The discussions on the budget have passed and a number of persons with whom I have spoken have asked the same question: What happened? The presentations made by many of the Members of Government were predictable. It is the same “road march” we have been hearing since February 2010. It is almost three years since coming into office and the Government has not taken responsibility for managing the affairs of this island. Their excuses are: -“It is the Governor!”“It is the British!”“It is the past Government!”“It is the former Minister of Finance!” Indeed it is everybody else but the people who were duly elected to represent us. It is therefore quite fair to ask the question: “Why are they staying in office?” If they are not capable of making their presence felt and carrying out their own policies and programs — should they not go home?
The Chief Minister likes to wax historical and has quoted Sir Oliver Cromwell’s statement made to the Rump Parliament of 1653 in Britain quite frequently in the House of Assembly. But, ironically, I can think of no other time in our history more appropriate to apply this quotation than to a Government which, after three years, has not been able to take charge. Cromwell said: “You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing! Depart I say and let us have done with you! In the name of God go!”This Government has sat for much too long blaming others for their own shortcomings.
The truth is that the people of Anguilla do not want to hear excuses – they want to see progress. They tuned in to listen to the debate on Budget — not to hear wild stories about the former Minister of Finance and his superhuman powers. They tuned in to find out what new taxes are being planned to be introduced or increased — not to hear how the British put a gun to the Chief Minister’s head to tax the people into submission. They tuned in to learn about Government’s plans to expand the economy — not to hear about the Governor having tea with Developers. They tuned in learn about the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility (FFR) — not to hear about the Chief Minister’s willingness to go to prison like Jomo Kenyatta and Nelson Mandela to become a martyr for his people. The people are becoming frustrated with the situation in Anguilla. They are losing their homes; their transportation; their jobs; and their businesses left, right and centre — they want to hear about Government’s strategy for turning things around.
But as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his presentation — the budget itself, based on what is presented in the actual document, is really not considerably different to last year’s. The one figure that drew some attention was the Interim Stabilization Levy (ISL). It was supposed to be terminated at the end of this year. However, not only was it not terminated but there was a plan to increase the revenue yield by removing the floor. This would have meant that persons making less than EC$2,000 a month would have been required to pay like everyone else. The Chief Minister tried to deny this fact in his budget speech, but the budget document itself made provision for an increase in yield from the tax of approximately EC$5 million — which was obviously based on the assumption that the floor would be removed. My concern with this is not only that it is a bad taxto begin with — but rather because it is being extended without any obvious efforts in place to make it fair to all taxpayers. It is unfair because there is no proper mechanism to accurately capture the self-employed; the employer is being made to pay both for his employees and himself; and the penalties are excessive.
Furthermore, there has been absolutely no work done on the implementation of the National Health Scheme. Yet the Chief Minister in his remarks tries to give the impression that there are firm plans in place to develop a “health insurance scheme” that will cover all Anguillians coming out of the same ISL tax measure. I want to admonish the Government that the implementation of a National Health Insurance System is not a frivolous undertaking — once implemented it must not fail! Failure would be catastrophic both socially and economically. That is why the past Government put a comprehensive plan in place to ensure its success. Apparently, all of that work has either been shelved or lost.
The only other tax measure that reflects any significant change to the Budget is the new Property Tax Bill which the Chief Minister brought to the House of Assembly, under his own hand, some weeks before the Budget Address. However, he promptly withdrew as if it was the first time he ever saw it in his life. The numbers reflected in the Budget would suggest that it might be introduced later in the year. The past Government was engaged in a process of rationalizing the property tax system. If the present Government is going to develop a fair and equitable system of assessment it could provide a robust source of tax revenue. The problem is that while much is being made about the revenue and expenditure side of the budget exercise no clear strategy has been presented on how the Government intends to expand the economy. There is a real limit to how much we can cut expenditure — but there are similar constraints as to how much we can take out of an economy that has been experiencing negative growth for the last four years. This is the real dilemma that the Chief Minister and his AUM Government will face over the next two years of its term. Unfortunately, it is questionable whether they have the correct style, approach and attitude to effect this change.
Given the foregoing, I would suggest that there is not a great deal that would prevent the FCO from signing off on or assenting to this Budget. It is balanced budget and we are coming out of a year with a surplus albeit as the CM himself described it in the House — “a mere manipulation of figures”. But since Mr. Baird highlighted the importance of signing the FFR, as a precondition for FCO assenting to the Budget, our party (the AUF) offered to show solidarity with the Government and present a joint position on the FFR with a view to making the case for some amendments or some adjustment to the various benchmarks and performance targets. In my article last week (“When the bell is rung”) I wrote: “The FFR is therefore a desirable document that is a part of a culture change pervading the Overseas Territories encouraging them to adopt more transparent and accountable methods in their dealings. Obviously, this is intended to prevent the reoccurrence of the TCI fiasco, by making good governance a part of the administrative processes by law.” I also suggested that it was not cast in stone. We therefore wrote to the Chief Minister suggesting that: “We are ready and prepared to work along with the Government and the relevant technocrats in the Anguilla Public Service, to put together Anguilla’s case for changes to the draft document. We are further prepared to appear with you to present the verbal arguments for the changes.”
The Chief Minister rebuffed our offer citing it as “playing politics” and proceeded to further denigrate the former Minister of Finance in his closing presentation — as usual. But our concerns remain. Will the Chief Minister in his intransigence allow a simple document, that actually reflects the way we should be operating in a transparent and accountable government, stand in the way of having the assent of the budget delayed yet another time? Would it not be better if we present a united position and case to the British on this document? Will the Chief Minister stretch this out into another fight with the British or into another stand for Independence? I sincerely hope not — because listening to the technocrats it would appear that these are easily negotiated differences.
I would also hate to believe that the Chief Minister would feel so threatened by the AUF that he would lose an opportunity to present a united position to the British on such a critical issue. Or, even worse (as someone suggested), does the appearance of my signature on the letter evoke such anger in the Chief Minister that it is tantamount to “waving a red flag in front of a bull?”
In fact, I am deeply concerned about the Chief Minister’s fixation with me that would cause him to abuse me every time he gets up to speak in the shelter of the House of Assembly. After all, the only thing I did to him was to make him Chief Minister twice. Before we formed the coalition Government in 1994 he was considered a pariah east of the South Hill roundabout. Why is he continually trying to discredit and malign me unfairly? Does he consider me some kind of threat to his agenda?
I have also discovered that the Chief Minister’s fixation is becoming contagious and is affecting his colleagues in and out of the House. They all seem to have “bought into” his constant accusations and slander. Almost every Government presenter in the Budget Debatesseems to have a similar fixation. They seem to be looking for the “bogey man”. They are best advised to search closer to home. Chances are they may sooner find him there. But if they are looking for him in the conduct of the former Minister of Finance — they can search “until the cows come home!”
