Raising taxes

is something you do after the election. You don't tell anyone that you are actually going to do it. They already know that. What they are hoping for is one of those miracles which mean "someone else" or "other people" are those who will actually pay the extra.

The federal election has not yet been called but we are in election mode already. The last day an election can be held is May 21st. That's too close for comfort. 

The campaign is already getting very nasty. The Prime Minister has now been accused of using the "race card" to beat his opponent - back in 2009. It makes a great story. The Opposition is rubbing its hands in glee. The media is shouting it from the roof tops. A journalist I normally respect and like is responsible for helping to break the news. 

I have some problems with the story though. It is a "he said - he said - she said" sort of story from people who may or may not take the business of making a "statutory declaration" very seriously. After all, who is going to be able to prove something was or was not said to them back in 2009? There has also been more than one election since then. That the issue is being raised again now - when it was virtually dismissed back then - suggests that there is something else at work here. The man making the claim was, briefly, a member of the party now expected to win the election. He is reportedly still bitter about not being selected. Enough said?

That this sort of news is taking precedence over the tax issues which have been raised should be causing alarm. There is no way the present opposition can hope to cover the cost of even just some of the promises they are making without raising taxes. They argue "we will get it from the multi-nationals". If they succeed we will still end up paying but indirectly - and the amount they get still won't cover the cost of what is being promised.

The present government is probably no better in the sense that they are making promises which are unlikely to be kept. They have failed to keep some and prevented from keeping others - often by "independents" in the Senate. We might have had a national "Independent Commission Against Corruption" if the independents had allowed the government of the day to get on with the job they were elected to do. We might have had the national referendum on indigenous representation too. Time ran out because there were "debates" about other issues - debates designed to waste time and prevent legislation people voted for from passing.

I think I have had about enough of  all this time wasting, this nastiness, this bitterness. If I was about thirty years younger (old enough to have had some experience of life back then but not too old) then I would put my paw up. I would do it as an "independent" yes but, if elected, then I would respect the wishes of the people who voted for me. I would go back to them again and again and ask, "What do you want me to say. I will listen and act according to what the majority of you tell me you want." 

Could it be done? It could. It is an enormous amount of work but there are a few examples. Perhaps the media could remind us of those people of the past. They held the hoses as we say here.