Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, "the Story Of Mohammed - Islam Unveiled', http://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com.au
Great work, terrible timing. It must feel a bit like being promoted to Captain of the Titanic half way through her maiden voyage. As a former treasurer, you knew that the gigantic debt iceberg was out there in the fog somewhere.
Unfortunately, few people want to hear about it. So, what to do? Do you stoke up the spending boilers and rearrange the deckchairs to keep the punters happy?
That might prolong your tenure in the top job however, it could mean that you will be the one on the bridge when the crunch comes.
Alternatively, you could turn off the taps and slash every wasteful Government program until we at least get the debt under control. Of course, if you do that you will never make it past the next election.
Instead, crazy Bill Shorten will sail into the lodge, reinstate every hare-brained scheme you pruned and double their original budget.
The problem is not just that Krudd and Gillard spent a lot of money that we didn’t have. It is much worse than that.
They took in a mass of Third World country shoppers who had flown to Indonesia and were claiming to be refugees. Most of these people had no skills (other than breeding), limited English and no inclination to work anyway.
This means that our welfare bill has blown out exponentially and is soaking up an ever-increasing part of the Government budget.
Consequently, when Tony Abbott took over, he was unable to even start paying back the money. Instead, the deficit carried on growing and has been growing ever since.
The only way to reduce the deficit now, is to make massive cuts in spending to some other part of the Government budget.
Whatever you cut however, will elicit howls of outrage from some pampered constituency or other. Our left-wing press will then present these cuts as evidence that you and your party are heartless and uncaring.
It may seem as if you are between the Devil and the deep blue sea, but there is a way out. I have a plan which would wipe out this bloated and wasteful program in a way which will educate the Australian public to the idiocy of these crazy schemes. It is a plan so cunning that you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel.
The first part is simple. When refugees are brought to Australia, they are funded through the Centerlink budget, through the housing budget, the health budget, the education budget and so forth.
What you need to do is to take every expense related to refugee resettlement and plonk it straight into the foreign aid budget.
Whether it be health, education, childcare, translation services, policing, or incarceration, every single dollar which is spent on any refugee should be administered through the foreign aid budget.
We will then have a reasonably accurate figure for the total amount that Australians actually fork out for foreign aid.
Naturally, there will be screams and howls from the usual suspects. Some Greens may have a seizure, but this is an administrative change which affects no one outside of Government. There will be minimal backlash from voters, and certainly not from potential coalition voters.
Just because you hand an Australian passport to a refugee and move them to Australia, doesn’t change the fact that the money you give them is foreign aid. This is an easy point to argue.
Once this change has been implemented and you have a true figure for foreign aid (which you widely publicise), simply divide this figure by the number of non-refugee adults in the country.
Then, send every non-refugee adult in Australia a bill for his or her share of the foreign aid budget. This means that the Government no longer has to fund this gigantic expense through taxation or borrowing. They can simply let the people pay it directly.
Of course, there will be cries of outrage from the citizens of Australia when these bills hit the letterboxes. As Prime Minister however, you can appear on national TV and explain politely that this money is charity.
Since the money is charity, no one will have to pay it if they don’t wish to. They can choose themselves how much they wish to pay. If they want to pay more or less, they can.
People should know however, that the Government will keep a record of who pays their foreign aid and how much they pay. This information will be published on a website which anyone can view.
Foreign aid contributions should be demanded upfront at the beginning of the tax year in order to fund the payments. Some people will complain of course, that they simply cannot afford this expense in one hit.
This is where the banks come in. Banks should be forced to make “foreign aid loans” to anyone who requests one.
Banks won’t mind because the Government can give them a guarantee that if anyone defaults on the loan, the Government will recover the interest payments (not capital repayments) from the debtor either through extra taxes on that individual, or a reduction in benefits if they are not working.
If the debtor dies, then the Government will simply take the money from that person’s children, from their children’s children and so on, indefinitely.
I can only imagine the kind of outrage that this will engender. At this point, you can simply smile sweetly and remind people that this is how the system has always worked.
The only difference is that once this change is implemented, Australians will have a choice whether to opt out of this debt slavery.
Once you introduce this policy, the penny will begin to drop, and people will begin to understand why it is that the banks are so keen to promote the most profligate and wasteful spending imaginable and portray it as sound economic policy.
People will then start to realise, that gouging customers with high fees is one of the least evil things that banks do.
So, what are the downsides to this policy shift? Well fiscally speaking, there aren’t any. The Government is simply removing a gigantic funding commitment that it can’t afford and passing it off to whoever wants to take part.
This will set the Government on course to paying off the nation's debts and removes the ongoing funding commitments that Rudd, Gillard and Turnbull saddled Australian taxpayers with. Electorally, there aren’t any downsides either that I can see.
Clearly, Green voters and refugees will hate you even more, but since none of them would ever vote for you anyway, this is hardly worth losing sleep over.
What you will get is a huge boost from disenchanted Liberal voters. Since Pauline made it clear that she considered Senator Anning’s speech an abomination, she has lost the confidence of her entire support base (excepting a few die hards). These people would come flocking back to the Liberal Party if you were to implement this policy.
Economic downsides are restricted to Third World despots who will have to trim back on their purchase of Lear Jets and gold-plated Rolls Royces.
Large numbers of work-shy refugees will also be left out on a limb. They should be given two choices. Find a job or take a generous resettlement allowance and business class tickets back to their place of origin.
The alternative would be for them to try to survive on a rapidly dwindling Foreign Aid payment. Australians would of course be given the choice of how their aid donations are spent. They could donate the money to a dozen refugees overseas or a single refugee on welfare in Australia. I suspect the former option would be more popular.
Another group to suffer would be Indonesian people smugglers, but I think you are off their Christmas card list already.
The real worry is the banks. I mean, lending real money to people and businesses on a voluntary basis is soooo 19th Century. Why would you do that when you can lend money to the Government. Politicians love spending that money on their pet projects, most of which are designed to keep them in power. They then force the citizens to repay that money at gunpoint.
Admittedly, the Government doesn’t point a gun at every taxpayer’s head, but if you have ever tried not paying your taxes, you’ll know what I mean.
The very best part of the banking scam is that you don’t even have to lend actual money to the Government.
Since the banks have the Government in their pockets, the Government literally gives them a licence to print money. It’s called a “banking licence".
So, banks get to print money and lend it out at interest while the Government restricts competition to a chosen few. Can you think of a better business model? Little wonder then, that the biggest fanciest buildings in the CBD of any city around the world, have a bank’s name on top.
You can be quite sure then, that as far as the banks are concerned, this idea will go down like a pork pie at a Bar Mitzvah. Every mainstream economist will scream blue murder and insist that it is a terrible idea economically.
Of course, economists are all employed by either the banks or the Government, so they kind of would say that, wouldn’t they?
Banks love the way things are. The Government racks up ever greater debts for us taxpayers to service and more refugees means more debts.
Around eight years ago, a friend of mine who ran a successful business was invited to a conference by the National Australia Bank. At the conference, the bank told business owners that diversity was essential to the success of their companies.
I don’t know if any coercion has since been applied by the banks, but I have noticed a steady disappearance of white people from company brochures and promotional materials since that time.
Saddling white nations with huge debts for refugees is a great tactic for the banking fraternity. Anyone who opposes it can be denigrated as a heartless racist bastard.
International financier George Soros spends big on the “diversity” industry. He has donated many millions to “open borders” groups both here and in Europe.
Australia’s last captain came straight out of the revolving door of Goldman Sachs, the “vampire squid” of multinational investment banking, as did a suspiciously large number of other left leaning, refugee friendly world leaders.
Of course, Liberal voters would love the idea of voluntary foreign aid. Unfortunately, they don’t finance the party. So, who is ScoMo going to look after?
I think we all know the answer to that one. He will pay lip service to the Liberal idea of small Government and low taxes whilst continuing to borrow large sums from the banks to give to refugees here and abroad.
You can pretty much assume that he will continue to bring plenty more refugees here too. He is already talking about sending migrants to regional centres because it is not fair for Sydney and Melbourne to have to take all of the pain that mass migration causes.
Mr Morrison thinks that regional centres should take their fair share of the pain. Okay, here’s a novel idea Scotty. How about not inflicting pain on any of the Australian people. You know; the ones you swore to serve when you took office.
Well, don’t hold your breath on that one folks. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. If crazy Bill Shorten gets the keys to The Lodge, he will be bringing a whole lot more of them here too.
We don’t have a political force in Australia to bring this idea to fruition just yet. This idea is a powerful one however, and I think that someone, somewhere will pick it up eventually.
It may be a Trump or an Orban. Perhaps it will be a far-right party in Italy or Austria. I think that once tried however, the idea will become wildly popular and spread rapidly.
To believe that it is somehow morally right to forcibly borrow money on someone else’s behalf and then give that money away to God only knows who, is an idea that has had its day. More and more people are getting sick of seeing their nations trashed and being expected to pay for it.
The pushback is building strength every day. When it happens, those people responsible for this outrage will have a lot of explaining to do.
Let’s hope they are better at explaining than Mussolini or Ceausescu