I voted the Conservatives into power in 2001, and I've had many occasions to regret it. The aftermath of September 11, (a day after the Norwegian election), revealed a fundamental split between their worldview, essentially social democratic and UN-centered, and mine. On local issues I've come to realize that the difference between the Conservatives and Labor is often more apparent than real - stubborness, ritual and decades-old animosity often takes the place of actual political distance.

Good things have come out of the Conservative / Christian People's Party (/ Liberal Party) coalition, though, and I have probably rather underreported than overreported these. One example is a recent proposal by Conservative regional minister Erna Solberg that non-EU immigrants must attend language classes before they can be granted residency permits and citizenship. Oddly, there will be no requirement of skill, only attendance, but it's more than we have today. This is one of those old Progress Party proposals that have gone all the way from extreme via controversial to accepted by respectable parties, (as I suspect their "vulgar" views on forced marriage may in time). A light version has at last been picked up by the Conservatives, and for that they deserve praise.

Another example is the sending last week of 104 Norwegian soldiers (mainly engineeres and mine clearers) to Basra, to assist the British forces there. This, too, is commendable, though it's little and late, and shouldn't be seen as a change of heart by the Norwegian government over Iraq. Quite the contrary - Norway has deferred to the UN all the way, and we're now entering Iraq only because we have UN approval to do so. Our support of the US goes no further than it overlaps with UN policy. But again, this is good news.

There are many examples like this, small steps in a right direction. But as regular reminders that I did after all make a mistake in voting for the Conservatives, along comes the occasional major misstep, such as the unwillingness to follow up their single most important election promise: Tax cuts.

In the 2001 election, the Conservatives - with the approval of the Christian People's Party - promised a medium-sized tax cut over the next four years. 31 billion NOK ($4.2 billion) out of a total non-oil tax income (in 2002) of about 482 billion NOK ($66 billion). They were on their way to achieving this worthy goal, having reduced taxes in two years by 19 billion NOK, (although the previous Labor government apparently accounts for 12 of those.)

But according to Aftenposten, the government now intends to abandon the remainder of that tax cut. The cut was, apparently, intended to be financed merely through the growth of the economy, not through actual cuts in spending, and the current economic downswing makes this difficult. So if Aftenposten's sources are to be believed, there will be no more tax cuts in this parliamentary period - this at a time when companies struggle with the strong NOK, and unemployment is rising.

I don't remember hearing any qualifications when this promise was made, nor do I remember being told that they wouldn't actually decrease public spending, just not increase it, so if this isn't a major breach of promise I don't know what is. It seems less and less likely that the Conservatives will be able to regain my respect when the things they do right would have been done better by the Progress Party, and when a promise of such importance is abandoned. And with the remainder of the tax cuts going out the window, there are few reasons left to weep if the government fails to survive this fall's budget negotiations, which are likely to be tough. (The coalition's support in Stortinget is weak, and depends on either the Progress Party or Labor for majority.) The Labor Party is currently in the hands of Jens Stoltenberg's right-oriented faction, so what's the difference?

Bjørn — tax cuts imply cuts in spending. In which areas do you believe the Norwegian government should cut spending? Are there areas in which you would like to see an increase in spending?

- Gill

I don't have a good answer to that, (I haven't gotten around to study any of our budgets closely yet), but I can think of two good candidates for cuts: The first is is agricultural subsidies (NOK 11 billion). The second is sick pay and unemployment benefits (NOK 29+17 billion?), which I feel are rather generous. (Numbers from the link under 482 above). I'm sure I'd find more if I had a detailed list of expenses - there are a lot of strange government projects around.

In general, I believe in a welfare state that takes care only of those who needs it, and allows those who don't to take care of themselves. For the _average_ person, there's no difference between paying the government to pay the hospital to take care of your health and paying the hospital yourself (through insurance), except that the latter is more efficient. Today we give the state so many tasks it's absurd. It should stick to what people can't solve by themselves, (which wouldn't necessarily mean spending less on the poor, only leaving the average and rich to take care of themselves). All this would lead to lower taxes and better spent money, but must of course be done gradually. But that's my long-term goal.

As for where we should increase spending, that's even more difficult to answer. Research, I think. That's a sane investment, and a good in itself.

There are also a couple of areas where I would just like to shuffle some money around, (not sure how it will affect the total.) NRK should be split up and privatized, and the obligatory TV license fee removed. The army should move from being conscription-based to a professional, standing army. There'd be a possibly large one-time cost, but it would be worth it. We should also
look into how we spend foreign aid. I'm not against this in principle, I just suspect we misspend a lot of it.

One of the reasons I'm not affiliated with any party (registered Independent) is because I believe all politicians can be weasels. They say what needs to be said to get elected. They neglect to tell you the 'details'.

In my state, Massachusetts, we'd been told (for a couple of years, at least) we had a huge surplus in our state budget. This was wonderful. We could lower taxes, etc..

What the politicians, and our media, failed to mention, it was a *projected* surplus based on the red-hot stock market. (Taxing the profits on stocks) The money was never actually in our state's treasury.

Surprise!! We now have a *huge* deficit. Some due to overspending, based on the 'surplus', some because of a huge highway project. Anyway, we were all shocked.

In our last governor's race, one candidate tried to hide the actual amount of the deficit. This was because the candidate was viewed as a 'tax and spend' Democrat. (She lost.)

People and politics are pretty much the same the world over.

Of course, in times of economic recession, classic Keynesian economics theory says to cut taxes without major spending cuts. You simply run up the debt to stimulate the economy, then raise them again when times are good.

The Supply Side model says to just cut them, period, and if possible cut wasteful spending.

Either one seems like a defensible argument from where I sit.

Bjorn in your reply to Gill Doyle your opinions match EXACTLY those of most conservatives (hoyre). In fact I dont think its a coincidence that you list the same "budget wishes" as the conservatives. You seem to be disapointed with the way they let us down about the tax cuts, we all are. However I am not so sure if that justifies supporting a party (progress) who may have changed a lot and become more "likeable" on the surface, but still consists mainly of people I dont think you wanna be associated with. Anyway, since you give excellent explanations and I am kind of questioning my affiliation with the conservatives as well, could you maybe explain what possible advantages voting for the progress party could bring, if you are really serious about this.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/342