News: Victorian projects stimulus

Vic to fast-track $11.5b in projects – Yahoo!7 News. (void link)

The Victorian State government has just announced a $11.5b investment into various projects around the state to help salvage potential job losses and stimulate the economy—at a price, the State debt will rise to $16 billion over the next five years. As always, there are always opposing views and responses to such actions.

While I’m not a financial expert of any degree, my understanding is that the government is attempt to inject and invest finances in areas which are important to the local economy, particularly in infrastructure (roads, rails, education building projects). There are a number of disappointed parties: notably the climate change, energy conservation, environmentalists, just to name a few. Personally, it’s been a difficult situation for the government to judge and make calls on its focuses for this latest budget.

Let’s just backtrack for a moment, we’ve been hit by a global recession now recognised as worse than the 1920s Great Depression; we’ve been hit by the worst natural disaster ever in the Black Saturday bushfires…and people are expect a perfectly balanced, all-pleasing budget. If I’m not correct, I don’t think there’s ever been a budget that hasn’t been scrutinised by some group or organisation. I don’t know about you, but in the situation that we’re in, we don’t need more people debating and arguing about the situation…even if they get paid to do nothing, sit in their offices, and come up with ways to blast, demoralise, and degrade the authorities. For crying out loud, give 2c worth of opinion that might actually be supportive or suggestive as to how such initiatives might be taken advantage of.

One argument that was raised: Opposition treasury spokesman Kim Wells said soaring debt would only add to the burden for future generations. Well, you know what, yes it will; but I’ll be damned if there’s no future but a collapsed state with an even bigger debt attempting to rebuild itself because the government was condemned for thinking about the future. I daresay, if the government did not act, while will be job losses regardless, the lesser the job losses, the lesser the broader social services and social security (Centrelink) demand grows [as if it wasn’t already high enough!]. I think a debt which stimulates and improves the changes of jobs being retained in a declining environment is hugely more beneficial than a future debt (and potential tax hikes) to make up for lost superannuation and social security. For those of my generation who agree with Ms. Wells, hope you enjoy higher taxes and lesser services in return.

A few more final finer points in closing, in regards to the views of Environment Victoria with the lack of investment in climate change initiatives, in some respects I agree, but on the other hand, I haven’t seen any productive, realistic projections which I would invest in. The amount invested simply doesn’t pay up. So, maybe there’s need for more research in this area. In regards to the medical association and its statement about rural doctors, I would hesitate to point the finger at the government, who can only do so much to provide incentives for doctors to go to rural areas. While there may be incentives, it does little to encourage a drastic change in life-style for many doctors.

I think I’ve said enough…g’nite.