Key conjures up cuts

Written By: - Date published: 11:53 am, February 12th, 2008 - 10 comments
Categories: john key, national, spin, tax - Tags: , , ,

John Key tells us that he would cut ‘wasteful government spending’ to pay for upper-bracket tax cuts bigger than Labour’s cuts. But do the facts match the rhetoric?

Remember National’s wastewatch website? It listed $900 million in ‘waste’ since 1999 only 0.2% of government spending, which won’t pay for many tax cuts. And most of the supposed ‘waste’ was building new prisons, hardly waste.

magican.gifWhile Key talks about restraining government spending he hasn’t actually announced any spending cut policies, just the opposite. Last month alone Key announced: $100 million for boot camps for 1000 problem kids; $15 million for bonus for early student loan repayments, more if early repayments actually increase; uncosted extra spending on prisons from repeal of bail laws; uncosted increase in spending on Court security; uncosted increase in funding (up to $2 billion) for leaky homes.

Key needs to be truthful. He needs to say what spending he would cut. Instead, he announces increased spending at every turn. How would he pay for monster tax cuts? Magic?

10 comments on “Key conjures up cuts ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. rjs131 1
    12 February 2008 at 11:59 am

    I am happy to exchange a cut in judith tizard’s massive travel bill for a reduction in the amount i pay in tax – or are you suggesting that this is taxpayer money well spent?

  2. Matthew Pilott 2
    12 February 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Top stuff rjs – that’ll be maybe a third of a cent per worker. Please try again.

    I remember looking through wastewatch, and even taking all of the stupid content into account, it came out at about $4 per worker per year. I suspect Key’s definition of wasteful spending is very different to that of your average New Zealander.

  3. the sprout 3
    12 February 2008 at 12:07 pm

    John Key

    he flips, he flops
    like a mullet in a net
    moving a lot
    but going nowhere
    glazed eyes fixed
    on an imaginary prize

  4. Steve Pierson 4
    12 February 2008 at 12:14 pm

    sprout. That’s, that’s beautiful.

    rjs131. A sense of scale might be useful.

  5. Policy Parrot 5
    12 February 2008 at 12:49 pm

    “Growing the spending at a lower rate” is speech for cuts in real expenditure.

    A Key government which grew spending in the state sector at 1%, with inflation at 2-3% and with necessary expenses rising in cost along similar lines, would either result in less capability to deliver of the same services or cuts in services deemed politically “wasteful”.

  6. insider 6
    12 February 2008 at 2:32 pm

    I think you will see a significant cap on govt employment. They won’t cut but won’t grow. I’d expect some of the smaller departments merged and a close look at some of the programmes being pursued and associated PR budgets.

    I see Labour are going to inflate house prices further with taxpayer subsidised loans. Brilliant…

  7. Steve Pierson 7
    12 February 2008 at 2:38 pm

    insider. Are you listening the the speech? Because I’m pretty sure the PM just said subsidising loans is precisely not what they’re doing. rest assured we’ll have a post on the speech on due course.

  8. insider 8
    12 February 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Just read it steve.

    “It’s not a problem which can be solved by throwing a lot more money at mortgage subsidies – that would only drive prices up still further.”

    ” in July this year, we will launch a shared equity scheme targeted at new builds to help people in high-cost areas get onto the home ownership ladder.”

  9. Steve Pierson 9
    12 February 2008 at 3:14 pm

    insider. do you know what a shared equity scheme is? It’s not a subsidised loan. The government buys part of the house in conjunction with the home buyer. The home buyer has to put out less moeny but they get less equity too. no loan subsidy but more affordability.

    It still would put upward pressure on prices, but the scheme is limited to new houses for first home owners. that’s not going to have much effect on the broader market.

  10. Phil 10
    12 February 2008 at 3:19 pm

    “but the scheme is limited to new houses for first home owners. that’s not going to have much effect on the broader market”

    Erm… do you want to recant that now, or be made to look like a complete and utter fool in six months time?