If any of our finance ministers enjoy giving a budget presentation it must be the incumbent Audley Shaw. His enthusiasm as he delivered his opening speech on May 12 was contagious. A national budget that calls for 10 per cent less spending than the one presented by the previous Administration a year ago has been met with grudging but loud applause coming from the most unlikely sources.

The Jamaica Manufacturers’ Association, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica, a few normally taciturn analysts, and even some sectors of the media have underlined more pluses than minuses.

But it has not been all hunky-dory for the jovial Minister Shaw. The Government’s famous tax reform plan has been roundly described by sharp shooters as reckless, poorly thought out, disadvantageous to the poor, and a desperate attempt to fulfil election promises.

The Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller and her spokesman on finance have blasted the plans as unbalanced, unworkable, and in Peter Phillips’s view, a sham. The People’s National Party (PNP) president came up with a new name to catch the headlines when she described it as “tax-perity”. More on that later.

But there are budget speeches, Mr Speaker, and there are budget speeches. While the minister’s speech was delivered with panache, humour, conviction, and substance, the Opposition spokesman’s delivery was rather lukewarm, presented head down, and ended up as a recitation of the points that had already made the rounds of PNP platforms being mounted in preparation for the local government campaign.

In contrast to Shaw’s, his had more ebbs than flows. For the first time in four years, the former finance minister, who by the way does a vigorous foxtrot and plays a boasty game of dominoes, found himself cast in the role of prophet of doom. And he played that role to the hilt.

To tell the truth, we who are not thoroughly versed in statistics and figures and economic jargon, we like a little jazz in our political speeches, even when discussing such a serious subject as the national budget.

We were happy with Audley’s performance, even if we didn’t fully understand the maths. The Government is off to a running start. Which other finance minister in the world has ever described his budget presentation as “new and exciting”.

I cannot forget Audley’s quip while preparing for the national political debates prior to the 2007 general election: “Don’t put forward only one opponent to debate against me. I will take on any three of them at one time, and don’t worry, I will whip all three of them. This with a race horse flogging motion and a hearty Audley Shaw laugh.

Now I agree with those who have pointed to a gap in the budget estimates. The $13.8 billion expected in tax revenue covers nine months, leaving a yawning three months to be covered by an additional $4 billion from an unidentified source. Where is that to come from? Eh, Audley?

And there is a large section of the population that will not benefit from the increased tax relief threshold. They will have to slug it out paying for transportation and other inevitable price increases engendered by the new gas tax. Eh, eh, now, crow the naysayers. I told you so.

But hush. The debate is not yet over. The prime minister is still to speak. And guess who will have the ‘last lick’, none other than Shaw himself. And I will bet my last dollar that Prime Minister Andrew Holness has reserved the announcements of increased Programme for Advancement Through Health and Education support and minimum wage levels for his presentation on Tuesday. If that be the case, then Audley will be riding high when he closes the debate on Thursday.

Mark you, with all its laudable intentions, this could be a costly budget to support. But even in PNP circles, they are quietly admitting that it’s a credible budget by economic standards, according to Imani Duncan-Price, “although”, writes Imani, “a credible budget is not always a good budget for people”. They should know.

Budget monikers

Back to Simpson Miller and her “tax-perity” nickname. Our politicians have a penchant for attaching names to budgets that suit their point of view. I took a look down history lane and marvelled at the names pinned on to each budget presentation by Government and Opposition spokesmen over the years. Some are flattering, some are not. The period of the 1960s and 1970s, is particularly, instructional. Some of the labels have gone down in history as apt reminders not of the budget, but of the particular circumstances surrounding the economy at the time.

The pattern developed during the 1960s with Donald Sangster (Jamaica Labour Party – JLP) first rolling the pitch with what he called a Stocktaking Budget after winning the 1962 election, and the following year his Action Budget, boasting that it was the largest national budget to date. It passed the 50 million pounds barrier for the first time with a gross national expenditure of 55-million pounds, which at that time would be converted into $110 million.

Sangster also came up with a Production Budget in 1964, an Expansion Budget in 1965, and a Consolidation Budget in 1966 — with 76 million pounds expenditure, but no taxes. Of interest, he had to put up a stout defence of the new National Insurance Scheme introduced by then Minister of Labour L G Newland. The then Opposition had decried it as a form of new taxation and other choice words.

Following Sangster’s ‘premature’ death on April 11, 1967, the new finance minister, Edward Seaga, presented another version of the Expansion Budget, followed by his Reform Budget in 1968.

The naming of the budget faded out in the 1970s as finance ministers became wary of being trapped by hard-to-forget monikers. Nevertheless, the Opposition (JLP) of the 1970s was always happy to attach an uncomplimentary sticker to the PNP’s presentations such as “Austerity Budget” for David Coore’s (PNP) 1972 budget. The Government responded to that one with “better must come”.

The pace picked up with Coore’s first full budget in 1973. That debate was to mark the start of an era of sharp confrontation between the parties with no quarter given at budget time. The announcements of wide measures of increased taxation led Seaga to charge that the Government was on a “collision course with bankruptcy”.

Prime Minister Michael Manley hit back with his socialism declaration, his free education programme announced in 1973, and the bauxite levy in 1974 which led to additional earnings.

That did not stop the Opposition from bawling out ‘Stagflation Budget’ as they criticised the inflation rate and the perennial tax increases. The fireworks had begun.

The drama reached its high point when Seaga indicated that he would make his 1975 budget speech outside Gordon House. This was in objection to Speaker Ripton McPherson’s ruling to change the order of speakers by putting him to speak before, instead of after the prime minister. It was decided he would speak at the Pegasus hotel instead. More than 500 people were in attendance. The speech and the venue created much controversy, with threats of legal proceedings against Seaga over quotations made from a Bank of Jamaica document said to be confidential.

Enter the 1978 IMF

By 1978 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had assumed its role as a new player in the budget scheme of things. Arguments for and against the IMF dominated the budget debates. Finance Minister Eric Bell, who had succeeded a war-weary David Coore, announced on March 14, 1978 that a new IMF programme was being negotiated. The understanding included a wage guideline ceiling of 15 per cent and devaluation. A special House sitting was called on the night of May 16 to examine the agreement. The Opposition pulled no punches, calling on the Government to resign. Hugh Shearer weighed in on the wage guidelines, which he called “unbearable”. Manley made an impassioned plea to the unions to support the measures.

Seaga used humour to drive home his points: “Chicken back, Mr Speaker, which has become chicken forward, or chicken chassis, has flown out of reach of the poor as it’s up from 17 to 38 cents per pound.” This was 1978.

Bell came back with a “Stabilisation Budget’ in 1979. An increase in gas prices cautioned the minister to assure Jamaica that gas prices would not pass $4 per gallon. He had more than enough reason to give his assurance. All-island gas demonstrations had erupted in January of that year. The following year saw a new finance minister — the third since 1972 — when Hugh Small was named to succeed Bell. Bell had resigned following a recommendation made by the PNP’s National Executive Committee to reject the IMF programme. The Cabinet accepted the recommendation.

Small’s one and only budget, in May 1980, caused consternation in some circles when white rum was increased from 30 cents to 35 cents, beer from 60 cents to 70 cents. That would have been enough to fall any finance minister.

The Opposition saw an irreconcilable gap between expenditure and revenue, challenged the viability of any alternative path being put forward by Michael Manley, and put forward foreign investment as our only hope.

The rest is history. The throne speech that year, 1980, started and ended on a general election theme. The members poured out of Gordon House to get on with their campaign. With that the curtain was brought down on one of the most event-packed decades in the history of our parliamentary budget debates. Looking back, we have been down that road before.

Lance Neita is a public and community relations consultant. Send comments to the Observer or lanceneita@hotmail.com.