Timed local calls

[Rachel Polanskis]

Stewart Fist writes:
> Ian writes:
> 
> >A few other realities:
> >
> >(b)  funds from the Telstra sale will fund environmental projects;
> 
> If you believe this one, then you believe in fairies.  Income from the sale
> of Telstra will go into consolidated revenue, just as tax income does.  

Just as any increase in the Medicare levy will, and not necessarily
be used for Health.

It's a pattern. 

> So
> there is no more linkage between Telstra and environmental projects, than
> there is between Kerry Packer's $100 annual income tax bill and Howard's
> environmental packages.


Even the green voters got sucked in here.  
When I heard Johnny Boy's offer to add $1bn into the Environment 
fund from the sale of Telstra, I knew  he had to be kidding.
It's not going to happen, unless the "Work for the Dole" Conscriptees
are provided with rakes and hoes, and seeds and stuff.  

I see the two things intertwined, and the "Work for Dole"
a cheap way out of honouring the Environment promise...

Anyway (off topic) "Work For Dole" spells the word "Conscription"  
to me - isn't that unconstitutional?

> The problem is that the public is gullible enough to accept this political
> fiction.  

'Zactly... 

> All that has happened here is that John Howard has whipped out
> his cane, and said to the kiddies in the classroom, I'll only give you
> environmental funding, if you let me sell Telstra.  And this does nothing
> more than establish HIS priorities.
And he won't even have to cough up too much money if there are poor 
unemployed people working for less than a real wage, doing meaninless
work...

> >(c)  funds from the Telstra sale will be reduce the Commonwealth's budget
> >deficit financing task over the next couple of financial years ... by $$$
> >billion;
> 
> So would the income from Telstra.  In fact, he could have solved the whole
> budget crisis by jacking up the price of telecommunications, and allowing
> them to make more profits.  To me, this would have been a better solution
> --however I doubt that either is truely necessary.  If it was, the Liberals
> would have raised taxes generally (and therefore more fairly) -- we know
> that their promises not to, don't mean a damn.

I would have thought by just turning some of the Telstra profits back to the 
Govt. would have been a better thing to do.  I know they do this to some 
degree now, but if Telstra had to hand over $500mil in profits 
every year, the deficit would be reduced at an even rate and everyone would win.
Instead, It's like handing over your bank account to a gambler...

> The key judgement here is "who ends up retaining control over vital
> national infrastructure" -- the Australian government, Australian
> shareholders, or foreign shareholders.

In my opinion, our Communications Infrastructure 
is of primary importance, including it's defence value.

We don't sell our armed forces off to foreign shareholders and them 
rent them back do we?

>From a national security perspective alone, selling off parts of 
the Comms Infrastructure is taking a huge risk, and making a lot of assumptions
about trust.

> >(d)  private participation in Telstra, a market value placed on Telstra
> >(publicly listed shares) and so some real pressures to perform.
> 
> Pressure to perform!  

I'd just be happy if they just stuck to what they know,
and not try at playing at being a multinational...


> >Sure looks as though Telstra will also help solve some political and economic
> >problems!
> 
> Pigs will fly!

And so will Mal Colston ;)
(Someone mentioned he looks just like Jabba the Hut!)

rachel


--
Rachel Polanskis                 Kingswood, Greater Western Sydney, Australia 
grove@zeta.org.au                http://www.zeta.org.au/~grove/grove.html
r.polanskis@nepean.uws.edu.au    http://www.nepean.uws.edu.au/ccd/
                Witty comment revoked due to funding cuts