned income is slightly higher than on the benefit sum.
So it is easy to see why moving from a benefit to a low wage job is not "worth it".
Now if the In Work payment was added the net benefit income would rise to $25-26,000 - more than working a 40 hour week on the minimum wage.
People used to work because they had a work ethic. They wanted to pull their weight and be seen to be independent. Poor but proud. Today many will only work if it is financially advantageous. The government has to work with that reality. The CPAG wants to ignore it.
Currently working a 40 hour week on the minimum wage nets $24,960; a 30 hour week $18,720. The effective rate of taxation on earned income is slightly higher than on the benefit sum.
So it is easy to see why moving from a benefit to a low wage job is not "worth it".
Now if the In Work payment was added the net benefit income would rise to $25-26,000 - more than working a 40 hour week on the minimum wage.
People used to work because they had a work ethic. They wanted to pull their weight and be seen to be independent. Poor but proud. Today many will only work if it is financially advantageous. The government has to work with that reality. The CPAG wants to ignore it.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Discrimination?
The Child Poverty Action Group begins its case against the government tomorrow. They want the In Work payment (now In Work Tax Credit) paid to beneficiary families as well. They claim the exclusion of beneficiary families is discriminatory.
This is my argument against the CPAG (repeated);
If the CPAG win, essentially we will see an increase in benefit levels. An increase in benefit levels leads to an increase in the number of people going on or staying on benefits. CPAG want a short term gain and refuse to see the long term cost which cannot be in the best interests of children.
There is no guarantee the money reaches the children anyway.
And, most obviously, the incentive effect of the In-Work payment will be nullified if it is extended to non-working families.
The Greens and the Maori Party are supporting the CPAG.
Who is going to win? We have seen the Ministry of Social Development forced to settle out of court previously for discriminating against a single male parent who had full custody of a child (the mother had full custody of the other child/ren) by not allowing him to be on the DPB. But in this case, should the government lose, there would be a significant financial impact. Around $3-400 million more would be paid to parents on benefits. (From the beneficiaries point of view that's about a 14 percent pay rise.)
Beneficiaries already receive family support for each child. It varies according to age and ranges from $57 to $95 per week. Payments increased in April 2005 and April 2007. I wonder if I could take a case to the Human Rights Tribunal claiming discrimination because I do not receive these payments?
Or, more to the point, perhaps I should try discrimination on the grounds that I do not receive the In Work tax credit. The government has set arbitrary conditions on who receives them. The one that excludes me is an income test. The one that excludes beneficiaries is a work test. If the CPAG can get the work test removed perhaps I can get the income test removed.
UPDATE: A couple of months back I put out a media release about the CPAG being "at loggerheads with the OECD" on the matter of what strategy is most effective in reducing child poverty. I was pleased to read in the Dominion Post this morning that the government will be calling two representatives from the OECD as witnesses in its defence against the CPAG.
This is my argument against the CPAG (repeated);
If the CPAG win, essentially we will see an increase in benefit levels. An increase in benefit levels leads to an increase in the number of people going on or staying on benefits. CPAG want a short term gain and refuse to see the long term cost which cannot be in the best interests of children.
There is no guarantee the money reaches the children anyway.
And, most obviously, the incentive effect of the In-Work payment will be nullified if it is extended to non-working families.
The Greens and the Maori Party are supporting the CPAG.
Who is going to win? We have seen the Ministry of Social Development forced to settle out of court previously for discriminating against a single male parent who had full custody of a child (the mother had full custody of the other child/ren) by not allowing him to be on the DPB. But in this case, should the government lose, there would be a significant financial impact. Around $3-400 million more would be paid to parents on benefits. (From the beneficiaries point of view that's about a 14 percent pay rise.)
Beneficiaries already receive family support for each child. It varies according to age and ranges from $57 to $95 per week. Payments increased in April 2005 and April 2007. I wonder if I could take a case to the Human Rights Tribunal claiming discrimination because I do not receive these payments?
Or, more to the point, perhaps I should try discrimination on the grounds that I do not receive the In Work tax credit. The government has set arbitrary conditions on who receives them. The one that excludes me is an income test. The one that excludes beneficiaries is a work test. If the CPAG can get the work test removed perhaps I can get the income test removed.
UPDATE: A couple of months back I put out a media release about the CPAG being "at loggerheads with the OECD" on the matter of what strategy is most effective in reducing child poverty. I was pleased to read in the Dominion Post this morning that the government will be calling two representatives from the OECD as witnesses in its defence against the CPAG.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Mad Matt
What a load of codswallop from Matt McCarten today. If he was right about ACT than I would be an utter misfit. I would never have been placed on last election's list, let alone within cooey of becoming an MP. First he launches into the Business Roundtable;Its ideology is quite simple: we're all essentially greedy and we should be free to make as much money as we can. If we exploit others in the process - well, that's just the free market at work. Now it seems Labour may be defeated this year, it appears to be getting ready to get back into the driving seat. No doubt it would have been behind the recent manoeuvre to bring Douglas back into Act.
We are all essentially self-interested. Greed and self-interest are completely different things. They produce different outcomes. The NZBR would concur with Adam Smith's defence of self-interest. In a personal sense I am self-interested. Those things that matter most to me are to be protected and cared for or I will become unhappy. I am protecting my own interests when I protect those of my children, family and friends. Business is the same. Self interest in one's own business success requires creating an environment where everyone employed or traded with is gaining something. When exploitation occurs - personally or professioally - unhappiness and failure result.
The NZBR is behind Roger Douglas's re-emergence? The person behind Roger's re-emergence is Roger. I am sure some people have been persuaded to stand for ACT indirectly via the NZBR simply because they promote (very well) sound ideas similar to those ACT promotes. We share the philosophy of individualism. This grand plan conspiratorial stuff is just self-gratification of the loopy left temperament.
It would have been devastated when John Key, a moderate, took out Don Brash as leader. Therefore it had to resort to a Plan B and coax decrepit Douglas out of retirement. With the support of his Roundtable cronies, Douglas is now effectively co-leader of the Act Party. I'm wary of political ideologues who claim our economic and social ills can only be cured if we adopt their plan. Apparently, Douglas and Act have a new 20-point plan. Most of us are probably tempted to roll our eyes about this nuttiness. But don't think they are harmless fruitcakes.
So what's your plan Matt? Drive New Zealand right off the bottom rung of the OECD ladder? All pre-election policy is a plan. Could we have some credit for being transparent about ours? No. I didn't think so. Because that blows another right-wing conspiratorial theory - the cloak and dagger hidden-agenda one. That's the one you now save for John Key.
Unfortunately for the far right, there is a major block to their success - the Maori Party......Therefore it should be no surprise the Business Roundtable released research it has sponsored which runs along the supposedly reasonable line that as we now have MMP, the Maori seats are unnecessary and allow a disproportionate number of Maori in parliament. Funny how the Roundtable didn't produce a report about the over-representation of white males in parliament.
.....The Business Roundtable doesn't give a fig about the role of Maori - good or bad. The report is merely propaganda to influence the public so National sticks with its promise to hold a referendum on Maori seats. Ask our country's 86 per cent non-Maori population if these seats should remain and the answer is a foregone conclusion. They will go, as the Roundtable intends.
This has nothing to do with Maori. It's the far right removing obstacles so it can get in a government it can influence to finish off the neo-conservative agenda begun in 1984.
That the NZBR (and by implication ACT) "doesn't give a fig about the role of Maori" is a ugly misinterpretation. One can care about people as individuals without agreeing to tribalist, collectivist notions and practices. That is the most important concept and maybe Matt McCarten just can't comprehend it. If New Zealand prospers (and prosperity is undeniably linked to freedom, not government) the people who will experience the greatest improvement in the quality of life are those who currently have the least.
Matt, if you are right, and the Business Roundtable and ACT are run by 'greedy, white, rich men' wouldn't they also be of the selfish 'I'm- alright- Jack ilk?' Why would they be spending their time and energy and MONEY bothering with ideas, philosophy and politics? Especially in their 60s and 70s. It doesn't stack up Matt.
I wish
From an interview with the Sunday Star Times,Brash says while he was largely happy with National's policy platform in 2005, seeing it as a necessary compromise, he wonders whether he might have gained more votes campaigning as a conviction politician.
We will never know. But it's not too late to have another go Don. All you need is people around you who share the convictions you hold about what is needed to turn this country around.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Green/Maori Accord
Back in February I blogged the reasons why a Maori/Green Accord is a distinct possibility.
Today's Green conference has brought more talk about such a possibility.
The Greens and the Maori Party holding the balance of power after the next election would be a very dangerous situation for New Zealand to find itself in.
Today's Green conference has brought more talk about such a possibility.
The Greens and the Maori Party holding the balance of power after the next election would be a very dangerous situation for New Zealand to find itself in.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Political cross-dresser
How quickly a leopard can change its spots. Reason describes the new Mayor of London's transformation from libertarian to authoritarian. Fascinating piece. Populism is so seductive.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Art and schools
To give you an idea of how schools utilise technology while still learning hands on creative skills have a look at this. I am amazed at the variety of drawings that came out of the 20-odd children I worked with yesterday. They each had a copy of a photo of an afghani child (I had already drawn in pastel so was familiar with the subject). I demonstrated how I would tackle the subject using oil pastels and they followed. It was a real pleasure. The children are aged 9-10.
Who is he kidding?
Some lawyers really do lay it on thick. A brutish, callous 19 year-old was yesterday jailed for two years after his vicious attack, caught on camera, on a 17 year-old. The defence counsel says, as the offender heads off to prison, the turning point in his client's life would be when he got out of prison and had to take responsibility for his young partner and their expected child.
What??? He should be nowhere near a child. Hopefully his 'partner' will run a mile. But I've known silly girls who romanticise and mope after their incarcerated love objects. Parting is such sweet sorrow....
Give me a break. Likely the judge had similar thoughts running through his head. His parting comment to this individual was, "For what it's worth, I do not think you could care for a guinea pig."
Let's hope someone from care and protection services was paying attention.
What??? He should be nowhere near a child. Hopefully his 'partner' will run a mile. But I've known silly girls who romanticise and mope after their incarcerated love objects. Parting is such sweet sorrow....
Give me a break. Likely the judge had similar thoughts running through his head. His parting comment to this individual was, "For what it's worth, I do not think you could care for a guinea pig."
Let's hope someone from care and protection services was paying attention.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Front page but it's not news
The following appears on the front page of the Dominion Post. It's not news - not in sense that news implies something 'new'.
Dr Van Herck, who is originally from Belgium and has been working in New Zealand for 2½ years, said many able-bodied sickness beneficiaries should be on the unemployment benefit instead.
"A lot of people on sickness benefits say Work and Income staff have sent them and just expect you to sign the form."
He had seen one woman who had been on a sickness benefit for 19 years because of asthma but smoked a packet of cigarettes a day. Work and Income had offered her several quit programmes. "She admitted she was too lazy to go."
Another sickness beneficiary's documented reason for not working was they "could not be bothered".
He signed off both beneficiaries but wrote on their forms that they needed follow-up and reassessment.
On the day he saw the asthma sufferer, he also saw a man whose leg had been amputated above the knee and who worked full-time, despite pain. Another woman continued to work after a stroke.
"They are paying taxes to sustain somebody with asthma smoking a packet of cigarettes a day. Many GPs have complained; it becomes a culture of handouts."
What it is going to take to break this culture? First there has to be a consensus that 'bludging' just isn't acceptable. Until that happens isolated individuals will struggle to stand up to the intimidation or sheer persistence. Alongside the culture of handouts is the culture of making excuses for people. The opposite doesn't demand that we stomp all over people punitively. What it requires is more people showing, teaching and expecting aspiration and ambition.
Sometimes those people just aren't available in the lives of beneficiaries. But they exist in the community. And I have seen the difference 'mentoring' relationships can make.
Then I have also seen the resistance of people to any effort to help and encourage them. In which case we need to relearn a culture of just saying 'NO'.
Dr Van Herck, who is originally from Belgium and has been working in New Zealand for 2½ years, said many able-bodied sickness beneficiaries should be on the unemployment benefit instead.
"A lot of people on sickness benefits say Work and Income staff have sent them and just expect you to sign the form."
He had seen one woman who had been on a sickness benefit for 19 years because of asthma but smoked a packet of cigarettes a day. Work and Income had offered her several quit programmes. "She admitted she was too lazy to go."
Another sickness beneficiary's documented reason for not working was they "could not be bothered".
He signed off both beneficiaries but wrote on their forms that they needed follow-up and reassessment.
On the day he saw the asthma sufferer, he also saw a man whose leg had been amputated above the knee and who worked full-time, despite pain. Another woman continued to work after a stroke.
"They are paying taxes to sustain somebody with asthma smoking a packet of cigarettes a day. Many GPs have complained; it becomes a culture of handouts."
What it is going to take to break this culture? First there has to be a consensus that 'bludging' just isn't acceptable. Until that happens isolated individuals will struggle to stand up to the intimidation or sheer persistence. Alongside the culture of handouts is the culture of making excuses for people. The opposite doesn't demand that we stomp all over people punitively. What it requires is more people showing, teaching and expecting aspiration and ambition.
Sometimes those people just aren't available in the lives of beneficiaries. But they exist in the community. And I have seen the difference 'mentoring' relationships can make.
Then I have also seen the resistance of people to any effort to help and encourage them. In which case we need to relearn a culture of just saying 'NO'.
Questions
National's Simon Power is playing to the law and order buffs. I should know, being one. Here he highlights how many people on home detention are absconding.
Mr Power said the Government had put its obsession with reducing the number of prison inmates ahead of public safety.
Obsession? If Labour is obsessed the statistics don't reflect it.
The graph above groups the sentenced prisoner population according to current eligibility for discretionary release (either on parole or home detention). Prisoners in the category “no discretion for release” include those whose sentence does not allow early release on parole or home detention, as well as those who are eligible but have yet to pass their parole eligibility date. “Discretionary release eligible” refers to those who have passed their parole eligibility date or home detention eligibility date but have yet to be released or have been granted leave to apply for front end home detention but have yet to be released.
The data reflects the influence of parole laws introduced in 2002, which meant that parole eligibility occurred earlier in the sentences of longer-term prisoners. However, this has not meant that prisoners have been released earlier. Instead, the number of sentenced prisoners currently eligible for release, but who have yet to be granted release by the Parole Board, exceeds the number who are not eligible for release.
As it stands 48 out of 2,500 home detainees absconded. My point is, if National says it can do better, then they are saying they will eliminate all the risk. That would entail keeping all 2,500 home detainees in prison.
So will they be making a commitment to abolishing home detention and building prison capacity? What exactly is it that National are going to do better than Labour?
Mr Power said the Government had put its obsession with reducing the number of prison inmates ahead of public safety.
Obsession? If Labour is obsessed the statistics don't reflect it.
The graph above groups the sentenced prisoner population according to current eligibility for discretionary release (either on parole or home detention). Prisoners in the category “no discretion for release” include those whose sentence does not allow early release on parole or home detention, as well as those who are eligible but have yet to pass their parole eligibility date. “Discretionary release eligible” refers to those who have passed their parole eligibility date or home detention eligibility date but have yet to be released or have been granted leave to apply for front end home detention but have yet to be released.
The data reflects the influence of parole laws introduced in 2002, which meant that parole eligibility occurred earlier in the sentences of longer-term prisoners. However, this has not meant that prisoners have been released earlier. Instead, the number of sentenced prisoners currently eligible for release, but who have yet to be granted release by the Parole Board, exceeds the number who are not eligible for release.
As it stands 48 out of 2,500 home detainees absconded. My point is, if National says it can do better, then they are saying they will eliminate all the risk. That would entail keeping all 2,500 home detainees in prison.
So will they be making a commitment to abolishing home detention and building prison capacity? What exactly is it that National are going to do better than Labour?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Maori Party and Poverty Elimination
Has the Maori Party poverty elimination policy been costed???My goodness. This (I notice it is not co-issued by Tariana Turia AND Pita Sharples which is usually the case) puts the Maori Party to the left of the Greens.
The Maori Party says:
* Provide a universal benefit for parents raising children. If families are already well off, recoup the benefit from tax on higher incomes. (Universal benefits reach the neediest families most effectively.)
* Set a baseline for poverty at 60% of the average wage, and a deadline of 2020 to eliminate child poverty.
* Exempt the first $25,000 of income from tax.
* Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour.
* Remove GST from food. (The government says this would make the tax system too complex, but that argument hasn't stopped them granting all sorts of exemptions from the Emissions Trading Scheme.)
* Investigate other sources of revenue - capital gains tax, bank transaction tax.
I will attempt some VERY crude costings and please feel free to put me right if I err.
1/ A universal benefit for parents. Which parent? How much? In 2006 there were 515,000 families with dependent children. A modest universal benefit of $20 per week would cost $536 million. But why should a parent with one child receive the same as a parent with 5? The old family benefit (scrapped in the early 90s) used to be paid per child. In which case it would cost over $1 billion.
2/ Set a baseline for poverty at 60 percent of the average wage. The average income from wages or salary was $893 a week in June 2007. So at 60 percent every family head (employed or otherwise) would receive $536 a week. That's around double the current benefit rate. With roughly 114,000 parents on a benefit, instead of $1.5 billion the welfare bill would be $3 billion (and that doesn't include family support and accommodation supplement.)
3/ Exempt the first $25,000 from income tax. That would cost (very roughly) about $11 billion.
4/ Raise the minimum wage to $15. (Cost to business about $1.2 billion)
5/ Remove gst from food. $2.4 billion (DPF figures)
That's $15.9 billion. To be raised from incomes and income over $25,000. That's about 1 million workers paying an extra $15,900 a head in tax.....
...or whatever effort and wealth-creation tax the Maori Party prefers.
When they have driven all the workers away they won't have to worry about divvying up the pie any more. There won't be one.
Having talked this through with my own 'economic adviser' he wonders whether this isn't a cultural policy designed to return NZ to the economic approach that prevailed before colonisation.
Still missing the point
Today's Dominion Post editorial is about the Kahui twins and the Kahui family. It runs through the all too familiar list of high-profile child murders and concludes;
Many of their cases have common features: alcohol and drug abuse, lifestyles fuelled by crime and benefits, mothers with children to different fathers, delays in seeking medical help and a refusal to cooperate with police once a crime has been discovered. Many, too, occurred within Maori families.
Maori are not alone in abusing their children. Every culture has its dirty secrets, but there is no escaping the fact that Maori children are disproportionately represented among the victims.
Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples says this is because Maori are over-represented in poverty-stricken and under-achieving communities.
He may be right, but that is an explanation, not a solution. The killing will not stop till relatives and neighbours of mistreated children recognise that they owe their loyalty to society's most vulnerable members, not to those who abuse them.
Again this misses the hub of the matter. Again we are seeing the responsibility shifted to people other than the mother and father. The killing will not stop until those individuals bringing babies into the world make a commitment to them. But too often they are too young themselves; too consumed with having a good time whether that's getting on the piss, partying, taking off to play the pokies, smoking P. It's all about escaping life and responsibility. What is the reward for behaving any differently? Loneliness (a baby isn't much company), ostracism (you can't hold your piss) hostility (you're a nark).
It is no good appealing to the cuzzies when it is quite likely they are the source of malevolent 'peer pressure'. Where the whanau is any good the babies have long gone usually to grandma.
It takes an incredibly strong individual to raise a child well in this sort of environment and the fact is there just aren't that many to be found. Lifestyle welfare has created a feckless and inhospitable setting for children. Caring 'relatives and neighbours' can't compete with it.
Many of their cases have common features: alcohol and drug abuse, lifestyles fuelled by crime and benefits, mothers with children to different fathers, delays in seeking medical help and a refusal to cooperate with police once a crime has been discovered. Many, too, occurred within Maori families.
Maori are not alone in abusing their children. Every culture has its dirty secrets, but there is no escaping the fact that Maori children are disproportionately represented among the victims.
Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples says this is because Maori are over-represented in poverty-stricken and under-achieving communities.
He may be right, but that is an explanation, not a solution. The killing will not stop till relatives and neighbours of mistreated children recognise that they owe their loyalty to society's most vulnerable members, not to those who abuse them.
Again this misses the hub of the matter. Again we are seeing the responsibility shifted to people other than the mother and father. The killing will not stop until those individuals bringing babies into the world make a commitment to them. But too often they are too young themselves; too consumed with having a good time whether that's getting on the piss, partying, taking off to play the pokies, smoking P. It's all about escaping life and responsibility. What is the reward for behaving any differently? Loneliness (a baby isn't much company), ostracism (you can't hold your piss) hostility (you're a nark).
It is no good appealing to the cuzzies when it is quite likely they are the source of malevolent 'peer pressure'. Where the whanau is any good the babies have long gone usually to grandma.
It takes an incredibly strong individual to raise a child well in this sort of environment and the fact is there just aren't that many to be found. Lifestyle welfare has created a feckless and inhospitable setting for children. Caring 'relatives and neighbours' can't compete with it.
Monday, May 26, 2008
What would they fight about?
This is a quote from Judy Kirk addressing the National Party northern regional conference on the matter of the EFA,
I don't think it's a damned good idea, Mike Williams; I think it stinks and I think you and your party should be ashamed of yourselves and what you have done to this democracy. You're not prepared to fight with us on ideas. You'd rather break all conventions and ram through anti-democratic legislation. Well you will fail.
Can you guess which part of the quote had me choking?
You're not prepared to fight with us on ideas.
Just which ideas would they find to fight over?
- That the purpose of government is to equalise people's incomes and outcomes?
- That the purpose of government is to use taxpayer's money to do what the private sector can and should do?
- That the purpose of government is to usurp private property rights when it suits?
- That the purpose of government is to intervene in the social and moral spheres of New Zealander's lives when it sees fit?
Now those debates would be worth hearing. But they could never occur between National and Labour whose prescription for government is the same.
I don't think it's a damned good idea, Mike Williams; I think it stinks and I think you and your party should be ashamed of yourselves and what you have done to this democracy. You're not prepared to fight with us on ideas. You'd rather break all conventions and ram through anti-democratic legislation. Well you will fail.
Can you guess which part of the quote had me choking?
You're not prepared to fight with us on ideas.
Just which ideas would they find to fight over?
- That the purpose of government is to equalise people's incomes and outcomes?
- That the purpose of government is to use taxpayer's money to do what the private sector can and should do?
- That the purpose of government is to usurp private property rights when it suits?
- That the purpose of government is to intervene in the social and moral spheres of New Zealander's lives when it sees fit?
Now those debates would be worth hearing. But they could never occur between National and Labour whose prescription for government is the same.
What Cindy Kiro really thinks
The New Zealand Herald reports on a survey commissioned by Family First about behaviour and attitudes to smacking since the passage of the anti-smacking legislation;Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said yesterday that she had not seen the survey.
But she urged people to move on and learn better parenting skills.
"The key message is, 'For goodness sake, can't we move on?' So much energy has been wasted debating this."
That's an interesting attitude in itself. Very. It reveals that the Children's Commissioner does not care for discussion or debate when it comes to what she wants to do. To those of us who would put up objections, the key message is actually, "you are wasting your energy". Presumably we will be wasting our energy opposing any other of her initiatives like mandatory screening of every baby's home life.
The Office for the Children's Commissioner should be disbanded. It is partisan, it is authoritarian. And worse still, of the matters that it seeks to control, which has improved since its inception? The number of established child abuse cases? Bullying in schools? Youth violence? Adolescent pregnancy?
The only real success the office has achieved is in rubbing good parents up the wrong way while spending their money touring the world promoting New Zealand as some sort of world beater. How ironic.
As the Commissioner is so very fond of 'sending messages' here is mine; I will decide what is and isn't a waste of my energy. I am not here to roll over at your behest.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
NZ doesn't fit the mould
Apparently the US has a small welfare state because a majority of Americans believe that work is a determinant of success.
From the NCPA;
Capitalism, when combined with a relatively small government, is a well-established ticket to improved standards of living. However, many countries continue to oppose capitalism. The resistance of many countries to adopt capitalist economic systems has puzzled economists for decades, says Kevin A. Hassett, a senior fellow and the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
In a recent study, economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote found that pre-existing social attitudes toward luck may be the crucial determinant of the political path of a society. The authors uncovered a striking difference between American and European attitudes towards the poor:
* If you ask Americans whether they believe the poor are lazy, 60 percent agree.
* However, if you ask Europeans, only 26 percent say yes.
Historically, large welfare states have emerged in countries where citizens generally believe that luck determines income. According to the authors:
* If bad behavior (or laziness) is viewed as a source of poverty, then the welfare state is small.
* America has avoided the fate of Europe because its citizens disproportionately believe that luck is not that important a determinant of one's circumstances, but hard work is.
* If Americans are predisposed to believe that high incomes are generally merited, then they will be resistant to change.
* However, when capitalists succeed because of bribery and corruption, citizens become less convinced that the income distribution reflects merit, and are more willing to redistribute.
It takes more than luck to maintain a free society. If America is to avoid acquiring a welfare state the size of Europe's, the rule of law must be vigorously defended and the corrupt must be adequately punished, says Hassett.
But a recent NZ study found an even larger number of Kiwis blamed being poor on being lazy. A whopping 73 percent.
Yet New Zealand has become a large welfare state. The best reason I can come up with is that for decades now NZ has been 'ruled' by minority opinion. The special pleaders and anti-capitalists are running the show. The lobbyists are powerful and our parliament is not representative of how many New Zealanders feel about work and welfare. And political correctness has made people afraid to challenge the status quo.
From the NCPA;
Capitalism, when combined with a relatively small government, is a well-established ticket to improved standards of living. However, many countries continue to oppose capitalism. The resistance of many countries to adopt capitalist economic systems has puzzled economists for decades, says Kevin A. Hassett, a senior fellow and the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
In a recent study, economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote found that pre-existing social attitudes toward luck may be the crucial determinant of the political path of a society. The authors uncovered a striking difference between American and European attitudes towards the poor:
* If you ask Americans whether they believe the poor are lazy, 60 percent agree.
* However, if you ask Europeans, only 26 percent say yes.
Historically, large welfare states have emerged in countries where citizens generally believe that luck determines income. According to the authors:
* If bad behavior (or laziness) is viewed as a source of poverty, then the welfare state is small.
* America has avoided the fate of Europe because its citizens disproportionately believe that luck is not that important a determinant of one's circumstances, but hard work is.
* If Americans are predisposed to believe that high incomes are generally merited, then they will be resistant to change.
* However, when capitalists succeed because of bribery and corruption, citizens become less convinced that the income distribution reflects merit, and are more willing to redistribute.
It takes more than luck to maintain a free society. If America is to avoid acquiring a welfare state the size of Europe's, the rule of law must be vigorously defended and the corrupt must be adequately punished, says Hassett.
But a recent NZ study found an even larger number of Kiwis blamed being poor on being lazy. A whopping 73 percent.
Yet New Zealand has become a large welfare state. The best reason I can come up with is that for decades now NZ has been 'ruled' by minority opinion. The special pleaders and anti-capitalists are running the show. The lobbyists are powerful and our parliament is not representative of how many New Zealanders feel about work and welfare. And political correctness has made people afraid to challenge the status quo.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Not the whole story
Susan St John, champion of welfare for children, telling us half the story,
Child Poverty Action Group economist Susan St John said the Budget made no effort to make it easier for beneficiaries to work by lifting the $80 a week limit on income they can earn before the benefit is reduced - a limit that had not changed for 22 years.
Limits for earned income have changed for those on the dole (who might also have dependent children.)
Until 1996 an unemployed person could receive the maximum benefit and earn NZ$50 (or $60 for beneficiaries with dependent children) a week before the benefit was abated. Under current arrangements an unemployed person can earn an income of $80 a week before the benefit is abated.
And although the $80 limit wasn't changed, for those on the DPB and WB, the amount of benefit lost between $81 and 180 was reduced from 70% to 30% for those with a youngest child over 14 in 2003. From the MSD press release,
This change to a social development approach is supported by the introduction of a new single abatement rate for DPB/WB clients allowing them to keep a greater proportion of any income they receive while on the benefit.
DPB/WB clients will be able to earn up to $80 a week on top of their benefit with no affect on their main benefit, and income between $80 and $180 reduces the benefit by 30 cents for every dollar received and by 70 cents for every dollar received over $180.
There are increases coming in the family support for beneficiaries with children. Family support is becoming a really big ticket item of government expenditure.
These are the figures from 2003-09 (actual to forecast)
$862 833 846 1,285 1,699 2,081 2,132
So as usual the CPAG are ignoring increases in assistance in order to strengthen their case for greater redistribution. Sadly it's what you come to expect from beneficiary advocacy groups.
Child Poverty Action Group economist Susan St John said the Budget made no effort to make it easier for beneficiaries to work by lifting the $80 a week limit on income they can earn before the benefit is reduced - a limit that had not changed for 22 years.
Limits for earned income have changed for those on the dole (who might also have dependent children.)
Until 1996 an unemployed person could receive the maximum benefit and earn NZ$50 (or $60 for beneficiaries with dependent children) a week before the benefit was abated. Under current arrangements an unemployed person can earn an income of $80 a week before the benefit is abated.
And although the $80 limit wasn't changed, for those on the DPB and WB, the amount of benefit lost between $81 and 180 was reduced from 70% to 30% for those with a youngest child over 14 in 2003. From the MSD press release,
This change to a social development approach is supported by the introduction of a new single abatement rate for DPB/WB clients allowing them to keep a greater proportion of any income they receive while on the benefit.
DPB/WB clients will be able to earn up to $80 a week on top of their benefit with no affect on their main benefit, and income between $80 and $180 reduces the benefit by 30 cents for every dollar received and by 70 cents for every dollar received over $180.
There are increases coming in the family support for beneficiaries with children. Family support is becoming a really big ticket item of government expenditure.
These are the figures from 2003-09 (actual to forecast)
$862 833 846 1,285 1,699 2,081 2,132
So as usual the CPAG are ignoring increases in assistance in order to strengthen their case for greater redistribution. Sadly it's what you come to expect from beneficiary advocacy groups.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Flat tax and anti-smacking legislation
Sir Bob Jones was on Good Morning TV yesterday talking about tax, the Douglas era and how Roger's reforms were 'radical' in comparison to what was happening in the rest of the world. The Muldoon era of daylight robbery is discussed (actually 'discussed' isn't right - Bob thankfully does all the talking), the Laffer Curve effect, what's happening in Slovakia with their flat 10 percent tax, and why we should be following suit. It starts at 1:45.
(If you enjoyed Bob stay tuned for an announcement about my campaign launch where he will be guest speaker)
Then stick with the Good Morning (it soon won't be) and watch Beth Wood (Save the Children) and Ian Hassell (ex Children's Commissioner) argue with Bob McCoskrie (Family First) about the anti-smacking legislation. Quite teeth gritting stuff with the presenter clearly biased towards the proponents. This starts at 2:05.
(If you enjoyed Bob stay tuned for an announcement about my campaign launch where he will be guest speaker)
Then stick with the Good Morning (it soon won't be) and watch Beth Wood (Save the Children) and Ian Hassell (ex Children's Commissioner) argue with Bob McCoskrie (Family First) about the anti-smacking legislation. Quite teeth gritting stuff with the presenter clearly biased towards the proponents. This starts at 2:05.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Churches refuse to register as third parties
Thanks to a religious group getting involved in the 2005 election we are now lumbered with the ludicrous and unfathomable Electoral Finance Act.
Now more religious groups want to get involved in the 2008 campaign and are claiming the EFA does not apply to them and they will not be registering as a third party.
The churches are distributing 50,000 copies of the first of five leaflets, on child poverty, coinciding with the Budget this week.
Methodist Church president Brian Turner said the Electoral Commission recommended that they should "err on the side of caution" and register as third parties under the new Electoral Finance Act. But they decided not to.
"We don't see it as electioneering or promoting any particular party against others, so we didn't see the need to register," he said.
The same churches made it clear just weeks ago they want benefit levels raised. They are in the same camp as the CPAG who are backed in their legal action against the government by the Greens and the Maori Party.
The leaflets and 2500 posters are being sent this week to Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and Salvation Army churches under the auspices of their umbrella group, the Council of Christian Social Services.
The Council of Christian Social Services is very political. They make submissions to the Social Services Select Committee and they are traditionally left-wing.
I hope that the Electoral Commission is very fair-handed in administering this Act - if that is possible. But somehow I cannot imagine the churches being prosecuted. It makes me very unhappy to have to urge the application of rules with which I don't agree but then again the rules were supposed to bring about a level playing field and the churches should not be above them.
Now more religious groups want to get involved in the 2008 campaign and are claiming the EFA does not apply to them and they will not be registering as a third party.
The churches are distributing 50,000 copies of the first of five leaflets, on child poverty, coinciding with the Budget this week.
Methodist Church president Brian Turner said the Electoral Commission recommended that they should "err on the side of caution" and register as third parties under the new Electoral Finance Act. But they decided not to.
"We don't see it as electioneering or promoting any particular party against others, so we didn't see the need to register," he said.
The same churches made it clear just weeks ago they want benefit levels raised. They are in the same camp as the CPAG who are backed in their legal action against the government by the Greens and the Maori Party.
The leaflets and 2500 posters are being sent this week to Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and Salvation Army churches under the auspices of their umbrella group, the Council of Christian Social Services.
The Council of Christian Social Services is very political. They make submissions to the Social Services Select Committee and they are traditionally left-wing.
I hope that the Electoral Commission is very fair-handed in administering this Act - if that is possible. But somehow I cannot imagine the churches being prosecuted. It makes me very unhappy to have to urge the application of rules with which I don't agree but then again the rules were supposed to bring about a level playing field and the churches should not be above them.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Not stacking up
I am a little perturbed by this front page story from today's DomPost.
Pacific Islanders' crime rates, poor education and low employment are creating an underclass and a drain on the economy, a study says.
Issued last week, the document says Polynesians are less productive and less likely to contribute to economic growth. They have the highest unemployment in every age group....
Not according to the Household Labour Force Survey. Maori have slightly higher rates.
Polynesians are over-represented in crime statistics and have higher rates of convictions and prosecutions.
Assuming Polynesians continues to mean Pacific Islanders, their crime rates are not especially high. In fact the article later disputes this saying,
Statistics NZ crime figures show Pacific Islanders made up 9100 of 112,774 people convicted in 2006 - just over 8 per cent.
8 percent is pretty much in keeping with their share of the population remembering that they are a young population and the age group that most commits crime is around 18-25.
Yes. Pacific rates of imprisonment are higher than European but considerably lower than Maori.
They are more likely to need Government assistance for housing and income.
More likely than who? Of those working age New Zealanders currently receiving a benefit 7.6 are Pacific. Again in keeping with their proportion of the overall population. (Maori on the other hand make-up 31.5 percent).
I would be the first to defend a researchers right to publish an ethnicity study without being subjectively attacked but on the basis of what has been reported I can understand why Pacific communities are angry about the focus on their people as producing an underclass.
AND, as with Maori, it must always be appreciated that many Pacific people are doing jobs that, although not well paid, are crucial to the functioning of our institutions.
UPDATE: Having listened to an interview with the study author I understand that the research is about different immigrant groups and their contribution to economic growth. But now I am even more concerned because the statistics are about ALL PI people, 60 percent of whom are not immigrants. He clearly believes that PI people are a drain and will become a bigger drain on social welfare but when asked specifically about those figures couldn't respond. His conclusion is that more PI immigrants should not be encouraged until the problems are sorted. They shouldn't be taking jobs off other low skilled people like Maori.
Why not? If they are more willing, if they have a work ethic, why not welcome them?
Pacific Islanders' crime rates, poor education and low employment are creating an underclass and a drain on the economy, a study says.
Issued last week, the document says Polynesians are less productive and less likely to contribute to economic growth. They have the highest unemployment in every age group....
Not according to the Household Labour Force Survey. Maori have slightly higher rates.
Polynesians are over-represented in crime statistics and have higher rates of convictions and prosecutions.
Assuming Polynesians continues to mean Pacific Islanders, their crime rates are not especially high. In fact the article later disputes this saying,
Statistics NZ crime figures show Pacific Islanders made up 9100 of 112,774 people convicted in 2006 - just over 8 per cent.
8 percent is pretty much in keeping with their share of the population remembering that they are a young population and the age group that most commits crime is around 18-25.
Yes. Pacific rates of imprisonment are higher than European but considerably lower than Maori.
They are more likely to need Government assistance for housing and income.
More likely than who? Of those working age New Zealanders currently receiving a benefit 7.6 are Pacific. Again in keeping with their proportion of the overall population. (Maori on the other hand make-up 31.5 percent).
I would be the first to defend a researchers right to publish an ethnicity study without being subjectively attacked but on the basis of what has been reported I can understand why Pacific communities are angry about the focus on their people as producing an underclass.
AND, as with Maori, it must always be appreciated that many Pacific people are doing jobs that, although not well paid, are crucial to the functioning of our institutions.
UPDATE: Having listened to an interview with the study author I understand that the research is about different immigrant groups and their contribution to economic growth. But now I am even more concerned because the statistics are about ALL PI people, 60 percent of whom are not immigrants. He clearly believes that PI people are a drain and will become a bigger drain on social welfare but when asked specifically about those figures couldn't respond. His conclusion is that more PI immigrants should not be encouraged until the problems are sorted. They shouldn't be taking jobs off other low skilled people like Maori.
Why not? If they are more willing, if they have a work ethic, why not welcome them?
Serving up red herrings and victimhood for breakfast
Not unusually I can hear my husband loudly remarking "Silly b----h," at the TV.
I know in a minute he will put his head around the door and tell me about the latest display of mammoth intelligence from some hand-wringer.
"What's that about?" I enquire not lifting my eyes from the keyboard.
"Oh the silly b----h says that it's the fault of the liquor industry that so many more women are drinking and driving. Apparently it's because they have been targeting young women with alcopop thingies. Marketing is to blame. "
"Well you know," I respond,"That these women advocates will never have a bad word said against females. It couldn't possibly be their fault that they are drinking and driving. It's got to be consumerism or capitalism or any damn thing but the individual."
The truth is people drink and drive because of a widespread culture of irresponsibility. Period.
I know in a minute he will put his head around the door and tell me about the latest display of mammoth intelligence from some hand-wringer.
"What's that about?" I enquire not lifting my eyes from the keyboard.
"Oh the silly b----h says that it's the fault of the liquor industry that so many more women are drinking and driving. Apparently it's because they have been targeting young women with alcopop thingies. Marketing is to blame. "
"Well you know," I respond,"That these women advocates will never have a bad word said against females. It couldn't possibly be their fault that they are drinking and driving. It's got to be consumerism or capitalism or any damn thing but the individual."
The truth is people drink and drive because of a widespread culture of irresponsibility. Period.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Can you help?
My son is doing a social studies project to gain some NCEA credits. It involves a 6 question survey aimed at people who will be directly affected by the Emmissions Trading Scheme. If you could assist by answering his questionnaire could you e-mail him at
mitchellr@athena-college.co.nz
I know he would be very grateful.
mitchellr@athena-college.co.nz
I know he would be very grateful.
Vision versus reality
Labour's vision for state housing was as per the poster,
The reality was described thus,
Interviewer:Even as late as 1958 when Les Baily was seconded by the Department of Education to begin organising recreational activities for the children of the Hutt Valley, conditions and attitudes had not greatly changed.
Les Bailey:I was looking around that area, I always felt sorry for them in some ways with the predominance of state housing that was put into the district. All you saw was bare lawns, there wasn't a tree growing anywhere, no shrubs, no gardens, no places where kids could play freely, you know? — and there certainly was a lack of playground space. It wasn't a very attractive area at that time.
Sure they had the riverbank, the riverbank in those days wasn't the playing fields that are all there now, there weren't the stop banks in and so on.
Interviewer: This is the Hutt River?
Les Bailey: The Hutt River, yeah, and there was a lot of these pretty scrubby sort of areas down there and I imagine that perhaps that is where some of the Mazengarb report activities — as reported by them — took place.
And today those areas are even worse, particularly the 'shopping centres' (euphemism for takeaway shop, more takeaway shops, second hand shops selling over-priced junk, Credit Union, Housing NZ and Work and Income Offices). And the government is still forking out,
State house tenants say the sooner the Government starts insulating their homes, the better.
This week's Budget will include $53 million to make all state houses warmer and dryer within five years.
Peter Petterson has been in his state house in the Lower Hutt suburb of Taita for 30 years and says the upgrade is much needed.
"They are cold, you've got to use heaters. Some of the older people stick on some more clothes and blankets."
Mr Petterson says it is a shame the upgrade is happening after his children have grown up and moved out, but at least his grandchildren will benefit when they come to stay.
Labour's vision under Mickey Savage was never realised. All that happened was people were made dependent, robbed of their initiative and ambition, made poor, and frequently bitter and resentful. And still the socialists press on.....
The reality was described thus,
Interviewer:Even as late as 1958 when Les Baily was seconded by the Department of Education to begin organising recreational activities for the children of the Hutt Valley, conditions and attitudes had not greatly changed.
Les Bailey:I was looking around that area, I always felt sorry for them in some ways with the predominance of state housing that was put into the district. All you saw was bare lawns, there wasn't a tree growing anywhere, no shrubs, no gardens, no places where kids could play freely, you know? — and there certainly was a lack of playground space. It wasn't a very attractive area at that time.
Sure they had the riverbank, the riverbank in those days wasn't the playing fields that are all there now, there weren't the stop banks in and so on.
Interviewer: This is the Hutt River?
Les Bailey: The Hutt River, yeah, and there was a lot of these pretty scrubby sort of areas down there and I imagine that perhaps that is where some of the Mazengarb report activities — as reported by them — took place.
And today those areas are even worse, particularly the 'shopping centres' (euphemism for takeaway shop, more takeaway shops, second hand shops selling over-priced junk, Credit Union, Housing NZ and Work and Income Offices). And the government is still forking out,
State house tenants say the sooner the Government starts insulating their homes, the better.
This week's Budget will include $53 million to make all state houses warmer and dryer within five years.
Peter Petterson has been in his state house in the Lower Hutt suburb of Taita for 30 years and says the upgrade is much needed.
"They are cold, you've got to use heaters. Some of the older people stick on some more clothes and blankets."
Mr Petterson says it is a shame the upgrade is happening after his children have grown up and moved out, but at least his grandchildren will benefit when they come to stay.
Labour's vision under Mickey Savage was never realised. All that happened was people were made dependent, robbed of their initiative and ambition, made poor, and frequently bitter and resentful. And still the socialists press on.....
Sunday, May 18, 2008
What real commitment looks like
At last, a real plan to regain New Zealand's economic standing in the developed world. According to Radio New Zealand,The ACT Party says slashing the number of MPs and offloading state businesses, would lift economic growth and leave the average New Zealander $500 per week better off.
They're part of 20 pledges that party leader Rodney Hide is promising to carry out, if ACT holds the balance of power after the 2008 general election.
Mr Hide is also committed to flattening tax rates, cutting state spending and remodelling climate change policies.
Mr Hide says the plans would help lift New Zealand from being poorer than the lowest ranked states in Australia and the United States; Tasmania and Mississippi.
He says the proposals would boost annual growth, by 5%.
The 20-point plan is here
Maori Party welfare policy
This is a late comment in response to an interview of Tariana Turia by Gordon Campbell. Never before have I heard Tariana spell it out so clearly. Their 'tough talk' on welfare applies only to Maori men, not Maori women.
Campbell: You’re saying welfare is bad for Maori, so we have to break the cycle by introducing a compulsory element -
Turia : We’re talking Maori unemployed. We’re not talking about Maori women on benefits.
It is shocking attitude. This is why.
The Maori Party condones Maori women raising their families on the DPB. With this action they are destroying the role of Maori men as fathers and providers. What is the imperative for having Maori men in jobs when they have no direct role to play in supporting their families beyond paying child support which, by the way, rises as they work their way up the food chain.
There are five times more Maori on DPB than on the dole. Maori childrens' needs are no different from any other. They need security, structure, predictability, and consistency, from both parents. When these things are missing there will be problems. These are more likely to be missing when they are being raised on welfare than when they are being raised by two parents earning a living from work.
And this differentiation highlights another aspect of the Maori party. Their policies are not only racist but sexist. But then traditionally Maori culture features a good degree of sexism. This policy does not bode well for the prospects of their tamariki.
As an afterthought Willie Jackson recently made this observation. That many of today's Maori leaders had strong fathers.
Campbell: You’re saying welfare is bad for Maori, so we have to break the cycle by introducing a compulsory element -
Turia : We’re talking Maori unemployed. We’re not talking about Maori women on benefits.
It is shocking attitude. This is why.
The Maori Party condones Maori women raising their families on the DPB. With this action they are destroying the role of Maori men as fathers and providers. What is the imperative for having Maori men in jobs when they have no direct role to play in supporting their families beyond paying child support which, by the way, rises as they work their way up the food chain.
There are five times more Maori on DPB than on the dole. Maori childrens' needs are no different from any other. They need security, structure, predictability, and consistency, from both parents. When these things are missing there will be problems. These are more likely to be missing when they are being raised on welfare than when they are being raised by two parents earning a living from work.
And this differentiation highlights another aspect of the Maori party. Their policies are not only racist but sexist. But then traditionally Maori culture features a good degree of sexism. This policy does not bode well for the prospects of their tamariki.
As an afterthought Willie Jackson recently made this observation. That many of today's Maori leaders had strong fathers.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Assuming Kiwis will accept lower wages
That's what the Wall St Journal is saying our government's plan to implement an emissions trading scheme is predicated on.
The cost, for farmers and industry alike, is likely to be prohibitive. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, an independent consulting firm, recently estimated that the government's plan would result in 22,000 job losses by 2012, or 1% of today's employment. That translates into NZ$4.6 billion ($3.6 billion) annually in lost GDP, or a NZ$3,000 cut in each household's annual spending.
This analysis assumes that as greenhouse gas fees make Kiwi industry less competitive globally, businesses and jobs will move overseas. The government disputes this conclusion, mainly because its own analyses assume New Zealanders will be willing to take lower wages. That's debateable, to say the least.
That aside, give the Kiwis credit for honesty. Having signed up for Kyoto, they're actually talking about shouldering the costs of meeting their commitments. Whether or not they end up regretting it, other countries will now have a chance to see what the anticarbon crusade does to an economy.
So how do you feel about being the guinea pig?
The cost, for farmers and industry alike, is likely to be prohibitive. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, an independent consulting firm, recently estimated that the government's plan would result in 22,000 job losses by 2012, or 1% of today's employment. That translates into NZ$4.6 billion ($3.6 billion) annually in lost GDP, or a NZ$3,000 cut in each household's annual spending.
This analysis assumes that as greenhouse gas fees make Kiwi industry less competitive globally, businesses and jobs will move overseas. The government disputes this conclusion, mainly because its own analyses assume New Zealanders will be willing to take lower wages. That's debateable, to say the least.
That aside, give the Kiwis credit for honesty. Having signed up for Kyoto, they're actually talking about shouldering the costs of meeting their commitments. Whether or not they end up regretting it, other countries will now have a chance to see what the anticarbon crusade does to an economy.
So how do you feel about being the guinea pig?
Waiting
One of the good aspects of life is anticipation. Optimists like setting themselves goals. Looking forward to something is often as enjoyable as the event. But 'waiting' can be quite a different story.
Having endured a fair bit of pain recently I finally succumbed yesterday and went to the doctor. Beginning the process of eliminating possibilities she referred me to a specialist. Thank goodness for the private system. She could secure me an appointment within 24 hours. When you can't sleep without painkillers you do not want to hang around.
So I read this piece about waiting times in the Canadian public health system with great sympathy for the individuals who cannot afford private care. Of course, the same applies in New Zealand.
Excessive waits for health care services endured by Canadian patients have imposed huge costs on the nation's citizens according to a study from the Centre for Spatial Economics.
Other major findings:
* The study of medical wait times in all 10 of Canada's provinces found excessive delays for four key procedures--total joint replacement surgery, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans--cost the nation an estimated $14.8 billion in 2007.
* This in turn lowered federal and provincial government revenues by a total of $4.4 billion, the report noted.
However, it is individuals who bear these costs. When the government controls all of health care, it looks for ways to save money, and the easiest way to save is to deny care or ration care through long waits, says Charles M. Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy.
Rationing care by using waiting lists puts a heavy strain on an economy by incurring high costs through reduced worker productivity, says Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Canadian Medicare uses rationing by waiting because the cost of lost productivity is borne by the individual and employer, whereas the cost of actually providing needed care falls on the public system.
For example:
* Excessive waiting for total joint replacement surgery was the most expensive byproduct of Canada's health care rationing, at nearly $26,400 per patient.
* That was followed closely by MRIs ($20,000), coronary artery bypass graft surgery ($19,400), and cataract surgery ($2,900).
Herrick disagrees with the study's policy prescription, saying private care options would be more effective than increased government investment in the system.
"Canadians should be allowed to pay for care privately if they so choose. It is unconscionable to forbid patients from paying for care the public system cannot provide them in a timely manner," he says.
Absolutely unconscionable.
Having endured a fair bit of pain recently I finally succumbed yesterday and went to the doctor. Beginning the process of eliminating possibilities she referred me to a specialist. Thank goodness for the private system. She could secure me an appointment within 24 hours. When you can't sleep without painkillers you do not want to hang around.
So I read this piece about waiting times in the Canadian public health system with great sympathy for the individuals who cannot afford private care. Of course, the same applies in New Zealand.
Excessive waits for health care services endured by Canadian patients have imposed huge costs on the nation's citizens according to a study from the Centre for Spatial Economics.
Other major findings:
* The study of medical wait times in all 10 of Canada's provinces found excessive delays for four key procedures--total joint replacement surgery, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans--cost the nation an estimated $14.8 billion in 2007.
* This in turn lowered federal and provincial government revenues by a total of $4.4 billion, the report noted.
However, it is individuals who bear these costs. When the government controls all of health care, it looks for ways to save money, and the easiest way to save is to deny care or ration care through long waits, says Charles M. Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy.
Rationing care by using waiting lists puts a heavy strain on an economy by incurring high costs through reduced worker productivity, says Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Canadian Medicare uses rationing by waiting because the cost of lost productivity is borne by the individual and employer, whereas the cost of actually providing needed care falls on the public system.
For example:
* Excessive waiting for total joint replacement surgery was the most expensive byproduct of Canada's health care rationing, at nearly $26,400 per patient.
* That was followed closely by MRIs ($20,000), coronary artery bypass graft surgery ($19,400), and cataract surgery ($2,900).
Herrick disagrees with the study's policy prescription, saying private care options would be more effective than increased government investment in the system.
"Canadians should be allowed to pay for care privately if they so choose. It is unconscionable to forbid patients from paying for care the public system cannot provide them in a timely manner," he says.
Absolutely unconscionable.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Just another Royal Commission
The Kiwi Party want another Royal Commission on Social Policy.We have had two Royal Commissions on Social Policy in recent times. One in the 70s and one in the 80s.
The first stressed the principles of allowing beneficiaries to participate and belong (and gave us the DPB) and the second confirmed those principles.
A third commission would see a much stronger lobby for re-stating these principles (which rest on wealth redistribution and ignore the destructive incentives inherent in the process) than any opposing voices. The Kiwi Party must already know the same forces that lined up behind the anti-smacking legislation would line up at a Royal Commission arguing for 'inclusion' 'social justice' and other social democrat warm fuzzy concepts.
I can understand their political motivation for calling for another commission but am very sceptical that it will achieve anything beyond giving another platform to the poverty industry protagonists and keeping printers in work as they churn out volumes of reports.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
ACT Tax Policy
Larry Williams interviews Rodney Hide about ACT's new tax policy. (Interview begins at 38.20)
The policy includes removing the 39c rate and making the first $10,000 of income tax free thus giving every earner on the average wage a $50 cut.
This is a good start because it is simple and it is heading in the right direction. It will also widen the gap between benefits and low wage work and stop this silly business of taxing kids with paper rounds or part-time McDonald's jobs.
The policy includes removing the 39c rate and making the first $10,000 of income tax free thus giving every earner on the average wage a $50 cut.
This is a good start because it is simple and it is heading in the right direction. It will also widen the gap between benefits and low wage work and stop this silly business of taxing kids with paper rounds or part-time McDonald's jobs.
Green concoctions over Comalco
What utter hypocrites the Greens are. Jeanette Fitzsimons;Ms Fitzsimons says Rio Tinto should have no special allowances under the emissions trading scheme. She says although the operation is an important part of the economy, it is not so important that it should get special privileges ahead of ordinary New Zealanders.
This is the party that argues for tariffs - special privileges - to protect manufacturers.
Their entire social policy relies on greater redistribution of wealth - special privilege for some and penalties for others.
They urge government sponsored special treatment for NZ made products.
They support 'fair trade' which picks winners at the cost of other producers.
The Greens love privilege versus penalty. That is what gives them their power to plan and control human beings. Now they pretend to 'fairplay' by invoking their concern for the ordinary taxpayer. That'll be the ordinary taxpayer they want to pay for their grand desire to lead the world in the fight against climate change.
Talk about wolves in sheep's clothing.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Why we need more ACT MPs
"With government controlling more and more of our economy, the fact that crooks have to go where the money is causes more and more of them to turn to government employment. However, there is probably an even stronger reason for individuals to become politicians. That is the power which accompanies political office. Many idealists think they know better than the ordinary person what is good for that person. They consider themselves a cut above the ordinary individual who just isn’t smart enough to know what he or she should do. Idealists seek government power to impose their ideas upon the rest of us. They may be personally honest insofar as not thinking of lining their own pockets with money but have little compunction about bolstering their egos with government power. This attitude explains the environmentalists, the do-gooders, and others whose ego causes them to seek government power to impose their ideas upon those of us who just want to make our way in a free market in open competition with everyone else."
— Harry Hoiles, editorial from The Register [June 2, 1979]
This is why we need more MPs who will defend the free market and neutralise the above individuals.
— Harry Hoiles, editorial from The Register [June 2, 1979]
This is why we need more MPs who will defend the free market and neutralise the above individuals.
Monday, May 12, 2008
ACT and the anti-smacking legislation
This is for the benefit of the Libertarianz Party who had their conference at the weekend and implied ACT had no position on the anti-smacking legislation. The above (which says Let Parents Choose and featured photos of Rodney and Heather)is part of an ad campaign run in the Sunday newspapers a few weeks back. Rodney and Heather also joined the anti-smacking march from Civic Square to Parliament in late March and voted against the legislation. Libz would do better to get on with their own promotion instead of running down the party which is closest to their ideals.
WFF - get rid of it
Naturally it has now dawned that Working For Families will discourage partnered women from the workforce. There is no consensus over whether that is a good or bad thing. Conservatives tend to like women to be in the home raising their children and leaving more employment opportunities open for men. The social democrats still believe strongly in equality and choice for women. The second part of the social democrat goal is about where I sit EXCEPT it must not be achieved through redistribution. Simply, if women want choice - home or work - they can pay for it.
Anyway, today's NZ Herald editorial has this to say;
The drop in employment can be greater than the rise in unemployment because the latter excludes people who are not actively looking for another job.
So long as those people are not urgently in need of a paying job - the greater number of them are women and the decline follows a rise in the "working for families" benefit - the figures are less of an economic concern and may even be a plus for the economy in present circumstances.
The trouble is, with WFF, all we are doing is dividing up the pie instead of growing it. There is at least a consensus (barring the Greens) that we do need economic growth. So I do not accept that the figures constitute "less of an economic concern". And neither would it seem do the new Australian government which is promising "a giant review of tax and welfare."
Effective marginal tax rates are a particular problem for partnered women with children, who see little value in working when their family benefits are withdrawn. The Government aims to get more of these women into the workforce.
I remain convinced - though the chances of ever proving my instincts are right are remote - that governments should just butt out of social arrangements. The more they try to centrally plan societies the more they stuff them up. They get caught on a never-ending see-saw of readjustment, wasting enormous resource and energy in the process. A low flat tax and the minimum of social assistance would see people organise themselves into situations that are beneficial both economically and socially.
Anyway, today's NZ Herald editorial has this to say;
The drop in employment can be greater than the rise in unemployment because the latter excludes people who are not actively looking for another job.
So long as those people are not urgently in need of a paying job - the greater number of them are women and the decline follows a rise in the "working for families" benefit - the figures are less of an economic concern and may even be a plus for the economy in present circumstances.
The trouble is, with WFF, all we are doing is dividing up the pie instead of growing it. There is at least a consensus (barring the Greens) that we do need economic growth. So I do not accept that the figures constitute "less of an economic concern". And neither would it seem do the new Australian government which is promising "a giant review of tax and welfare."
Effective marginal tax rates are a particular problem for partnered women with children, who see little value in working when their family benefits are withdrawn. The Government aims to get more of these women into the workforce.
I remain convinced - though the chances of ever proving my instincts are right are remote - that governments should just butt out of social arrangements. The more they try to centrally plan societies the more they stuff them up. They get caught on a never-ending see-saw of readjustment, wasting enormous resource and energy in the process. A low flat tax and the minimum of social assistance would see people organise themselves into situations that are beneficial both economically and socially.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Bits and pieces
This will be interesting as it unfolds. A pharmacist on charges of supplying pseudoephedrine. Pharmacists supply pseudoephedrine every day all over New Zealand. In this case the charge accompanies those of possession of pseudoephedrine and possession of the equipment to make 'P'. Perhaps the first charge should actually be (or correctedly reported as) knowingly supplying pseudoephedrine for the manufacture of methamphetamine.Bloggers make news again. From a piece about Judith Tizard in the Herald on Sunday;
"I understand Tizard is kept quite busy by being Helen's Mini-Me at all those Auckland cocktail parties..." wrote one emailer to the kiwiblog forum. "She's not stupid, just moody and, well, not the hardest working Labour MP by a long shot," wrote blogger Liberty Scott. "One thing is for sure, Judith won't be remembered as a mover and shaker, but as one of those odd MPs who is really there because of family heritage."
Love the comment at the end of the piece. Tizard says she doesn't want to be in cabinet because, "It's an awful waste of a Monday."
And the Sunday Star Times reports beneficiaries are worse off now than after the benefit cuts of 1991, 'worse off under Labour'. Will Labour peg core benefit rates to average wages? I think they just might promise to with the spin being 'as we have reduced benefit numbers by so many we can now afford to "invest" more, particularly in those families with children.' The Maori Party and Greens will agree. That'll secure the quarter-million-strong beneficiary vote for a left government.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Lunatics
The following provoked an angry reaction from me. The twisted logic is almost worse than the motivation behind it. Read till the end to see the worst of it.
Feminist Daily News Wire
May 6, 2008
Anti-Choice Groups Launch Deceptive Campaign against Oral Contraceptives
Anti-choice extremist group the American Life League launched a campaign against oral contraceptives that will culminate with protests on June 7 outside clinics that distribute birth control. The Pill Kills Babies falsely labels oral contraceptives as abortificants, claiming that oral contraceptives are the same as abortion except that it "kills a preborn baby" earlier.
Reproductive Health Reality Check points out the disturbing lies that the campaign proclaims. The American Life League falsely claims that the pill is dangerous to women's health because it causes breast cancer, cervical cancer, infertility, birth defects, and "much more."
The anti-choice extremist groups chose June 7 as the protest day because it is the anniversary of the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case that overturned a Connecticut law banning the use of contraceptives on the basis of marital privacy.
According to RH Reality Check, the anti-choice extremists claim that "attempting to prevent abortion is abortion too."
Media Resources: Feministing.com 05/06/08; RH Reality Check 05/05/08; The Pill Kills 2008; Griswold v. Connecticut
"ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT ABORTION IS ABORTION TOO."
But hold on. The usual line anti-abortionists use is abortion is murder (or genocide.) So now trying to prevent murder is murder too?? These people are lunatics.
Feminist Daily News Wire
May 6, 2008
Anti-Choice Groups Launch Deceptive Campaign against Oral Contraceptives
Anti-choice extremist group the American Life League launched a campaign against oral contraceptives that will culminate with protests on June 7 outside clinics that distribute birth control. The Pill Kills Babies falsely labels oral contraceptives as abortificants, claiming that oral contraceptives are the same as abortion except that it "kills a preborn baby" earlier.
Reproductive Health Reality Check points out the disturbing lies that the campaign proclaims. The American Life League falsely claims that the pill is dangerous to women's health because it causes breast cancer, cervical cancer, infertility, birth defects, and "much more."
The anti-choice extremist groups chose June 7 as the protest day because it is the anniversary of the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case that overturned a Connecticut law banning the use of contraceptives on the basis of marital privacy.
According to RH Reality Check, the anti-choice extremists claim that "attempting to prevent abortion is abortion too."
Media Resources: Feministing.com 05/06/08; RH Reality Check 05/05/08; The Pill Kills 2008; Griswold v. Connecticut
"ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT ABORTION IS ABORTION TOO."
But hold on. The usual line anti-abortionists use is abortion is murder (or genocide.) So now trying to prevent murder is murder too?? These people are lunatics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
