EDITORIAL - Acknowledge hard truths in tonight's debate

Politicians like to dole out promises of expensive undertakings then worry about the consequences later. That is usually manifested in fiscal deficits, bulging national debt, low growth and high unemployment.

Jamaica is a good poster child of this kind of bad behaviour.

It is, therefore, to the credit of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the People's National Party (PNP), which hopes to wrest away the government, that their campaigns for the general election in nine days' time have moderated this tendency to overpromise. They have been forced to acknowledge to voters Jamaica's deep economic problems.

It is against this backdrop that we look forward to tonight's debate between Andrew Holness, the JLP leader and incumbent prime minister, and Portia Simpson Miller, the president of the PNP. While not expecting a total eschewing of partisanship, we hope that leaders will put aside ad hominem attacks and engage in a respectful debate about solutions.

It is prudent, even though they should know it, to remind Prime Minister Holness and Mrs Simpson Miller of the core of Jamaica's economic crisis: its debt. At September, Jamaica owed its creditors $1.6 trillion, not counting some off-book transactions. That debt is equivalent to 130 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), and closer to 140 per cent when other liabilities are taken into account.

To put things into perspective, in the last fiscal year, after debt servicing, what the Government had left over from taxes and grants could pay only two-thirds of public-sector wages. Government had to borrow to meet other obligations.

There are two ways to bring the debt under control: one is to bring the fiscal account into greater balance, and the other, grow the economy. The latter is dependent on the former, for the less the Government borrows, the less it crowds out private-sector investment.

Tough decisions

In that regard, public-sector and pension reforms to lower the wage bill as a percentage of GDP is critical. So, too, is tax reform, to ensure that those who have not, for a long time, paid their fair share, including the tourism sector, are brought into the tax net. In tandem with these must be rational policies to grow the economy, including programmes to lower energy costs.

These are the kinds of issues that we expect Mr Holness and Mrs Simpson Miller to address, with utmost seriousness and with the absence of guile. For instance, while the leaders commit to safety nets for society's poorest, these must be precise and finely targeted, based on credible means tests.

People should be told frankly that some services now offered on the taxpayers' bill were never affordable and won't be maintained. Free tuition at the secondary level and universally free health care are among these.

The leaders should also outline a clear path for a re-engagement of the International Monetary Fund to repair the Government's agreement that collapsed a year ago. An agreement with the Fund is important for capital flows by bilateral and multilateral institutions, while allowing for an independent arbiter of fiscal rectitude.

We understand that neither leader can run the country on his or her own, so they should convince us that they have the most competent supporting teams. If either feels not up to the task, he or she should so declare.