A MORONIC BUDGET

Those who still believe in Dr. Rowley and his Finance Minister, Colm Imbert, were in for a rude shock on Monday last when Mr. Imbert presented his rather moronic budget.  For example, Mr. Imbert and Dr. Rowley shut down in September, 2015 when they came to power an Aviation school that the previous UNC Government had established a few short moths earlier. Please forgive me that the impression that i have is that Mr. Imbert, desperate for ideas, has been reduced to thrashing around looking for something that he can boast about and all the while hoping that nobody will remember that he and his boss discarded this particular idea seven years ago! And yes, the Prime Minister has to take responsibility for his Finance Minister's actions. I mean, that's how the thing is supposed to work. How many other ideas have these two scuttled? And what has been the cost to productivity? Remember the laptops?

But what is becoming increasingly clear is that this economy is being run by morons and the fact is that an economy run by morons carries with it a price tag that is usually hidden under all the hoopla and political rhetoric. This latest budget falling from Mr. Imbert's pen is nothing short of stupid. It will leave everyone - except the very rich - scrambling to make ends meet. Living will become harder and more and more people will find it harder to feed themselves as prices on everything goes through the roof.

But it seems that Messrs. Rowley and Imbert aren't too worried as (to use Mr. Imbert's words) "they ain't riot yet"! Certainly nobody on the Government side seems either to understand or appreciate the very real hardships that the average person is facing. Can you imagine that the Prime Minister's solution to not spending money on  gas, to cut down the gas consumption, is to avoid going to work on time and to leave work early thus avoiding being in a traffic jam! If that isn't a moronic statement then what is? 

THE DEATH PENALTY

 Let's face it, there is only one good reason for the death penalty and that is revenge. It certainly is not a deterrent. The best deterrence for murder (or any other crime for that matter) is the fear of getting caught. And if the odds are something well over 90 percent that you will never be caught, what the heck? You'll get away with it. 

Let's be honest with ourselves: everybody who has a driver's licence has committed and will continue to commit the crime of exceeding the speed limit while driving his/her car. And we all do it because we know that our chances of getting caught are so small that we are hardly taking a chance. It's the same with murder. The people who are murdering people so brazenly by shooting them in bars and other open places are fairly certain that they will never be caught. If they thought for a moment that they would be caught you would see the murder rate plummet overnight. 

But they aren't being caught, and those few "unlucky" ones who are, know that their risk of being actually convicted because of lack of evidence is so small that it is almost not worth mentioning.

But back to the arguments for and against abolishing the death penalty. I understand all the reasoning that proponents of the death penalty put forward, but the truth is that the only valid reason is revenge (or "justice" as some might say).

Look, almost twenty-six years ago a cousin whom I loved like a brother was brutally murdered. The person who gave the order to kidnap and kill him is still walking the streets today as is the policeman who had been hired to do the job as are the 'jefes' in the police force who helped hide the evidence after the crime had been committed. (The evidence that I have is like saying to you prove that I was at your house at midnight last night. You know I was there. I know I was there, but I am going to lie and say that I wasn't, And nobody saw me there except you! So, prove that I was there!) But I would cheerfully hang all of them if I could and then go home and have a big, hearty dinner. But the truth is that although I will very readily concede that there are other very heartless monsters out there, the truth is that no matter what their actual crimes were I could not be the one to pull the lever to hang them even though I would probably agree that they didn't deserve to live.

So does that make me a hypocrite? Probably. But I do recognize that (a) I personally cannot deliberately kill another person and (b) I could easily kill somebody who killed a loved one. In other words, I would want revenge. And I do readily admit to the two very conflicting feelings that are inside me. I suspect that most people think like me too.

So? What do we do? The death penalty is a cruel , harsh and unusual punishment. It can't be justified with any reasoned argument ... except revenge. And revenge is a very powerful argument.

 Maybe the answer to the question of whether or not to abolish the death penalty is that if someone is found guilty of murder that person should have his/her freedom taken away for life. But we should be honest with ourselves and recognize that the ONLY effective deterrent against crime is the fear of getting caught. But sadly, in T&T today your chances of getting caught for any crime is less than your chances of getting a speeding ticket.

DOING BUSINESS WITH CHINA

 

What exactly are the terms and conditions that we have entered into with our loans from China? Why exactly was the recent loan of more than US$200 billion more advantageous to T&T than the terms offered by the IMF? The government has said that the IMF terms dictated (inter alia) that there would have to be significant reductions in the work forces in state enterprises such as WASA. Was this the only reason or the deciding factor? If it was the deciding factor does this mean that there will be NO reductions in the work forces of the various state enterprises? What happens if it is later found that unpleasant as it is that there has to be various reductions across the board? Does this mean that the rate of interest payable to the Chinese will be lowered to match that of the IMF? What guarantees (if any) are there that China will not seize any of our assets, like the port for example?

I am trying to understand the logic of our taking this rather large loan from China and not from the IMF.  No clear or logical explanation has ever been given and we seem to be going merrily along with simply the word of the Government that all is well and we don't have a thing to worry about. But the lack of information on or in our dealings with the Chinese gives rise to very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions that range from total incompetence and being outsmarted by the clever Chines to bribery and corruption and everything in between.

Just recently Sri Lanka lost ownership of its ports because it defaulted on a loan from China. Is that possible here? And if not, why not? Because we will never default so there is no danger to us from something like that happening?

Think about all the rights that have been stripped from us over the years: the right to feel safe, the right to know what is happening in the country, the right not to be spied upon by the authorities without some sort of oversight, the right to know the identities of our diverse population, the right to proper and timely information as to our exact financial situation, the right to proper working conditions and the list continues.

We have been compliant in this mistreatment. We vote for people whose policies and politics are not in the best interests of the people but in themselves; and when there is a conflict, guess who wins?

The fact is that the zero sum discourse between the PNM and the UNC of the past several decades has served more as a poison than a fertilizer.

Which comes back to China; why is it in our best interests to do business with China and not know ALL the details?