Why is that American voters so quickly understood Romney’s political economic philosophy, but most Australian voters seem to totally misunderstand, or not even care about Abbott’s? It’s Gillard’s job to communicate why and how Abbott’s economic ideas are different from her own. Romney’s trust in an unregulated free market is built on the misguided theory of a ‘trickle down’ economy. Abbott’s economic theories are less clear-cut. He offers a muddled mix of small government in some instances (sacking public sector workers, less spending on health and education) and big government spending in others (his Direct Action Plan and middle class welfare, otherwise known as election bribes). But the one consistent theme of Abbott’s ideas are that they will help a distinct sub sector of our community – those who are already well off. Not those with an aspiration to better their situation. Once you understand this, it’s impossible not to see Abbott’s political philosophy oozing out of every statement he makes. Gillard and her team need to find a way to explain this to voters. If the American populace can understand this concept, there’s no reason why Australians can’t.
Romney and Abbott reason that by making the rich richer (with lower tax rates than the poor), the rich will be more entrepreneurial and will employ more workers. Abbott is lovingly devoted to Gina Rinehart’s growing fortune because it helps to fund his political campaigns. But if he was ever scrutinised by the mainstream media and had to explain why he wants to delete the Minerals Resource Rent Tax, he would no doubt use the justification that a richer Rinehart means more jobs for miners. There’s just one problem with this ‘trickle down’ theory. It doesn’t work. Wealth doesn’t trickle down. It goes into unproductive speculation on the money markets. It gets caught up in numerous Rolls Royces, in the third beach houses, in the Canary Island tax havens, in the private jets, in public legal spats with one’s children. Sure, some retail employees might keep their jobs as the very few rich buy more stuff. Sure, some gardeners and cleaners might be needed to maintain the multiple manors. But large scale job growth is not, as evidenced by the US example, stimulated by lower tax rates for rich companies and individuals. Jobs come from middle-class spending, not upper-class tax breaks. As I saw so powerfully explained on a placard by an American Occupier:
‘The rich have had their tax breaks for three years. So where the bugger are the jobs?’
The idea that a small government and an unrestrained free market will lead to a healthier economy has been debunked over and over again. Apart from anything else, when the comfortable middle class disappears, so does the consumer market that the rich rely on to keep the economy running. A strong middle class needs to be paid a fair and equitable share of national wealth, which is not necessarily always the first priority of the rich capitalist business owners and their shareholders. Hence the need for collective bargaining. Hence the need for unions, both blue and white collar. It’s time Labor stopped fearing their allegiance with workers unions. It’s time Labor embraced the very essence of what the Labor party stands for. The Labor party stands for workers. Not multinationals. If it was up to me, this would be the centrepiece of Gillard’s campaign.
President Obama might be handcuffed by a hostile Congress in his promise to restore the middle class and to reduce the gap between rich and poor. But Gillard is not only able to sell such a concept, her government also has evidence of reform successes to support this message. Policies such as tripling the tax free threshold for the lowest paid workers, the increase in compulsory superannuation payments, introducing the mining tax, increasing access to Commonwealth funded tertiary and vocational education, increasing funding to the health sector, working towards a National Disability Insurance Scheme, introducing a plan for education reform that prioritises spending for the disadvantaged and the recently announced policy to improve the health of the manufacturing sector are all impressive reforms that will benefit the 99%. Obama’s campaign offered hope to the millions of Americans too poor to feed their families, let alone to afford healthcare and a college education. He wasn’t scared of the ‘small government’ arguments from the Republicans and their Tea Party extremists. If I was her campaign director, I’d urge Gillard not to be scared of having similar arguments with Abbott and his extremist front bench. In fact, not only should Gillard not be scared, she should be proud. She should remind voters what is happening in Queensland under Newman, Victoria under Baillieu and New South Wales under O’Farrell – the slash and burn of public sector jobs, rampant privatisation, reduced spending on health and education. These Liberal Premiers are doing exactly what Abbott hopes to have the chance to do. It’s all about benefiting the ‘haves’ and disadvantaging the ‘have nots’. I would tell Gillard she needs to make more of this.
Forum
Pages: 1
Nothing to lose (Read 732 times)
