Debt ceiling debate:

Kate Mitchell writes: Re. “Rundle: debt deal the ideal compromise — it pleases no one” (yesterday, item 2). I have to quibble with Guy Rundle’s phrasing in yesterday’s article about the debt ceiling compromise. It is not accurate to frame the partisan divide as “the Right’s concern about US public debt, [and] the Left’s demand that taxes on the rich be raised”.

Concern about US public debt is not only the province of Republicans. It is precisely the reason Democrats are (unsuccessfully) demanding that tax increases to go alongside spending cuts. However, the right (especially the Tea-Party aligned right) would prefer to reduce the deficit solely by relying on spending cuts, with no tax increases permitted.

Given that Bush’s tax cuts (alongside two major wars) are the main cause of the current deficit, it seems only fair to suggest that the rich take on part of the burden of returning the government to surplus. America’s poor and middle class will be suffering plenty.

Forestry Tasmania:

Robert Musk writes: Re. “Peace in the Tassie forests, but govt regulator is a basket case” (28 July, item 5). Regarding John Lawrence’s article on the financial condition of Forestry Tasmania. John states that the “state’s Auditor-General(‘s report) indicated that Forestry Tasmania was staggering towards insolvency and would need an equity injection of $200 million to $250 million to survive”.

This is simply not true. The Auditor-General states on page 5 that:

“If Forestry wishes to continue with its current level of investment in plantation development sources of government or other funding of approximately $200m to $250m will be needed.”

There are only two more references to these sums in the A-G’s report and both repeat this statement in one way or another. These appear on pages 49 and 52.

That John thinks that a comment on the financial implications of one hypothetical investment decision can be construed as a claim that Forestry Tasmania is “staggering towards insolvency” doesn’t provide any confidence in the veracity of the remainder of his article. Doubly so, given that it constitutes the article’s sole verifiable statement.

Nobody can learn anything about the complex and difficult business of forest management from articles such as this. More facts, less cant in future please.

Barnanby Joyce:

Barry Welch writes: Re.”Media briefs: Barnaby gets square … Amy from AAMI … phone hacking latest …” (yesterday, item 16). Barnaby Joyce could find mix up in the letters before “illions” much closer to home.

In his  October 2007 electorate newsletter,  of which I have a copy, Joe Hockey claimed that Labor would destroy Australia’s one million dollar economy — wasn’t that a one trillion dollar economy?

Barnaby should have a chat with Joe before he throws stones.