The Current Paper's Critical Response
The current paper provides a critical response to the article written on liberalism, No longer can we look to the Liberals as good financial managers. They have given into temptation by Caleb Bond. The report under the Advertiser
written on 8th May 2018 expounds on a personal opinion concerning the consequences of being too liberal in the current era. The author, Caleb Bond, takes on the prejudicial role of blaming the liberals for the current deficit in the country and provides brief reasons as to why this is so. As such, it can be pointed out that the intended audience of the writer, Bond, is to the liberals who think that current risk-taking measures are helping out the country, but, in the writer's defense, it is not! The writer elucidates on the factors that have led the country to the brink of financial death including increased budgetary expenditure, increased taxes and overall, augmented borrowing in the name of development. Consequentially, the writer provides the point by point explanation as to why the listed factors are not the answer to the current crisis.
The Practicality of the Article
The article may not be as practical to the audience as it may appear to be. The author, Bond, takes a blame-game scenario to define where the problem is according to the nation's current deficit. The fact is that the current debt is at AUD 13.472 billion (Trading Economics, 2018) and counting and is expected to increase in the coming year. The question remains whether the liberal government is to blame for the current deficit or is it to be praised (Bond, 2018). The author only provides a one-sided argument which makes it difficult to believe that one government's mindset may be the reason for the current situation in the country. In so many ways, readers can take a divided stand on what is the current situation and thus, proves that the article is too prejudicial. For instance, the author reiterates that between the current government the GDP debt is at 41.9% while, in 2007 the deficit stood at 9.7% (Bond, 2018).
The Changing Circumstances
From this premise, it may be argued that circumstances in 2007 may not be the same in 2018. Factors of increase in population, increase in the country's remittances, increase in foreign policy and an increase in investments in military and armed forces may be critical factors in the rise in debt. Because the writer only presents one-sided information it proves it was challenging to attenuate the writer's point of view, thus, challenging to regurgitate primarily on these points.
Reducing Spending and Taxes
Besides, the writer profoundly does not seem to provide a credible reason as to why the government ought to take measures and reduce spending. In the author's view, short-term pain is necessary for long-term gain. There are numerous ways that this statement can be argued out based on the article. In the past decades, the country has had to make strenuous efforts and take extreme risks to ensure safety and security of its people, increase development and categorically, maximize on other economic factors for the benefit of people’s rights. This encompasses what liberalism is all about. Equal rights, equal opportunities, and equality in resource distribution. It is the price that the next generation has to pay which is per se, the long-term gain. The author, though indirectly, affirms that such investments are critical and have catapulted the country into one of the finest and wealthiest countries in the world. By not applauding this cause, the article may face a lot of criticism and rebuttals which may prove it to be weak.
The Government's Excessive Spending
Finally, the author emphasizes that the country's spending is too much and may not account to the taxes being held by the government. In the writer's defense, elected officials smile their way to the bank only to use money that is not there. This point is inarguable, and it is true that the country is facing a lot of debt issues to cater to its expenditure. As a result, the country's federal government may be taking more than it is expected. Back to the article's main point of view, the author does not provide a succinct explanation as to why he thinks that the government needs to cut back the spending and taxation (Bond, 2018). The article, therefore, is weak and non-experiential. There are no provided facts to compare such as revenue influx and the cost-benefit analysis of the deficit. Primarily, the article, therefore, should not be of use to the politician as a reference since, he or she may find serious refutes as to why the liberal government is not the reason to blame for the rise in government expenditure (Jericho, 2018). For instance, the politician may be challenged with facts: that if it was not for the liberal government, Australia might not be accruing the benefits of the risks taken and its citizens may not be enjoying the fruits of the past short-term pains under the long-term successes.
Bibliography
Bond, Caleb, 2018, ‘No longer can we look to the liberals as good financial managers. They have given into temptation,’ The Advertiser, 8th May 2018.
Jericho, Greg, 2018, ‘Budget will show how shallow liberal's party's debt and deficit disaster was,' accessed October 6, https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/may/06/budget-will-show-how-shallow-liberal-partys-debt-and-deficit-disaster-really-was
Trading Economics, 2018, ‘Australia Current Account,' accessed from https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/current-account
