Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[mighty_tiger_79]

honestly this is the best budget the state could possibly wish for

[bulldogproud2]

They did issue forward estimates - it is always in the budget. It is not $50b being cut from current spending at all. It is a cut to the promises of future spending made by Labor. Federal health grants have actually increased since 2013 - 2014 - that is in Table 4.2 http://budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp3/html/bp3_03_part_2b.htm. You can see what was spent in 2013 - 2014 ($15,854.6m) and what will be given in 2014-2015 ($16,419.7m), 2015-2016 ($17,500.4m) and so on up to 2017-2017 ($19,532.0m).

Another example; if there was an election this year, Labor wins, and reinstates their original funding promises, you would see a very different Table 4.2, and the chart in http://www.health.gov.au/internet/budget/publishing.nsf/Content/budget2014-glance.htm would have some massive +'s in the "forward estimates". Have a look at the chart - it actually says "Forward Estimates" for 2015-2016 to 2017-2018. You know why? Because they are merely giving the department a 4 year budget to work on. Next year that will also show a forward estimate for 2018-2019, HOWEVER, there is an election in January 2017, and so is subject to change by either new Govt.

Under Table 4.2 is another table National Health Reform and public hospitals fundingwhich gives the 4 year payments to each State. They increase every year. In 2013-2014, SA received $1,006.4m. In 2017-2018, SA will receive $1,316.0m. Funding is not cut at all.

This is the fundamental argument at the moment. Labor's forward promises for the years after the 2013 election have been slashed, and the amount of cuts is in the "Budget at a Glance" not in Table 4.2. What was cut was the same Table 4.2 created by Labor in their last year which showed an exponential growth rate over the next 4 years and beyond. Can I ask? WTF is a Govt declaring funding for the next 10 years when they have no idea how many of those years they will be in Govt?

Herein lies the time bomb to make the next Govt look bad by cutting back. It is a massive con.

Jimmy, my friend.
You seem to be missing a few key points. Firstly, the table you are quoting from is only a minor section of the Department of Health's budget (I posted the actual link to the Liberal Government's actual 2014/15 Department of Health's budget, including forward estimates to 2017/18) a few posts ago. As stated before, you will see that this shows a clear decrease in spending of $8.2 billion over the four years of the budget and estimates. This is when it is compared to the 2013/14 spending (which btw is budgeted rather than actual as 2013/14 is not completed yet). However, we all know that Labor were certainly going to at least reach that amount of spending (in fact, they would have been quite likely to overspend).

The $50 billion over the 8 years from 2017 had, and I repeat this, nothing to do with Labor forward estimates. This was a decision made by the Abbott government to stop funding public hospitals, saying that this was the responsibility of state governments, not federal. The $50 billion shortfall is the planned Liberal Government's spending when compared to Labor's spending of 2013/14.

The section of the health budget you quoted does, yes, does show an increase in funding to the states. However, this is to make up for the fact that they are now becoming more responsible for the funding of public hospitals. The Abbott government is ripping $58 billion out of the health budget over the next 12 years ($8 billion over this four year cycle and then $50 billion from 2017 onwards) and replacing this by a small increase in funding to the states.

You need to compare the 'small increase' against the $58 billion that is being taken out. If we want these health services to continue, then the increase needed in the figures you quoted is $58 billion, not a few million. The States now have to come up with this $58 billion themselves.

Btw, I know that forward estimates are always provided in the budget. I am just pretty sure that Labor's did not extend to 2025.

Cheers

[Jimmy_041]

You need to get someone to explain the budget to you and how each of these charts work. In your scenario, the hospital system have to pay the Govt!!

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

You need to get someone to explain the budget to you and how each of these charts work. In your scenario, the hospital system have to pay the Govt!!

And the way the Libs are going they will be in a few years time

[bulldogproud2]

You need to get someone to explain the budget to you and how each of these charts work. In your scenario, the hospital system have to pay the Govt!!

Not at all, Jimmy. Don't forget that I used to actually prepare these budgets whilst working in the Commonwealth Public Service as an accountant!!

The first column in the budget shows the actual planned revenue and expenditure for each line (program) the department for the past year. The next columns (all the colunns to the right of this) then show the budgeted increases and decreases for each line (program) of the budget. In relation to expenditure, a clear figure indicates an increase in expenditure on that budget item compared to the current year's budget. A figure with a negative in front in the budget line indicates a decrease in government expenditure when compared to the current year's budget.

Please note that when i say the current year's budget, this means the year currently in progress. Thus, the current year (first column) is the 2013/14 budget handed down by the Labor Government last year. The fact that you see a lot of figures with a (-)s after this shows how the Abbott Government's funding actually declines and, hence, is a cut to funding for the Department of Health.

It would help you to look at the bottom line where you see the full picture.

Cheers, my friend.

[bulldogproud2]

Re public hospital funding, the following is taken straight from the Federal Budget Paper Number 2 and shows the DECREASE in Commonwealth funding of public hospitals by the Abbott Government. (sorry about the formatting but you can see how each of the years shows a negative figure (a decline), culminating in a decrease of over $1 billion in 2017/18:


Commonwealth Public Hospitals — change to funding arrangements

Expense ($m)

Department of Health

Total - Expense
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
‑ ‑217.3 ‑260.5 ‑133.4 ‑1,162.8


The Government will achieve savings of $1.8 billion over four years from 2014‑15 by ceasing the funding guarantees under the National Health Reform Agreement 2011, and revising Commonwealth Public Hospital funding arrangements from 1 July 2017. From 2017‑18, the Commonwealth will index its contribution to hospitals funding by a combination of the Consumer Price Index and population growth.

Jimmy, my friend, please explain to me how this is therefore an increase in government spending??

[Jimmy_041]

As I keep saying, the negatives relate to previous forward estimates. They do not relate to reductions in the 2013-14 actuals.
Please refer to Table 4.2 for actual payments for 2013-2014 and new budgeted forward payments.
The negatives that you are quoting relate ONLY to previously quoted forward estimates, not to the 2013-2014 actuals.
Table 4.2 is the new budget for the next 4 years.

[bulldogproud2]

Jimmy, my friend,
Unfortunately that link does not work.
Btw, those figures are COMPARISONS AGAINST THE 2013/14 BUDGET. THEY ARE NOT, I REPEAT NOT, COMPARISONS WITH FORWARD ESTIMATES!!!!
This is pretty obvious as forward estimates are ALWAYS prepared for the same amount of years. You will find that each budget provides forward estimates for THREE years, in addition to the current year's budget. As such, Labor NEVER EVEN PREPARED FORWARD ESTIMATES FOR 2017/18 SO IT IS A TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY, A TOTAL FABRICATION, TO SAY THAT THEY ARE COMPARISONS AGAINST LABOR'S FORWARD ESTIMATES AS THEY HAVE NEVER EVEN EXISTED FOR THAT YEAR.

I have a feeling that you have never been involved in the preparation of the Federal Budget, Jimmy.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

Jimmy,
This article from Business Insider may assist you:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/these ... ols-2014-5

I hate coming here and having arguments but I do want to get these points straight.
I have a feeling you are the only person in Australia who believes that the Education and Health budgets have actually been INCREASED under Abbott. Even Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have publicly stated that health and education funding has been decreased by the Commonwealth, moving the responsibility for funding to the States.

Cheers
(still your friend)
Bulldogproud2

[Jimmy_041]

Bp2

Seriously, I am actually sick of stating this!
PLEASE look at the graphs and lines
Do they EVER turn down?????
The increase is being slowed.
But, does either line EVER turn down meaning a reduction in spending???
There is only a reduction in the increase in spending - that is all
The graph totally supports Table 4.2 that shows the 2014-5 funding and forward estimates.
If you were correct, surely you would see that the line would go south to show a cut in actual YOY funding

So, when Kouta says he had to contend with a $350m cut in funding; he is lying. He has to contend with a $350m cut in increase of his funding next year. He still gets the same amount plus about 3% increase. He doesn't have to find an extra $350m. He just has to limit the increase in his expenditure to CPI.

[RustyCage]

Caption time!

Smug tony.JPG (27.67 KiB) Viewed 1263 times

[bennymacca]

haha that is awesome. and also embarassing for australia. that smug fool.

[Psyber]

Caption time!

Smug tony.JPG

Perception is in the mind of the beholder - to speculate from an alternative perspective and set of assumptions try:

TA: ( being kind to the stupid) "That's a rather amusing thing to ask."
Obama (looking aside to aide): "Who let that fool in to ask that stupid question? Get him out!"

I admit I have no real idea of the true context, but do you either?

[Q.]

Abbott looks like he is having a stroke.

[mighty_tiger_79]

Obama looking to his minders - and the look has Mr T all over it - I pity the fool

[Jimmy_041]

Jimmy has selectively only worried about funding until 2017, this avoiding the truth about the decrease in REAL spending.

Cheers

The liberals seem very good at avoiding the truth

Bad old ABC siding with me

Here it is: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-03/does-the-federal-budget-cut-80-billion-from-schools-hospitals/5562470

and for you shoe boy - a nice picture because they use big words


This has all been just one big lie. Both funding of schools and the health system are increasing, just not exponentially as "indicated" by Labor. Indicated because the budget doesn't go out that far.

As for Weatherill, Koutsantonis and Snelling, if they cant afford one of our hospitals next year, then they haven't been able to afford it in the past. There is no $350m cut in funding. Just some trimming of increases in what they Labor "promised" starting in 2016-17 (ie) 2 years time

Not only are Labor crap at economics, they are liars

[Dogwatcher]

The big issues:

TONY ABBOTT VOTED AUSTRALIA’S DAGGIEST DAD!

PM tops mag survey to find the country’s most embarrassing fathers

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has come first in a nationwide survey to find Australia’s Daggiest Dad. Take 5 magazine asked its readers to name the fathers who they think would most embarrass their kids.
The PM polled 31% of the 4360 votes, ahead of Sunrise’s David Koch in second place with 17%. Third place went to Shane Warne on 15% per cent.
Take 5 editor Paul Merrill said: “The PM hasn’t topped many polls recently, and I doubt he’ll be too pleased with being first in this one. He may be our elected leader, but that doesn’t means he doesn’t embarrass himself with all his gaffes, not to mention the budgie smugglers and lycra cycling pants.”
Also featured in the top 10 were Eddie McGuire, Kevin Rudd and Karl Stefanovic.

THE TOP TEN DAGGIEST DADS
1) Tony Abbott (31%)

2) David Koch (17%)

3) Shane Warne (15%)

4) Kevin Rudd (9%)

5) Eddie McGuire (7.5%)

6) Karl Stefanovic (7%)

7) Scott Cam (6%)

Gary Mehigan (4%)

9) Matty Johns (2%)

10) Bert Newton (1.5%)

[Jimmy_041]

Other way round with Bert

[dedja]

Palmer is determined to wreck Abbott's reign ... doing a bloody good job at the minute

[Q.]

Abbott must have taken the last cream puff at a luncheon they once both attended.