Bolt Report commits a furphy on taxation

I steeled myself to watch The Bolt Report last Sunday in order to give the man a chance to convince me he would be worth time spent on Channel Ten.

Alas! Only minutes into his opening statement Andrew Bolt informed Australia that only people in the workforce or of workforce age were financing government expenditure on things like pensions, schools and hospitals.

Yes, while doing a little welfare bashing he conveniently ignored the fact that almost everyone, except infants and possibly preschoolers, regularly pays a consumption tax ie. the GST and that this revenue (worth $45.5 billion in 2010-11) goes to the states to help pay for things like the public health system and capital works.

That the states spent this extra revenue in part on hospitals is indisputable if one looks at this graph based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data covering the years immediately after the introduction of the GST.

Graph found in Catallaxy archives

Ergo, the very people Bolt is bashing contributed to the hospitals he would likely access should he fall ill.

I won't even mention the fact that Bolt appears not to realise that the indexation of family support payment, Family Tax Benefit A, is not paused at a 'family' income of $150,00 per year, but the 'primary wage earner's income'.

The Bolt Report? Distorted opinion and definitely not worth wasting my time on.

Federal Member for Page Janelle Saffin's statement concerning coal seam gas extraction on the NSW North Coast

JANELLE SAFFIN’S STATEMENT ON COAL SEAM GAS

Many local people have contacted me raising strong concerns about Coal Seam Gas (CSG) exploration and mining in our region and its potential damaging effect on the community, environment and agriculture.

It is clear from the recent community rallies and meetings that we need to know more about CSG exploration and its impact, particularly on our water. I support the calls for a moratorium on CSG exploration made by Lismore, Ballina and Kyogle councils, Rous Water County Council and Northern Rivers Tourism.

Like many in the community I was pleased with news of a possible natural gas source in the region as an alternative to coal powered electricity and I welcomed the interest of Metgasco in the Richmond Valley area. But I share the growing concerns about hydraulic fracturing or ‘fraccing’. While Metgasco tell us they are not using this process, I believe the community deserves much more information on this.

The mining companies have an obligation to tell us clearly the precise nature of their gas extraction methods; if they are using fraccing, what chemicals they use, what studies they have done and any known impacts on our water, land and us.

I have asked the Federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, what powers he has in this area,  and it appears the Commonwealth’s role in regulating coal seam gas proposals is currently limited to matters protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act  1999 (EPBC Act). This refers to matters including protection of threatened species and ecological communities.

I have had talks with Independent MP Tony Windsor about his plans to introduce changes at the federal level to require region-wide water assessments before new mining proceeds.

I am also exploring whether the National Water Commission can help us to better protect our water resources. The Commission has warned that ‘the consequences of not managing the water risk and uncertainties associated with the economic benefits of CSG are substantial’.

Otherwise, mining and exploration, including the regulation of chemicals used in fraccing, is primarily regulated by the states.

Local farmers are particularly concerned about the state development approvals given to mining companies to explore and exploit mining resources, with little rights for the property owner. This has caught many by surprise as gas is spread over a large number of land holdings.

As I said to Ian Gaillard and Chris Allen from the Keerrong Gas Squad when they came to see me, this issue is gaining the momentum of the rare earth issue of a few decades back when thousands marched against a rare earth plant in Tuncester.

Mineral resources are owned by the Australian people, held in common by Government. Mining companies make very good profits using the resources that the people own and they have social obligations to the community. They need to demonstrate that social responsibility by their actions on this issue now.

Last year the Kenneally State Government announced it would introduce tough new rules for CSG exploration licences, including rigorous community consultation and tighter environment controls.

It is incumbent upon our local State MPs and the new State Government to follow this lead and take decisive action to inform and protect the community and give improved rights to farmers and landholders.

 

16 May, 2001

Media contact:  Lee Duncan 0448 158 150

Magistrate orders Berlin held in custody until early June

Click on image to enlarge

The Daily Examiner on 17 May 2011:

John Xavier Berlin is in jail.

An advertisement placed by Berlin in a Clarence Valley newspaper earlier this month was deemed by Magistrate David Heilpern in Grafton Local Court yesterday as a breach of bail.

Berlin, 62, of Maclean, already on a 12-month good behaviour bond for offences of impersonating police last year, had last month been granted bail on 14 other criminal charges, many involving impersonating police.

But an ad in the Clarence Valley Review's Memoriam classified section in early May, a dedication to a police constable who was killed on duty in Sydney in 1989, stated that it had been inserted by former NSW Police Commissioner Peter Ryan and "former Australian Police DCI John Xavier Berlin - shot 28.12.96".

Berlin, through his barrister David Imlah, denied placing the advertisement.

Mr Imlah said Berlin suffered "difficulties" in his lumbar spine, was on heart medication and suffered from a psychiatric disorder which was not named in court.

"Mr Berlin is a very unusual man and I find it very difficult to represent him at times," he said.

Police prosecutor Mark Sinclair outlined an email trail showing that Berlin had in fact paid for the ad in question.

"This accused is thumbing his nose at the courts," he said.

Mr Heilpern said the prosecution had a very strong case.

"Who else has a vested interest in claiming that he was shot on duty? Who else would pay money to claim that he was a DCI (detective chief inspector)? The answer is, of course, that nobody does," Mr Heilpern said.

"Mr Berlin lives in some parallel universe in which, again, someone has conspired to place an ad in a local paper.

"It's a world of fantasy and make believe and he is seeking to hoodwink the court.

"Police contacted the ex-police commissioner Peter Ryan in the UK and he denied all knowledge of the placement of that ad."

Berlin was denied bail and will next appear in Grafton Local Court on Monday, June 6, at which point, Mr Heilpern said, the court would re-evaluate the situation.

Berlin's charges include using a police insignia, making a false statement to obtain money, and making false accusation subject other to investigation.

Shots exchanged across the Clarence Valley Divide

Over the time since European explorers first set foot in the region the Clarence Valley on the NSW North Coast developed a natural social divide, based on both geographic features and community of interest.

Despite forced local government amalgamation in 2004 this divide continues and shots are frequently heard coming from both sides of the barricades. Never more so than when someone mentions land rates or council finances, as this exchange in The Daily Examiner letters to the editor page demonstrates.

Clarence Valley Council (both as Council in the Chamber and as Management) has frequently entrenched this divide by its own behaviour and decisions.

Service costs

BILL DAY has been conservative in stating: "The CVC has a blowout of nearly $1m in its maintenance budget" (DEX, April 20).

Council has been reducing its maintenance costs for some years.

But at whose expense?

Unlike Grafton's plush Memorial Park and river frontage, Yamba's river frontage adjacent to its CBD is compromised by an unpretentious caravan park that responsibly generates some $1.5m revenue, in addition to its rates, to pay for services and facilities and their maintenance.

Iluka's caravan park generates $lm. Brooms Head $lm. Minnie Water $3000, Wooli $2000 to pay for their primitive services.

However, included in Grafton's proposed waterfront precinct, is the upgrading of its streetscape, night lighting and building infrastructure, including the upgrading of Memorial Park.

Further, an abundance of services and facilities, such as sandy beaches, pergola climbers, garden furniture, paveways, boardwalks, boat ramps, staircases, sculptured earth terraces,etc totalling some $6m.

All this is prone to regular flooding, incurring extensive annual maintenance costs, including insurance (if able to be insured).

There are merits for a waterfront precinct, but with such opulence?

Recently the general manager, Stuart McPherson, applied to increase our rates above the pegged rate increase, on the basis of council's diminished capacity to finance capital works.

He stated: "We have about 50 community halls, community centres and library buildings. In the recent past we have been able to finance only modest maintenance and renewal programs and yet these places are seen as emblematic of village life and central to the cohesion of the communities. From the councillors' tours held in these halls, the age of the fittings and fixtures and the good condition relatively of the buildings is a testament to the community groups who maintain them. These groups are worthy of more support from council." (Council meeting March 23,2010, Att. c, p3).

The Clarence Valley has one of the lowest incomes per capita in NSW and we have simply got to come to terms with that fact and Iive within our means.

There was a time the Lower Clarence enjoyed free use of its sports fields, as its rates were sufficient to cover their costs.

Since forced amalgamation our kids cannot afford the fees now implemented for no other reason than Grafton charged fees to use its sports fields.

So, we should do the same.

The reason Grafton charged fees was because its rates were insufficient to cover the costs of its prolific services.

If council can afford a Grafton waterfront precinct, it can afford an adequate transparent financial records system that shows the costs of services provided to communities.

RAY HUNT
Yamba
[The Daily Examiner 30 April 2011]

Misleading claim on parks income

It would appear from previous letters to the editor that correspondent Ray Hunt is a keen observer of the business of the Clarence Valley Council and its affairs,

It seems he pores over every minute financial detail of the council.

This is not a bad thing, in fact it is healthy in a democracy. But given his apparent deep understanding of council finances, I was surprised to read his letter (DEX, April S0) citing the amount of money the Clarence Valley Council makes from coastal caravan parks.

For Mr Hunt's benefit, the Clarence Valley Council makes absolutely zero dollars out of caravan parks on coastal reserves.

These parks are not owned by the Clarence Valley Council. They are reserves and are owned by the taxpayers of NSW.

All money raised from these parks must be reinvested in reserves. If any of this money goes into council finances, it is getting it by dubious means.

When councillors consider matters relating to the reserves, they have to take off their council hats, they lose their council titles (ie councillor) and sit as Mr, Mrs, Miss or Ms and operate under the Crown Lands Act.

I hope this was a simple misunderstanding by Mr Hunt and not an attempt to have people believe the coastal communities were propping up the Clarence Valley Council's coffers to support his cheaper rates for a Yamba campaign.

G. GRAYNDLER
South Grafton
[The Daily Examiner 5 May 2011]

CVC does not own coastal caravan parks

The letter of G. Grayndler, South Grafton (DEX, May 5) completely misses the point.

With his smug vituperative falsely accusing me of “citing the amounts of money the CVC makes from (owning) coastal caravan parks.

Sorry to disappoint G. Grayndler.

I am aware, as is everyone else, including the local galah at the Grafton pet shop, that the CVC does not own coastal caravan parks, but simply manages them pursuant to Section 95 Crown Lands Act.

Like other caravan parks, the $1.5m revenue from Yamba’s caravan park pays for facilities and services on coastal reserves within the Clarence Reserve trust, relieving the burdensome obligations otherwise placed on council’s rates revenue.

G. Grayndler expresses concern that these trust revenues must be kept separate and says “if any of this money goes into council finances, it is getting it by dubious means”.

That being the case, perhaps G. Grayndler might like to explain why I was the only one to complain to ICAC that council staff were using financial codes in their recommendations to have councillors approve CCRT expenditures on council facilities (Item 14.191/09 Meeting 9-2-10). And why Councillor Toms failed to get a seconder in her motion to investigate council’s past records (Item 14.191/09 Meeting 9-2-10).

But the point I made in my letter (DEX, April 30) and overlooked by G. Grayndler was the difference in fiscal responsibility between the use of Yamba’s river frontage adjacent to its CBD being compromised by an unpretentious caravan park that relieve the burden otherwise placed on rate revenues.

Compare Grafton’s waterfront precinct on its river frontage adjacent to its CBD, with its abundance of opulent facilities amounting to $6m, prone to regular flooding, and irresponsibly incurring massive maintenance strain on an already stretched maintenance budget.

G. Grayndler might like to explain why those village ratepayers bereft of basic services should pay for such opulence, or why those fiscally responsible communities like Yamba should pay for such opulence.

Grafton has no one to blame for its high rates but itself.

It put its rates up to pay for its prolific services.

The Lower Clarence on the other hand recognised its low income per capita and adopted a low rate structure and responsibly lived within its means.

It is not a matter of increasing rates; it’s a matter of reducing Grafton’s services and then reducing its rates.

RAY HUNT
Yamba
[The Daily Examiner 13 May 2011]

Someone forgot to tell Australia it's rooned

Oft repeated sayings sometimes have a long life because they contain an element of truth and on Friday the 13th “There are degrees of falsehood - lies, damn lies and statistics” was taken out for a spin by Mike 'Mish' Shedlock in his Howe Street (U.S.) compilation “Economic Bust in Australia:Near-Record Corporate Bankruptcies, Employment Drops Unexpectedly; Rise in Bad Home Loans;Record Low Property Transactions”.
According to Mish (artistically depicted at right) Australia is in dire straits and everyone is shortly destined for financial hell down under - but no-one has told the Oz Government or most average Aussies who think that the economy is heading in the right direction.
When you look at the numbers used by this American Chicken Little they don’t justify that scaremongering headline.
With investment advisers like Mish, perhaps Sitka Pacific Capital clients should be wary of where their money is being sent.

Pic found at Google Images

What can one believe when reading online?

From Science News on 11 May 2011:

Dense networks, on the other hand, such as many social networks, were much easier to control: Influence roughly 20 percent of the nodes and the whole network responds.
“I found that very shocking,” says Magnus Egerstedt, director of the Georgia Robotics and Intelligent Systems Laboratory at Georgia Tech. “Social networks, which seem to be these random, ad hoc collections of people freely expressing information and sharing their thoughts — those were much easier to control than other networks.”

This finding probably explains why Facebook thought it worthwhile to hire a public relations firm to further its interests by selectively placing 'information' before individuals active on social networks.

In one instance it backfired and this email exchange was promptly posted at PasteBin on 3 May 2011, detailing an alleged Facebook smear campaign against Google:

*************************

From: Christopher Soghoian [mailto:chris@soghoian.net]

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:11 AM

To: Mercurio, John

Subject: Re: Op-Ed Opportunity: Google Quietly Launches Sweeping Violation of User Privacy

Who is paying for this? (not paying me, but paying you)

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Mercurio, John <John.Mercurio@bm.com> wrote:

Mr. Soghoian,

I wanted to gauge your interest in authoring an op-ed this week for a top-tier media outlet on an important issue that I know you’re following closely.

The topic: Google’s sweeping violations of user privacy. Google, as you know, has a well-known history of infringing on the privacy rights of America’s Internet users. Not a year has gone by since the founding of the company where it has not been the focus of front-page news detailing its zealous approach to gathering information – in many cases private and identifiable information - about online users.

Despite an unprecedented rebuke from the Federal Trade Commission last month forcing Google into a government mandated two-decade privacy review program, Google is at it again – and this time they are not only violating the personal privacy rights of millions of Americans, they are also infringing on the privacy rules and rights of hundreds of companies ranging from Yelp to Facebook and Twitter to LinkedIn in what appears to be a first in web history: Google is collecting, storing and mining millions of people’s personal information from a number of different online services and sharing it without the knowledge, consent or control of the people involved.

The Federal Trade Commission made it clear last month that Google had agreed to change its ways, and in so doing, the United States government gave Google an imprimatur of credibility and trust amongst the American people. As FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz stated not four weeks ago: “When companies make privacy pledges, they need to honor them…This is a tough settlement that ensures that Google will honor its commitments to consumers and build strong privacy protections into all of its operations.”

Unfortunately the ink was barely dry on the settlement before Google rolled out its latest tool designed to scrape private data and build deeply personal dossiers on millions of users – in a direct and flagrant violation of its agreement with the FTC.

In light of the recent agreement between the government and Google, Congress and the FTC must immediately investigate this latest violation of online privacy. The American people must be made aware of the now immediate intrusions into their deeply personal lives Google is cataloging and broadcasting every minute of every day– without their permission.

I’m happy to help place the op-ed and assist in the drafting, if needed. For media targets, I was thinking about the Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, Roll Call or the Huffington Post.

Please let me know your thoughts. Also, I’m available to discuss this by phone, if you’re available.

Many thanks,

John

LESS THAN ONE MONTH AFTER FTC PRIVACY VIOLATION SETTLEMENT, GOOGLE QUIETLY LAUNCHES SWEEPING VIOLATION OF USER PRIVACY

About Google Social Circles

Recently, Google quietly introduced its latest attempt to enter the social space with a new feature called Google Social Circles. The idea behind the feature is to scrape and mine social sites from around the web to make connections between people that wouldn’t otherwise exists and share that information with people who wouldn’t otherwise have access to it. All of this happens without the knowledge, consent or control of the people whose information is being shared. Here is how Google Social Circles works:

1) Google’s robots scour the web for people’s social connections on different websites. These connections are then stored in a collection people’s connections on different websites. This collection is then mined, creating connections between people on different websites, that those people never intended and can’t control.

2) This information is then shared with anyone who has a Google account, whether it is Gmail, Chat or another Google service that includes a personal profile -- more than 146 million people have Gmail accounts alone, and some estimates say as many as 400 million people have at least one Google account.

3) Google Social Circles automatically enables people to trace their contacts' connections and profile information by crawling and scraping the sites you and your contacts use, like Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Yelp, Yahoo and many others, likely in direct violation of the Terms of Service for those sites, unless those sites have partnered with Google on this “service,” something else users ought to be aware of.

4) Even if you are not a Google account holder, your information is still mined, stored and shared as long as you have some connection on any site Google scrapes to someone who has a Google account. You don’t even have to have a direct connection to the person with a Google account. If someone you are connected to is connected with someone with a Google account, your information will be shared.

5) To find out if your own Social Circles direct and secondary connections that Google has indexed to your account, visit: http://www.google.com/s2/u/0/search/social#socialcircle, and https://profiles.google.com/u/0/connectedaccounts

Privacy Violations

The ability to abuse this information and violate the privacy rights of millions of Americans is clear:

No notice: Google does not notify people that their information is being used in a way that the person would not expect—to connect different groups of people within an Internet-wide database Google created.

No consent: Google Social Circles does not ask “permission” from individuals who will have their profiles, connections and other personal data shared in the new network. Google will simply “scrape” their information from dozens of sources and compile the data into one massive dossier aligned directly with user’s personally identifiable information.

No control: On all of the sites Google scrapes, you can change your mind. You can delete your account. You can make or break connections to other people. How do you remove this information from the database that Google is sharing with hundreds of millions of people? You can’t.

Serious real world risks: Google is taking different parts of people’s lives—parts they deliberately separated onto different sites—and presenting the collage Google created to other people. Reminiscent of Google Buzz, Google’s latest plan totally disregards the intimate and potentially damaging details that could be revealed, including sexual orientation, political affiliation, personal connections, etc…

Steals from other sites: Dozens of private companies will have their own privacy rules and regulations violated by the Google information fishing intrusion.

Disregards FTC agreement: Despite the clear direction from the FTC to the contrary, Google has again created a program without a clear path for users to “opt out”.

References

· FTC Statement on Google Settlement

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/google.shtm

· Google Shows Off How Well It Knows Your Social Circle

Switched.com (HuffingtonPost Tech)

http://www.switched.com/2010/08/09/google-shows-off-how-well-it-knows-your-social-circle/

· “Do you feel like big brother is watching you now?”

About.com

http://marketing.about.com/b/2011/03/31/google-wants-you-to-1.htm

· Google’s Social Circle & Social Search May Not Violate Any Privacy Laws But It Gives Me The Creeps

LibrarianByDay.com

http://librarianbyday.net/2010/03/30/googles-social-circle-social-search-may-not-violate-any-privacy-laws-but-it-gives-me-the-creeps/

*************************

Mercurio, John <John.Mercurio@bm.com>

to Christopher Soghoian <chris@soghoian.net>

date Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:38 AM

subject RE: Op-Ed Opportunity: Google Quietly Launches Sweeping Violation of User Privacy

mailed-by bm.com

Thanks for the prompt reply. I’m afraid I can’t disclose my client yet. But all the information included in this email is publicly available. Any interest in pursuing this?

*************************