It's nice to be recession proof at the top of the political pile and looking down

On the basis that a cat can look at a king and form its own opinion - here is a little financial data.

US President Barack Obama receives $400,000 in annual salary and non-taxable expense accounts totalling $169,000.
On retirement he will receive at least $191,300 annually as a presidential pension.
He lodged his 2008 Public Financial Disclosure on 15 May 2009.
The president declared between:
$100,001- $250,000 in a Morgan Chase Client Asset Management Checking Account with interest, plus another minor account with Morgan Chase
$1,001 - $15,000 in a Northern Trust checking account with interest
Three retirement savings plans worth up to $800,000 plus interest
$50,001 - $100,000 in U.S. Treasury bills with interest
$1 million and $5 million in a second U.S. Treasury Bills plus interest
$100,002 -$200,000 in two college funds for his children
$100,001 - $1 million in book royalties from Crown Publishing (includes a $500,000 advance for a children's version of one of his books)
$1 million - $5 million in book royalties from Random House
Less than $1,001 in Treasury Notes
Less than $1,001 in each of six separate investment/retirement accounts

While according to a 2008 media report the Australian Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Bligh Turnbull is reputed to be personally worth at least $125 million and possibly as high as $140 million with his wife Lucy reported to hold $5 million in shares and, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's wife is reputed to be worth up to$60 million.



Now President Obama is trying to get a universal health insurance policy going in a country where the dollars you have currently decide health outcomes.

And Prime Minister Rudd has just raised the base pension so that the aged, disabled, widows, carers and returned service men and women have a bit more in their pockets.

In his turn, Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull has proposed a tax, which will disproportionately hit the poor in order to buttress a health insurance rebate which goes to reasonably well-off members of the community.




So who's the completely out-of-touch rich b*stard here?

*For the record, I am not a smoker and therefore would not be affected by Turnbull's proposed tax hike.

Internet censorship? Just say 'No'

Send a message to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and tell him that the global blogosphere objects to his plan to censor the Australian Internet.

American wingnuts try to drag Oz into US gun control debate

I was sent a copy of a viral pro-gun email.
Apparently it's has been doing the rounds for some time.
This is what it says about Australia:
"Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:
Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too.
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late."

FactCheck kindly pointed out that Australia has an enviable record when it comes to reduced crime rates:
"Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007......
Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That's a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

For the record and for American visitors to North Coast Voices - Australians tend not to use firearms when committing violent acts as this table shows:

NSW Food Authority name and shame file reels in local KFC

Given the large number of food preparation and service outlets on the NSW North Coast I decided to look at the NSW Food Authority name and shame file.

I only found 10 penalty notices issued for local premises in the last 12 months, which was a pleasant surprise.

What was less pleasant was to find that KFC at Casino was the subject of one of these notices.
There is no excuse for an international franchise to end up on this file.

Battle of the Rates continues in the Clarence Valley

A lively North v South debate on rates and reporting is underway in the letters column of The Daily Examiner last week.

A Lower Clarence resident makes his feelings known on 12 May 2009:

RECENT letters and articles in this paper have expressed dissatisfaction with the inequity in property rates being charged across the Clarence Valley.
In the interests of fair debate, I wish to correct some inaccurate information which has been put forward.
Firstly, please be assured that Grafton residents have not been subsidising Angourie, Yamba or Wooloweyah residents as has been claimed. This is clear from the CVC Management Plan figures quoted below.
Secondly, in Graham Orams' article (Grafton rate burden eases evaluation, DEX, May 8, p3), he falsely claimed that Grafton and Junction Hill ratepayers' rates will 'remain the highest in the valley'.
Neither the figures for 2008/9 nor the proposed figures for 2009/10 support this statement.
The average figures for residential properties in 2008/09 were:
Residential A (Coastal Village including Angourie) $955.82, Residential D (Yamba,
Wooloweyah) $931.58, Residential E (Grafton Junction Hill) $878.35'
Under the proposed rates structure for 2009/10 the figures are: Residential A $992.23' Residential
D $960.48, Residential E $879.14.
I agree that rates equity is a very important issue and needs debate but based on accurate
information, please.
The key issue is the vast difference in land values across the Clarence Valley.
Not only do we have the inequity of similar properties in different parts of the valley paying
significantly different amounts to council for the administration of services, infrastructure,
development, planning and management, etc., but we even have similar properties in the
same street paying significantly different amounts, simply because of proximity to the beach or river.
Rates equity will never be achieved while rates are based on land values, a hangover from times when land value was an indication of its productivity and so the ability of the owner to pay.
This is no longer the case.
The whole basis upon which rates are determined needs to be re-examined if equity is to be achieved.
RON LOVERIDGE,
Angourie.

The Daily Examiner journalist replies with this salvo from the bunker on 13 May 2009:























The fight so far goes to Lower Clarence residents on points, because nowhere in his May 8 article did the journalist mention "dollar for dollar" values. Instead he couched his argument in terms of average residential rates, which of course meant that Grafton City came out with much lower average rates than many coastal towns and villages.

You know you're getting old when......

....your doctor, dentist and local pollie are all younger than you and tall tales like this tickle your fancy....

You'll know senility is closing in when Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey appear to make sense.

Image source is unknown.

Is Malcolm Turnbull chanelling the ghost from Wollstonecraft?

The Australian reported on 15 May 2009:

MALCOLM Turnbull declared today that Kevin Rudd would be a one-term prime minister, in a powerful speech to rally the Liberal faithful in Sydney.

The same day Possum Comitatus over at Pollytics ran this graph:

Somehow I think it will take more ammunition than Liberal Party and Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull has in his locker to turn this scenario around by 2010-11.

Especially as all this ex-merchant banker silvertail is really offering as a counter-measure to the Rudd Government's 2009-10 Budget is a proposal to impose an additional level of taxation, on a group which is predominately composed of working class people who co-incidentally are mostly found in age bands which are not strong Liberal Party or Nationals supporters.

Turnbull's tactic is right out of the John Winston Howard manual of dirty tricks and, if he is not careful it will rebound on him the way such tactics eventually did on the former Liberal prime minister.