Political gimmicks or political facts

When we talk of state funds we are in actual fact talking of public funds, that is, taxpayers' money. The more the government spends, the more it needs to earn. State funds are mainly derived from direct and indirect taxation.

The government must balance its income and expenditure, and any shortfalls in income will eventually have to be met by the public.

An efficient government is one that manages to stimulate the economy so that the income generated from economic activity is sufficient to meet the expenditure.

The current government's expenditure is mainly geared towards the financing of: social services (including pensions, 30%), health (15%), general public services (16%), economic affairs (14%), education (13%) and others (12%).

Sant's gimmicks

The leader of the Opposition is not new to the local political scene. We have now got used to his electoral tactics and gimmicks. During the 1996 election campaign he promised to remove VAT, take Malta out of the Partnership for Peace and to freeze the island's EU application, among other things. And so he did. The results of those decisions are known to all.

During the 2003 election campaign he promised taxpayers a one-month exemption and warned that once Malta joined the EU, certain factory workers would lose their jobs. Thank goodness the public dismissed his gimmicks and pleas.

In the current electoral campaign he is promising his biggest gimmick ever: halving the water and electricity surcharge. This sounds like a fantastic offer, especially to those with high energy bills. It's as though the state is offering its services at sale prices! However, when one realises who the singer is, one will soon notice that it is the same old song.

We all know how the cost of fuel has shot up from $17.86 a barrel in January 1996 to over $82 per barrel last week, a staggering 459% increase. The state has to somehow bear this increase.

The Gonzi government solved the problem in the most socially correct and politically acceptable manner possible. Part of the cost was absorbed by the government and the rest by consumers in the form of a fuel surcharge. Low-income families were exempted from this surcharge altogether.

Cost of reduction

We have been informed that should the reduction in the surcharge offered by Dr Sant come into effect it will cost the state, that is taxpayers, some Lm30 million a year. Who is going to foot the bill? You? Me? Our neighbour?

It is obvious that Dr Sant's latest gimmick is aimed mainly at the most sensitive social group, the middle class. However, the middle class is made up of intelligent people, and they will undoubtedly ask who is going to pay for such a reduction.

The cost of this gimmick is no joke and the leader of the Opposition is duty bound to explain how a Labour government would make up for this shortfall in state revenue.

Does he intend to cut pensions, or maybe the students' stipend, or reduce social benefits? Does he intend to spend less on health services offered by the state and introduce a charge for them? Maybe he intends to cut the funds given to NGOs, or the funds spent on embellishing the environment? Who knows? One thing is for certain, and that is that the shortfall in government income of Lm30 million a year must be recovered somehow.

Or maybe Dr Sant has agreed a swifter solution which is beyond our imagination, Has he made an agreement with some country or countries prepared to make up for the shortfall in revenue in exchange for God knows what? Is there some 'Mintoffian' deal in the offing?

Dear countrymen beware. When you deal with Dr Gonzi you know exactly what you are in for. When you deal with Dr Sant you simply do not know what's next.

Dr Sant's political future is at stake. He is under absolute pressure to deliver victory to his party at all costs. He became party leader in highly controversial circumstances. He has lost two general elections and the EU referendum. He offered to resign in 2003 but he somehow found his way back to the leadership.

Success

The Gonzi government has done so well that it leaves no room for Dr Sant and his party to offer fresh policies. The only argument that New Labour (!) relies on is that the Nationalists have been in power for a long time.

But has a Nationalist government ever run the country aground? Has work ever been lacking? Has democracy ever been at risk? Has personal and national development ever slowed down? Has there ever been a brighter future for the country than there is now?

We must admit that the country has advanced in leaps and bounds in all sectors. The Gonzi government is approaching the end of its very successful first term and the second term promises to be even better.

The Smart City project, coupled with the planned industrial growth at Lufthansa Technik, in ICT, in pharmaceutical companies and in call centres, together with the transfer of health services from St Luke's Hospital to the ultra modern brand new Mater Dei Hospital and the growth of financial services and education, as well as the resurgence of tourism besides many others offer a future that this beautiful country - enriched with such an intelligent and hardworking population - has never experienced.

Dr Gonzi promises political stability, industrial growth and social policies which benefit one and all. Dr Sant promises unknown hypes and vibes. His song is the same, full of vague and improbable promises.

Don't take a risk

Don't put at risk the future of our children and other generations. The performance of past Socialist governments is a guarantee of the future a Socialist government offers. Do not be misled.

General elections should not be used to teach the governing party a lesson. The mistake may be too big to correct. We have already tried an alternative solution in 1971 and 1996 and both experiences proved bitter.

Dr Gonzi is a guarantee. Given a second mandate he will form a new team that will lead us into the future in a safe and sound manner.