The biggest deception neoliberalism ever executed was persuading society that government involvement is unnecessary. Nevertheless, governments understand that we will accept it whenever it involves taking from those who are most at risk.
What other explanation can be given for the ease with which the Labor government is not only reducing NDIS benefits (strategically branded as “controls on future growth”) but also the disclosures from The Guardian’s Kate Lyons that AI will dictate needs and plans, leaving almost no option for human intervention to adjust when inevitably, software fails to grasp human needs and subtleties.
This will likely be welcomed by those who believe “the government cannot fund everything” and find it “logical” to impose spending limits on care. Those individuals seldom consider that any spending limits should also extend to subsidies that assist people in generating income.
“NDIS expenses surge as children enroll in the scheme” is a headline that people readily accept. However, we wouldn't expect to see the same prominent publications cover “capital gains tax discount expenditures surge as investors flock to real estate” – because that’s merely part of conducting business.
Consider the event fund manager Geoff Wilson recently organized to celebrate the dismissal of the rather minimal superannuation reforms proposed by Jim Chalmers.
A slight adjustment that would only influence the wealthiest individuals. Yet it became breaking news. Independent Parliament members initiated a campaign for their affluent constituents (which is indeed their prerogative) while sympathetic media ramped up their efforts. Suddenly, it was not merely the “unjust” modifications to a long-standing tax benefit that concerned them, but the potential repercussions on middle-income earners many years ahead that created urgency.
The distressed “farmers” who had placed their estates into superannuation to evade tax would now, shockingly, need to pay a bit more tax on earnings over $3 million! This was viewed as such an affront that the federal administration capitulated to avoid disturbing a small, yet very vocal group (complain to win in action! )
Yet, slashing future funding for the NDIS, and eliminating access for individuals who have been receiving early interventions and therapies for neurodivergent kids – which has proven advantages, not just for the children, but for society, by lowering future costs – is something that simply “must” be executed.
The administration disseminates the “expenses” – $1.1 billion in postponed budget savings! – to foster public approval for a policy that will impose significant hardships on some of our most at-risk individuals and families, as well as on the already strained healthcare and educational resources, along with future generations, not to mention those who will be neglected.
We are led to believe this is essential to fund areas like defense – a sector that consumes billions despite its countless shortcomings and failures. In order to finance a deal costing $360 billion (and rising) that does not promise Australia submarines, technology, or even dependable partnerships, leaders will undermine what remains of the social contract, labeling it as “common sense. ”
After privatizing the care industry, including services for those with disabilities, to cut expenses, the government is now reducing the subsidies that made this privatized care viable, all while persuading the public that this is sound financial management. However, reforming other areas of our economy – like landlord incentives such as the capital gains tax benefit and negative gearing, imposing a flat tax on gas exports, or eliminating the $14.9 billion in fossil fuel support – which could finance the services we are told are unaffordable, is deemed “unjust. ”
We frequently accept governmental interference in the market, yet we only express dissatisfaction when this interference favors the very citizens that the government is obligated to assist. The same individuals profiting immensely from inflating the costs of the NDIS, early childhood education, or other subsidized public services are usually the loudest critics against superannuation adjustments or any measures that slightly limit their wealth accumulation.
There has been considerable discussion surrounding the increase in support for One Nation and other far-right and fascist organizations, despite the fact that fascism tends to resurface whenever the economy ceases to benefit workers.
Nonetheless, we rarely seem to change course or take a stand. The government will persist in asserting this is logical until something goes wrong.
The catch is – it already has.
Authorities must treat social contracts with diligence. Their negligence emphasizes how we reached this point. The fact that so many individuals believe it is acceptable for people to endure hardship while industries and the wealthy enjoy unearned benefits complicates the situation, though it is not insurmountable.
Ultimately, reality tends to deliver a harsh wake-up call. Even governments that possess historically large majorities, a diminished opposition, and lingering optimism for improvement face this truth.
0 Comments