Gillard is "refelcting the power of education for better life"!

Comments on Julia Gillard “Reflecting the power of education for better life”, 9/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/reflecting-the-power-of-education-for-better-life/story-fn59niix-1226052142343

Gillard says "TOMORROW Australians will see the first budget of the government I am proud to lead.

It is a budget right for our times and a budget that reflects my beliefs in the transformative power of education, the benefits and dignity of work and the need for us to treat one another with respect."

And “This budget will move us back into the black. It is about getting our economic settings right as Australia moves from the lingering effects of the global financial crisis to the economic expansion we know is coming as the massive mining investment boom comes on stream.”

We've heard many similar statements from Gillard, such as they have got the balance right, this right, that right and so on.

But how many things have gone wrong under Rudd/Gillard and Gillard governments?

Few if any independent minded people in Australia would believe these sorts of statements from creditability seriously damaged prime minister.

Where is the statement "there will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead" a few short days before the last election?

We need a prime minister who is honest, not someone who lusts for personal power and prestige at the expense of the nation and would pursue it by any means.

But let me be more seriously picking some points from her post.

Firstly, Gillard argues that “We will rebuild large parts of our nation following devastating floods across our eastern states and Western Australia and Cyclone Yasi, which followed shortly after.

Finding the money to meet this urgent national priority has added budget pressure at a time of reduced revenue. But in the long term, we face a whole new set of challenges as the mining investment boom is unleashed with all the price pressures that come with it.”

Why does a prime minister of a country blessed with a mining boom talks about it as “face a whole new set of challenges”?

It is beyond belief to talk down such a good fortune, isn’t it? Doesn’t indicate some sort of hopelessness of a leader unable to handle even good fortunes, not to mention any real and true challenges?

Secondly, she talks about: “As the economy gathers strength and moves to full capacity, it is vital we return the budget to surplus and do not add to inflationary pressures. This budget will honour this commitment to return to surplus in 2012-13.

This is the right economic strategy and the right thing to do by families facing cost-of-living pressures. As a government we are determined to make the right choices to restrain spending, deliver a surplus and not exacerbate those inflationary pressures.”

Has her government really tried hard enough in reducing inflationary pressure? For example, why couldn’t the government find more savings instead of imposing a flood levy that will inevitably further increase the pressure of “families facing cost-of-living pressures”? She gracefully ditched some wasteful government programs such as the cash for clunkers program. Surely there are more wasteful government programs that could have been stopped. But she didn’t and the government she proudly leads didn’t.

She was the minister and the deputy prime minister who was responsible for the already reported huge BER wastes.

She has been the prime minister who could make her government mush less wasteful.

The problem is that she is addicted to government largess and she is one of the sources of government wastage.

Gillard talks about: “In government you don't have the luxury of simply opposing everything as we see from the opposition. Governments must sit around the cabinet table and decide which program is more deserving and which services are more worthy than others. Inevitably these choices require us to make tough and unpopular decisions as we place some priorities before others.”

The outcomes of her government and the Rudd/Gillard one have shown that either the government was or has been seriously incompetent in deciding “which program is more deserving and which services are more worthy than others”, or she is talking about nonsense to spin around and around and around!

The cash for clunkers was her announcement in the first place, but later on was ditched as a poor idea (and presumably a non-deserving one). The people’s assembly for consensus on climate change and on carbon price was her announcement (and not to forget that she solemnly declared a few days before the last election there will be no carbon tax under the government she leads), and was replaced with her climate change committee to introduce a carbon tax after all.


Did she get the priority right? More deserving versus less deserving right? Even where to draw the line for cut off of which to fund and which not to fund right? Or anything right at all, one has to doubt?