Tweet
2 Parties a get lick, one on each alternating week, it seems.
Progressive agenda vs regressive record
Published: Tuesday | September 28, 2010 0 Comments and 0 Reactions
Robinson
Gordon Robinson, Contributor On Sunday, September 19, I acted foolishly.Believing that the Philadelphia Eagles, leading 35-17, had done enough to defeat the toothless Detroit Lions, I clicked away from that critical NFL game to watch live coverage of Portia Simpson Miller's speech to the People's National Party (PNP) annual conference.
I paid the penalty for breaking Kenny Rogers' cardinal rule:
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done."
I was dealt a double whammy. While I watched Portia, the Lions staged an unlikely rally good enough to cover the "spread", and my significant investment disappeared quicker than an Olint deposit. Additionally, I suffered through a speech so far removed from reality and reason that it made the plot for "Lost" seem credible.
As Portia promised perpetual growth, I wondered "how?" Just before Gilbert, Jamaica had a budget surplus of 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) which subsequently became a deficit of 1.5 per cent. By 2007, it was 3.7 per cent. In 1990, the US dollar equated J$6.50; in 2007, J$70.40. From 1990 to 2007, average annual growth rates were about one per cent inclusive of three years of negative growth; and Jamaica became one of the 10 most-indebted countries in the world. GDP stagnated; external debt more than doubled; exports declined; and imports grew.
Economic guru
The PNP's agenda sounds progressive, but its record is regressive. Which is more reliable? What's new, Portia? Will you give us the same old leaders; same old economic guru; same old economic plan? You now preach growth and promise tax incentives. Why now? Why not do it back then? Is it that time in Opposition and lust for power concentrates the mind wonderfully? In 2007, didn't your economic guru warn Audley Shaw that there was no money to fund his wild promises? Don't you say the economy is worse off now than it was then? So, where's the money for your round of wild promises coming from? Or is this another hollow, vote-catching exercise that you'll conveniently forget once elected?
As I watched Portia promising tax breaks, I was haunted by the spectre of Michael Manley, waxing lyrical in Half-Way Tree square in the late 1980s, promising that his first act, if returned to Jamaica House, would be to remove the iniquitous tax on interest credited to savings accounts and the cess on UWI students' tuition. Here we go again.
Recently, I wrote of the 18-year PNP government: "when it wasn't playing fast and loose with ethics, the PNP was busy turning incompetence into an artistic tour-de-force of which Dagwood Bumstead would be proud." (See: 'It's The PNP's Fault', Gleaner September 7). It brought me trouble. The following appeared in my inbox the next day:
"Dear Mr Robinson,
We act for Mr Dagwood Bumstead.
He has instructed us to contact you regarding a reference to him contained in an article written by you and published in the September 7, 2010 edition of the Daily Gleaner. The article contains the suggestion that our client's incompetence is on a par with that of the PNP (which we understand to be a Jamaican political party).
Since the publication of the article, our client has been dismissed from his senior management position at J.C. Dithers & Co, refused consortium by his wife, Blondie, and subjected to the ridicule and opprobrium of the entire carpool.
Our client has suggested that a multi-layered sandwich and fruit trifle would be the very least he would consider if an out of court settlement is to be achieved.
Sincerely,
Doowie, Cheetham and How.
Barrack Room Lawyers and Receivers
of Oaths."
Terrified, I immediately retained lawyers who responded:
"Dear Mr Cheetham
We act on behalf of obscure Gleaner columnist Gordon Robinson, who has asked us to respond to your letter of demand regarding his most recent publication in The Gleaner.
On reflection, our client has recognised the enormity of his error of judgment and offers early-onset Alzheimer's as his excuse having confused your client with his well-known colleague, Jiggs, for whom loss of consortium would be a blessing.
Our client will immediately apologise in appropriate terms and agrees, without reservation, to provide the compensation demanded whenever your client is next in Jamaica.
Yours sincerely,
Wen, Dewey, Fuchem and Howe
Hebrew Scholars, Attorneys, Notaries
Pubic; and Purveyors of Atonement"
The roseate cloud of unreality that engulfed the PNP conference forcefully reminded me of my promise to atone. Accordingly, I unhesitatingly retract the unflattering comparison and unreservedly apologise to Dagwood and his family for any embarrassment caused.
Peace and Love.
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com
Progressive agenda vs regressive record
Published: Tuesday | September 28, 2010 0 Comments and 0 Reactions
Robinson
Gordon Robinson, Contributor On Sunday, September 19, I acted foolishly.Believing that the Philadelphia Eagles, leading 35-17, had done enough to defeat the toothless Detroit Lions, I clicked away from that critical NFL game to watch live coverage of Portia Simpson Miller's speech to the People's National Party (PNP) annual conference.
I paid the penalty for breaking Kenny Rogers' cardinal rule:
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done."
I was dealt a double whammy. While I watched Portia, the Lions staged an unlikely rally good enough to cover the "spread", and my significant investment disappeared quicker than an Olint deposit. Additionally, I suffered through a speech so far removed from reality and reason that it made the plot for "Lost" seem credible.
As Portia promised perpetual growth, I wondered "how?" Just before Gilbert, Jamaica had a budget surplus of 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) which subsequently became a deficit of 1.5 per cent. By 2007, it was 3.7 per cent. In 1990, the US dollar equated J$6.50; in 2007, J$70.40. From 1990 to 2007, average annual growth rates were about one per cent inclusive of three years of negative growth; and Jamaica became one of the 10 most-indebted countries in the world. GDP stagnated; external debt more than doubled; exports declined; and imports grew.
Economic guru
The PNP's agenda sounds progressive, but its record is regressive. Which is more reliable? What's new, Portia? Will you give us the same old leaders; same old economic guru; same old economic plan? You now preach growth and promise tax incentives. Why now? Why not do it back then? Is it that time in Opposition and lust for power concentrates the mind wonderfully? In 2007, didn't your economic guru warn Audley Shaw that there was no money to fund his wild promises? Don't you say the economy is worse off now than it was then? So, where's the money for your round of wild promises coming from? Or is this another hollow, vote-catching exercise that you'll conveniently forget once elected?
As I watched Portia promising tax breaks, I was haunted by the spectre of Michael Manley, waxing lyrical in Half-Way Tree square in the late 1980s, promising that his first act, if returned to Jamaica House, would be to remove the iniquitous tax on interest credited to savings accounts and the cess on UWI students' tuition. Here we go again.
Recently, I wrote of the 18-year PNP government: "when it wasn't playing fast and loose with ethics, the PNP was busy turning incompetence into an artistic tour-de-force of which Dagwood Bumstead would be proud." (See: 'It's The PNP's Fault', Gleaner September 7). It brought me trouble. The following appeared in my inbox the next day:
"Dear Mr Robinson,
We act for Mr Dagwood Bumstead.
He has instructed us to contact you regarding a reference to him contained in an article written by you and published in the September 7, 2010 edition of the Daily Gleaner. The article contains the suggestion that our client's incompetence is on a par with that of the PNP (which we understand to be a Jamaican political party).
Since the publication of the article, our client has been dismissed from his senior management position at J.C. Dithers & Co, refused consortium by his wife, Blondie, and subjected to the ridicule and opprobrium of the entire carpool.
Our client has suggested that a multi-layered sandwich and fruit trifle would be the very least he would consider if an out of court settlement is to be achieved.
Sincerely,
Doowie, Cheetham and How.
Barrack Room Lawyers and Receivers
of Oaths."
Terrified, I immediately retained lawyers who responded:
"Dear Mr Cheetham
We act on behalf of obscure Gleaner columnist Gordon Robinson, who has asked us to respond to your letter of demand regarding his most recent publication in The Gleaner.
On reflection, our client has recognised the enormity of his error of judgment and offers early-onset Alzheimer's as his excuse having confused your client with his well-known colleague, Jiggs, for whom loss of consortium would be a blessing.
Our client will immediately apologise in appropriate terms and agrees, without reservation, to provide the compensation demanded whenever your client is next in Jamaica.
Yours sincerely,
Wen, Dewey, Fuchem and Howe
Hebrew Scholars, Attorneys, Notaries
Pubic; and Purveyors of Atonement"
The roseate cloud of unreality that engulfed the PNP conference forcefully reminded me of my promise to atone. Accordingly, I unhesitatingly retract the unflattering comparison and unreservedly apologise to Dagwood and his family for any embarrassment caused.
Peace and Love.
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com