Well said, David. You are the only sensible voice in the Parliament. Perhaps if you keep explaining the basic principles of political economy, the socialists will get it eventually, after they have sponsored another hundred years of corrupt wasteful dysfunctional bureaucracies dealing in political privilege, which is what socialists call "progressive".

"Government debt amounts to a decision on our behalf to have the next generation pay for today’s spending."

However, the "on our behalf" bit pressuposes the representative theory of government, which is indefensible on the ground that it's demonstrably wrong:
see "Unrepresentative Government": http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/

The truth is, government debt amounts to a decision on behalf of the politicians who benefit from the decision to force the next generation to pay for today's government's sowing of privilege and political favouritism.

"Last year Australia Post made a $350 million loss, but still paid its top 17 staff an average of $800,000 each."

That's appalling, isn't it? And then the creeps who support this arrangement plead that it's necessary to help the poor. Nobody could conceivably send or deliver a package, apparently, without - tadaaaa - the government to do it.

You are 100% right David although you saw what the socialist media did to Abbott and Hockey when they wanted to charge 7 bucks to see doctor. The pool of people sucking on the public purse has become so big that balancing the budget and being elected is almost impossible. The abc will make sure of that. That are billion dollar plus suckers. Those on the renewables fraud also will ensure we stay in the red.

Yes, we must crack down on the waste of space poor to protect the interests of the wealthy, the highly profitable banks and ultra generous tax breaks for the top end super! Or those in receipt of generous sit down money for polishing government leather! You've nailed the problem David!? Now what is the final solution? Hmmm.
Alan B.

David, runner and Jardine are 100% wrong on this.

Firstly, governments should take into account the macroeconomic effects of the decisions they make. Right now the economy needs stimulus so the government should be borrowing more. And just trying to balance the budget harms the economy when the private sector is weak. Taking more money out of the economy (or not putting as much in) reduces the opportunities for the private sector to make money, hence it reduces tax revenue. So everyone's worse off and the budget balancing attempt would fail anyway.

Secondly, the claim that "Government debt amounts to a decision on our behalf to have the next generation pay for today’s spending" is wrong. The next generation is no more obligated to pay off the government's spending than this generation is. Nor is the generation after it, or any specific generation.

Thirdly, the government should be working to give us the best value for money rather than chasing some short term financial objective. They should be investing in the things that make the nation more productive. Do you really think there's nothing they can do that's better value than paying down debt?

I should stress here that paying down debt DOES have a value: the same value as running (and banking) a surplus would if we had no debt: it enables interest rates to be cut without increasing inflation. And lower interest rates enable businesses to profitably invest more in the things that make them more productive. But right now interest rates are at record lows, but the government's still pursuing false economies like Fraudband. The idea that there's nothing it can do that's better value than paying down debt is laughable.

Yes. Governments have to the balance the books just the same as the rest of us do. It is getting harder for the rest of us to do that, though, because stupid politicians just don't get it.

Speaking of the ridiculously over-paid public servant and CEO of Australia Post, I heard him him refer to "our business" on radio last weak, when he was being asked about his failure to deliver. No public utility is a business: it is supposed to be a public, essential service, covering its costs, but not looking for profit at the expense of taxpayers.

Rhostry,

Thought you had disappeared, but seems that you have been masquerading as Alan B. all the time. I don't know what your game is, but you aren't very good at it, using both monikers on the one post as you have.

Get rid of the states for a start.