Politics and Budgets

[Sunny]

I know it has been this way since the dawn of time and it is the same in almost every Country but surely we now have to look and see how budgetary decisons are made and whether they should be made by politicians who are basically only thinking about the next election.

The idea that current spending is in someway protected at the expense of capital expenditure that has more long term benefits to the economy simply because it is politically easier is disgraceful. It's memos like this that the IMF should be coming down on. The worst part is that they raided private pension funds to pay for so called 'job creation' schemes and they moaned about growth and stimulus while on the opposition benches and yet as soon as they get into power, they realise that going after rich pensioners, public sector pay and some social welfare recipiants is too politically painful. We will never learn.

http://www.independent.ie/national-...-ministers-welfare-cuts-backlash-2928029.html

 

[DerKaiser]

I agreed 100%.

One point I'd argue though, is that we needed to start applying common sense to the way large capital budgets were being spend. That's the one good thing that might come from temporarily slashing capital spending.

Current spending is protected for one reason alone, and that is politics.

The pensioner situation always makes my blood boil. Young families are struggling to make ends meet with massive mortgages, stuck in tiny apartments whilst the grey brigade defend every 'entitlement' without a shred of solidarity with the coping classes - and not only do they get away scott free, they actually somehow managed convince the public that, unlike struggling people large mortgages and with young children, they should be untouchable in the economic downturn. A PR guru would have been proud of their campaign.

Taking away automatic medical entitlements from the over 70s was bound to be an emotive issue and it was done in a stupid way. If done right, those on good incomes (€35k+) would have been left their benefits but been charged a levy e.g. €500 p.a.
But somehow society has now been brainwashed into the notion that well off older people shouldn't make any contribution to the non-means tested generous benefits they receive.

 

[Sunny]

I agreed 100%.

One point I'd argue though, is that we needed to start applying common sense to the way large capital budgets were being spend. That's the one good thing that might come from temporarily slashing capital spending.

Current spending is protected for one reason alone, and that is politics.

I have no problem with common sense. For example, the linking up of the two Luas lines is a joke but Leo said it would go ahead because it looks good and is cheaper than some other projects...And yet then I hear spending on broadband infrastructure will be cut.

 

[Shawady]

I think it was discussed on this site before but I think it would be a good idea to have the Minister for Finance as a non-politcal role. The different ministers could still have control of how their budget is spent but the MOF would have final say on where money is allocated accros the different depts.

I don't know how this person could be appointed but maybe there could be a process where the succesful candidate would have to be approved by both sides of the house/Seanad/President?
At least in this way the MOF would not be swayed by populist opinion.

 

[Chris]

I fully agree with you Sunny, but unfortunately I do not believe that politicians will freely give any of their powers; they definitely will not give up one of their most lucrative powers.