Once again the forces of political conservatism in Australia are employing the politics of fear against a reformist government this time stirring up concern about who is going to pay back the debt built up by the Rudd Government in order to stimulate the economy through spending on infrastructure and other measures.
The simple answer is that the debt need never be paid off as long as the benefits to be gained outweigh the interest paid on it.
Trying to pay off the debt out of current income would inevitably impact on current levels of service.
Former New Zealand government minister Marilyn Wearing put it well: ''You don't starve the children to pay off the refrigerator.''
The policies of debt-free economic conservatism under John Howard did just that, and left hospitals in crisis, schools rundown, public transport in a shambles and telecommunications lagging behind what is currently achievable. Government borrowing is essential to bring Australia's ailing infrastructure up to a standard appropriate to a first-world country.
Countries around the world whose people enjoy comparable or higher standards of living traditionally carry debt levels in terms of government debt to gross domestic product many times those of Australia.
This is not to condone running up debt in order to finance profligate day-to-day expenditure by governments.
Wise borrowing to build the infrastructure that will benefit future generations is something different.
Ours must be the first generation in history that has tried to operate government services such as health and education, to name but two, and still build for future generations, all out of current income. When we take out a mortgage for a house we try to pay it off so that that we do not leave a debt when we die. The country, however, does not die and a prudent quantum of debt need never be paid off. Each successive generation takes over the responsibility to pay the interest on the amount of debt necessary to build for the future and in this way a viable social and physical infrastructure is developed.
Talk of ''inter-generational equity'' not passing on debt to the next generation is a ruse on the part of the rich and powerful to protect their position. The Rudd Government must not be seduced by the false doctrine of economic conservatism and go down the same road once the current crisis has passed.
Geoff Quayle, Holt
Govt spending
I support Tom Griffin's right to his say (Letters, August 12), but he should get his facts straight.
First, the Federal Government did not ''talk down'' the economy: it properly warned Australians that things economic would probably get tough, due to circumstances largely beyond the Government's control.
Second, Wayne Swan was talking about not just the capability of the Government, but also the Australian economy, when he responded to Costello's political tactic. Costello knows all too well, as Tom should also know, that politicians do not run the economy in isolation: they are advised by many highly experienced experts in the Treasury, the Reserve Bank, the Finance Department, and elsewhere. Third, the Rudd Government has not been ''spending like drunken sailors'' in order to ''implement their socialist [sic] policies''.
The Government has been directing funding to vital infrastructure, largely ignored by the Howard government, and to troubled Australian businesses.
This is hardly the work of ''socialists''. In conclusion, the Howard government must be accorded credit for endowing us with an excellent budgetary status.
However, it effectively ignored the future and longed for the past by failing to invest the Future Fund in the future (in infrastructure, for example) and did little about combating and adapting to global warming except trying to deny reality and throwing up diversions like the ''clean coal'' smokescreen.
Dr Douglas Mackenzie, Queanbeyan, NSW
Email a friend