Like raising the pension age not to 67, but 107

Paul Kelly in The Australian sets out the problem: It is the conflict in Rudd’s messages between policy and politics that generates constant doubts about his real priorities.   In his second essay, Rudd rightly focuses on the need to withdraw the stimulus over time, retire debt and look to productivity.... (T)he return-to-surplus pledge dictates what Rudd calls “unpopular decisions” as federal spending is kept to 2 per cent in real terms for many years.   Last week Access Economics described the task in these terms: “The 2 per cent rule doesn’t sound scary and hasn’t lost any votes so far, yet it implies a tight straitjacket on federal spending in coming years. You may be surprised to know that, after 4 1/2 years, the cumulative impact of the 2 per cent real rule will be devastating. It would, for example, be the equivalent cost savings from abolishing the Defence Department, or it would be the equivalent of the savings the government would make from lifting the age pension not to 67 but to 107.” ...   Great.   At the link above you can also see Fairfax's Ross Gittins start to fall out of love.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous