By the time the Federal Budget comes around most readers have switched off. But the process and the ideas that have framed this coming budget deserve cool reflection.
The Government's preparation for the Budget has highlighted the need — confected or otherwise — to address the deficit, and so for the whole community to make sacrifices for the national good. It has defined the good of the nation in purely economic terms. Its underlying assumption is that economic health, and so the common good, is furthered by strengthening competition between individuals in a free market.
The difficulty with this assumption is that heightened competitiveness does not foster interest in the common or national good but creates a narrower focus on the interests of the individual or group. In the process it subverts competition itself. The use of drugs in cycling or in football illustrates the point. Doing what it takes meant taking competition out of the game by sidelining the competitors and excluding them from the possibility of winning.
This paradox can be seen in the making of the Budget. The Government certainly faces a difficulty in financing its contribution to the national good over the longer term. It needs to address the deficit. But this problem does not come directly from the rise in expenditure but from the fall in revenue. That shortfall should have been looked at by consulting how to care for the needs of the community, especially the most disadvantaged, and in that context by asking how appropriately to increase revenue and cut costs. That would be the cooperative way.
Instead it worked competitively. It turned it into a competition between the better off and the disadvantaged and proceeded to rig the competition. It appointed a Committee of Audit which didn't include anyone to represent the social needs of the community. All its members shared the view that economic growth demanded a reduction in the financial commitments of government. The committee predictably focused on cutting expenditure. This established a competition between winners and losers.
That the poorer members of society would lose was made likely by the composition and brief of the committee. It was made certain when the subsidies given the wealthy through negative gearing on property and through superannuation were protected. Savings then had to be made by reducing programs and services available to the less wealthy.
So it is predictable that in the Budget the financial burden will fall