Labor needs to “Take the High Ground” on the Economy

 

above: Australian Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan made the right call on the surplus

The Federal Labor Government's reversal on the Federal Budget Surplus was considered a failure by some, but grassroots Labor activist, Tristan Ewins argues that Wayne Swan has made the right call on this one: Although unfair attacks on sole parents, the disabled and others need to be re-thought in the new context. Labor needs a bold social wage reform package, funded broadly by progressively extracting a fairer contribution from the top 15 per cent.

nb: our Facebook group can be found here: http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/58243419565/

Tristan Ewins

December 27th 2012

The headlines of the Melbourne Herald-Sun on December 21^st proclaimed “Julia Clean Bowled – Third Broken Promise as $1 billion surplus axed.” Other headlines further into the paper announced: “Swan comes clean on deficit” and “Budget blows credibility of Gillard, Swan.”

To be fair, within the pages of the Herald-Sun there was some deeper and more balanced analysis – admitting the objective necessity of abandoning the surplus at this particular conjuncture. But clearly the editors of the publication were aiming to influence via first impressions: via the power of headlines; and the likelihood that many readers would not actually read through all the material.

So what of the reality, then?

With a world economy in crisis, even affecting Chinese growth – Australia has been hit; and so too have Australian tax revenues – including the GST and Company tax. Notably business is actually supporting Labor with regard postponing the surplus – well aware of the “multiplier effect” stimulus has upon the economy, and thus upon consumer and investor confidence. Tony Abbott is decrying Labor as “spending like a drunken sailor” – but this is nothing more than a play upon people’s misassumptions and prejudices. In reality Labor has held tax revenues down as a proportion of GDP, and has ‘robbed Peter to pay Paul’ – hitting Single mothers and many disability pensioners to provide some ‘fiscal room’ for Gonski and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. (NDIS)

For his part, also, Abbott has to explain how he will deliver his Paid Parental Leave for the upper middle class, while withdrawing the minerals resource rent tax, as well as the carbon tax, and restoring upper middle-class welfare in the form of a broad-based Private Health Insurance Rebate. And Liberal support for the NDIS is compromised by hysterical and deceptive panic-mongering about its price-tag; projecting into the future – without explaining the context of inflation – to provide a distorted impression of its ultimate cost. Lastly: Abbott’s agenda of cutting expenditure at this particular conjuncture would be deflationary and contractionary – a criticism of him which Labor and the corporates seem to have in common.

At the same time Liberal State governments are imposing austerity in their irrational drive for a ‘surplus at any cost’. Again, this is about retaining the political advantage on “perceived economic competence”. Having consistently distorted the question of economic management as approximating the management of a household budget, at all levels the Conservatives cannot confess the truth without undermining their political position. Thus in Victoria Ballieu has gutted TAFE expenditure to achieve a surplus: when in fact stimulus is required; as is investment on infrastructure, education and training to overcome capacity constraints. User pays mechanisms – for instance increased public transport charges and increased costs for license renewal – are also being imposed to bridge ‘the fiscal gap’ from falling GST revenue. While the Liberals like to avoid the word ‘tax’ – the effect of these measures approximate regressive, flat taxation.

But what should be done?

Budgets need to be balanced – but not always: only over the course of the economic cycle. And this need not imply ‘small government’ during periods of growth either: so long as the ‘inflation genie’ is contained some way or another – preferably progressively via taxation on the wealthy and upon conspicuous consumption. (also inflation shouldn't be raised as an excuse for distributive injustice and exploitation) During times of relative stagnation (ie: right now!) – and in some parts of the world outright Depression – the time is still right to bring forward big infrastructure programs for quality of life and to overcome capacity constraints. Again: this has a ‘multiplier effect’ on growth and confidence. 

At a state level the Liberal State Governments also need to face reality. Without investment in education, health and infrastructure the economy will wither – and human beings will suffer. The Conservative State Governments have argued meekly for an increased GST to overcome the ‘fiscal gap’ – but surely they perceive the bind Labor is in: restrained by the same ‘small government and surplus at any cost’ mentality which the Conservatives themselves have nurtured. If the State Governments are to acquire the funds they need it is imperative that they come out consistently, openly, clearly and loudly in favour of increased taxes, and against the lie that surpluses are always appropriate. No matter how politically unpalatable it may seem, a bipartisan consensus is necessary right now, here - in the national interest.

And in other words the Conservative State Governments need to publicly refute the position taken so far on this theme by the Abbott Federal Opposition. Only by doing can they provide Federal Labor the “political breathing room” to do what is necessary to restore State Government finances. To avoid embarrassment, Abbott himself could finally be responsible: taking the lead in conceding that we still live in precarious economic times; and hence action on the tax/stimulus/services/infrastructure front is necessary.

Finally: both Labor and the States need agree to progressive taxation reform – which is fair both to most working class families and to the disadvantaged. Increasing a flat, regressive GST is not acceptable. Yet if these conditions are met – then ‘the ball will be in Federal Labor’s court’ – to reform tax, maintain and expand infrastructure and services, and provide economic stimulus in uncertain times.

But even this compromise should not be enough for a reforming Labor Government. Gonski and the NDIS need to be “locked in” (with a price tag of about $14 billion) – and without ‘robbing Peter to Pay Paul’ again with regards critical social programs – or else reducing ourselves to empty, token and distant promises. To ‘deliver the goods’ for 2013 there is a need to raise tax as a proportion of GDP.

As against the popular assumption any tax reform would comprise ‘electoral poison’ there is the contrary argument that improved infrastructure and services – paid for via the progressive targeting of the top 15% wealth and income demographic – could appeal to a broad class base of support. Such an emphasis would be electorally viable on the basis of the economic interests of most Australians; but broad-based enough to bring in meaningful revenue.

Specific measures could include removing superannuation concessions for the top 5 per cent income demographic – bringing in over $10 billion. Meanwhile reverting to 75% dividend imputation (tax concessions on investments) could bring in over $5 billion while affecting mainly the wealthy: and with other (small) investors compensated via tax and social wage reform elsewhere. Should an incremental approach work, here, Dividend Imputation could later be reduced to 50% - bringing in over $10 billion. (in today’s terms) Company Tax cuts could – and should – be put on hold indefinitely (business needs to contribute to the training and infrastructure it benefits from); and income tax reform could also target the top 15% income demographic. A minimum Company Tax rate could be imposed; land tax imposed on properties valued over $1 million; and further taxes imposed upon economic rent in oligopolistic sectors such as mining and banking. Finally the Medicare Levy could be reformed to broaden its scope, apply a more progressive and graduated structure, and provide a desperately-needed boost to Aged Care – caring for the most vulnerable, and removing regressive user-pays charges that hit working class families hard.

The aim would be to free about $25 billion of new money for socially necessary programs – including desperately-necessary funding for the States - while at the same time providing economic stimulus. To put this in perspective, this would comprise about 1.5 per cent of a $1.6 Trillion economy) Further funds could be freed via even better targeting of programs such as the Private Health Insurance Rebate.

The programs that would emerge from such measures there must strike a balance between providing for the most vulnerable (the aged, the disabled, single parents, the poor); and in providing broad-based improvements of infrastructure, welfare and services that favour the “mainstream” – ie: the great majority of citizens, workers, families.

But time is running out for Labor. Vague and unrealized promises for the future will not be sufficient for the revival of Labor’s fortunes in 2013. Labor needs to ‘deliver the goods’ with infrastructure, services and social welfare programs well before the approaching 2013 election. And in doing so it could also do worse than to nail down the Conservatives’ economic irresponsibility in opposing stimulus and crucial social investment with their deceptive ploys on the theme of economic responsibility.

A Labor government which remains authentically on-message; succinctly explaining such themes as stimulus, economic multiplier effects, capacity constraints, and the economic role of infrastructure, education and training – could outflank the Conservatives with their claims to economic responsibility and competence. They could break the myth of Conservative economic credentials and competence.

Julia Gillard herself proclaimed at one point that Labor is a cause: and not a ‘brand’. Yet if the Labor cause is authentic, constantly “robbing Peter to pay Paul’, with “one step forward, two steps back” should not be acceptable. And neither should incessant mutual attacks upon character be considered a substitute for policy substance.

Labor needs to reconsider its recent attacks on single parents and disability pensioners. It needs new initiatives provided without unfair austerity elsewhere. We need to overcome infrastructure backlogs progressively; without inefficient, Ideological and perhaps even corrupt Public Private Partnerships. A public fast-rail line along the east coast could revolutionize transport logistics for business, and provide opportunities for citizens. And we need to implement the NDIS and Gonski; but also provide for other crucial yet less-politically convenient causes such as reform of Newstart. We need big new initiatives in Aged Care and mental health – because the most vulnerable of all cannot afford to wait.

Crucial to these initiatives could be the concept of ‘collective consumption’. That is: If we do not pay for health, aged care, infrastructure and education progressively (and relatively cheaply) as taxpayers – we will instead pay more for these regressively as private consumers.

Swan and Gillard have done the right thing – and the responsible thing - in abandoning the surplus for the time being. While it may have seemed politically prudential at one point, to follow through now would undermine the economy, and also Labor’s credentials. Now Labor needs to turn the economic debate around – so it is possible to conduct that debate on its own terms. Yet even if Labor does all this, victory in 2013 is not assured. Best, then, to lock a big reform agenda in: reforms in tax, social services, infrastructure and welfare that will put the Conservatives on the defensive; reforms they will not dare to wind back.

$25 billion in new social expenditure – and more accommodated through socially progressive savings elsewhere – could provide the vital ‘Labor war-chest’ – to provide much ahead of the 2013 election – and to promise even more in its wake. Yet even this is relatively modest in the big picture of a $1.6 Trillion economy. That sense of perspective is so often missing in Conservative critiques of Labor programs which (just like Conservative initiatives) necessarily go into the hundreds of millions or even billions. Even on the Labor Left - which is largely acquiescent on the issue of 'small government' these days - learning to think on this scale is necessary in coming to grips with a genuine reform agenda.

The bottom line is that an end be put to Labor’s decades-long retreat: that by appealing to and providing for both the disadvantaged and vulnerable – and to the ‘mainstream’ of working Australia – we can consolidate an electoral bloc, and begin anew ‘the steady march forward of Labor’.

Budget Austerity and Small Government not the Answer – A response to Wayne Swan

above:  Australian Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan

The following essay is a response to Australian Treasurer, Wayne Swan - who has recently written a Fabian Essay - whose obvious significance concerns the coming Australian Federal Budget for 2011-12.  While the author is highly sympathetic with the Treasurer's defence of Labor's record fighting the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), he nonetheless insists that - with the recovery - 'small government' is not the answer.  Tristan Ewins responds that rather, a government committed to human need - and facing the consequences of an expanding and ageing population - should further reform tax, invest in necessary infrastructure and incrementally expand the social wage...

By Tristan Ewins
23/04/2011

In a recent Fabian Essay, ‘Keynesians in the Recovery’, Australian Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, has defended the Labor Federal government’s legacy in preventing recession at home, and contributing to a global recovery in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. (GFC) It is a crucial narrative for Labor to contest: restoring a practical Keynesian orthodoxy in striving towards an implicit social-democratic consensus, and achieving generational change in perceptions of Labor on economic management.

And it is all the more important in wake of other policy failures and forced back-downs which have harmed the government, and left behind an impression which obscures and detracts from Labor’s very significant achievements.

With the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) Labor had ‘bitten off more than it could chew’: taking on the mining giants close to an election. Combined with Labor’s back-down on its original CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), these presented an impression of a government in retreat. That on its own shook – and continues to shake - public confidence.

And while compared with the scale of other major initiatives the real level of waste in the government’s home insulation rebate program was minor, nothing can make good the loss of life which followed the lack of sufficient regulatory oversight.

But where would Australia have been had the Conservatives been in government with the onset of the Global Financial Crisis? (GFC) Most likely a Conservative government would have implemented deflationary policies which would have sent the economy into freefall, with an ever-escalating toll of human misery.

In 2008 the world teetered upon the precipice of a potential economic Depression. In his Fabian Essay
Swan refects upon Australia’s position at the time as follows:

“It is too easy to forget just how exposed Australia was to the crisis. Eight out of ten of our major trading partners went into recession. Our banks faced dislocated global capital markets and calls from bank customers flowed into my office. The decline in production, investment and exports affected jobs, with unemployment rising by 175,000 within months. Our economy contracted by almost 1 per cent in the final three months of 2008.” (p 5)

In the face of this looming catastrophe, Swan defends the government’s response:

“Underpinning our policy response were the principles of fiscal and monetary action to boost aggregate demand set out by Keynes in his General Theory and his activist publications of the Great Depression era: immediate stimulus measures to boost consumer spending and confidence; useful public works to create employment; lower interest rates to boost investment and spending; and concerted international action to strengthen the world financial system.” (p 5)

“Labor, guided by Keynes, is driven by a morality that regards unemployment, ruined businesses, foreclosed mortgages and myriad other signs of economic distress not as part of an inevitable and desirable cleansing process for the economy, but as the symptoms of a recession that should and can be avoided with the necessary will. (p 8)

How the government gets this message out to the public is a different matter, though. How can Labor contest and ultimately determine the narrative – that is, ‘popular wisdom’ - on its response to the Global Financial Crisis?

Part of the answer is rebuilding Labor as a social movement; a mass party which promotes the activity and real policy influence of its members; and so remobilising its base, places itself on a permanent campaign footing on a wide variety of fronts.

But there’s another side to the story Swan is trying to sell on the economy. With the 2011-2012 Federal Budget about to be passed, it seems he’s preparing us for austerity.

Swan writes of the importance of being “Keynesians in recovery” as well as in the downturn.

“With private demand strengthening, unemployment falling and our economy pushing towards capacity, we need to restrain public spending, and stay the course back to budget surpluses. Just as it was the right thing to step in and support demand during the GFC, the right thing to do is to take a step back as private activity recovers.” (p 1)


[This means] “making room for the private sector when economic growth is strong.” (p 1)

And he takes the argument further:

“[The very] phrase ‘counter- cyclical’’….implies the opposite of the critics’ claim that Keynesian policies constitute a recipe for ever-increasing rates of public spending as a proportion of GDP. (p 7)


“[While] governments have a responsibility to increase public spending going into a recession, once growth and prosperity have been restored, they have an equal responsibility to restrain public expenditure, budget for surpluses and reduce debt in climbing out.” (p 7)

Finally Swan indicates his preference, now, to promote:

“reforms to strengthen and broaden our economy by cutting business taxes, investing in infrastructure and boosting national savings.” (p 8)

While Swan’s message on counter-cyclical demand management is crucial to Labor’s intellectual armoury, and its credibility on the economy, there are other aspects of his account that need to be challenged. This is regardless of Swan’s (correct) assertion that ‘big government’ is not the necessary or inevitable counterpart to Keynesian counter-cyclical demand management.

Specifically: Swan’s concern to keep taxes low – and hence ‘government’ ‘small’ has real-life consequences. His call to government to ‘make room’ for the private sector seems reminiscent of old Conservative claims that the welfare state and social wage were ‘crowding out’ private economic activity. But the services in the firing line are so often in the realm of social necessity, and are most efficiently provided through the public sector or other forms of collective consumption in any case.

Meanwhile the investment in infrastructure that Swan champions is difficult to achieve except in the context of maintaining and expanding the tax base. A growing population, and an ageing population will mean increased pressures on transport infrastructure, housing and health services now and into the future.

Even considering the current (modest) correction in the housing market, thousands of families experience housing stress, which is a drain upon their incomes and other areas of the economy. The situation is exacerbated by rapidly growing populations – such as in Melbourne – where young families are driven to the urban fringe; but once there have inadequate access to public transport. There is a cost to the economy in terms of transit expenses including petrol. But there is a hidden social cost also, including to families, where transit times detract from time for recreation, including time with spouses and children. Less time for recreation resulting in obesity and ill health could flow on to the Health sector over the long term as well.

More investment in social housing and transport infrastructure – including urban consolidation - is essential for economic and quality of life purposes; but requires a commitment of resources inconsistent with ‘small government’.

The ‘ageing population’ also demands a rethink by policy makers, including by Wayne Swan, on the theme of Aged Care and welfare, and how this relates to restraining the size of government – partly for Ideological purposes.

Social democrats once stood indignantly against demands under capitalism that workers continue in sometimes alienating, monotonous or physically demanding jobs practically until their grave, or to physical and mental ruination. (whichever came first)

A key social-democratic tenet was the placing of real life quality for workers ahead of the abstract-economic; ahead of profits outside the context of real social benefit. Yet now in pursuit of ever lower taxes, less welfare and ‘smaller government’, Labor seems itself resigned to raising the age of retirement, and in so doing denying older Australians the opportunity for fulfilment with cultural participation, civic activism, education for life, and time with family and community. This at a time in people’s lives where ‘every year’ of relative good health can feel precious.

What is worse, the Productivity Commission is promoting a user-pays agenda for the Aged Care sector: a move which Ben Spies-Butcher, a lecturer in sociology at Macquarie University, argues will actually deter the less-wealthy from accessing services for which they may have an acute need. And Charmaine Crowe of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuant’s Association (CPSA) has pointed out that Australia already only spends only 0.8 per cent of GDP on Aged Care compared to 3.5 per cent in the Netherlands and 3.6 per cent in Sweden. http://www.agedcareinsite.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=News&idArticle=19979

This cannot fail to have a devastating impact on the quality of life of our most vulnerable Australians. We are a wealthy nation and can afford to do better. It is a matter of priorities.

As a basic question of humanity we must make the necessary commitment to ameliorate suffering as much as possible, and provide opportunities for life quality. This must include outings, pleasant surrounds including gardens, opportunities for personal and social interaction; provision for privacy and personal space, access to medical (including dental) care, air conditioning and heating, and into the future access to information technology including internet.

And as this author has argued elsewhere: quality aged care must involve sufficient nurse to patient ratios, and decent conditions for aged care staff. (this dovetails with the Australian Services Union campaign for fair wages – mainly for women – in the sector) Many residents need acute care whether for showering, dressing, eating, being turned regularly to prevent bed sores, or using the toilet. For many such circumstances will continue for years, and it simply is not good enough to ‘let the market sort us out’.

Even for less-robust ‘Third Way’ interpretations of social democracy such standards for inclusion and protection of the vulnerable are core. And by comparison with progressive funding, ‘user pays’ would act like a regressive flat inheritance tax anyway, hitting overwhelmingly low and middle income families, while eschewing a more direct and formal inheritance or wealth tax - which would affect the more affluent.

To improve quality of service – and quality of life – requires a commitment of resources. And to meet the scope of commitment made by the Netherlands and Sweden would require new money (perhaps an extra twenty billion a year) out of an economy valued somewhere over $1.2 Trillion This has to start somewhere.

Meanwhile increased demand upon the Disability Support Pension (DSP) is partly the consequence of a genuine mental health crisis, and also cannot be addressed in the context of small government. And in light of recent debate it is worth noting that extensive and punitive active labour market policies already exist for Newstart recipients. The DSP and other pensions remain in need of extension to meet a rising cost of living without further ‘punishing the victim’.

For the chronically-ill, and for their carers - especially those without any prospect of steady, decent-paying employment – there must be provision for a decent material quality of life. Easing of income/means tests for recipients, and introduction of incentives for employers – without effective discrimination against the disabled themselves on wages and conditions – could be part of a constructive government response. And a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) which provided significant new money to address these and other areas of concern - could also secure support from a public not only on compassionate grounds - but with the realisation potentially every individual and every family can be vulnerable.

So where should Labor start in addressing these issues in the process of framing the 2011-12 Federal Budget?

As noted at this blog recently - The Greens have already provided research demonstrating “that at 30 per cent, the current company tax rate is still below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) "weighted average" of 36 per cent.” Where business stands to share in the gain from necessary infrastructure investment (eg: transport) surely it should continue to ‘pay its fair share’. The 1% Company Tax cut has to go. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/national/9091822/greens-want-to-restrict-company-tax-cut-to-small-business/

Apart from this, Gillard Labor could aim to increase social expenditure in the critical fields mentioned in this essay by around 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent of GDP (not including Carbon Tax compensation) over the course of the current term. (the first step of a long-term plan for reform)  In the context of an economy valued at over $1.2 Trillion, this would provide a starting pool of approximately $12-$18 billion annually which could be gained via reform of income tax or dividend imputation, a wealth tax, or a National Disability Insurance Scheme.  (or a mix of these options)

If the government still has to find savings over the relative-short term, with a new Senate it could realistically implement means-testing of the existing private health insurance rebate. This could be combined with means testing child care rebates to exclude families with combined incomes over $150,000 – which despite complaints is a threshold beyond what most families can aspire to.

Meanwhile national savings should be promoted through democratic collective capital formation amongst the great mass of citizens and workers - rather than further ‘incentives’ for the wealthy in Superannuation and elsewhere. Further tax reform could also help fill any void left by removing superannuation concessions for the wealthy, redirecting monies into a public pension fund.

To be competitive at the next Federal election Labor needs to restore its status as a ‘can do’ government after successive retreats on several fronts. National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout and Carbon Tax ‘overcompensation’ could form part of this picture, but funds for social housing, transport, welfare and aged care could finally establish solid credentials for Gillard Labor as a government of genuine reform.

There is a particularly noteworthy quote from Swan’s recent ‘Fabian Essay’ that is worth reproducing here to put in an interesting context.

Swan writes:

“…in contrast to our opponents – we understand that economic policy must bend to the needs of the times, not the other way around.” (p 4)

This could be interpreted in the sense that the economy must serve human interests first: not some abstract logic or goal. In this sense attacking pensioners or neglecting the aged, the mentally ill, or the disabled in pursuit of a surplus reminds the author of the Vietnam War-era statement that it was ‘necessary to destroy the village in order to save it’.

There are political reasons for pursuing a record-fast return to surplus - hence the scepticism of some with regard to the government's amitions here.   Although allowing deficits to consistently spiral out of control over the course of the entire economic cycle will bring ruin in the end.  But if we are pursuing the kind of economy that serves truly human needs and purposes, surely a narrow and timid Ideology of ‘small government’ is not the answer.


Nb: The full version of Wayne Swan’s essay can be found at the URL below:
http://www.fabian.org.au/1140.asp

Tristan Ewins is a freelance writer and grassroots Labor activist based in Melbourne, Australia. He maintains and publishes the 'Left Focus' blog



AND FINALLY: If you found this article interesting PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.
see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565