The poor are not getting poorer...Shhh don't tell Shorten

In what seems to be rampant hysterical amnesia, Socialism is being viewed by too many in our liberal Western societies as a 'better' alternative to Capitalism. Social justice warriors constantly decry the exploitation of the impoverished masses by the greedy capitalists. The rich are getting richer and the poor are, as a consequence, getting poorer. This class warfare mantra is widespread; from Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, Bernie Sanders in the US to our very own Bill Shorten in Australia. Hardly a day passes without Bill claiming he will restore some sort of equality by attacking the "Rich".

Yet, it is a patently false narrative. History shows the opposite to be true. As the rich get richer the poor have been getting richer too! Indeed the supposed rise inequality in Australia is also a myth perpetuated by self serving politicians to advance their cause , and I have to note, abetted by a media blinded by their own political bias.

A recent Prager video makes the argument clearly, as always. Well worth the few minutes.

A

Who's the Fairest of them all?

I have written about 'fairness' or 'social equity' many times already ( see Inequality in Australia is NOT rising ,Inconvenient truth on Fairness, The fairness test, A Wel-fairer system, 'Fairness' is in the eyes of the beholder ).  The Fairness mantra made quite a splash around the time of the 2014 Budget, and it was no doubt a success for the opposition. So it seems they are planning a re-run for the next election. All the signs are there with Shorten recently proclaiming that "inequality in Australia is at a 75 year high", a claim said to be 'patently false' by the way. This comes hot on the heels of similar claims of 'unfairness ' on penalty rates and even on education spending. No matter that the government, in a total capitulation to labor policies, proposed large increases in education spending, it was still not enough to prevent Shorten from unsheathing the unfairness dagger.  Most recently it is the inequity in the tax regime pertaining to discretionary trusts allowing the mega-rich to avoid paying their fair share.

So by now we can see the pattern. No matter what the government decides, Shorten sides with those who are in some way disadvantaged, then megaphones their concerns to the electorate painting the government as both heartless and favoring the rich. It has worked well for Shorten, at least as far as the polls show. Given a fickle self-centered electorate willing to identify with the disadvantaged, especially if they are to receive some benefits without their taxes being raised, and supported by a feeble media unwilling to present the counter side of what are such populist arguments, it seems this will continue to work.

I have been somewhat puzzled at both the electorate's and the media's acquiescence in this fallacious fairness dogma. How can memories be so short? Cannot people see where this fairness argument leads? Given that 20% of people already pay all the tax, that more than 50% of households pay no net tax at all, where does this stop? I can understand the naivety of youth. They have no memories of the socialist and communist experiments that have proven where the fairness dogma leads.

The idealized 'equitable' distribution of a society's wealth simply means that government takes money from those who earn more, and redistributes it those who earn less. This invariably removes incentive to earn more and by so doing the hard-working either coalesce in collective indolence or more likely, in today's world, simply move to countries that reward effort. This has a stultifying effect not only on the high earners but on all those who aspire to become so.

The inconvenient truth is that wealth creation is invariably linked with incentive and incentive goes hand in hand with some inequality.

The inconvenient truth is that wealth creation is invariably linked with incentive and incentive goes hand in hand with some inequality. I guess this has been written often enough, but certainly seems not to have sunk in. In today's society it seems we are always looking for shortcuts and those peddling magic elixirs are in the ascendant.

Perhaps it was Shorten's most recent calls of inequity that spurred me to be on the lookout, but I happened to come across a recent short YouTube video by Dinesh D'souza. I must confess I hadn't heard of him before, but given his forthright and sensible approach will look out for more of his commentary.

In his presentation he made a most compelling argument to counter Shorten's 'unfairness' mantra.

You can see the full video above, but the following is a trasncript of the core argument; -

" I am a great believer in social justice. The problem is that social justice can be argued about, its not self evident. It's not self evident how the rewards of a market should be allocated. It's not self evident what's fair,  in politics for example I've heard now 100 times Obama say 'you must pay your fair share ' my question to him is 'what is that fair share?'

 .."It is always reasonable to ask (any person who wants change); What level if change do they want? "'

'Ok you want taxes to be higher, ok, how much higher?'

At what point are you going to stop putting your hand into my pocket in the name of social justice.
You are taking 50 percent, will you be content at 60?
Can I be confident that if I give you 60, I will never hear from you again?
Or will you then decided you will want 70?
Why can't you tell me what's fair in advance, before you take it?

In other words we are having these debates about justice yet noone is saying what is 'just'.
Socrates starts and says what is justice? Define it . Don't talk about it like an idiot. Define it first. Second you tell me at what level the pie should be cut, then we can discuss your idea of justice, but if your idea of justice simply translates to give me more, that's not justice."

The Shorten Challenge

So here is my challenge to Mr Shorten. Tell us what is the fair level of tax any individual should have to pay, no matter where his income falls, battler to mega-rich. Tell us what level of personal tax should any individual have to pay for you to believe that it is fair? Then we can understand your view of social justice and we can make our decision whether to vote for you.

I challenge all the media to ask him this very reasonable question. You keep asserting what is unfair, so tell us what you think would be fair?

Whenever Mr Shorten cries "unfair' ask him, "what is fair"?

Labor's record

Shorten's pre-election posturing to woo the voting public is replete with enticing claims; -

• "We are making the hard choices to fully fund our investments in Australia's future"
• "Restoring the national budget without smashing family budgets"
• "Building  stronger economy -without hurting the things that help it to grow"
• ".. a growing economy where opportunity belongs to everyone"
• "A Health system where medicare not your credit card guarantees you access to the treatment you need"
• "Putting the Australian dream of home ownership back in reach of working families"
• "Real action on climate change"
• "Closing the gender pay gap"
• "properly funding child care"

(the above all taken from Shorten's budget reply speech )

Appealing, bewitching words but effective only on those with a short memory.

As for the rest of us, we recall that just a few years ago Labor had two terms in government. Two chaotic terms, with three PMs, countless crises, woeful waste, disastrous decisions all leading to deaths by sea and debilitating debt. A far cry from the alluring image Shorten and the ALP are fabricating today.

How can one see the reality behind the facade? There is no better guide than the old adage;

"Do not listen to what they say, look at what they do"

Indeed let's take a look at what they did in government.

Labor's woeful last term

There are many accounts of the RGR period but lets just take a quick look at a couple.  Josh Frydenberg delivered an extensive list of ALP disasters in his speech to the house of representative on 26 Nov 2012. It takes but 5 minutes but well worth the jog to one's memory.

Or have a read through the even more exhaustive list below; -

(This list was originally from a site www.labourwaste.com.au that is no longer online. So too many of the reference links are no longer active. Nevertheless the items are all too real with plenty of source material still available online to verify them.)

But this time it will be different!

No doubt in the face of this inconvenient history there would be loud protests that "This time it would be different". But of course they would say that wouldn't they?

So I suggest we don't risk it. Just rely on the old adage "Do not listen to what they say, look at what they do".

Malcolm must cut through

Lets face it, at this stage the trend for the LNP is down. Turnbull's popularity has peaked and he is facing the serious prospect of losing this 'un-lose-able' election. Shorten is nipping at his heels, the Delcons are biting at him and even his closest supporters express their frustrations. While the media point at marginals saving the day, the trend is clearly not Turnbull's friend.

An aside to the Delcons

While I am very sympathetic with the Delcons, I fear, yes fear, for our country should the ALP/Greens get back into power so soon after their crushing defeat of 2013.

Such a win would bring back the very policies that transformed an economy that was the envy of the world to what is now just one economic shock away from a basket-case.

The carbon tax would be back, the boats would be back, profligate spending would be back, taxes would rise and productivity would continue to dwindle. Federal Government debt would grow at a greater rate, leaving us vulnerable to external shocks, and in the end despite the ALP's rhetoric supporting the working man, wages and job opportunities would suffer. 

The LNP under Turnbull is no panacea. But just consider the alternative! If you really, really want to save Australia then it is time, perhaps not to unite, but at least tone down the rhetoric. Currently you are playing into Labour's hand. Even if Turnbull wins this election he will come out of it very much chastened, and, post election, there will be time to right the port-side list of the party.

Cutting through - refine the message

As for Turnbull, most commentators suggest Turnbull needs to cut through by focusing on the core issues and on those parts of the electorate that are open to persuasion. 

The single key issue for Australia today is the economy, so the LNP's central message should be to "Live within our means" 

I would gradually ditch the "Jobs and growth" mantra. It is too general, does not address the very real budget problem our country confronts. Moreover it is weak because it lacks a call to action.

"Live within our means" aligns with the electorate's acceptance that the LNP are better economic managers.

Yeh, I know they have made mistakes. Yet despite that, they are still better economic managers. Just look at the record.  Notwithstanding ALP/Greens' thwarting Abbot's attempts at proper budget repair, the trajectory of rising debt left by the ALP has been shifted significantly downwards. Debt is rising slower than under Labour. Certainly that is not enough, but much better than under Labour.

Moreover they can point out the measures, the Schoolkids bonus and pension limits, that the ALP promised for years to re-instate, only to break their promises when facing close scrutiny of their Budget 'black hole". Incidentally highlighting the sheer hypocrisy of the ALP.

The LNP are the better economic managers should be the subliminal message underlying all the economic arguments. It is a winner. 

Cutting through - hone the delivery

Turnbull needs to control his verbosity and tendency to drift off topic. He should get back to some simple slogans. Yes, that can be annoying, especially if there is nothing more. But it should be repeated as part of a more complete dialogue. Stick to the simple message when your audience is not that engaged, and roll out the more complete message if it is an appropriate forum.

Cutting through - don't be afraid to attack

Finally Turnbull should get out the attack dogs and do more direct attacking himself.

Remind those with a short memory what it was like under labour!

• Warn the wavering about Shorten defending lawless Unions, re-running a Carbon tax, ALP's tax-n-spend addiction, 
• Remind those forgetting about the various hare-brained schemes/policies dreamt up by the ALP and their tendency to waste tax-payers' money. Mention pink bats, banning of live-cattle exports or the ideafest bringing together the 1000 best brains in Australia.

• Alert the electorate that the LNP has again cleaned up the mess that Labour created on border control. Given the large split in the ALP on asylum seekers no doubt they will water down current  measures and inevitably the ALP will re-start the boats. Shorten may scream long and loud that this won't happen, but hadn't we heard that from Labor before? Rudd had also said he would protect borders only to weaken protections leading to 50,000 asylum seekers and 2000 drowned at sea. You cannot trust Labour on border protection!

I guess you can see the picture.

In any case I can think of no better cut through attack message than that posted by @jude_francis on twitter the other day

The truth laid bare in but a few short sentences. That is cut through.

Is Shorten standing up for workers?

Repeatedly under intense media fire for his questionable deals Shorten has defended himself by claiming "I have spent my whole life standing up for workers" (Insiders 21 Jun 15 )

Can this be true?

Especially in light of the widespread evidence that confirms Shorten negotiated deals and side deals that left everyday workers 'worse off' while the Union and he personally were 'better off'.

Just look at some of the articles ; -

• Cleanevent staff lost $400m under deal by Bill Shorten’s AWU - The Australian 8 July 2015,
• Bill Shorten's AWU 'sold out' workers for $300,000 - SMH 14 Oct 2015,
• Unibilt admits to false records for its payment for Bill Shorten's research officer - SMH 16 Oct 2015, 
• ALP leader Bill Shorten failing to escape AWU ‘fraud’ vortex - The Australlian 15 Oct 2015, 
• Unions royal commission: Stephen Sasse claims side deal with Bill Shorten - The Australian 12 Oct 2015, 

Can Shorten still be correct when he says he has always served in workers' interests?

Mmm.  In an Alice-In-Wonderland world one could argue that the Union is more important than the worker. That the prosperity and longevity of the Union, the fair-minded, diligent advocate fighting for workers rights, is paramount. Without them, the poor worker would be worse off. Even if the worker has to sacrifice some of his hard earned wage, it is justified because it will ensure that he can be protected now and in the future by a stable, prosperous Union organisation. The justification is even greater if the Union manages to project a disproportionate influence on the government of the day, and even succeeds in having ex Union officials, in large numbers, elected to parliament. This gives the worker a seat at the table, a part of the decision making process. So surely the worker must be better off.

Indeed, Mr Shorten's argument would go something like that.

If you believe that, you can believe he is telling the truth. But can you?

Are secret Union deals simply extortion?

The TURC sittings this week have hardly raised a murmur in our 'distracted' press. I write 'distracted' but many other adjectives, unprofessional, feckless, irresponsible, incompetent, may be more suitable.

The statements of Thiess employees could be described as nothing less than bombshells casting asunder all of Bill Shorten's past testimony and the media's dismissal of smoking guns. What is more smoking than direct affirmation that the special 'side deals' were negotiated by Bill Shorten as secretary of the Victorian branch of the AWU. Deals whereby Thiess would make secret payments of large sums to the Union in exchange for industrial peace. 

It is all there. Secret payments for sham invoices for services which were never provided. Sham invoices paid in full paid by Thiess and money received by the AWU. Why was Thiess paying the AWU ? They were buying industrial peace. No doubt had the company not paid they believed they would have suffered industrial disruption. 

Lets check the definition of extortion and protection racquet; - 

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

Mmm. Do you see any similarity with the apparent modus operandum of the AWU in their deal with Thiess? It seems the Union acts like common racketeers obtaining money in exchange for providing 'protection' from industrial action, by, no doubt, its own members. This smells awfully like extortion!

Make no mistake this payment to the Union is in effect a benefit to the Union bosses, who use these fraudulent funds either for advancing their Union as it competes for members against other Unions, or for, let's call it 'private purposes'. Such as those derived, for example by the likes of Williamson, Thompson, Jackson and let me include Shorten.

A Union should never accept employer payments

There is a legitimate role for Unions in working on behalf of their members to improve working conditions, but when a Union accepts any payment directly from an employer in any form it is not just a 'conflict of interest', it is a crime. It is akin to 'demanding money with menaces', it is eliciting a bribe, it is extortion.

Where is the media?

The testimony by employers on the AWU fraud has been reported in the print media.

• SMH Oct 12, "Royal commission testimony: Invoices to Bill Shorten's AWU 'bogus' in EastLink union deal
• SMH Oct 13,Bill Shorten's AWU 'sold out' workers for $300,000
• SMH Oct 14, AWU 'sold out' over 36-hour week, union royal commission told
• The Australian Oct 15, "ALP leader Bill Shorten failing to escape AWU ‘fraud’ vortex

However most surprisingly; for much of this week, the commentariat seems to have been on holidays! Except for Skynews' Paul Murray Live, discussion or even mention of the TURC, or the AWU, has been strangely absent from news bulletins and political programs. I may have missed some, but I cannot recall any reference to what should be a politically explosive issue on any of the ABC's news bulletins or indeed AM, PM or 730 programs. Astoundingly selective reporting!

Even when mentioned, there is a tendency for the media to regard this type of practice as an occasional slip up of an individual Union or individual Unionist. However evidence at the TURC seems to indicate otherwise. We have seen these types of criminal 'deals' at the CFMEU, the HSU, and now at the AWU. It is very likely a widespread prctice.

It seems that most of our media media has avoided calling the Union's role in accepting direct payments from employers a crime. This is despite the clear evidence to the contrary. Is the media shying away from reporting on a problem whose magnitude and political impact is potentially catastrophic to one of our leading political parties? You can draw your own conclusion. For me, I believe we have a significant problem. Not only do we have rampant extortion in operation within our industrial relations system, but by failing to report on it without fear or favour, our media seem to find it acceptable!

Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Where are the voices against corruption?

With but a few hours to go before we find out Dyson Heydon's verdict on himself, what more can be said?  Everyone has been at it over the past few weeks.

In all the outrage about possible 'perception of apprehended bias' by the Royal Commissioner much of the commentariat has lost focus. As a result I feel a need to re-iterate what I believe are the core issues and why a change in commissioner at this time would not be in our common interest.

• The TURC was set up to find Union corruption and it has succeeded. Several Union officials have already been charged and some 60 specific complaints against unionists are now under investigation with many likely to lead to charges. The TURC under DH has uncovered extensive criminality in many of our largest Unions.
• The corrupt practices of their officials has had substantial impact on Union members. In cases where member funds have been misappropriated (HSU, CFMEU), members have no doubt borne the costs through membership fees. But even worse, in those cases where through 'sweetheart deals' Union(AWU) leaders negotiated away their members' benefits, members lost income. It is clearly not in members' interests to have corrupt Union officials. 
• It has been argued by some, that the TURC was not necessary since 'criminal acts' by Union officials would have been picked up by existing law enforcement agencies. However the fact is that there has been no action by existing law enforcement bodies despite these offences stretching back over decades.
• The Union movement has been trying to sabotage the TURC even before it started,  initially calling it a witch-hunt then more recently attacking the Royal Commissioner. Doesn't the Union movement and the ACTU want to eliminate corruption in its ranks? Where are the voices of the honest Union leaders who don't want corruption in their organisations? 
• Similarly, ALP elected representatives in both state and federal governments, who always claim they are on the side of the workers, have joined if not preceded Unions' calls of 'witch-hunt' and bias. Aren't ALP MPs on the workers' side? I know of only one ALP ex parliamentarian, who has spoken out in favour of the TURC, and Martin Ferguson should be applauded for it. Nevertheless it begs the question why haven't we heard any current ALP MPs admonishing corrupt Union leaders and supporting the work of the TURC? 
• Had the ALP taken an anti-corruption stance they would have earned the respect of the electorate and indeed the Unions' members. By not supporting the TURC, by calling for its commissioner to recuse himself, by calling for the TURC to be disbanded the ALP are siding with corrupt officials, against Unions' members and against the best interest of all Australians.
• So too our media. While they see themselves as the objective last stand in the defence of truth, our collective media seem to have fallen far short of this ideal. Except for a handful of 'Right' leaning commentators the media have failed to stand in support of Union members and against Union corruption.
• An attack on the 'umpire' during a game is unforgivable in any sport. Legitimate questions of bias can be, and often are, raised after the game is over when judgement is made in a objective manner. The attacks on DH should have been raised after the commission had completed its work. There would have been no downside in this, as DH's rulings are only the first step in the process and will always be tested in either parliament or in a court of law (see post 4 reasons why DH should stay).

No matter which way the decision by DH the tactic of attacking a serving Royal Commssioner while the commission is active will have consequences, including; -

• As a direct result of the perceived success of the 'mass-media-outrage' tactic the commentariat, comprising mass media, social media, politicians and vested interests (Unions in this case), are more polarised than ever and more willing not to look objectively at any issue if it goes against their leanings. 
• No Royal Commission into any matter which has a political implication will be able to do its work without loud open claims of bias. This tactic has been shown to work and therefore will be used again. This will be true even if DH stays. The laws related to criticism of Royal Commissioners has to be enforced to prevent this happening in future.
• If DH leaves and a new RC is appointed, expect to hear the claims of bias again and again.

Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

The 'Industrial Peace' Racket

"Houston we have a problem"

For those too young to remember "Houston we have a problem"* were the first, somewhat understated, words of astronauts in space alerting 'head-office' when some malfunction was identified. Those of us of the right maturity have these indelibly forged into our psyche as heralding a potentially serious problem.

Indeed I believe we have a problem.

Watching and listening to the media circus over the last week, one is left with varying views of Bill Shorten's appearance at the Trade Union Royal Commission (TURC).

He was caught with "multiple smoking guns",  and "should resign", or that the whole TURC is a Liberal, or more accurately, "Tony Abbot witch hunt" and labour leaders are being "victimised". Indeed many a shrill defender of Shorten's honour has gone out of his way to get some sort of hot quote about the wonderful Unions and the hateful Tony Abbott.

I guess this is the norm for today's media frenzies, but what can we poor mugs take away from this. 

Firstly, whether the intentions of the LNP, or Tony Abbott, if you prefer, in establishing the TURC was political, is irrelevant, as its success will ultimately be judged only when it has run its course. Those criticising so volubly today seem to have other motivations themselves.

Further, the late declaration of a political donation, as noted by many is not uncommon. The focus on this aspect of his testimony by many journos and Labour defenders is simply to deflect from Shorten's failures. 

But it was not a political donation at all. More likely it was some sort of 'fringe benefit' as a by-product of an EBA deal. This of course presents the real problem. 

"The AWU has been seen as a moderate Union which has worked in harmony with business for the betterment of both workers and employers". So its supporters would say. But, if the AWU, as a matter of course, accepted payments from companies as part of an EBA negotiation then we have a problem.

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

We are all familiar with extortion or protection rackets, often associated with the Mafia, whereby henchmen would demand property owners pay to ensure their premises were protected from thugs. If payment was not made their property was vandalised or burnt down and perhaps the owners would be bashed for good measure, by the very same thugs demanding money. It only took a few brave souls to decline these 'protection services' and receive their punishment to ensure others would fall in line and make their regular payments.

Do you notice any similarity with the apparent modus operandum of the AWU in their negotiation of EBA's with employers?

As per Shorten's testimony, the AWU negotiates, a perhaps unstated but implied, 'industrial peace' in return for benefits, not only for the workers but for a financial return to the Union itself!

This payment to the Union is in effect a benefit to the Union bosses who use these funds either for advancing their Union as it competes for members against other Unions, or for, let's call it 'private purposes'. Such as those derived, for example by the likes of Williamson, Thompson, Jackson and let me include Shorten.

If the employer fails to comply, there is an implied 'menace' of a strike or a boycott or in the case of some of the more thuggish unions, sabotage and well.. thuggery.

In the same way as the property owners faced with extortion learnt to pay, employers faced with the threat of labour strife have learnt to pay. It is easier.

A Union should never accept employer payments

There is a legitimate role for Unions in working on behalf of their members to improve working conditions. But when a Union accepts any payment directly from an employer in any form it is not just a 'conflict of interest', it is a crime. It is akin to 'demanding money with menaces', it is eliciting a 'bribe', it is 'extortion'.

Where is the media?

I am surprised that almost all media has avoided calling the Union's role in accepting direct payment from employers a crime.

Houston this is the problem: Not only do we have rampant extortion in operation within our industrial relations system, but our media seem to find it acceptable!

* I have been advised I misquoted - see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Houston,_we_have_a_problem. 


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved