Jaevion Nelson | Deciphering the budget debates

The budget debates are usually laden with a predictable list of overused punchlines, illuminated with lots of melodrama, in an attempt to warn us about, and rescue the nation from, an allegedly uncaring government. Usually, items from the ‘typical’ food basket of ‘poor people’ are used to illustrate how difficult life has become for the majority and urge the government to do better (read: spend more).

The sentiment that more should be done to cushion the effects of financial and other challenges facing the country is not new. It’s what is expected. If we’re honest, we are stuck in a cycle, basically recycling the same script every year, making the same accusations and pleas (to woo the electorate’s attention and votes). I often wonder if there is no other way to credibly critique the budget presentations without pandering to the gallery about the poor and vulnerable, to score some political points. I imagine part of the challenge we face as a nation is that although the budget is tabled and discussed a few weeks in advance, at the committee level, the kind of robust response we hanker for is somewhat impossible with the uncharacteristic investment in populism and the meagre financial allocations to parliamentarians, every year, to do their work properly.

This budget was not particularly different. Notwithstanding, I believe Opposition Leader Mark Golding delivered fairly well. Arguably, this is his best since becoming Opposition leader. I appreciated a lot of his urging, especially the bits about the ‘Jamaican dream’ for us “to pull on each other and power a new Jamaican dream where everyone has a stake and there is equality of opportunity”.

INTRIGUED

That aside, I was intrigued, as usual, about the ways in which the poor feature in these discussions. Mr Golding made mention of challenges with minimum wage, allocation of resources of education, and employment-related issues, for example, in this regard. Golding chided the Government for ‘the negative social impact of [its] continued excessive fiscal conservatism’ and highlighted the Opposition “would support additional expenditures of at least two per cent of GDP to address these critical needs facing the society”. It was also suggested that the Government spend more, ‘substantially’, for PATH, poor relief and the social pension scheme for the elderly. He argued, “Inflation, especially the cost of basic food items, is taking away their ability to survive.”

I am not an economist, financial analyst or anything near these but, despite my naivety, I am always wary of cautions about ‘fiscal conservatism’ and suggestions to spend more without much more. This is partly because (1) thoroughness usually satiates my angst, (2) our ability to spend more hinges on how well we manage our affairs, and (3) there are several programmes that seemingly overlap and do not deliver as much results as they should.

I agree, in principle, that, as a country, we need to do more to take better care of people who are poor. However, I think we need to look at the myriad of programmes that exist across ministries, departments and agencies and how much we are spending each year to provide much-needed social assistance to the poor and vulnerable. What are the gaps? Where are the overlaps? Are the people who really need the support getting it?

Note, I am not in any way against spending more, if it is possible, but I worry we might just spend more and yield the same results. We cannot remain comfortable with a system in which some people benefit (some more than others) and some don’t, though they have similar or greater needs. If you listen to a lot of daytime radio like me, you will find yourself asking “who is on PATH?” a lot. So, are we going to simply throw more money to the same entities to do the same things? What is the plan? What exactly is needed, and where?

GRANULAR WAYS

Can we talk about social spending in more granular ways? Take PATH, for example. How much has been allocated to PATH for the 2022-2023 fiscal year? According to the Finance Minister Dr Nigel Clarke, in his opening budget presentation, the Government will spend $16.9 billion, $2.4 billion more than it did for 2021-2022. Hopefully, I am using the correct figures. Of the $16.9 billion to be spent, this year, there is $7.9 billion for the PATH cash grant, $800 million for the Social Pension for the Elderly, $361 million for Rehabilitation Grants, $119 million for Social Intervention/Youth Empowerment Strategy, $7.7 billion to cover the costs of student nutrition ($6.3 billion), provision of school textbooks ($1 billion) and PATH school transportation ($380 million).

Does the budget make provision for new beneficiaries? If yes, how many? Does that number allow us to close the gap? How much more can and should we increase PATH by? These are questions people have that the Opposition is well placed to raise. MPs need to be more specific and intentional about the kind of assistance that is required, rather than simply pander to the sentiment that ‘rain (prosperity) a fall but dutty still tuff’, and so something should be done. The parliament is the place where robust debates are necessary, where politicians should fiercely defend their constituents.

Jaevion Nelson is a human rights, economic and social justice and inclusive development advocate. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and jaevion@gmail.com, or follow him on Twitter @jaevionn.