So, how are you going to spend it? C’mon, your shout Friday night at the Criterion. Whatyareckon? Ho Hum is another response that comes to mind in the wake of the federal budget. I don’t know how true it is but I heard on the news that there are only eight federal seats with an average income over $52,000PA and all of them are, according to the news piece, safe Liberal seats. But does it matter?
As someone who has been involved with a carers organisation I know (he says with a grin) that the carers will be thrilled to bits that, at last, all the hard work and lobbying by them has paid off. They get a once off, $1,000 bonus for saving the economy about $24 billion dollars a year simply because they love for and care enough to keep their disabled relative out of institutional care. Well, c’mon, they don’t actually work do they? All they have to do is stay at home and look after their disabled relative. And I know carers are just jumping out of their skins in rapture to find out that they can get up to four weeks respite care per year … as long as they live to be over 70.
So here’s the deal for carers. Take the grand, shut up, live till you’re over 70 and be grateful. After up to 50 years of caring for someone with all the perks of working from home, you should be so happy about our generosity. What about the disabled relative they care for?
Currently in three locations in two states a new way of getting injured or disabled people "back into the work force" is being trialled. These "trials" are the backbone of a study to see if the ‘government’ can provide "opportunities" for disabled people to "contribute in a meaningful and satisfying way" to their communities. We didn’t hear about this in the budget did we?
What this study aims to do is to find a new way of forcing the most vulnerable in our society off social security and into abject poverty. You see, what the trial is trying to do is "prove" that a person with a disability should be treated as an individual (like doh!!) and as such their benefit should be flexible enough for them to be able to work and earn some money thus becoming "self sufficient" individual. A noble enough objective that you cannot argue against. However, the sting in the tail is that the more they earn the less they receive as a benefit until they are "weaned" from the public teat and able to ‘stand’ on their own two (or less) feet. Fair enough. However, what the model fails to take into account is that the vast majority of disabled people who need constant workplace support or supervision, have greater swings in their health, moods and psychological dispositions than "normal" people.
I know intellectually disabled people who could contribute to their communities … on their good weeks. They bubble along, enthusiastically drinking from the cup of happiness and joy until they ‘crash’. Then on those days their behaviour and demeanour is so disruptive that they are unable to take part in life or contribute to the community. If I as an employer found out that I could get a hefty ‘government’ subsidy if I employed a person with a disability, would I be prepared to "hang on" to someone who, potentially, would end up costing me money? You see the ‘government’ (and I am sure the same mandarins in Treasury will still be there if Labor gets in) is quite keen to wean individuals who have the most to lose off the public teat, while, at the same time, increasing corporate welfare.
The study will no doubt be released no matter who wins the upcoming election, bribes or no bribes. The poorest and most vulnerable will be the big losers no matter if its Liberal/National or Labor. The class interests of those who rule are never so broad as to consider the needs of those at the bottom of the pile. No, I’ll correct that as it isn’t accurate. The ruling classes are very concerned with those at the bottom of the pile. So interested in fact that they need to come up with new and more devious ways of ensuring that those at the bottom are kept busy struggling to survive that they have no time to organise and fight for basic human rights and justice. So concerned are the ruling classes that they be seen to be creating opportunities for "wealth" that they allow the bread an circuses act we call ‘government’ to become nothing more than the legitimate arm of rapacious corporate greed.
In order to make sure that the unbridled hatred of the poor by the ruling class is not so obvious (as we are a ‘civilised society’ after all) the spin doctors and focus group analysts need to get the ‘messages’ right and make sure that their multiple meanings are crafted as best they can be to ensure the widest acceptance by the vast majority who are not part of the ruling class. Those who have little chance of understanding or comprehending the reality that is being created for them are left of the PR map altogether.
Those of us who create the wealth are being prevented from sharing in the benefits of that wealth. Those who though genetic, accident or health reasons are not able to maintain a capitalist lifestyle are even less able to share in the wealth we create while after this budget those who earn above $52,000 will be able to spend their extra cash on some little tid bit. Those on disabled pensions whose benefit is less that $15,000PA get nothing but must pay the same per unit of electricity, gas and petrol. Even with the "generous" rebates on their energy bills (which are subsided out of the public purse in another example of corporate welfare) their cost of living continues to rise.
So I say, spend up, shout your mates a drink on Friday night or buy your lover a big bunch of roses and tell them how glad you are to live in the most egalitarian state on earth. And as you leave the pub or flower shop, drop your change in the poor box on the counter. That way your generosity, in the great tradition of the "trickle down effect", will allow another corporatised welfare agency to "compensate" their CEO his or her 100k salary (plus car, phone and laptop) this year while those they supposedly care for continue their descent into abject poverty and desperation.