NOW?that the Budget debate is done, as is the custom, the Minister of Finance’s proposals will be passed into law, our lives for the immediate future to be conditioned and governed by the consequences of it all.
Of course, the people’s representatives didn’t miss out on the chance to say what they thought would be the concerns of their constituents about the proposals of the Minister of Finance. Naturally the Government side fully supported the proposals, and equally so the Opposition attacked them; and the general public is left to accept that the Budget recommendations will be pretty much left as they have been made.
Budgets are as much about politics and the rhetoric and propaganda, as they are about the management of the economy – which are all part and parcel of that exercise in which reason and logical analysis often come a distant second to what may be crudely described as the “tricks of the trade”.
In the debate – from Monday afternoon until Wednesday night – we heard charge and countercharge about which side might be said to have caused the present state in which the country finds itself. The Government is blaming the Opposition for not restructuring the economy during its time in office and the Opposition has pointed to what might best be described as wrong policy turns since 2008.
While these competing forces seek acceptance of their arguments by the public, the electorate’s interest ought to be in what indeed caused the current crisis. Are our present circumstances due to the policies of the Arthur administrations, or are they due to incorrect policies pursued by the Government since 2008. Or, have we been hit by a mix of both these factors, and compounded by the international recession?
This is the second time in the past two decades that this country has reached the stage where austerity measures have had to be implemented for the short term to stave off long-term damage to our economic way of life; and a clinical examination of precisely where we may have gone wrong is essential if we are to prevent or minimise the impact the onset of future difficulties.
As importantly, continuing debate in the public domain, as there will be, must hold to account Prime Minister Freundel Stuart and Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler in their commitment that if any of their proposals should falter that they will take immediate corrective measures. And this monitoring must not only be by the judgement of the economic scientists and those in business, but as well people in charge of households whose wallets and pocketbooks may have been impacted.
The vast majority of our people are simply one generation away from their poverty-affected backgrounds and integrity of our young nation comes under serious strain whenever crises of this sort intrude, for families are often fractured, homes sometimes lost to default in mortgages, and the future welfare of children undermined.
The public interest therefore demands that our best brains become involved in an exercise bereft of the raw emotional input of the political environment in discovering the facts that presaged our present predicament. We seek not to diminish the importance of the political element in our daily affairs; but every action by our Governments has consequences, and if we are to avoid similar crises in the future, then we must be clear about the facts first, as well as be cognizant of the country’s groundswell.
