ok eagle, here's another expert's view for you, another...

ok eagle, here's another expert's view for you, another professor, disagree if you will but your views are flying in the face of expert opinion;

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/rudds-pudding-much-too-sweet/2009/02/05/1233423401914.html?page=2

Peter Swan, professor of finance at the University of NSW’s Australian School of Business, can think of plenty better ways for Rudd to splash his $42 billion: .

So what should be done? Given the poor state of infrastructure in Australia, projects with high ratios of benefits to costs should be adopted. Converting the entire Pacific Highway to dual carriageway, for instance, has been promised for 20 years, and will take another 20 years to complete, while poor coal loading facilities at Newcastle are hampering trade and shipping. Improving infrastructure like this would be much better spending, even if the projects cannot start immediately.

The quality of the spend is paramount. Cutting taxes on private sector investment can encourage more of it, including increasing the allowances for depreciation on long-term infrastructure…

But short-term handouts are a flash in the pan without lasting benefit. They are, like the earlier $10 billion giveaway that created a temporary Christmas blip, the centrepiece of the Rudd Plan. And they should have no place in a sensible package based on neoclassical growth theory to build long-term sustainable wealth.

How can something so sane and obvious be seen in these times to be mad and outlandish?