Tweet
Opposition leader shines in budget debate
Ken Chaplin
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Opposition leader Portia Simpson Miller shone in her budget presentation last week. Although parts of her wide-ranging speech appeared as if she was on a political campaign, other parts were solid and pertinent. Most of what she said was objective which could have an impact on the country. She even made some worthwhile suggestions. Overall, it was one of the most profound speeches ever made by her in Parliament both as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
Because I write this column I have read the text of all of Simpson Miller's budget speeches from cover to cover, and I found some of what she had to say both interesting and challenging and in parts inspiring from the perspective of the content. Her delivery has improved tremendously and so has her style. She started out by describing the budget as incomplete, incoherent and incredible. Clearly, this was an overstatement. She said that the budget was having a devastating impact on middle-class professionals, both in the public and private sectors, the business community, the self-employed, pensioner, farmer, youth, the aged, the poor and destitute. This cannot be denied.
SIMPSON MILLER... had some good ideas.
SIMPSON MILLER... had some good ideas.
1/1 
The Opposition leader said that with inflation projected at 10 per cent, this year's budget will purchase 25 per cent less goods and services. It will be in reality far worse, given the increases of 60 per cent in adult bus fares, 25 per cent on children's fares, tax on electricity bills, tax on gas announced in April last year and property tax shortly before the budget was presented. Also, what cannot be denied is the devastating economic situation and crippling debt. Of course, it is well known that the "devastating" economic situation was caused by the crippling debt incurred by her government during its more than 18 years in power and the economic meltdown of the 1990s caused primarily by high interest rates which cost taxpayers $40 billion.
Simpson Miller struck the right note when she criticised the move by the government to remove $400 million from the National Health Fund to buy a new building for the institution at a time when the prime minister said that there is excess space in government buildings in Kingston that need to be utilised. Here she caught the government with its pants down.
Her proposal for the "real strengthening of Parliament", in support of the comment by Bruce Golding in his inauguration speech as prime minister, was well taken. Said Simpson Miller, "Parliament must become a place for solutions to the country's critical and urgent problem." She suggested that Parliament set aside two or three days every quarter to focus like "the laser beam" on critical national issues. This approach, she said, would help Parliament to, among other things, utilise every tax dollar more efficiently
in achieving the desired results for which the nation yearns.
Speaking with what appeared to be sincerity, Simpson Miller gave the assurance that the Opposition would not make crime a "political football". She said the Opposition is committed to an open and effective partnership with the government so that collectively "we can finally forge an alliance of all law-abiding citizens and entities to restore safety and security across the country. Crime increases the number of traumatic cases in hospitals, it reduces the productivity of businesses and it affects the ability of children to learn, she emphasised. Many people share Simpson Miller's views. I have always felt that the pressure of crime could be reduced considerably if some politicians stopped giving guns to criminals to terrorise the people in order to win elections.
Again, her recommendation that time be taken in Parliament to discuss the levels of crime in the country and the action the people must take is worthy of consideration by the government. I regard as profound her suggestion that in any community-based strategy to solve crime must be a rescue mission programme which will target youth that are at risk - the youth who are the prime candidates for recruitment by criminals as well as those who are now in the clutches of criminals. Simpson Miller is right, but we all know that governments over the past 20 years have spoken about social intervention without giving the necessary support to make it work.
Nevertheless, her call for more budgetary support and craft of social intervention programmes which will target the worst crime factories islandwide, and systematically eradicate the conditions which manufacture murderers and turn playing fields into killing fields, is most welcome.
Another good proposal by Simpson Miller is that the issue of economic growth and job creation must be the subject of extensive, intensive and ongoing discussion within Parliament and outside. Some people might argue that the sectoral debate in the House of Representatives and the state of the nation debate in the Senate provide the opportunity for those special matters which the Opposition leader wants debated.
It has always been said that one of Simpson Miller's weaknesses is that the budget presentation when she was prime minister and since she became Opposition leader did not have sufficient substance.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...debate_7553602
Ken Chaplin
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Opposition leader Portia Simpson Miller shone in her budget presentation last week. Although parts of her wide-ranging speech appeared as if she was on a political campaign, other parts were solid and pertinent. Most of what she said was objective which could have an impact on the country. She even made some worthwhile suggestions. Overall, it was one of the most profound speeches ever made by her in Parliament both as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
Because I write this column I have read the text of all of Simpson Miller's budget speeches from cover to cover, and I found some of what she had to say both interesting and challenging and in parts inspiring from the perspective of the content. Her delivery has improved tremendously and so has her style. She started out by describing the budget as incomplete, incoherent and incredible. Clearly, this was an overstatement. She said that the budget was having a devastating impact on middle-class professionals, both in the public and private sectors, the business community, the self-employed, pensioner, farmer, youth, the aged, the poor and destitute. This cannot be denied.
SIMPSON MILLER... had some good ideas.
SIMPSON MILLER... had some good ideas. 1/1 Simpson Miller struck the right note when she criticised the move by the government to remove $400 million from the National Health Fund to buy a new building for the institution at a time when the prime minister said that there is excess space in government buildings in Kingston that need to be utilised. Here she caught the government with its pants down.
Her proposal for the "real strengthening of Parliament", in support of the comment by Bruce Golding in his inauguration speech as prime minister, was well taken. Said Simpson Miller, "Parliament must become a place for solutions to the country's critical and urgent problem." She suggested that Parliament set aside two or three days every quarter to focus like "the laser beam" on critical national issues. This approach, she said, would help Parliament to, among other things, utilise every tax dollar more efficiently
in achieving the desired results for which the nation yearns.
Speaking with what appeared to be sincerity, Simpson Miller gave the assurance that the Opposition would not make crime a "political football". She said the Opposition is committed to an open and effective partnership with the government so that collectively "we can finally forge an alliance of all law-abiding citizens and entities to restore safety and security across the country. Crime increases the number of traumatic cases in hospitals, it reduces the productivity of businesses and it affects the ability of children to learn, she emphasised. Many people share Simpson Miller's views. I have always felt that the pressure of crime could be reduced considerably if some politicians stopped giving guns to criminals to terrorise the people in order to win elections.
Again, her recommendation that time be taken in Parliament to discuss the levels of crime in the country and the action the people must take is worthy of consideration by the government. I regard as profound her suggestion that in any community-based strategy to solve crime must be a rescue mission programme which will target youth that are at risk - the youth who are the prime candidates for recruitment by criminals as well as those who are now in the clutches of criminals. Simpson Miller is right, but we all know that governments over the past 20 years have spoken about social intervention without giving the necessary support to make it work.
Nevertheless, her call for more budgetary support and craft of social intervention programmes which will target the worst crime factories islandwide, and systematically eradicate the conditions which manufacture murderers and turn playing fields into killing fields, is most welcome.
Another good proposal by Simpson Miller is that the issue of economic growth and job creation must be the subject of extensive, intensive and ongoing discussion within Parliament and outside. Some people might argue that the sectoral debate in the House of Representatives and the state of the nation debate in the Senate provide the opportunity for those special matters which the Opposition leader wants debated.
It has always been said that one of Simpson Miller's weaknesses is that the budget presentation when she was prime minister and since she became Opposition leader did not have sufficient substance.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...debate_7553602