The Editor, Sir:

Many of us would be familiar with street vendors who would parade downtown, especially King Street and Orange Street selling what, from a glance, looks like authentic gold bracelets and bangles and at prices you just can't believe to be true. Well, Minister of Finance Audley Shaw's Budget presentation last Thursday reminds me so much of those vendors.

I have never seen a budget so conflicted between its stated objectives and its policies. The minister clearly stated in his opening remarks and throughout the presentation that the debt was the "major binding constraint to growth and development in Jamaica" and that we must all come together to tackle this "long-standing and fundamental economic problem". Yet, nowhere in the 25 pages of his two-hour speech did the minister mention any policy or any plan, not one thought of how to tackle this "long-standing problem".

If the reader thinks that I am being unkind to Minister Shaw, please take a look at both the Expenditure outlined and the minister's presentation and you will see that the only item that has anything to do with production is a mere $1-billion increase in the agriculture budget which was not even highlighted in either presentation.

Developmental direction

This begs the question: Does the minister believe that the Budget process is about equating the expenditures with the revenues or does he realise that the Budget process is the single most important statement that a government can make that signals the developmental direction of a country? Does the minister realise that businesses and investors make plans around the Budget because it is a critical component in their strategic direction?

Two years in a row the minister has come to the nation and presented a Budget that is not credible. The major talking point of this Budget is the need to increase revenue while reducing our appetite for borrowing. A tax package of some $24 billion was announced, and we are told that this is necessary because we need to close the gap in the budget and we cannot keep borrowing to do so.

However, let's take a look at what really happened on Thursday. Before the minister started to speak, the country had a national debt of approximately $1.2 trillion, and one would have expected the minister to present a Budget that would target debt reduction and increase our productivity or new production.

Tax imposition

The minister finally presented the much-heralded tax package, including the much-dreaded "gas tax" of $24 billion. The build-up to this tax imposition implores us to make the sacrifice to tackle this "long-standing problem".

Admittedly, a good PR job was done by the Government and the public was in no mood for a violent reaction to the "gas tax". Given that the stage was now set, one would have expected that this sacrifice would have been used towards increasing productivity and production. Well, surprise, surprise! Not one cent was allocated to the primary objective.

Instead, a feel-good programme of an increase in the PAYE threshold costing $12 billion was what we got. In a nutshell, therefore, the minister started the speech with a debt of 1.2 trillion, increased it by 12 billion and then asks us to sacrifice at the gas pump to pay for it.

I am, etc.,

MICHAEL ENNIS

maennis@netcomm-jm.com