Tapu Misa: Why I don't want a tax cut

Cynicism is an occupational hazard in journalism. Some of us cultivate it a little too assiduously, while others find it creeps up on us, usually around election time, when politicians throw caution and fiscal responsibility out the window as they engage in shameless vote buying. It's easy to become disillusioned, even bored with the whole process.

But if Katrina and the suffering in New Orleans have done anything, it is to remind us that governments matter. The aftermath has provided a stark illustration of social injustice and the very real divide that exists in America between rich and poor, black and white, throwing into sharp relief everything that is wrong with the US and exposing the failings of the Bush Administration.

Even the most hardened right-wing commentators have found it hard to swallow the evidence of unequal suffering. The rich of New Orleans got out of town, while the poor were left behind to await a rescue that was agonisingly slow in coming. In a scene reminiscent of the Titanic, when first-class passengers got the lifeboats while the poor were left to fend for themselves, Hyatt guests and employees were allowed to jump a queue for a bus heading out of town. And everyone noticed how a black man carrying food was looting while white survivors were merely finding food.

Much has already been written about the part played by the Bush Administration. Bush and his cronies, Maureen Dowd noted in the New York Times, showed a chilling lack of empathy combined with a stunning lack of efficiency. Bush was playing golf the day after Katrina hit and waited five days before making an appearance in New Orleans.

An editorial in the same newspaper reported that Bush and his Republican Congressional leaders are planning to enact more upper-bracket tax cuts while cutting into the safety-net programmes for sick and impoverished Americans.

Contrast the Bush Administration's response with the action taken by Cuban authorities last September when a Category 5 hurricane hit Cuba. More than 1.5 million Cubans were evacuated to higher ground before the storm hit. A reported 20,000 homes were destroyed but no one died.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that a country riven by inequalities should have difficulty with the notion that those inequalities will always result in unfairness and unequal outcomes.

Back home, as the election nears, it might help us to remember that those most likely to be buffeted by the winds of political change are always going to be those least likely to weather it, no matter which of the two main parties wins.

TV3's Campbell Live has been running a series in which ordinary and so-called celebrity New Zealanders talk about what they'd do if they were Prime Minister. Every one I've seen has talked about the widening gap between rich and poor, and their desire for a fair society.

Last week the Herald reported that most voters would put the greater good before self-interest when casting their votes. Said Dr Andrew Moore, a senior lecturer in ethics and political philosophy at Otago University: "Most of us don't think the amount of money we have in our back pocket is the only thing that is good for us."

Yet the polls suggest otherwise.

Why aren't the politicians appealing to our better selves? Few, it seems to me, have gone for the high ground of a just and fair society.

When the children's lobby group Every Child Counts asked the political parties what they'd do about ending child poverty, only the Greens would commit to a deadline. Labour refused to make any promises. National replied that, as it had taken "30 years of welfare dependency" for poverty to become ingrained, "it will take some time to remove it and replace it with a culture of self-esteem, personal responsibility and worth".

Which is rich considering that the last time National was in government child poverty peaked at 34 per cent. Apparently, its own policies had nothing to do with it, which is doubtless why they're now blithely proposing a return to market rents for state tenants, and why their generous tax cuts won't extend to the $10 per child in Family Support promised in the Working for Families package for 2007.

According to National, market forces, lower taxes and smaller government will magically foster a culture of personal responsibility. Just as denying the legitimate rights of Maori and our responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi will somehow foster improved race relations. Yeah, right.

Under the current Government, child poverty has come down to 16.3 per cent. That's still the fourth-highest in the OECD, but it is falling.

No one should pretend that Labour could not have done more for children still caught in a cycle not of their own making, or that these children can afford to wait for that culture of self-esteem and personal responsibility to kick in with National.

But what should be said is this: tax cuts won't deliver us a fairer society. If we are serious about lower crime rates, and a healthier and better-educated population, we have to get serious about what it takes to create that fairer society.

Nowhere have lower taxes and smaller government delivered that. Fair means closing the gap between top and bottom incomes and ensuring public services are well funded.

Government policies - and not personalities and catchy advertising slogans - make a difference, and it's up to all of us to pay attention to them.