Weekly Column

We can’t say we are surprised, but the first order of business of Tuesday’s Throne Speech was to abandon the Government’s much-touted 100-day agenda. Like a motorcar crashing into a brick wall we went from 100 to 0 at the stroke of a pen. In this case however, zero means “over time” in relation to the removal of VAT from building materials. So anybody who was about to build a house and was holding on for the removal of VAT had better not hold their breaths. Gone too is the 100 day promise to require a two-thirds majority of Parliament for a change of use for agricultural land. Perhaps a light bulb came on in someone’s head that their long awaited applications would take longer than 100 days and hence the delay. Other promises were made before and during the campaign for implementation in100 days that are no longer being heralded. Some are now being subjected to feasibility studies.

What the Government did do, while treasuring our seniors in their golden years, is to promise to lower the tax-free exemption on pensions from $40,000 a year, where it presently stands, to $36,000. Surely the six members of Government now who were present in Opposition (including Prime Minister Thompson) when these allowance were raised to $40 000 would know that they would as their first act as a government be now proposing to tax our pensioners!

They also promised to use at least 40% of Government’s patronage and incentives to allow new players into the distributive sector. While not indicating what level this is now at, they say this policy will increase competition in the sector and keep the cost of food down. Regrettably, DLP Administrations do not have a stellar record in this regard. Their last attempt to help small and medium sized businesses resulted in taxpayers having to pay three times the regular price to Neville Rowe for kola syrup meant for the School Meals Department. If past behaviour is an indicator of future performance don’t look for food prices to fall anytime soon as was the case this week with feed prices.

The Government singles out fiscal prudence as a hallmark goal in the management of the country’s economic affairs. Yet there are no clear indicators of how the Government intends to increase revenue. There is no mention in the throne speech at all of the island’s all-important financial services sector, second only in revenue generation to tourism. And while on the subject of tourism, a Tourism Master Plan “which will diversify and enhance the tourism products of Barbados by linking tourism to agriculture, culture, sports, the arts and the environment” does nothing to address the issue of attracting brand name hotel properties, increasing room stock, the value of the cruise ship industry or even at what level we should pitch our tourism product. No wonder the hoteliers are disappointed.

So we have been treated to a Throne Speech that by conservative estimates will cost the country over $1billion dollars and no mention of how we will pay for it. We are reminded of the refrain of a recent popular calypso: “Bring drinks. Somebody would pay.” Unfortunately, the ‘somebody’ will ultimately be the taxpayers!

Even more miraculous, and we use the word deliberately, is the Government’s promise to maintain a balanced budget while allowing for small fiscal deficits. While we are well aware of Minister Darcy Boyce’s ability as a technocrat, he would have to surpass the feats of master illusionist David Copperfield to have us believe that it is possible to have a balanced budget and a deficit at one and the same time.