Scanning the overview (here [http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/at_a_glance/html/at_a_glance.htm]) here is a transcription of my reactions:
"The downturn will impact significantly on jobs, with unemployment peaking at 8½ per cent in 2010‑11."
You're trying to forecast unemployment? I'm already afraid of your economic nous, or lack thereof. When the best economic tools available today still couldn't be used to predict the Great Depression don't waste your breath prophesying unemployment figures.
"Stimulus and nation building investment"
Oh god. "Nation building". Sounds like "centralism" to me. Course the Liberals can't complain: Howard wasn't a "centralist", he was a "nationalist". Apparently "nation" is a close synonym to "central" in Australian English.
"The centrepiece of the Budget is a significant program of investment in nation building infrastructure, including roads, rail, ports, universities and energy efficiency."
There's that "nation building" again.
I note, though, that these infrastructure investments are being sold as stimulating the economy. When? Even after all the bureaucratic hurdles of getting major infrastructure projects off the ground, the things take a long time to build; the economic knock-on effects don't come into full-swing for years. I would note, though, that most of these infrastructure areas (in fact all I believe) are the purview of states to spend on. Oh? Nation building you say? Well alright then.
"The net measures in the Budget raise the level of GDP by ¾ of a per cent in 2009‑10."
There you go with your economic crystal ball again.
"Making the hard decisions
The Government has made the hard decisions required to deliver a fairer pension system and put the Budget on a sustainable footing."
"Hard decisions". That looks like another catch phrase we'll be hearing more of.
"Projected budget deficits have increased mainly as a result of the impact of the global recession on revenues. The Government's strategy is expected to see the budget return to surplus in 2015‑16."
More empty forecasting, but arguably more within the government's power to control. Of course, the 2015-16 is interesting. Two elections down the track? So you get to splurge with your conscience and hands clean until you're most likely out of power or on the way out the next time? That's handy.
[Skipping over the Key Initiatives since the figures made my head spin.]
"A pension increase of $32.49 per week for singles and $10.14 per week combined for couples on the full rate"
You know, a Hard Decision would be indexing pensions to inflation so that it could never again be a politicised issue. That way both the government and public would know right away whether pensioners really needed more money to keep up with prices, or whether they wanted more - and whether the government was giving them what they needed or more besides.
"A crucial boost of $2.7 billion in funding for tertiary education, research and innovation"
Ah, that bottomless money hole of iniquity and government spending.
"A 50 per cent Small Business Tax Break for eligible assets"
Interesting, though I can't comment from that sentence.
"Honouring our promise of tax cuts"
When governments honour campaign promises I get a little warm and fuzzy. Whether they were good or bad promises (no comment) at least we can be happily surprised that we're getting something of what we voted for.
"The global recession has stripped around $210 billion from expected tax receipts"
But you're charging on regardless I see.
"Running a temporary deficit and continuing important programs is vital to support jobs"
"Temptorary" meaning "About as long as we expect to be in government - and if we hang around longer we can blame any number of emergent factors".
"Necessary and responsible borrowing that is markedly less than other major advanced economies"
Absolutely less, or less in proportion to our wealth? I don't know myself but I suspect they're using the absolute sense as a cheat. Of course America would borrow more than we would to do the equivalent job.
"Budget savings of $22.6 billion over four years, including through vital structural reform"
Savings are always good, though I note that the savings are just over a tenth of what the government expects to be losing from new tax levels.
"Fully offsetting the cost of the pension package over time, notwithstanding the ageing of the population"
Sounds good, but how long is "over time"? Before the next pension package? If not, then you're not really offsetting it. Still I'm willing to be convinced.
There's some non-committal responses I left out, but negative's much more fun, and I'm mostly negative about the budget anyway. It should also be remembered that this is an overview I'm raving against; the nitty-gritty could be much better than it seems; but in my experience it rarely is. (It's not cynicism if it's true.)
