'Austerity' policy...to whom 'austerity' must be imposed/ordered?!-Not to the ppl,but to the gov't's spending for certain PMs' supporters' related 'public' spending/for the gov't itself!!

What gov't must do is check all spendings for 'constractions related PMs supporters' related,
not spendings directry allocated to the ardinal ppl in need.'Austerity' policy is not fair because it has been targeting only buget directly to be used for the ppl in need, which
is strange.
'Austerity policy' is uneque in its nature
to keep the bugdet for PM related 'public'
spendings which are hidenly desinged to be paid back to certain PMs who are in the positions of budget 'allocation' for 'public' constructions on certain premisis of 'political donation paying backs' for PMs.
Ppl and Parliament must argue about rationale of 'austerity' policy
in terms of the nature to ask 'auterity' only to the ppl,not to the certain PMs related 'public projects' of circulation of gov't's money. 
I always strongly respect Parliament based demecracy and that is why I strongly expect the works of PMs/Parliament to analyze to where the budget goes,and to ensure the budget to be spent, as possible as its nature can allow for the ppl's human rights, directly for the ppl, especially in need!

Budget allocation to be spent for the ppl in need is effective to viverate economy by expanding its range of consumption power because such public benefits definitely&stably increase the disposal income of the people whose income level can be reached to the level of ordinal consumers only with public benefits that circulate to the small shops and other manufcturers to thf extent which sustain/expand jobs that sustainably and surely circlates to the increase of taxational national revenue.
This is fur better than such a 'austerity' policy targeting budget spending for the people.
'austerity policy' actually intends to avoid spending for firms&companies in gov't related 'big'projects which are normally to be circulated only witihn 'certain''specific' private secters/companies that only contributes to certain markets and its impact on economy/job making is very limited to the extent which would not be sure as to whether the budget spent in 'PMs supporters related bhg projects' contributes to small shops and is returning back to national tax. Such budget normally go through between big private companies and gone somewhere but national tax revenue and jobs.

Austerity is to be imposed to 'big private companiy related projects but the budget directly used for the ppl,esp, in need is a fur better and highly convincing rationale to be implemented
by gov't not only for the human rights of the people in need but also total national sutanable economy&increase of everyone's disposal income, of sure sustanable strong economy/job and of
the total national tax revenve.

Austerity the term itself has been too much spoken too much heavily emphasized only in the context od austerity of public budget spending for benefits for the typically suffered from their social&economy status due to temporal&persistent variou social/physical/economy conditions in which certain help by gov't that is a huge part of legitimacy of nation&natinal/local taxation that also help all the types of shops,makers,companies&manufacturers in its course of circulation of the budget goes throughout to the end of the final national tax revenue.
Threrfore, the budget to which"austerity" is to be implemented is not the one to be used for the people in need that is actual money contributing to every human,economy&market.
The persons to whom "austerity"must be ordered,rather, are certain private sectors where the budgets contribute only to certain specific sectors, firms&companies to the extent which limits it's economic impact to certain PMs/gov't's related big projects only with big companies as being designed to be circulated only the big companies within gov't's "private "club"'often donate money to cabinet members/chairman of budget allocation committees etc..
Austerity, in that sence, is not, even,a proper term to describe what the parliament need to cut in the budget. Rather, instead of "austerity", we need to check to where the budget goes, to know actually the budget is used for the people, not for certain specific companies and circulation for political donation via "public spending for public construction".
We must stop using terms of "austerity"to stop the avoidance of spending for the people.
We should realize the real intention of the term "austerity"only asking austerity of the people. We must fight back about the ways od budgeting to bring back the control of budgeting.
People must seek and insist the right to examine the priperity of budgeting by civil ombusman composed with lawyers, CPAs, Tax proffetionals,economists and other civilians if gov't can't cut their own big projects with which certain PMs political supporters are involved.
Austerity is improper if it targets the people but could be proper if it targets certain PMs and cabinet members and the companies politically supporting with certain expectation from such political donations. Such are to be the objectives of austerity, if gov't still want to use the term, I strongly think so.