I said in an earlier post there was a "plain commentator" on National Radio this morning.

In my view, Brian Easton made the most insightful comment on the NZ economy this morning (Nine to Noon). He did not have the latest Treasury update, but he had read the December update and he was quite clear that there was enough in that to prompt the cancellation of tax cuts forthwith.

The government went ahead with legislating for the full programme and implementing the first April 1 round. National is concealing its decision on the tax cuts and its prevarication is in order to distance the voter from:

* a long period in opposition espousing a tax cut policy which would have worsened the effect of the global recession upon New Zealand.

* election promises of tax reduction when there was a clear need for overseas borrowing for deficits and infrastructure, although economic recovery might well follow normal recessionary trends.

* the imprudent decision to go ahead with this programme when there were predominant indications that the recession would be prolonged and recovery gradual.

Brian Easton put it that the OECD had given an exceptional forecast for New Zealand. The opinion I accept is that this Paris-based organisation does not "entirely dictate the policy".

This government's economic management had already not followed counterparts due to it applying a limited stimulus response and a conservative approach to future debt levels. We were already exceptional and the OECD ostensibly concurred with government policy.

This morning on National Radio we heard from all types of commentators - I felt I could have got up there myself and had a go. There were has-beens, wannabes, me-toos and the plain ordinary.

Where are our research economists, sociologists and academics in general - sitting in their ivory towers counting all the billions we pay them - or worrying that if they comment they will not receive more billions - the collegiate approach?

There was one academic from Canterbury University speaking this morning - from the "Innovation Faculty", or similar. He had quite an accent and sounded not to have lived in NZ very long - he spoke about "Kiwis". I wanted to ask him if he knew that they were small, nocturnal, very shy native birds; and that we were New Zealanders.

His comments appeared to me to be about what you would pitch at a fourth-form commerce class.

Anyway, the one with the most bias of all was Richard Griffin. He appeared to be blaming Labour for the debt situation. I do not know what he thought National would have done had they been in office. National's "secret agenda" would not have been a secret. There would have been a large pool of unemployed and a downward pressure on wages. No-one with any appropriate skills would have been given work to do in the public service - there would not have been any jobs. There would have been a sequence of tax cuts giving rise to more leveraged borrowing and consumer spending, inflation, higher balance of payments deficit, housing boom - and an even greater 'crash' as has been seen in other countries where tax cuts were given on top of deficits. There would have been a widening income-gap as they lowered immigration and pitched higher disposable incomes at certain skill groups at the expense of the remainder in order to keep young people at home and to "catch-up with Australia".

The low fiscal debt and low unemployment touted as such an advantage going into the recession caused by the global crisis would not have been there, and private debt would have been so much the worse as on average New Zealanders were spending roughly $600 for every $500 they earned.

Richard Prebble was brought in to have a go. As usual, he had the perfect solution to every problem and everyone else was leaving him lost for words due their ignorance. If they would only listen to him, it could all be done overnight. It didn't matter one way or the other about the $1 billion in tax cuts because we were talking about $50 billion.

What? $1 billion over 1 or 3 years, or $50 billion over how long, and was the $50 billion a projected fiscal deficit or was it reduced GDP? He was confused, but whatever! It didn't matter! Just listen to him because he has the answer.

We have done that before, haven't we?

And then there was a guy Pask from BusinessNZ. We were definitely borrowing to pay into the NZ Superannuation Fund and that was just plain crazy - like a household having money in the bank when it had a mortgage, he said. But no, we weren't borrowing for tax cuts because they were some long-term scenario and stimulated business. I thought he was the "me-too", but perhaps he was the most biased.

Pask had it the wrong way round, didn't he? It is a plain certainty we are borrowing for tax cuts if they are being given when we are already borrowing to cover deficits. The equity markets will bottom one day, and unless capitalism is "out-the-window" will one day make a good investment choice. If the equity markets are not considered to be good choice then the money is able to be on lent for local revenue-producing infrastructure which would have entailed borrowing, anyway.

The important point being that future superannuation is being "funded" on the balance sheet mentioned above and that National is not undermining superannuation provisions by stealth in the same way it is removing the Working-for-Families disposable income margin with its Independent Earners Rebate.