DON'T you just love our politicians? No sooner did Gordon Brown become chancellor than he devastated our pensions on a scale that made Robert Maxwell look like Mother Theresa.
Brown then went on a ten-year spending spree that would embarrass Imelda Marcos – and, like her, used the public's money, of course.
Now, panhandling like a New York bag lady, he's so strapped for cash that he's abandoned his own borrowing li
mits to keep his government's finances afloat. He won't have to pay it back – that will be up to our grandchildren – a sub-prime loan to end all sub-prime loans.
He squandered our Gold reserves at a discount to keep his confidence trick moving on and taxed even the darkest recesses of our economy in the hope that no-one would notice.
The tax manual that was once thinner than Hello magazine now resembles volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica, but without the entertainment value of Jordan's latest makeover.
Despite all these too clever by half manoeuvres, the economy is still set to bomb and unemployment expected to soar, so the Bank of England interest rate drops off the cliff and the pound predictably goes with it. So much for the end of boom and bust he promised.
What next, tax cuts from Brown to give us some of our own money to spend? Well, er, yes!
That's it, tax cuts are this season's new black – having stoked an expanding economy on a consumer boom fuelled by high public spending and easy credit financed by inflated house prices, Brown, Darling & Mandelson Unlimited will do anything to stay in business. Tax cuts are their version of cash back with every purchase.
The problem remains, however, that they don't believe in what they are doing – it's simply an expedient to get them out of the latest hole they have dug themselves into. Only this hole is a big black one and it's pulling them in.
Everybody's doing it, though, and all of them are complete and utter chancers. We know this because they won't reduce their spending to cut taxes but foolishly want to borrow to do it! Obama is promising to cut taxes for ninety-five per cent of Americans whilst hitting the super rich. The next four years will be a good time to be a tax accountant in America. It remains to be seen if Obama can jump-start the economy when his own Democrat congress will have a very long list of demands that will make George Bush's deficit look like pocket money.
David Cameron, for so long telling us he would stick to Brown's public spending commitments, has finally realised it is all a bad dream and is offering a tax cut by waiving National Insurance for every new employee taken on. Er, David, if you've suddenly recognised that National Insurance is a tax on employment why not go be honest with us and say it should be abolished forever and merged into the whole tax system?
At least the Liberal Democrats have been honest for the last year (that's a long time in politics), saying that Brown's spending has to be cut by at least £20 billion – their problem is nobody believes they would have the courage to deliver such austere measures – which is why no one will give them the chance.
Until politicians admit that governments don't have money unless they take it from individuals, families and businesses – and until they work from the premise that taxation is legalised theft, they will always rob Peter to pay Paul. Still if political fashion is the only way we will get our taxes cut I agree, let's do it.
To paraphrase Cole Porter, Labour Premieres in a stew do it, Tory boys without a clue do it – and US Presidents that are new do it. Let them all do it, let's all fall in love.
We just need to stop them putting taxes back up the next year, or borrowing to fund them.
A warped dogmaUp and down the land local some council social service departments are introducing new rules that will allow them to deny adults that smoke the ability to foster or adopt children. What next? Are they deeming existing parents that smoke at home to be committing child abuse? Will parents that smoke have their children taken away from them? Those are the logical extensions of social services' argument.
Foster children may come from broken homes where they have been physically or psychologically harmed, but rather than place them with loving caring parents these children will instead have to wait – spending time in care homes – all because some potential parents happen to smoke.
All available evidence shows children raised in care homes are more likely to experience a life of crime, drugs, lower living standards and poorer health than children raised in a family, even a family of smokers. These officials don't care about the kids, they put their warped dogma first and should therefore not be allowed anywhere near young people.
