When economic growth is substantial, ministers of finance can find themselves being subjected to pressures as strong as when austerity policies are being followed. This happens because one and all believe that in good times, one and all should sharein the growing pie. The reasons deployed to explain why decisions that bring higher expenditures in their wake should be considered with prudence, sound increasingly weak.
Perhaps in recent times, the finance minister who has best succeeded to resist pressures for higher spending has been the German Schauble. Inded, one could argue that he has done so with excessive commitment.
The Malta government’s budget published this week, launched as had been promised, new initiativeson the social front. That is commendable. Unless I have missed some crucial details hiddenin the rather turgid rhetoric that defines budget speeches, it seems like a good equilibrium has been maintained: promised initiatives do not exceed the limits of financial prudence, both for today and for tomorrow.
In this regard, more than being highlighted as a “good” budget – which it could hardly have failed to be given prevailing economic conditions – the programme for public finance as proposed for next year has the hallmark of a “sober” budget.
***
Abortion
The distance between Malta and Brussels is covered by a flight that takes some two hours and a half. But the distance in attitudes regarding abortion between the two sites is far longer than the time it would take to travel to the moon.
I could see how deep the abyss between two mentalities is last week, when taking part in a discussion about abortion for television, recorded at the European Parliament. Then, back in Malta, I raised the subject with friends, female and male.
There, to deprive women of the right to decide about matters which concern their bodies is considered as totally against human rights and as shameful. Women should have the full right to have abortions, if they so desire.
Here, it is considered as completely unnatural to allow abortion for this amounts to the destruction of human life. Whatever makes for the commencement of human life should be safeguarded at all costs, almost absolutely.
***
Malta's south
It’s quite true that the south of Malta has had to carry a concentration of projects and developments which have negatively affected thequality of lifethere. With the exception of Magħtab, industries and infrastructure which generate around them pollution or hassles for residents seem to have assembled down south from Marsa.
It is fair and in the national interest that measures are adopted to compensate as much as possible for this imbalance. No matter what you may think about the American University which the government wishes to establish, the fact that it is being earmarked for the south constitutes a big plus point for it.
The still unresolved dilemma regarding what should be done with the Djerma hotel site at Marsascala, illustrates the blockages that arise when “compensatory” measures vis a vis the south are envisaged.
What is best for the region: the provision of more open spaces where people can find a “natural” environment for recreational purposes? or should new efforts be mobilised to develop tourism? I used to believe the second option was the best one.