With the budget having been presented – a historical first time a government has presented a budget for a sixth time during a tenure, with arguments both for and against – there is going to be the expected flurry of absolutely uninformed analyses and takes on the issue.
Not talking about the “hot takes” of the day itself but the supposedly more informed analysis. The SOP: the producer of the shows is going to call some economists to weigh in on the issue. Not a ridiculous choice, sure, but do they understand the nuances of public finance?
Their next choice is calling the captains of industry and commerce. Make no mistake here: this lot is stupid and almost all – all – its talking points will be motivated by personal benefit. And when I say personal, I mean it. I don’t mean a textile guy speaking only for the textile industry; I mean a textile guy specialising in Canvas Weave Number 7, Threadcount 134 talking about how the government should incentivise the export of Canvas Weave Number 7, Threadcount 134.
The politicians, of course, are going to be mouthing asinine bits of populism. And the retired military folks, it has been known from experience, are the wrong people to invite to weigh in on any issue, defence included.
Perhaps the best people to invite are former non-CSS bureaucrats of the finance and revenue divisions. Perhaps some other economists that are veterans of the Planning Commission.
Designing the budget is balancing expenditures and receipts. I find it difficult to understand how one can look at a budget and immediately say what a bad budget it is. Unless there is a drastically draconian change in the tax regime.
Be clear about the federal budget: the two heads of debt servicing and defence take up more than half the budget. There is a scarce little else to spend on.
Perhaps get niche experts, like those on education, health and other heads to examine individually and weigh in?
