It is worth noting that in his rebuttal of the budget, Dr Sant did not offer a genuine alternative to Dr Gonzi’s proposals. He merely promised more of the same. The difference was only quantitative and procedural, as confirmed by the party’s slogan “too little; too late”. This means that, in the event of a Labour victory at the polls, Malta would experience a change of guard, not one of substance.

This is unfortunate, because the proposed budget calls for serious consideration of the hidden price the nation may have to pay for the “largesse” offered to the well-to-do and the wealthy.

Suffice it to mention the proposal of universal child benefit, which, in many cases, will amount to doling social welfare and government “handouts” to the rich! Indeed, this measure violates the very concept and purpose of child benefit, which, by definition and accepted practice, aims at helping parents struggling financially to raise their children.

But rather than focus on single items, my concern is with the social and ethical tone of the budget itself.

At the outset, I must admit that I am wary of governments that attack, and implicitly denigrate, the tax system, insinuating that it is a fundamentally unjust or evil institution. This attitude is often a prelude to further privatisations of social services, elimination of essential social programmes and the subsequent unravelling of the country’s social safety net. The reason for this is simple. A progressive and responsible tax system is essential to sustain a just, healthy and compassionate society. It is the price of civilization. Doling money indiscriminately, as the budget does, extracted from limited resources and tax revenue, will never compensate for the loss of social programmes and services.

From this perspective, the proposed budget betrays a government mind-set that is dominated and guided by a corporate and business agenda that gnaws at the responsibilities of an elected government, urging it to abandon its social mandate and follow a “laissez-faire” policy.

Whichever way you look at it, the budget does not reflect a social conscience; neither does it promote the common good. It focuses on individualism and encourages greed and self-interest. It appeals to the individual within the community, not to the community-individual.

It is the responsibility of an elected government to sustain and promote a just and caring society that provides good social programmes and sound ecological and environmental stewardship. To achieve this, any administration needs a sound fiscal policy and practice and a guaranteed source of revenue that normally comes from taxes and other duties.

Many people readily acknowledge that the quality of a society is measured by the care it extends to the weakest of its members. The present budget does little to reflect this concern. Indeed, when you do the math, you find that the rich get richer and the poor stagnate, in spite of the crumbs thrown their way. If the government (and the Opposition!) really want to create a just and compassionate society, why not start by assisting the “working poor” by raising the minimum wage, which currently stands at a shameful Lm1.34 (EUR3.12) an hour.

The blatant opportunism exposed by the budget makes suspect the present government’s change of heart regarding the proposed golf course in Malta, and the building of villas for the opulent, at Ramla l Hamra in Gozo. Both projects would have disastrous environmental and ecological consequences. It would be wise to seek some kind of guarantee that the National Party, if re-elected, will not renege on its decision. The tragedy is that the leader of the official Opposition is promising to build two golf courses in Malta and one in Gozo! My sympathies with the Maltese electorate that finds itself between Scylla and Charybdis.

A. Cuschieri

Bugibba