Key looking to move on welfare

All the usual accusations of 'beneficiary bashing' have surfaced on the back of the Welfare Working Group's options report. Tapu Misa, Gordon Campbell, Sue Bradford, the Alternative Welfare Working Group, the Greens etc.

Even Steve Maharey emerged yesterday to add his criticism to the carping cacophony.

We have heard all of this before, along with the willingness to distort everything we know about the welfare system to win the argument.

Priceless. He would know about distortion. For years he painted a misleading picture of people on the DPB as typically separated, in their thirties and highly motivated to work.

And his big idea?

What we need is an approach that will harmonise social policy with economic development and identify social programmes that make a contribution to economic growth.

If this can be done, the case for social welfare holding back growth is weakened and arguments in favour of social welfare become compelling.

I call this alternative social development because it provides a justification for redistribution by advocating resources be put into social investments that will impact positively on the economy.

Oh groan. Social 'development' was practised for years under his watch. That's what the Ministry is named after. There is, however, an economic theory called 'broken windows' that explains why redistribution of resources on the back of calamity does not add to overall economic growth.

Anyway, one theme they all keep hammering is, there is no crisis, there is no 'dependency'. For instance Tapu Misa writes;

Mike O'Brien, an associate professor of social policy at Massey University, questions the focus on dependency. He writes that other than anecdotal stories and "prejudicial assertion", no evidence is presented to support the claim about benefit "dependence".

The Group offered numerous statistics to flesh out dependence in terms of both numbers and duration of stay. But here is a quote from recent MSD research if they want it from the horse's mouth so to speak;

On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:

• just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits
• a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years

I have, by the way, argued frequently that the last statement is an undercount and explained why. But if this state of affairs isn't 'dependence' then it is hard to envisage what is.

So I was buoyed to read this morning that John Key will be looking for next year's welfare policy in the final recommendations the Welfare Working Group make in February.

He [Key] signalled that he also wanted final proposals from the welfare working group, due to report in February, translated into policy by the next election.

Good man. Put up some real welfare reform policy and I will vote for you. It'll be a first.

Silly name calling

NewstalkZB political commentator, Barry Soper, never worries about disguising his dislike for Rodney Hide and ACT. Here he refers to him as "Rodney Thick Hide" .

Which ever way you read it neither interpretation works. He is not thick. And he is not impervious to criticism and hostility. I made the reacquaintance of an old (but young) ACT supporter by chance the other day. We reflected on Rodney's unfailing, and often unfounded, optimism. And his sheer doggedness. The second trait is reinforced by John Boscawen's uncanny ability to never falter when he has a goal. Neither are out for the count yet.

I commented to my husband when Rodney became engaged to Louise Crome that she would want children. Not that I know her or anything about her. But I was a similar age, and newly married, when I had my first child and if it is there to out, the desire to mother is very strong by that stage. So I also wonder what that will mean for the future of ACT. Rodney becoming a father again. He is a character predisposed to sea changes. Perhaps he will draw the curtain on politics. At least he would no longer have to tolerate silly name-calling.

Don Brash delivers National a few home truths

Predictably the NZ Herald is sensationalising another Don Brash Orewa speech delivered last night with the headline, "Brash attacks Maori - again. "

The section about Maori and equal citizenship is only a small part of a speech which lays out plainly what is wrong with the way National is managing the country and what needs to happen if the economic decline is to be arrested.

Here are a few lines towards the conclusion of a 9 page speech; a recognition that particularly resonated with me;

One of the problems in any democratic society is that when left-of-centre parties are in power they tax heavily the high-income minority to win votes from the majority. For at least a time, they can be almost guaranteed of winning if they take $1,000 off one voter and give $200 to each of five voters (after clipping the ticket on the way through of course!). Right-of-centre governments feel obliged to continue that policy, even where it violates their constitution and destroys the country’s future.

The problem is that, unless those policies are reversed from time to time, we get a steady increase in the size of government, and a steady increase in the tax burden carried by the most productive members of our community. It takes courage, vision and moral purpose to reverse that trend.

Entire speech here

Liquor ban in Day's Bay

Some locals, led by one councillor Ross Jamieson, are pushing for a permanent liquor ban in Day's Bay, a traditional day-out picnicking destination for Wellingtonians, especially the young. My letter to the local rag:

Dear Editor

Law that relies on police discretion to administer it is bad law. The policing of a permanent liquor ban in Days Bay would apparently permit "a decent family" to break it. This is a recipe for harassment of the 'wrong' people, whoever the wrong people are. Probably young, brown and loud.

Councillor Jamieson has discounted "personal freedoms" in favour of preventing "loutish behaviour". He might reflect on the slippery slope he is embarking on.

Young people have been coming to Days Bay, enjoying themselves and, God forbid, drinking, for generations. Most stay out of trouble. If they break some existing law protecting person and property, police and prosecute by all means. But introducing 'discretionary' law to target one sector of society sets a very bad precedent.

A snapshot of children born in NZ today

Some useful information will come out of this long-term study launched yesterday. 7,000 children in and around Auckland will be followed from birth. This will probably be a similar exercise to the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Study into children born in the 1970s. Some key facts were released yesterday. TV3 highlighted that 45 percent of the mothers in "high deprivation areas" were not aware of Working For Families. That is probably because they have no connection with the tax system through work. They will be well aware of the benefit system and using it.

KEY ANTENATAL FINDINGS

* 40 percent of children were unplanned
* 90 percent of mothers made changes to their diet during pregnancy.
* 16 percent of all mothers did not take folate at any time before or during their pregnancy.
* More than one in 10 mothers continued to smoke through their pregnancies (with an over-representation of those identifying as Maori and living in the most deprived areas.)
* Many mothers consumed alcohol during pregnancy.

KEY DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

* Forty nine percent of mothers identify as NZ European, 18 percent as Maori, 15 percent as Pacific and 15 percent as Asian.
* One in three of the Growing Up children have at least one parent born overseas.
* There are a multiple number of languages spoken by parents with one in three children being born into families where parents speak more than one language competently. One in five children will grow up in homes where English is not the main language (although 97 percent of mothers and partners are able to converse in everyday English). The most common languages spoken in the home after English are Samoan, Hindi, Tongan and Mandarin. Maori as the main language is spoken in less than one percent of homes.
* Twenty-eight percent of mothers live either on their own or with extended family (sometimes including their partner).
* Five percent of mothers are teenagers.
* Ten percent of mothers needed fertility assistance to get pregnant.
* Half of the children are born into families living in rental accommodation (public and private).
* Forty percent of children are born into families living in the most deprived areas of New Zealand (according to NZDep 2006 indices).
* Nearly half (45 percent) of mothers in high deprivation areas were unaware of Working for Families.
* Children are born into families which are highly mobile with more than half having moved more than twice in the last five years. This is often within a neighbourhood.

KEY STUDY INFORMATION

* The mothers of the Growing Up children were recruited during their pregnancies during 2008, 2009 and 2010.
* The mothers lived in the Auckland, Counties Manukau and Waikato District Health Boards at that time.
* Many have left these areas but remain in the study.

The Welfare Working Group Options Report

The WWG report is very long and laced with tens and tens of options. Some sound and some silly. But they seem resigned to putting up everything bar the kitchen sink. There are various media reports which attempt to pick out what each author considers the main options.

Stuff.

The NZ Herald.

Otago Daily Times.

The mistruths from the left start.

Sue Bradford:

By using figures that assume people on the DPB and Invalid's Benefit, will stay on them for the rest of their lives, assumptions are made about welfare costs that are completely biased and unrealistic.

The assumptions are based on the actual average time that DPB and IB recipients stay on a benefit.

This is what the report says;

For someone currently on a benefit, it is estimated that the total cost of all future benefit payments will be $192,000 for a person on the Invalid’s Benefit and $161,000 for someone on the Domestic Purposes Benefit, compared to $65,000 for a person on the Unemployment Benefit.

I only had time to read the executive summary yesterday. There are options covering time limits, work-testing the DPB much earlier than is currently the case, investing up front based on what a beneficiary is likely to cost if left to their own devices, a far more paternalistic approach to teenagers, changing abatement rates, supplementary assistance regimes etc. Responses are invited if you feel inclined to. (Try this link later)

The alternative group's report is due out December 9.

Must read about the mine and minds

Superb post by Stephen Franks regarding the mining disaster.

Provoked by it I have two thoughts. There are families who want to be at the site, camping out, whatever. They want to be as near as they can to their loved ones, an understandable human impulse. According to an interview with a father yesterday they are being prevented from doing so. Until something as devastating as this event occurs you will not know how unfree you are in this country.

Two. There are fathers and brothers and others who want to go in, even against the odds. Perhaps they feel that they would prefer to lose their own life trying, than live it in the knowledge they did nothing - or were forced to do nothing. That is how I would be feeling if my son was down there.

I do not know how much longer the coasters are going to stand for this.

Trying to keep up

My shop is going well. I am sketching from 8.30 to 4 daily and the time flies. What was going to be 2 weeks is now 4. We have the Eastbourne Carnival on Sunday and Xmas market December 12. Trying to keep up with my other stuff - welfare, blogging and my other part-time pharmaceutical stock take business - is tricky.

The Welfare Working Group options paper is being released today. I don't have an internet or wireless connection at the shop so I am going to be behind the eight ball. An offer of an embargoed copy late last week hasn't materialised. Neither is it up at the website.

Nevertheless it is good to see Rebstock focussing on young people in her pre-release comments. My presentation to the WWG had the same focus. I was asked to present on , Should NZ adopt the sole parent policies of other countries? My aim was to persuade that teenage birth - Maori in particular - was driving the long-term reliance on the DPB and all of the attendant problems. The teenage birth(s) is usually just the first of more that will produce children dependent on welfare.

My fear is that the paper will recommend more support for teenage parents as opposed to changing the system so as to not encourage them in the first place. After all, NZ does have one of the highest teenage birth rates in the developed world.

Reflecting further on the subject of yesterday's post, the kicking to death of a two year-old child by a gang associate, whose mother was also jailed for assaulting the child, criminals have always had children and always will. That's just the way it is. But if you were going to design a system where they were encouraged to have even more, paying them to is surely it.

Never, ever kick a baby

Reading about the death of a toddler after being kicked by some guy screwing (I was going to say 'in a relationship with' but that seems overly generous) the mother I wonder if it isn't time for a campaign telling young men (again 'men' seems inaccurate) to never, ever kick a baby. Obviously telling them to never, ever shake a baby hasn't sunk in in this instance. Or maybe as babies can't be shaken, and babies can't be smacked, only kicking is left.

I hope he is found guilty of murder and goes away for a lot longer than he will if his defence team successfully argues for manslaughter. In all likelihood he was probably wretchedly abused himself as a child but that has made him a danger to any other children of women he hooks up with (if they aren't already at risk from their own mothers). He needs detaining until age takes its inevitable ameliorating effect on his innate violence.

For God's sake, "a poor parenting decision?" What kind of twisted disinfecting crap is that? Whoever dreamed up that description insults the memory of the dead child and somehow mitigates what was a brutal killing.

Testing the Spirit Level thesis in NZ

Unbeknownst to me last week Victoria University hosted a conference about wealth inequality. They invited academics to address the findings of the Spirit Level (already widely criticised and exposed for some dodgy representation of statistics). According to the NZ Herald;

The greater the gap between rich and poor, the more likely people will grow up a drug user, a criminal, less educated, obese, pregnant while a teenager, even less trusting of others.

The New Zealand poor comprise non-wealthy welfare recipients and the non-wealthy workers. The problems that are attributed to wealth inequality are more prevalent among beneficiaries than among the working poor. That is amply illustrated by the difference in the incidence of these problems (bar obesity which has its roots in traditional diet/lifestyle change) between Maori and Pacific people. Teenage pregnancies, criminality, and substance abuse are more prevalent among Maori. Maori are far more likely to be on benefits than Pacific people.

What is even more striking is that Asians are the least wealthy group yet, thus far, do not under-achieve, abuse drugs or offend in disproportionate rates. Their various cultures are not beset with social problems. I don't suppose any academic raised these flies in the ointment.

The two things that work against the problems identified are strong families and work. Both are eroded by unconditional welfare. Not by income inequality.

Blaming income inequality is too easy. It also means the wrong solutions are identified. Those solutions are however very seductive to people who frame any and every problem as a lack of money.

Forum chair Jonathan Boston, the director of Victoria University's Institute of Policy Studies, said there was enough evidence to support the general thesis in The Spirit Level.

"My personal view is that we can have some confidence that more equal societies - other things being equal - have better social outcomes across a range of measures. It may not be absolutely conclusive, but I think it's reasonably persuasive."

Great. If the academics don't get it you can be sure the politicians won't. What concerns me is the host institute is also the home for the Welfare Working Group, providing advice and research etc. That they embrace the Spirit Level thesis doesn't bode well for that exercise.

Pointless position

Another pointless position National could axe rather than re-fill.

Trevor Mallard hysterical

Red Alert has just put up a post entitled

Anne Tolley doesn’t care about sex criminals looking after children

Without even clicking on the link I knew it would be Trevor Mallard.

I am assuming this is because police checks will no longer be needed for someone to oversee a highly visible play pen in a gym or shopping mall if new legislation is passed. I have commented that if no-one can be trusted then everyone is suspect. That is exactly the climate that Labour fostered with its excessive intervention. Remember how they also tried to change these sorts of babysitting services into early childhood education which required trained teachers, thereby rendering them prohibitive in cost?

More reasons to go to Aussie

Libs bid to trump Labor on tax cuts

November 19, 2010

STAMP duty on home purchases would be cut and thousands of small businesses could become exempt from payroll tax under a Coalition plan to trump John Brumby's economic credentials.

As the state election campaign enters its final days, the Coalition will also announce a budget savings package that will target hundreds of millions of dollars of ''wasted'' government spending on advertising and consultancies.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu is looking at options to lift payroll tax thresholds to free up small businesses from what he calls a ''tax on jobs''. But The Age understands no final decision has been on made on whether such a move can be afforded.

Read more

Unlike our opposition the Liberals understand that if job creation is important (when isn't it?) cutting taxes is the best way to do it.

ACT MPs - a bob each way

Earlier I suggested the Women's Affairs Ministry should go and with no current Minister, now is the ideal time. The 2 female ACT MPs are now apparently saying the same - but with a caveat;

The MPs suggested the Women's Affairs Ministry could be absorbed into the research unit of the Social Development Ministry, and said they suspected some of the work was already replicated there.

This is just obfuscating. The result then is an even bigger MSD.

Why can't ACT take a clear cut position? Perhaps it is the political bob-each-way, ever mindful of hankering after the 'women's vote'.

They said all departments should seriously consider issues of gender equality, just as the private sector did, without relying on a gender-based body to abrogate any responsibility.

'Gender equality' is a collectivist notion. ACT is supposed to be a proponent of individualism. So for that matter is National, though it is less disappointing when they don't get it. Individual rights should trump gender rights. My rights as an individual supersede any rights based on my gender, my ethnicity, my sexual preferences etc.

The whole problem with contemporary society is that collectivist rights are trampling over individual rights. It is evidenced in the environment via the RMA and local government edicts; and in the vast amount of wealth redistribution with the taxpayer having no power to refuse to cede the product of his work to any favoured group: and through legal institutions like the Family Court. Collectivist rights strip people of individual and private property rights.

The ACT MPs might argue they were advocating voluntary adhesion to gender equality. But exhorting "serious consideration" of gender equality gives it weight and veracity, whereas any employer should be free to choose staff based on merit or whatever other priority they put on the make-up of their workplace.

Wishing

I wonder how compromised Don Brash would have been as Prime Minister? From his column in today's NZ Herald;

Markets don't work perfectly, but they are the best wealth-creating mechanism yet discovered. New Zealanders, and the New Zealand Government, need to embrace them, not bet on the ability of smart officials or ministers to outperform them.

There is a gaping hole in NZ politics presently for a party focussed solely on the economy, one that embraces the above sentiment. There is no doubt Key is personally popular but I think National's support is very soft. Labour poses little danger to it but a new entity could.

Snap...almost

Something about the money earned by the highest paid chief executive in NZ bugged me.

The figure nagged me. Was there some particular significance about $4.386 million?

I got it.

The NZ population clock shows 4.387 million.

I have great memory for numbers and make idle connections between them.

I wonder which number will rise faster? Mr Frazis' remuneration or the population?

Bits and pieces

A beautifully written editorial from the Washington Times warns about moves towards global taxes in the game of social justice and global warming but identifies a silver lining in the economic crisis cloud;

Unfortunately for the global taxers, their views are not likely to have much traction in the middle of a worldwide economic downturn. It is easier to send people on guilt trips when they are not worried about simply surviving.

Isn't Simon Power getting just a tad too powerful? Removing the right to be judged by one's peers is wrong. And I see my gut response to this is in line with a mind much better equipped to judge legal reforms than mine. Stephen Franks:

I regret the loss of the right to elect trial by jury for small but important charges on matters of principle, where judges cannot be trusted to reflect the common conscience.

It is always interesting to compare headlines generated by the same event.

The DomPost says, Cost of sick staff could be $13b - report

The NZ Herald says, Sickness costs country $5b a year, says Treasury

The second is written by Simon Collins who, while I may not always agree with him, is a reliable journalist if you want facts and detail over scary headlines.

And an Australian Social Policy Research Centre report complains that their dole is losing ground against the pension;

The OECD says a single unemployed Australian on NewStart now receives only 68 per cent of the pension.

Their unemployed should consider themselves lucky. In NZ the dole is only 52 percent of Super (based on the over 25 single unemployment benefit versus NZ Super for a single person living alone.) It would be even lower if the dole rates were averaged out.

21st Century Welfare - disappointing

The following are statements from the UK government's 21st Century Welfare paper on welfare reform;

Work and personal responsibility must be at the heart of the new benefits system.

The benefits system has evolved with good intentions but with flawed results.

The welfare state is now a vast, sprawling bureaucracy that can act to entrench, rather than solve, the problems of poverty and social exclusion.

Sounds promising. But don't get excited.

The bulk of the paper is about doing exactly what the authors accuse earlier governments of doing. Tinkering. Changing delivery systems, abatement rates, incentives and the interface between the benefit and tax systems.

I was asked at the weekend conference if I put any store by what the Brits are doing and I had to say, no. I will start believing they are serious when they start using the words;

temporary
life-time limits
mandatory work participation


(I searched the word 'temporary' and the only time it appeared outside of public comments was as a description of work)

Advice for National - turn a problem into an opportunity

Use Pansy Wong's demise as an opportunity to get rid of the Minister and Ministry of Women's Affairs. It is a ridiculous and redundant outfit. You can justify it in fiscal terms if you don't have the fortitude or ability to explain it within the framework of individual freedom and choice, and limited government.

A first class communicator

Yesterday I travelled to Auckland to talk to the Libertarianz conference about welfare reform. I am glad I did as I was fortunate enough to listen to the address of one Professor Antal Fekete.

Currency, banking systems, etc are not over my head but neither are they accessible enough for me to have previously taken an enormous interest in them. A matter of some negligence. Professor Fekete has changed that however. At 78, with many years of communicating his ideas, he very successfully stripped back the complexity and made the subject of the gold standard and the spectrum across a system of application come alive.

I was left with a sense of unease. According to Fekete there is deep economic hardship ahead. He felt NZ was rich enough in resources that our problems might not be bad as those of other countries. But he has pressed an alert button in my mind and I will henceforth be attuned to what is happening in this arena and trying to understand the developments.

That is the best outcome a communicator can hope for.

At this moment, when the world’s monetary system appears increasingly shaky, Prof Fekete details why the current paradigm is flawed and how the problems must be dealt with. This is almost taboo in the main stream financial media. Prof Fekete explains it as a gold crisis, not a dollar crisis. Those who doubt it would do well to recall that every fiat* money system ever tried – and history is littered with examples – failed.

* Money that is not backed by, or convertible to, any specific commodity and whose only value is that determined by government.

Update; So when I saw this today I read it in full; The Gold Standard Never Dies by Llew Rockwell. Rockwell makes references to Zoellick in the same vane as did Fekete.)

Slack

A 65-year-old man on the dole also owned a nightclub, drove luxury cars and laundered millions of dollars as the New Zealand kingpin of an international drug syndicate.

Surely this guy will should been transferred to Super by now? God Lord. Work and Income are so inefficient.

Succinct and spot on

This says it all.

And it was said over one hundred years ago but people still don't get it.

I'd rather that England should be free than that England should be compulsorily sober. With freedom we might in the end attain sobriety, but in the other alternative we should eventually lose both freedom and sobriety.

— W.C. Magee, Archbishop of York, Sermon to Peterborough [1868]

(HT Future of Freedom Foundation)

Cannabis, alcohol, the ALCP and ACT

I said aloud to the TV coverage of the pro-cannabis brigade celebrating marijuana on the grounds of parliament, and later in the Police headquarters foyer where they planned to 'smoke police out' with a cannabis bomb, "Sometimes they do their cause no good." When they flout the law, albeit bad law, flagrantly, it hardens the opposition. When they take the position that cannabis is great, they lose support from people who know from experience that it isn't.

I would take the position that too much cannabis is bad for a person. But so is too much alcohol yet it isn't illegal. If it was, people would still drink to excess and the illegality of their actions, whether imbibing a little or a lot, would only add harm to harm.

Their cause would be better progressed by the use of logic, by appealing to people's innate sense of justice and highlighting the more effective approaches taken towards cannabis use and cultivation in other regimes.

And while on the subject of drugs and alcohol, should we applaud ACT MPs Heather Roy, Hillary Calvert and Sir Roger Douglas for voting against the tightening of liquor laws? As the DomPost points out their opposition could open the door to worse restrictions than what are already on the table. But then this is the story of democracy and parliament. Frequently a party finds itself at a 'damned-if-we-do-and-damned-if-we-don't' impasse. These three have stood on principle; the upholding of freedom for the responsible. I would have done the same knowing there are plenty of people who wouldn't thank me for it.

If their opposition results in less freedom, less freedom is what New Zealanders voted for. ACT can't save the public from themselves. But at least they can hold their heads up and say, we didn't vote for it.

'Mantrol'

Hunting, cricket and controlling the barbecue are all part of being a manly man – and so is driving slowly.

A new advertising campaign by the New Zealand Transport Agency is hoping to convince young men who like to drive fast that slowing down is part of being a man in control.

The ad, which screens for the first time tonight after a series of "teasers" that have been playing since Sunday, encourages men to exercise "mantrol" by driving to the road and weather conditions.

Were the creators of the new 'mantrol' TV ads designed to make young men slow down when driving aware that 'mantrol' is a sexual performance enhancer?

Public/private partnerships are not a silver bullet

The National government wears public/private partnerships (or at least talk of them) like a badge of honour. These are supposed to indicate that they are supporters of the free market. Supporters of the efficiencies of profit and competition.

Unfortunately public/private partnerships promote corporate welfare.

The Problem with Public/Private Partnerships summarised by the NCPA puts it concisely;

Unforeseen consequences of public-private partnerships often include:

* Log-rolling and pork-barrel politics -- I'll vote for your PPP if you vote for my PPP.
* Weakened market tests -- resources are devoted to a project not because it benefits the citizenry but rather because it benefits a powerful interest group.
* Weaker Management -- absent market tests, managers are less motivated to find that mix of services and creative array of financing tools to ensure that it proves "profitable."
* Lack of innovation.
* Corruption.
* Crowding Out -- government already seizes a disproportionate amount of our wealth and the PPP concept allows it to further distort the allocation by market forces.

In New Zealand it is the left that argues against public/ private partnerships.

Small government advocates get caught in between and generally end up supporting them as preferable to full public funding and ownership.

Classical liberals probably ought to make a bigger fuss about their downsides. Too often small government proponents are viewed and portrayed as opposed only to state social welfare. But corporate welfare is just as damaging.

Almost 1 in 4 prisoners is a gang member

Corrections have released September statistics so I thought it might be interesting to do a quick comparison over the decade. Then the computer crashed and I ran out of time to look at more aspects.



The ethnic make up is reasonably steady but the gang population incarcerated has leapt. At September 2010:


23 per cent of the total prison population are gang members

According to the 2001 Prison census:

The percentage of male sentenced inmates who were patch members or associates of gangs decreased between 1991 and 1993 from 20 percent to 16 percent, and has stayed at this lower level until 2001 when it appears to have dropped to 13 percent. The Mongrel Mob and Black Power continue to have the largest number of patch members in prison.

And rough calculations show that keeping gang members in prison costs around $183 million per annum. Gulp.

But what the hell. Just as long as we are winning that war on drugs. We are aren't we?

2.1 percent of the population have used amphetamines in the past year.

Convictions for P-related offences continue to rise and seizures of the drug at the border are slightly up.

But the number of frequent users seeking treatment has remained the same.

Time Shadbolt for Breakfast

I see Breakfast's ratings have dropped by almost a fifth. See. People do like a laugh in the morning. Or in the evening. Any time for that matter.

Favourite TV programme is this house is 7 Days. It isn't an exaggeration to describe it as the best NZ humour ever.

One of the segments involves a 'personality' being grilled to extract a forbidden yes or no answer. Friday's guest was Tim Shadbolt which made for side-splitting hilarity.

So forget that simpering soapy giggly gaggle that is now Breakfast and watch this great session with Invercargill's unusual mayor. No wonder no one can beat him... at winning the mayoralty that is.

(Starts at 9:30)

Smoking - the sensible and the stupid

The Dutch are sensible people. Their blanket ban on smoking in bars has been amended. Now if the bar is owner-operated with no other staff and no bigger than 70 sqm then people can once more enjoy their cigarettes. And whatever else they legally buy I assume.

So nobody is unwillingly exposed to second hand smoke. And the private property rights of the bar owner are restored.

Interesting that the fight isn't over after all. I imagine it is quite on the cards that other European countries will follow suit.

Yet here, a country with an abysmal over-abundance of neurotic numbskulls, the insane campaign to make NZ smoke-free rolls on. A thought on that for the anti-tobacco zealots. If smoking tobacco was outlawed we will all pay more tax to a/ compensate for the $1 billion plus the government currently takes on tobacco and b/ through the increased mortality and extra ageing costs of newly complying non-smokers and c/ through policing the crime that the tobacco black market will create.

Can America change direction?

Readers of this blog know that I am not given to writing about 'warm fuzzies'. But I have got the warm fuzzies a couple of times in the last two days over the really big stuff. The whole- world- changing stuff. Not just nearest and dearest.

They have occurred over what is happening in the US. Listening to some victorious guy speaking earnestly and genuinely about America having spoken and America having said it wants smaller government. I mean, can you even begin to imagine a similar expression in this country?

And it happened again when I read the Cato Institute's David Boaz advice for the incomers. I will paraphrase it. No. On second thoughts here's the whole thing. It's not long;

GOP Won on Economy, So Focus on It

by David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute. He is a co-author, with David Kirby, of the study "The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama".

It always feels great to win an election. But the real job for fiscal conservatives and smaller-government advocates starts now.

The usual pattern is that after the election, voters and the activists go back to their normal lives, but organized interests redouble their efforts to influence policymakers. The people who want something from government hire lobbyists, make political contributions and otherwise do all they can to get their hands on taxpayers' money. Meanwhile, the average taxpayer cannot be expected to exert influence on each particular spending bill.

Tea partiers must change that pattern. They must keep up the pressure on Congress and state legislators. They must demand actual performance, not just promises. To keep momentum going, tea partiers should also insist that Republicans stay focused on the economic agenda that created their winning coalition, and not get bogged down in divisive social issues, which will split the movement and alienate independents.

Meanwhile, victorious Republicans must demonstrate to voters that they're serious — finally — about more freedom and less government. They destroyed the Reaganite Republican brand during the Bush years. It's harder to rebuild a brand than to destroy it. But the backlash against the Barack Obama- Harry Reid- Nancy Pelosi big-government agenda has given them another chance.

House Republicans should:

Get serious about spending cuts. Annual federal spending rose by a trillion dollars under President George W. Bush — before the gusher of spending when the financial crisis hit. Bush became the biggest spender since President Lyndon B. Johnson funded the Great Society and the Vietnam War.

But Bush didn't hold that title long. Spending is now twice as large as when Bush became president, and annual deficits are more than a trillion dollars. This is Greek-style fiscal policy. All the Republicans have been promising to get spending under control, but they have adamantly avoided specifics. Now the rubber meets the road. The House must find real cuts that can reduce overall spending and lead to a balanced budget.

Start rolling back the health care overhaul. The voters didn't like Obamacare when it passed. Contrary to lots of predictions, they still don't like it. Republicans pledged to repeal it, and should keep their promise to voters. But, of course, the Senate and the president aren't likely to go along with a repeal bill. So the House should refuse to appropriate money to implement the bill's provisions, and prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from spending any money to implement the bill's worst provisions — especially the individual mandate.

Prevent the looming tax increase. Under current law, taxes on capital gains, dividends and everyone's income will rise on Jan. 1, 2011. Congress needs to block this looming tax increase, preferably in any lame duck session, otherwise in early January. The prospect of higher taxes is likely to discourage spending and especially investment.

Take a hard look at the war on drugs. To drug warriors, nine years is a blink of an eye. They've been at it since 1914. Thanks to their efforts, only 119 million Americans have used illegal drugs, and only 22 million Americans use them at least once a month. Meanwhile, the violence generated by prohibition is tearing Mexico apart and spilling over the border to the U.S. Southwest. Legalizing drugs, according to a new Cato study, would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on prohibition enforcement. If it can't just end this failed policy, Congress should appoint a blue-ribbon commission to study alternatives to prohibition.

Stand up to special interests. As noted, the moment the polls close, the organized interest groups descend on the new members of Congress. From pharma to farmers, from oil companies to the Social Security/Medicare lobbyists, everybody wants to pay off a campaign debt and take a senator to a game at the Verizon Center. Republicans — and Democrats — need to show some virtue and resist these organized interest groups. The country's overriding interest is to reduce spending, the deficit and the national debt. That means keeping a comfortable distance between lobbyists and the public trough. One tactic might be for the House to pass a continuing resolution to fund agencies at 90 percent of current spending, bypassing the notoriously porcine appropriations subcommittees.

Avoid social issues. When the Bush Republicans spent too much time on issues like the gay marriage ban and the Terri Schiavo intervention, they alienated suburban and professional women, college graduates, young people, libertarians and independents — overlapping groups, of course. And they lost two elections. After 2008, they seem to have learned their lesson. Even in the face of several states instituting marriage equality, Republicans kept their focus squarely on overspending, health care and big-government overreach — issues that united opponents of the Obama agenda.

They shouldn't blow it now. They should stick to the economic issues that won them this election and avoid the divisive social issues that cost them 2006 and 2008.

Differing measures of unemployment

The Household Labourforce Survey has unemployment for September at 6.4 percent, down from 6.8 percent (revised figure) in June 2010.

The number on the unemployment benefit however was 65,281 in September, up from 62,085 in June 2010.



Which reminds me, another unemployment measurement, the Census will occur next March so there will be a chance to see how closely the HLFS data and Census match.

Last Census (2006) said 3.4 percent whereas the HLFS said 3.9 percent. Considering the HLFS is a survey of only 15,000 households versus a survey of probably one hundred times that number the results are fairly close.

(People tend not to lie to census takers about being unemployed. Some do however lie about being or having been on the DPB.)

2025 Taskforce - illustrations of decline

Two graphs from the latest Taskforce 2025 Report.

Figure 1: GDP per capita relative to the OECD, 1970 - 2008



Figure 1.2: Net emigration to Australia and the income gap



An the NZ Herald reports;

New Zealand will lose another 400,000 people to Australia over the next 15 years, based on current projections of the income gap between the two countries, the 2025 taskforce says.

Dr Brash says that we can catch Australia, but.....

The 'but' is government.

Finance Minister Bill English said the Government would consider some of the taskforce's ideas, but disagreed with the report's authors on the ideal speed of the reform.

"History shows that reforms done at breakneck speed tend to be fairly counterproductive," he said.

"If you don't take the time to convince people of the benefits of change there's a good chance the next government will simply reverse them."

But while governments continue to procrastinate, those who would support reforms are buggering off. I just can't see an economically bright future for the country.

National has to put up reforms as policy next year and get a mandate to make them. If they won't there is no point to the party as a government.

Hell. I have never voted National in my life but if they put up some decent policy based on the report recommendations, I would. Honestly.

I don't do Facebook

I don't do Facebook. Yes, it is a failure on my part to make the most of modern communication but I already spend too much time in front of the computer screen. During the 2008 election campaign a page was made for me so I have a presence there but have no idea how it all works. But I wanted to say thank you to those people who left happy birthday messages yesterday. I really appreciate it. I had a great day with dinner prepared (and only the oven needing turning on) by 9am, then some time in the sun with my daughter and other school kids learning how to hit a golf ball, and the rest with my rear end parked in front of the tele, my laptop on my knee and tuned into the TAB website. Bliss.

Back to work this morning.

The Social Report 2010

The latest Social Report has just been released by the Ministry of Social Development. It is full of data about incomes, health, social connectedness etc.

The following graph summarises trends by comparing 1995/97 to 2007/09. If the marker has moved towards the centre that particular indicator has worsened eg obesity has worsened, voter turnout has dropped and housing affordability has decreased. On the positive side, with the marker moving away from the centre, road deaths have improved (declined), suicide has declined as has cigarette smoking. Some indicators that show as positive are somewhat debatable I think. Higher participation in tertiary education and local content of TV for instance. Is more of either necessarily an improvement?



Much of the info is a rehash from earlier reports awaiting updating through other surveys or the next census. Overall it paints a fairly positive picture of New Zealand which seems somewhat at odds with the way life is portrayed in the media or by various groups. For example hazardous drinking is unchanged yet we are constantly bombarded by claims that it has worsened markedly. And the road toll has become an obsession yet it is improving. This happens because hysteria sells and thousands of people have livelihoods that rely on the preservation of industries that revolve around 'poverty' or 'obesity' or being 'anti-alcohol' or 'anti-tobacco'.

Melbourne Cup - Have you made your choice yet?

This is my pick for the Cup. Descarado.

And I have boxed him with So You Think, Americaine and Shocking in trifectas.

Then I might put a sentimental dollar on the Matamata trained roughie Red Ruler whose name I wrote in my blackbook a couple of years ago but has unsuccessfully soaked up too many of my 'investment' dollars since.

Gambling tracked by Australia's Work and Income equivalent

On a day when I wake up thinking about gambling - what is the state of the Flemington track like today - I was initially nonplussed by the following story:

HUNDREDS of thousands of elderly Australians playing poker machines could see their pensions cut after wins as smartcards are introduced to track gambling habits.

Centrelink has already used data tracked from pensioners using swipe cards at major casinos to count wins - and losses - as earnings, and demanded repayment.


Notwithstanding that anything the Aussies do could soon come to a store near you, the difference is that the Australian state pension is means-tested. Centrelink treats money spent on gambling as 'income'. But they also treat winnings as income. Which is patently stupid. Because most gamblers will re-invest winnings hoping to make more. That's how they get into deep schtuck. A gambler could have enormous 'income' yet have lost the lot.

Now their IRD equivalent wants the information from Centrelink as well. Very big brotherish.

Means-testing has it's merits if you support the welfare state because it allows so-called genuine need to be targeted. New Zealand adopts the universality approach as being fairer. But I refer to retirement pensions only.

Working age benefits are means-tested. Will Work and Income eventually introduce smartcards which can track the use of benefit money to gamble? Wouldn't be surprised.

I would oppose such a regime. The welfare reform I want would involve making the eligibility for state support much tighter. But where cash is provided (which could be reduced considerably if NZ did more in-kind assistance) there should be privacy about how it is used.

"All these foreigners"

Winston Smith has found the perfect candidate to head up the NZ First youth wing:

“See that Polish Pizza guy it’s the likes of him that’s stealing all the jobs of young British workers like me. I don’t agree with all these foreigners coming over here taking our jobs. It’s just not right. What do you think of it Winston?”

What I really think is that the Eastern European should be allowed to stay and that Mike should be stripped of his rights as a citizen and deported to an uninhabitated rock in the outer Hebrides. However, I don't say this as I have been trained to view Mike as a vulnerable victim who is at risk of becoming homeless.

More

Judith Collins calls WINZ loans "PC nonsense"

Work and Income make loans to people to get limited licences for the purpose of work.

Acting Social Development minister, Judith Collins, calls it "PC nonsense".

But if the practice ends the taxpayer will be expected to provide a benefit, which is not repayable, to support these people while they are out of work.

I think I prefer the "PC nonsense".

Of course the real issue is paying people benefits when they have actively caused their own inability to work.

That might better fit under the heading of PC nonsense.

In the past people who had broken laws, or who had drunk themselves into an unemployable state for instance, would have been ruled ineligible for social security payments. Perhaps that's the direction Crusher Collins thinks society should head in.

Should, for example, people who have committed an imprisonable offence be automatically disqualified from receiving benefits? Parliament has been consumed by the idea that prisoners should lose the right to vote. But the first question, whether they should lose their right to welfare, is far more important. It is also far more difficult.

If such restrictions were imposed, those who had no entitlement would be reliant on charities and churches (or wouldn't put themselves in that position in the first place). I like to think the latter would be the case but history tells us otherwise.

And one gets the impression that people like Judith Collins would have no truck with charities that practised "PC nonsense". That would go for many New Zealanders.

How I wish I could see things in such black and white terms.

Saving the wildlife

Some Einstein made the following comment on yesterday's post;

Skinks, geckos, birds and more. For crying out loud get rid of your cat and give the wildlife a fair go.


But if I "get rid" of Tom there are three more. And 2 more next door and 2 more just up the road from them. And two more directly across the road....

Yet our "wildlife", especially the birds, seems to thrive. Perhaps that is because the cats keep the rats, the bigger threat, in check.

Today's offering

Regularly we are offered skinks, ghekkos, rats, mice, cicadas, birds. Frequently we sustain injuries in our attempts to save the lives of all creatures great and small. Even a kerereru, who is probably now part of a luxurious cloak after we lost that particular battle so delivered it amazingly intact to the local marae.

But this morning's delivery was a new one on me. Initially, from a distance, it appeared as a half eaten lizard with rigor mortis set in. Possibly unearthed overnight from some forgotten hiding place. Then I thought we had a miniature pre-historic beast on our hands. Come and look at this, I called out to the knowledgeable one.

Its a koura, he said, spelt k-o-u-r-a as in Kaikoura. A baby freshwater crayfish.

We abide at the foot of bush clad hills. A creek runs through the corner of our neighbour's property. Tom had been fishing. Here he is, saying to me, You should have seen the size of the one that got away Mum.

The business environment is very tough at the moment

Walking around Lower Hutt this morning I was shocked at how many newly empty retail spaces and 'for lease' signs there are in and around High St. The same goes for the industrial area of Seaview. So the following piece of news from Statistics New Zealand is no surprise;

Provisionally, the total number of businesses in New Zealand at February 2010 was 470,000, down 1.7 percent from 2009, Statistics New Zealand said today. This is the first decrease in the total number of businesses recorded over the past nine years.

That was at February 2010 and I think the environment has visibly worsened since then.

Of course people are always starting new ventures. I am renting some shop space in Eastbourne for (at least) the second two weeks of November where I will hopefully sell some paintings and pick up some commissions. It's a bit of a gamble but I am ever the optimist. And I do like the idea of trying to do my bit in increasing economic activity. Empty shops are such forlorn sights.

ALCP to contest Mana

It's very hard to get excited about a by-election between National and Labour but here's a brave fellow making some sense.

Cannabis Party Contest Mana By-Election Date

The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is pleased to announce that Julian Crawford will be standing for the party in the Mana by-election. Mr Crawford is a political science graduate from Otago University. He also stood for the party in the 2008 General Election.

"Maori and Pacific Islanders are four times more likely to arrested for cannabis than Pakeha," says Mr Crawford. "Cannabis is a natural plant which is safer than alcohol, yet its prohibition has created criminals out of non-violent people, predominately Maori and Pacific islanders."

"The arrest of otherwise law abiding citizens for cannabis has broken up numerous families and the targeted arrest of Maori and Pacific Islanders has caused huge social harm to already poor neighborhoods."

"Only the Cannabis Party is prepared to reverse this social degradation and offer real job opportunities to struggling New Zealanders. Regulation of cannabis will add billions into the New Zealand economy each year while undermining the profits gangs and organised crime."

Most benefit applicants fit to work

What is happening in the UK to address the high number of people claiming benefits due to incapacity is probably going to happen here. One of the key changes, possibly picked up from the US, is applicants now have to be privately assessed. No longer will a note from GP, and a sign-off by a case manager suffice.

According to the Daily Mail only 51,000 people have been granted a benefit for long term disability or ill health in two years. That is crucial to fixing the problem. The most important action a government needs to take is not getting people off benefits. That is secondary. It is stopping them coming onto benefits.

Three-quarters of people who applied for new benefits for the long-term sick failed tests to prove they were too ill to work.

Out of about 840,000 who tried to obtain the £95-a-week Employment and Support Allowance, 640,000 were told they were fit for work, or withdrew their applications before they took the tests – suggesting they were ‘trying it on’.

Over the last 30 years the numbers on disability pensions, invalid benefits, etc have dramatically increased in many developed countries. There is now a concerted effort being made to reverse the trend. New Zealand needs to stop dragging the chain and start making similar efforts.

Latest benefit stats

The quarterly benefit stats have just been posted at MSD.

The statistical information is available by benefit type, region, and office. It is further broken down by age, gender, ethnicity, dependent children included on benefit, type of incapacity, percentage with declaration of earnings, etc.

No surprises regarding numbers, as per graph below.

The good news and the bad news about re-offending

I have a bad habit. I immediately suspect 'good news' stories.

NewstalkZB reported yesterday that even the Parole Board was surprised at the reduction of re-offending by prisoners out on parole.

Since 2002 the rate of offending while on parole has more than halved, Parole Board chairman Sir David Carruthers says these statistics are better than anticipated

Even the Parole Board it surprised at re-offending figures released today

In the past eight years the rate of offending while on parole has more than halved, from around 100 offences per month in 2002.

The 'good news' also makes the NZ Herald;

An analysis of Parole Board decisions shows that despite an increase in the number of parolees, the number of people committing crimes while on parole has more than halved - dropping from about 100 a month in 2002 to about 45 a month.

However, the graphs below, from the latest Corrections Annual Report show little change in re-offending across all prisoners. In fact the re-conviction rate is climbing.



So I am not sure how this squares with the 'good news' story.

Prisoners who do not get parole are re-offending more than those who do?

The re-offending rate jumps once off parole?

Or perhaps if prisoners are paroled later in their sentences then the period they spend on parole would be shorter and the opportunity to re-offend while on parole is reduced.

Whatever the answer is, a 'bad news' story must co-exist.

'Not taking' isn't the same as 'giving'

The problem with the New Zealand attitude is summed up in this headline:

Hobbit's makers want more money

The automatic interpretation of that sentence is that the Hobbit makers want to be given money when what they want is to keep money.

Not taking is not the same as giving.

It isn't a difficult distinction to grasp.

All the government has to decide between is a reduced share of the Hobbit profit or nothing.

And then they need to extrapolate that reasoning to tax-paying individuals who are also free to take their production elsewhere.

The fight between the can-doers and the can't-doers

Sue Bradford blogs:

National is certainly on the offensive with its employment and welfare reforms, even proposing a law change specifically to benefit producers of The Hobbit; but it faces a new mood of resistance and dissent...

National is on the rampage right now. Many ordinary people continue to live in quiet desperation, struggling daily to stay fed, housed and healthy.

If there is any validity to drawing a parallel between what is happening over The Hobbit and welfare reform, I am encouraged. Most New Zealanders have spurned the unions over the first matter, recognising the real economic and social benefits this and other movies bring to the country. My hope is they will similarly get behind any worthy proposals that the Welfare Working Group produces early next year and reject the 'can't-do' objections from Sue Bradford's shadow group.

National's welfare reforms - hopeless

As a country, NZ rates very low on discipline. Talk is tough but actions rarely meet it. Our justice system is very soft when compared to the US, for instance. And sometimes I am glad of that. We have laws that don't get enforced eg the de facto decriminalisation of cannabis use. The US, on the other hand, locks up thousands for mild drug misdemeanours.

The US, however, applied the same discipline to welfare reform, notwithstanding some states are more rigorous in their rules and enforcement than others. At least by NZ standards they can be described as rigorous. When federal work participation requirements were stipulated, they were met. It is getting harder to meet them during the recession, and also because the numbers on welfare are so much lower. In terms of employability those remaining on welfare are the most difficult cases.

But what do we do in NZ?

Instead of simply applying a time limit to the DPB - with a prescribed low level of exemptions for certain cases - the government introduces a rule saying you must find, or at least look for, 15 hours of paid work per week when your youngest child turns six - one year after they have started school.

It's a 'soft' obligation. But the leftists loudly shriek 'hard'. In fact, it is the leftists who get the beneficiary populace worked up about actually having to do something in return for their benefit (like the rest of us have to do something in return for our incomes) so maybe there is an upside to the hysteria. Some people on the DPB start thinking that their ticket is up. Time to join the ranks of the employed.

Until it becomes apparent that the government didn't really mean it. Well, not you, not yet. On the day the new rules came into force the government announced:

Work testing will begin with 4,500 DPB recipients from today and Sickness Beneficiaries assessed as work ready, will be work tested from May next year.

The new (but soft) obligation is only being applied to 4,500 of the 43,000 plus who have children 6 or older(43,000 was the figure from February 2010 and will have risen in line with the rising total DPB population). So only around 1 in 10 of the eligible people are actually being work-tested.

Why is this? Nearly all individuals have the capacity to actively seek work on their own behalf. Perhaps the government thinks only Work and Income can fulfil that role. Yet as an employment agency they don't have the staff or openings to cope. Own goal.

Governments full well understand the value of 'sending a message'. Unfortunately, they have just sent another bad one. Again, we talk tough, but we don't mean it. We bring in stringent new rules but don't have the resources or the will to apply them.

Asians fight back

The Nelson Mail reports "Drunken violence" in the city on Friday night, but the headline could just as easily been "Racial violence".

Last night's incident involved five friends walking home who were approached by a group of nine others, believed to be of Asian descent, [Detective Sergeant] McCoy said...

"I think myself that for the first time, Asians have been outnumbering the others – that it was retaliation for someone being beaten up – not reported to the police, of course."

Does he wonder why an incident isn't reported to the police? Isn't it a futile exercise? Tit-for-tat behaviour might simply be more effective.

State housing changes - I am not holding my breath

There is a certain incongruity about National's plans to time limit tenancies in state houses ( apart from the fact that they can talk about time limits on state houses but not on benefits).

The Government will also look at moving on singles or couples who stay in their three, four and five-bedroom state homes long after children have left home.

Incentives would initially be offered to those people to either buy the house, or move into a smaller state house or private accommodation. But those who refuse to budge may be forced to do so.

"Apart from the vulnerable and elderly, there may be some compulsion around that," Mr Heatley said.

Yet Housing New Zealand has been spectacularly unsuccessful at moving on 3 Pomare families who presumably have broken their tenancy agreements. And this is just one high profile incident.

The house tenancies are in the names of the women. Housing New Zealand had served them with notices to quit their Farmer Cres homes about 18 months ago but the three women and their 13 children remain in the houses while legal action continues.

So I had another 'yeah right' moment when I read about National's promised 'tough' stance.

The tragedy is there are many, many vulnerable people living in state housing areas. People whose grasp on reality is tenuous. Mentally ill, de-institutionlised, isolated people who are forced to live alongside criminals, those in between prison spells. Amongst domestic violence and sometimes depravity. People who were humanely moved 'into the community' under the faulty assumption that all communities are kind and supportive.

Perhaps more pepper-potting would help but really, like welfare, it isn't policy settings as much as the very existence of these state monoliths.

Blood alcohol levels of fatally injured drivers 2008

The majority of drivers with fatal injuries were in the 0 - 0.03 category.

5 were in the 0.05-0.08 margin but 2 of those (15-19 year-olds) were already driving illegally. They can be excluded from estimates about saved lives because the assumption being made by those clamouring for a drop in BAC from 0.08 to 0.05 is that those driving legally would lower their intake if the law was changed.

As I have already commented on Kiwiblog, responding to the NZ herald's Two Drinks Max campaign, I never drink more than two at the current limit anyway. And there are probably a number of people who adopt that limit but don’t want to see 0.08 lowered. If we go to 0.05 the next call will be to go to zero. That will mean no drinking at all within 8 or so hours of driving. Anyone who had a few drinks the night before will probably be over the limit in the morning. And if you don’t think the revenue gatherers will exploit that, then you are wrong.

Administered 'p'?

The decision to charge a mother with administering 'p', a Class A drug, to her children is a bit of a worry. When I read the headline I thought she must have been directly dosing them with it in some form. But no. She was smoking it, not in their presence (her claim), but in their environment.

Administering a Class A drug carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

So the same potential offence is now being committed in every home with children where parents smoke cannabis, albeit a Class C drug. Any woman who smokes cannabis or 'p' or uses any other illegal drug while pregnant could also be charged for administering the drug.

And why is she being charged for administering 'p' but her partner is not?

Going off on a related tangent, what about a pregnant woman on the methadone programme? OK. Methadone, also highly addictive, is a Class B controlled drug but its effect on a foetus is arguably undesirable. (I say arguably because there is a school of thought that says withdrawal from opiates during pregnancy could be even more stressful for the foetus).

Personally I believe there is a significant difference between putting wine in a babies bottle and drinking wine while breast feeding. But both would result in traces of wine in the child's system. Alcohol is of course still legal (although the way this country is carrying on it shouldn't surprise if we don't head closer and closer towards prohibition). But the example serves as an analogy for the difference between active and passive. And degree.

If successful, this case will open all sorts of cans of worms.

Sam's sketching

Sam, my 12 year-old daughter, has been sketching. I like what she does. The combination of hatching and sureness of line. She is into stars of the past. Here's one of Audrey Hepburn.



And Robert has delighted me lately with his dedication to practising the piano, sometimes 3-4 hours a day. In the holidays he used some of a small inheritance from his Nana to buy a Gulbransen, built during the prohibition in Chicago (I wish it could talk) to play his ragtime and boogie on. It was built to be loud for entertainment pre-amplification. It is certainly that but I never tire of hearing him progressing.

His 'dignity' has been returned to him

Am I surprised?

Mr Wells, the 'artist' who promotes the dignity of using the dole to reduce consumption, has had his benefit re-instated. This will probably include late payment of any entitlement he missed.

He also has a partner whose benefit is being similarly re-instated.

Apparently the Ministry did not observe correct procedures.

Clearly it is OK to be receiving a fee from Creative New Zealand, Wellington City Council and collecting the dole.

By coincidence I had just been reading the MSD Annual Report released yesterday. In it they make a huge song and dance about performance integrity and meeting objectives;


It is important New Zealanders have trust and confidence in how we deliver income support to people.

Yeah right.

(Mr Wells and partner also refused to sign a privacy waiver which would allow Work and Income to discuss their case. He, however continues to exercise his freedom to say whatever he damn well likes. That is thoroughly inconsistent action from a man who promotes 'honour'.)

Another parable worth recalling

A commentor yesterday didn't think the parable of the professor and his grading system bore "any relation to how socialism works."

So I dug up another one, also well known but worth remembering;

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And here are a couple of real-life illustrations to go with it;

Reminders I have received

The following arrived by e-mail. It's a new one on me (although the wonderful quote at the end is not);

An economics professor at a local college made the statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased. Bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings. and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

At the end of the experiment, to their great surprise, all failed.

The professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

Also well worth a read is Leftists, Progressives and Socialists by Walter Williams. Lest we forget...

What goes unappreciated is that socialists and communists have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.

Read more