Drug testing beneficiaries; yeah that’s the problem
I could hardly believe my ears this morning when I heard about Paula Bennett’s plan to drug test beneficiaries and cut their benefits […]
Economy
benefits
To the Back Teeth. And Beyond
Pagani wrote it. Robertson cleared it. And Shearer uttered it. To summarise; those living by sickness entitlements are probably dodgy b’stards. Nice. Before I go on, I should be clear that this post isn’t some insightful fiction. This is the reality of getting by with a sickness benefit.
Frankly Speaking: Identifying a hypocrite in three easy steps
Many of those who participate in the comments here at The Standard also run their own excellent blogs. We regularly feature No Right Turn and Imperator Fish Today we’re reposting (with permission) pieces from two other blogs that attracted some attention in Open mike recently. First up here’s Frankly Speaking…
Rorts
One law for the rich, another for the poor.
$444m for road consultants, $128m out of poor kids’ mouths
Never let the Nats tell you that they’re making responsible cuts in tough times. When the Greens tried to amend the social welfare bill currently before Parliament to ensure no kids would “unduly suffer”, National vetoed it saying that would eliminate $128m of the savings National’s planning to make. Get that? National’s welfare reforms take $128m from poor kids.
NRT: Confirmed: Bennett made it up
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett caused outrage when she suggested somehow banning child abusers from having children. The suspicion at the time was that this was a desperate and cynical attempt to distract the public from the deeply unpopular plans to increase class sizes.Now, thanks to FYI, the public OIA site, that interpretation looks to be the case.
A quick question
The Nats are going to terminate the benefits of those who fail or refuse drug tests. I have a question…
The price of National’s politicking
In a desperate effort to hang on to a few red-neck votes, National keeps on ramping up rhetoric against solo mums. There was talk of compulsory contraception or sterilisation. National played up those ideas, even though it hasn’t followed through. Is it any surprise, then, that poor mums, who don’t follow the news closely, just hear the rumours, are being scared into abortions?
Target practice
Just before the parliamentary recess National released its latest set of Laura Naude targets. They will join all the others – catching up with Australia, jobs from the cycleway, government surplus by 2014, yadda yadda yadda. I can’t think of a single target National has actually met. These targets aren’t real; they are just there to provide fodder for uncritical media.
What’s Bill smoking?
We’re getting used to the Nats running bash the beneficiary /poor /Maori /unemployed /criminal /etc distractions but it’s getting pretty bad when Bill English gets in on the act. Weirdly his idea of drug-testing beneficiaries seems to have been picked up from a Daily Show piece on how it failed in Florida – costing money, not saving it, and proving beneficiaries use drugs less than the rest of the population.
ImperatorFish: More Futile and Cynical Policy
John Key must think the New Zealand public have the memory of a goldfish. He’s put forward bold plans before, but they usually end in failure. Closing the income gap with Australia, creating more jobs, reducing the number of people fleeing to a better life in Australia. And now the promise to get back into budget surplus, which he’s already backtracking on.
Doubts over Cameron’s welfare blitz
That’s the Guardian headline. Supposedly designed to give the Tories “political momentum”, it is late and over budget. The Treasury is resigned to the programme costing money rather than providing savings. The LibDems won’t have a bar of it. Critics describe it as “pitch-rolling”, preparing the ground for further “reforms”. More like spin-bowling here.
I’m sorry, where was the plan?
“More than 20,000 unemployed people will be moved off the benefit within five years if the Government manages to meet its newly announced targets.”
Yes, but a target isn’t a plan.
Spot the difference
There – “Cameron announces Tory plan to slash benefits.” Here – “The Government wants Work and Income to cut the number of long-term beneficiaries on a working-age benefit, John Key has just announced.” Tories normally do this when they are in trouble.
The super disaster
On Superannuation Key is in a very strange position indeed, where keeping his word is doing him more harm than breaking it. It’s a disaster for the country.
National: looking after those in need
When Righties say we can’t afford to support solo mums, what do they think we can afford instead?
Lifestyle “choices”
Last year John Key said that the poor and those on benefits had made lifestyle choices. If they budgeted properly, they’d be fine. Things aren’t fine, and they’re getting worse, which is why a 40-yr-old DPB Mum in Christchurch – facing an $80/week rent increase, because Key hasn’t done anything about Christchurch’s housing shortage – has had to resort to the lifestyle “choice” of prostitution.
The politics of reproduction
The Nats have a thoroughly unhealthy obsession with the politics of reproduction. They’re talking about “stopping ‘unfit’ parents reproducing”, but Paula Bennet let slip the real agenda months ago.
The zero growth agenda
I chuckled to read Fran O’Shillivan on Sunday: “John Key has made a strategic decision to burn some political capital and front-foot major Government decisions” – yeah, all those major decisions: $1m for contraception, ‘tackling cyber-bullying’, a petty pokies for convention centre deal, even their centrepiece policy – asset sales – won’t benefit the economy a jot.
Compulsory vaccination for shareholders’ children
In a shock new announcement the Prime Minister has confirmed recipients of corporate welfare will be forced to vaccinate their children.
Compulsory vaccination
It is the Nats’ belief that those on a benefit have fewer human rights than the rest of us. They can simply be told what to do. So now we have a compulsory vaccination debate.
All in the game
Everyone’s leaped on the Nats’ contraceptives for benies bid to distract from banks.com. Guess I’ll jump in too. Capitalist morality goes: the world/God rewards the good, which is why capitalists are rich – so, the poor, like beneficiaries, must be morally bad – the world would be better without bad people. Eugenics has been and remains a logical endpoint of capitalist morality.
Birth Control
At first glance it seems strange to have Sue Bradford, a former Green MP, against what is a very ‘green’ policy – free contraception. But she has a point when she talks about beneficiaries feeling forced into sterility they don’t want. Meanwhile, what’s with the right’s obsession with targeting women having babies while on a benefit?
Contraception debate
The Government is planning to offer free long-term contraception for beneficiaries and their daughters. At one level its a sensible idea. But it comes with too much baggage attached. The Nats have already made such a mess of it that they can’t make this proposal with any credibility.
Cutting holes in the safety net
The Nats’ welfare cuts will cost $500m over 4 years. Supposedly save a billion. Net saving: $125m a year. 1% of benefit costs. 1/8th of the cost of extra beneficiaries under National. Won’t really save even that little. No jobs. Unemployment rising. National’s problem is it tries to save costs of the welfare safety net by cutting holes in the net. The real solution is to stop people falling in. Best welfare policy is a jobs policy.
Choices, choices: pointless boot camps
The government has splurged $20m putting 3,300 unemployed people through 6 week-long military ‘boot camps’ ($6K each). Result: up to 3 years later, only 19% have jobs. Compares to the typical stint of unemployment of 12 weeks. Looks a lot like the Nats are pouring money into a programme that makes unemployment worse. out of sheer ideological idiocy.
Choices, choices: parental leave too expensive?
The Rightwhingers are saying extending parental leave is too expensive. We’re talking about a tiny sliver of government spending – 0.2% to be precise. And a tiny fraction of what the government is borrowing. If money is really so tight, there’s plenty of poor quality decisions that National could reverse first.
Participate: Stop Asset Sales and Welfare Reform
Friday 13th (April) – a scary day as submissions close on 2 major government bills. Make sure you get your submissions in on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill and the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill.
Private Welfare to Work – how well does that work?
The government has introduced their welfare changes to parliament. In addition to making mums of 1 year-olds seek paid work in addition to raising children, it introduces private companies profiting from unemployment misery with welfare to work schemes. The UK has been trying this for a couple of years – let’s look at how that’s going…
Bathwater and babies
Tapu Misa has an excellent article in today’s Herald. She hopes those predicting the demise of Labour’s pre-election promise to extend Working to Families to the children of beneficiaries are wrong. So do I. Labour will be defined by what it does for our children. Let’s not throw out what was a very very good policy.
We used to be better at this
Reining in student loans
Student loans will remain interest free, but the Nats are planning to rein them in “in a big way”. I guess that means that typical Nat slash-and-burn thinking will result in damaging restrictions to educational access in due course.
Lazy thinking
Anyone saying there are plenty of jobs, people are just to snobby (ie lazy) to take them, has to explain why 90,000 people suddenly got lazy between 2008 and 2009 as 80,000 jobs disappeared.
Does working pay?
Maybe it’s the influence of Bill ‘Guess’ English but National has this strange habit of only doing half the sum. Paula Bennett counts people going off the benefit, but not people going on. John Key looks at normal job creation but ignores normal job destruction. Now, he’s claiming that a mother with a 1-year old is better off working, but he’s not counting the costs of working.
Looking for solutions in all the wrong places
So, naturally, the answer is to spend a whole lot of money forcing solo mums to spend their time looking for jobs that aren’t there.
No solutions, more bashing
332,000 people are on benefits, up by 60,000 under National. Coincidentally, there are 250,000 Kiwis who want work but can’t find it, up 82,000 under National. Probably a lot of cross-over between those two groups, eh? So, you can understand why National’s solution is to take a few bucks off a few thousand women.