Comments on Michael Stutchbury “Projects Keynes would approve”, 19/06/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/currentaccount/index.php/theaustralian/comments/projects_keynes_would_approve/
Michael, it has to be (d). (note: (d) is one of the choices of answers Michael asked in his article. The choices are: whether (a) cynical politics, (b) questionable education policy, (c) guaranteed to produce stuff-ups and, consequently, cover-ups or (d) all of the above? To provide some context, I include quote from his article as follows:)
HOW ironic that the Rudd government’s “education revolution” has been conscripted into its crash-bang budget stimulus.
The short-sighted priority of Julia Gillard’s Building the Education Revolution program is not to ensure that the next generation of kids get better schooling.
Instead, the explicit $14.7billion priority is to hire brickies, chippies and sparkies to build libraries, halls and gyms rapidly at thousands of primary schools in every federal electorate, ASAP.
It’s the classic policy conflict of Keynesian short-term budget stimulus packages.
The demand to boost the economy now means much of the debt-financed investment will be wasted.
John Maynard Keynes even suggested the unemployed could be paid to dig holes and fill them in again.
It should be the second best prize of simplistic Keynesian after the dig and fill best prize. This is another example that Rudd / Swan Labour government is incapable of managing the economy and budget.
Shouldn't we have an economic court to bring the economic vandalisms to justice? They should include some top bureaucrats, probably. Otherwise, taxpayers money will be continue to be wasted, because there are few constraints to a government to do it. We have prosecutions of business people for fraud. Why don’t we have prosecutions of politicians for such obvious public economic fraud?