Tous les jours à tous points de vue je vais de mieux en mieux ...

(Above: an inspirational cartoon for expert climate scientists such as the Bolter. More New Yorker cartoons here)

As Émile Coué de la Châtaigneraie was fond of saying, Tous les jours à tous points de vue je vais de mieux en mieux ...

You see, we're in such a dire budget emergency, we can afford to piss ten billion or so against the wall so Tony Abbott can call himself the infrastructure king. And state governments can be subsidised to sell off their infrastructure to their private sector mates. Just look how well that worked out with Sydney Airport.

And then there's the vision of the infrastructure king.

More roads, more roads, more roads, if you please, and keep them clear of obstructions. We've met this kind of visionary before:

Then we drop an increased carbon tax on petrol, which shocks all the motorists, who promptly decide not to use the roads - too expensive, what with petrol going up - and take to public transport.

Except the infrastructure spend has been pissed away on roads ...

Or some such thing.

It's flung the poor old reptiles at the lizard Oz into a quandary:

Ah, you thought from reading that splash that the kool aid drinkers, just for a nanosecond, might have wondered about the wisdom of drinking the kool aid.

But the real header's Abbott's deficit-tax gamble seems to be paying off gives that game away (behind the paywall so you can avoid sharing the drop):

Paying off?

Uh huh, and never you mind polls that suggest right here and now the Abbott government would be swept from office if he dared to bung on a double dissolution:

Fears about a deficit tax are inflicting far less pain on the Abbott government than its opponents hope and its supporters suspect. 
A rocky political debate is inevitable, but those aware of all the major budget decisions regard the tax increase as only one of several fights to be won after Tuesday night.

Yes, there's one reporting law for that tax-imposing ginger bitch of a witch, Julia Gillard, and entirely another for that brave and heroic crusader and imposer of taxes, Tony Abbott.

Here's how you can tell David Crowe has joined the kool aid drinkers in a chorus or two:

There is a confidence among senior ministers that the electorate will accept — across time — that the budget reforms are essential. The immediate political costs will be offset by political gains two years from now, just when the next election looms.

Put it another way:

Short-haired MAMIL politicians come out every night, 
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right; 
But when asked how 'bout something to eat 
They will answer with voices so sweet: 
You will eat and vote, bye and bye, 
In that glorious land above the sky; 
Work and pray, live on hay, 
You'll get pie and vote, in the sky, when you die. 

Put it another way, David Crowe style:

Now, a relatively unpopular Prime Minister is imposing harsh budget measures that pose a huge risk to his own future. 
Abbott must be hoping that voters will appreciate the decisions in hindsight.

Ah right at the end a few saucy doubts and fears enter the story and the picture. Waiter, another serve of that lime flavoured tipple, if you please, the reality and the light, it's so dazzling and bright ...

Times have got so tough, and the need for mendacity so great, that the Murdoch tabloids have dropped the news of the carbon petrol tax down into the body of their tree killers. Like the Daily Terror:

There you go, that's how it's done. The PM's petrol bomb relegated to page five, and an entirely derisory beat up about the welfare nation is splashed at the bottom of the page - well news of the Packers must always be top of the page - and dubbed an Exclusive.

When you read the actual text, it becomes apparent that the header "Half of Australia's families pay no tax" is actually an outright falsehood. Or to put it in terms even Tony Abbott can understand, it's a lie. You see, they left off 'net', which you can find in the furphy of the actual header for the story, Half of Australia's families pay no net tax.

Oh indeed. Shocking. Now for further reading, Murdoch 'pays no UK tax', Tax dodging helps Murdoch buy the Journal, Tax office forced to pay Rupert Murdoch $880m.

''Multinational companies should not be able to use their legal structures involving tax havens to dodge tax in ways that nationally based companies cannot,'' he (Mark Zirnsak) said.

Indeed. Shocking. Here's a header for the Terror: International companies and Murdochians rip off Australian families.

You had to go into the bowels of the beast to discover that the rag had dim memories of its Photoshop days:

Once upon a time, when the wicked witch strutted the stage, that would have been the full, front page graphic.

Meanwhile, as yet another disgraceful display of wretched corruption of the worst kind struts the New South Wales stage, can things get any lower?

Of course they can. Come on down, Gra Gra, or as he's fondly known, Mr Swiss Bank Account Man:

In a democracy, you have a right to be rich. You also have a right to believe in anything you choose. If you believe in the philosophy underpinning one of our political parties, then you have the right to put your money where your mouth is and donate to the party of your choice — or at least you should have.

Spoken like a ratbag American Republican of the extreme kind, or perhaps a Scalia of the US Supreme Court. Or should that be Justice Roberts?

In his classic novel 1984, George Orwell envisioned a future society in which common sense and basic values are turned upside down. The essence of this vision was contained in a few slogans propagated by the government: "War is Peace" and "Freedom is Slavery" were among the most memorable of these. But our contemporary Supreme Court, led by Justice Roberts, has exceeded even Orwell's expectations with its decision in the case of Citizens United. 
The 5-4 split decision in Citizens United enshrined into law the principle that the First Amendment protection afforded to the freedom of speech embraces or encompasses the expenditure of unlimited amounts of money. Congress may make no law, according to the Court, that restricts the raising or spending of money when employed to express a preference for one political candidate over another. Money, in short, is entitled to exactly the same protection that the First Amendment affords to speech. In a word, money is speech. (and more here)

If ever you wondered why the NSW Labor party is fukt, or how Gra Gra sits so comfortably amongst the Murdochians, look no further than the Swiss bank account man's of his bag man activities:

The concept of paying for ­access is not new. I wore it as a badge of honour when I was raising serious money for Labor. For those who were prepared to kick in the big bucks, I had the standard phrase: you will be guaranteed access to the ministers who will make decisions that affect you, but you will never be guaranteed a favourable outcome. 
The concept was, by and large, an accepted method of fundraising for three or four decades. Now, even the idea of access for money is being questioned. To remove even the slightest hint of the possibility of corruption, no matter how remote that might be, it is being suggested party fund­raisers be abolished in favour of full public funding.

No matter how remote it might be?

The stench emanating from NSW makes the Bolivar sewage Treatment Works smell like a rose (and a shout out to any crow eater within sniffing distance).

And so on and so forth, and so to Gra Gra offering his inimitable insights into a matter of a public affray and common assault, and a display of violence in the streets, of a kind that saw laws introduced to attempt to stop king hits and random violence of an offensive kind:

I am a great fan of NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione, but I believe he needs to set the right priorities for his troops. 
With all the shootings in southwestern Sydney, the mas­sive increase in the use of the dangerous drug ice, the rise of bikie gangs around Australia and the gang rapes of young girls in parklands, what the hell is going on in the Packer-Gyngell saga? 
To see detectives trawling from house to house to see if neighbours witnessed the fight is pathetic. This was an unfortunate scuffle between two old mates. It was not alcohol-fuelled, gang-related or particularly vicious. 
It merely proved that neither of them could knock each other out with 20 punches, let alone the now infamous single punch. 
I have known them since they left school. I know they are ashamed of themselves, as they should be. But I cannot believe there are not far more important criminals on the loose than this pair. Go catch the bad guys, officers, leave these blokes alone. 
Graham Richardson hosts Richo on Sky News.

Ever wondered if there were two sets of laws?
One for the rich and one for the poor?
Ever wondered if it's impossible these days to pick the difference between the pigs and the farmers?
Ever wondered why the Labor party is just as much on the nose in NSW as the Liberal party?

An unfortunate scuffle?

Well the next king hitter should hire Gra Gra as his defence counsel. And hang this on the wall:

(more here)

But hang on, Tous les jours à tous points de vue je vais de mieux en mieux ...

Well you can always laugh.

A smile costs nothing, even when almost hidden by a flood of tears and gritted teeth ... thanks to the two Davids, more David Rowe here, and more David Pope here.