Finding money to fulfil promises

THERE HAS been more than an aura of disbelief about the expensive manifesto promises by both parties. In a pre-COVID-19 context of stagnation and the much worse economic downturn caused by the pandemic, where is any government going to find the money to fulfil these breezily spoken undertakings?

Especially since higher taxes (like the ones occasioned by the ‘1.5’ issue) ought to provoke adverse reactions.

Actually, there is likely to be much more public money than we think to support education, health, land reform and housing.

Have you noticed the lack of emphasis in this election campaign about public-sector reform?

Reset the scope and cost of the services provided by the State and discover massive areas of previous waste and find the opportunity to spend more where it really matters.

The absence of accountability in the 100 or so public bodies is beyond dispute after the antics from Petrojam to this week’s election.

The credible but unverified figure of $14 billion skankery probably camouflages multiples of that misappropriated by waste and skewed priorities.

Just think how much better we could spend the many billions of health dollars being required right now to curb the worsening of public health conditions caused by an opportunistic election call.

Every year around this time, the Ministry of Finance begins the automatic task of reserving the money needed to fund the recurrent budget for the next financial year with the ‘what-lef’ going to capital expenditure. No test of efficiency, no standards of accountability are applied. Audits may come long after expenditure - never as the premise of an upcoming allocation.

FEAR OF POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES

All this happens for fear of the political consequences of losing jobs and benefits. So, by the time the representatives get the huge yellow book in March for a vote which is, realistically, a mere formality, the huge ballast of an unreformed and under-scrutinised public sector is embedded to suck up most of the people’s money.

Sensible people know this reality and it fuels their scepticism about otherwise worthwhile manifesto promises. “Ronnie, you must be mad. We can’t touch the teachers, the nurses or the police”, goes the refrain. Well, if we don’t scrutinise the efficiency, affordability and productivity of the nation’s major cost centres, at the best of times, the anaemic growth path is all there will be to get.

These are, however, not the best of times. With reduced revenues, and increased demands on public funds, now is the time to adopt a radically different approach if our commitment to fiscal responsibility is to have any meaning.

Two years ago, I introduced a resolution in Parliament calling for government to adopt a practice of zero-based budgeting. It has never been debated. This would mean that every year a segment of the ministries, departments and agencies would undergo a review of all their objectives, an assessment of the human, financial and other resources required to achieve these functions and to build a budget from zero, not on the basis of historical expenditure, but of measurable performance.

LESS OF A MIRAGE

Over a 10-year cycle, efficiencies would be validated, wastage identified and eliminated, and cynicism about the use of taxes much reduced. The process, disruptive and painful for those vested in the encrusted old order, will show us where to find the money we need to make manifestos less of a mirage.

Just last week, we heard both the minister of finance and the central bank governor premising economic recovery on the resurgence of tourism. This unrealism in the same week that COVID-19 accelerated its vacation-sapping path through our major marketplaces and the British impose quarantine on their citizens who dare to visit here.

As it is, the choice of a government this week is being made without confronting the most devastating issues of our economy and society. Whatever the outcome, the problems are going to be far more intractable than we have been admitting. The usual class of people will suffer most after the election money is done.

And, left alone, wastage and pillage will continue when we can least afford them. It is really crue,l and it need not be this way.