Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to James Millar,
(and this is really the hallmark of the Key administration*)
*yes, I used that presidential term on purpose – see National’s election strategyThat's how it works in a parliamentary democracy too. The Governor-General appoints a Prime Minister with confidence of the House, not a party, and that's the way it has always been.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to HenryB,
Yes, the Nats did say they would have a cap on government expenditure… but the thing that makes this proposed legislation a bit smelly is their attempt to bind all FUTURE governments to their policy
Parliament binds future governments to things all the time. That's pretty much what Parliament does. The Official Information Act tells future Governments that they are required to release information in a timely manner once requested unless there are good reasons to withhold it. The Crimes of Torture Act (among others) tell the Government not to torture people.
Parliament telling future governments that they must advise Parliament if they intend to spend over a certain amount of money is something Parliament can do.
And the major difference from the California property tax rule, and the Colorado budget rule, is that it is within the power of Parliament to adopt a different rule in the future. Just like a future Parliament could change the OIA.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to HenryB,
Graeme, I have been trying – unsuccessfully – to find examples of where it hasn’t had a detrimental effect.
I'm pretty sure you'll be looking a while to find examples of where this has been tried. It's ludicrously tame as spending caps go.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Sacha,
Wasn’t the agreement last term simply to support it to first reading?
No. The agreement on this was to send it to select committee with a goal of passing a spending cap into law.
cf. three strikes, which was a bare promise of a select committee hearing with nothing more.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Huh? The ACT party this term got 1.1%. It’s a concession this term.
That the words were present in last terms agreement has no relevance, if the law were passed last term then yes it would be a concession to the 3.65% but it is being passed this term so it is representing the wishes of a party that received 1.1% support this term.
The legislation was introduced in the last Parliament and is currently before select committee. They had a deal, and could be expected to keep it. All that has happened is that ACT has agreed to water it down further. If anything, this is a concession from the 1.1%, not to it.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Russell Brown,
The topic is the adoption of a fiscal gimmick that has had disastrous results elsewhere as an ostensible concession to a party that got 1.1% of the vote and is only present by a contrivance by the governing party.
It's a concession to a party that got 3.65% of the vote.
A government spending cap was included in the last National/ACT confidence and Supply Agreement, only this time it has been delayed and watered down.
Also, *this* fiscal gimmick hasn't had a detrimental effect elsewhere, because the things you are thinking of (such as the the law in Colorado) are different. The Colorado law, for example, was a voter-approved amendment to Article X of the Colorado Constitution. It was binding on both the Colorado Legislature and the Governor. Even when circumstances changed, the lawmakers couldn't react. That is not the proposal here.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Idiot Savant,
$141K. They put it up just before the election.
I can't see that it would be proper to exclude the direct expense allowance from the calculation. It's paid and taxed exactly the same way as everything else.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
(I think current teaching and nursing graduates would love to have the same entry-level salary as a backbench MP. Currently a hair under $135K, IIRC.)
I have it at $157,900 as from 1 July 2011.
-
So, part of National's coalition agreement with ACT is to put in a "spending cap"...
Also part of their last confidence and supply agreement as well.
With the legislation currently sitting before a select committee (I submitted, who else did?).
But that's just the formula under normal circumstances. Through omission or ignorance, N-ACT's plan is much worse.
Except it's also better because it doesn't actually have teeth, whereas the Colorado experiment was an amendment to the Colorado constitution that actually forbade the legislature and governor form breaching its terms. And when it presented problems, the legislature and governor couldn't come together to fix it.
-
Legal Beagle: Election '11 -…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I wonder why we didn’t at least get the choice of a pure list system on our ballot paper?
The 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral Commission didn't think one was worth of in-depth consideration. And the government this time wanted to use the same systems we were offered in 1992 so that they wouldn't be seen as trying to tilt the table by ruling things out, or bringing new things in.