Category: imported_weekly
Last week a controversial review of Labour’s 2004 foreshore and seabed legislation was published. It recommended that the Act be repealed so that Maori can take up their customary rights to the foreshore and seabed – or be compensated for them.
On Wednesday, eight central North Island tribes will take control of 170,000 hectares of forests in the Kaingaroa region in the country’s biggest Treaty of Waitangi settlement to date. The total cost of the claim is over $400 million of taxpayers’ money.
But this is about democracy, the right of people to be heard and it's the absolute height of arrogance that the prime minister is going to use a technicality within the law to circumvent people's rights to express their views on the issue. - John Key backs election smacking referendum, July 2008[1]
“Mäori continue to experience relatively poorer outcomes than other New Zealanders, indicating that Mäori social potential has yet to be fully realised. In maintaining a focus on realising Mäori potential, the basis for the development of Te Puni Kökiri’s social policy advice and intervention is premised on what is important within a Mäori cultural construct… with a particular focus on the benefits that can be achieved through Mäori designed, developed and delivered initiatives”.
While socialists have blamed capitalism and the free market for the global financial crisis, economist Richard M. Salsman holds “altruism” responsible. In his article “Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis”, he explains that altruism, which is based on the notion that being moral consists of sacrificing oneself for the needs of others, has long been a driving force of government policy.[1] In the US, not only has this resulted in a burgeoning welfare state, but altruistic home ownership initiatives targeted at minority groups, created a house of cards of catastrophic proportions.
“This is the message to New Zealanders: under National, tax cuts are a priority—under National, personal tax cuts are a priority. Most of all, New Zealanders will be able to believe our tax cuts, they will be able to trust our tax cuts. Most of all, our tax cuts will not just be about putting dollars into the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. They will actually be about delivering the right incentives in the economy. Tax cuts let New Zealanders get ahead in their lives. They encourage New Zealanders to work hard, to get extra responsibilities, to save, and to get further education. We believe in tax cuts, we believe in the power of tax cuts, and we will deliver them.”[1] - John Key.
Earlier this month a briefing paper for US government officials and environmental leaders on ways to “re-frame” the global warming debate in order to build stronger public support for climate change legislation, found its way into the hands of the New York Times.[1] Re-framing is a technique used by politicians to make radical ideas more palatable to the public by replacing controversial expressions with language that evokes empathy, cooperation, and a sense of interconnectedness.[2] The concept is largely based on the work of George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at Berkley University and well known adviser to the environmental movement, who believes that if you control the language of a debate then you control the way that people think.
In his acceptance speech at the Republican convention in August 1988, President Bush announced: “And the Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push and I’ll say no again, and they’ll push again. And I’ll say to them “Read my lips: No new taxes”. In June 1990 he found himself agreeing to a rise in taxes after all in order to keep the deficit from getting out of hand. One day reporters pursued the President as he jogged laps in St Petersburg, Florida, pressing him to clarify his stand. “Read my hips!” he smirked, and jogged on. Bush’s acceptance of tax hikes in violation of his pledge hurt him badly when he ran for re-election in 1992. He was defeated at the polls that year.
Many people have been shocked to learn that the Department of Conservation has received more than $8 million dollars in cash payments from state energy companies, in return for withdrawing their opposition to projects with significant environmental effects.[1] While not unlawful, under the Resource Management Act – referred to be some as the Ransom Management Act - such payouts have the look, feel and smell of “back-handers”.
We believe that the growing role that government has played in financing and administering schooling has led not only to enormous waste of taxpayers’ money but also to a far poorer educational system than would have developed had voluntary cooperation continued to play a larger role. Milton and Rose Friedman, “Free to Choose”.
Loading ...
