I have been roundly criticised

for "criticising the Budget"...except that I did not actually criticise the Budget at all.
Oh yes, there was that letter I wrote to the paper and several people I know whose views lean to the far left of politics were not happy about it. I can understand that they may have seen it as an attack on the man dubbed "the World's Greatest Treasurer".  He can do no wrong in their eyes. 
And then there were some others who are worried it might mean that those nice little handouts and union perks they have been getting might just disappear. Perhaps they have cause to be worried - or have they?
Someone, who was criticising me, complained that the Baby Bonus was going to be removed in the middle of next year and "that means we will have to start a family now so we get it". Muddled thinking methinks...and nature may not allow it anyway. 
It all puzzles me. If I have choice say between buying a loaf of bread which I need in order to feed myself and the Senior Cat and buying a bar of chocolate then I know I should buy the bread. The bread may actually be more expensive - to begin with. Although it may be more expensive initially it will sustain us longer, provide better fuel and allow us to work so that we can earn the money to have the chocolate bar sometime later. 
Governments do not seem to work like that. They want to provide the chocolate bar so that people will vote for them. They are only interested in the short term. 
I said this and I have been criticised for saying it. Criticism comes with the territory if you write letters to the paper. Other people get criticised too. Oh well.
Perhaps I should have said more about the Budget than I did. Perhaps I should have said that I still do not believe the NDIS - or Disability Care - is going to happen in the way that the government is claiming it will. No government is going to find the continuing funds for the level of care they claim Disability Care is going to provide. I also believe that the money they are taking from universities and re-directing to earlier years of education is nothing more than politics. We don't need smaller classes in schools. We need better classes - and that means better teachers and a different philosophy of education. Better teachers are better trained. It means that current teachers get ongoing training and new teachers get a much more rigorous course. It means that schools concentrate on the basic building blocks of learning and that children are expected to work there - and not just be entertained.
And, if we want people to go to work, we have to make it possible to employ them. If dairy farmers need to employ several people for ninety minutes on each milking shift and have no work for them outside those times can someone please explain why they must be employed for a minimum of three hours? If the farmer can find people willing to work those shift times (and some will and then go back to growing blueberries in the district I am thinking of) then surely it makes sense to be able to do it? There are many other similar examples. We have over-regulated to the point of ridiculous in the misguided belief that we are somehow protecting people by "safeguarding their rights". We aren't. We are destroying their chances. Oh yes, there needs to be a watchdog of some sort but it should be a conciliatory one not an armed guard ready to shoot. 
So, there you have it. I think bread is more important than chocolate (although I happen to like chocolate). I know this is very wrong of me and that every flavour of politics likes the chocolate coating most. 
Now I meekly await your criticism.