Promises are like boomerangs – they always return to those who make them. As the foolish suitor in the old Maltese book of jokes realised, the bigger they are, the harder it is to redeem them.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi did not have to wait three years to find that out in regard to his pre-2008 election promise to slash income tax for high earners.

His promise was broken in the first budget presented after the election, for that was when he had assured the electorate it would be fulfilled.

His excuse was that circumstances had changed so drastically since the election campaign that he had other priorities to consider before taking up his electoral pledge.

It was obvious that he had made the promise more for political gain than in earnest. For, if economic circumstances had deteriorated to such an extent, by Gonzi’s pre-electoral reasoning it was all the more opportune to fulfil his promise to cut income tax.

He had assured voters that the cut would pay for itself because it would stimulate economic activity. If such stimulation was ever needed, surely it was over the past three years, the start of which saw a global recession accelerating.

Signs of its consequences were already there when the Nationalist leader made his rash promise. It was in that context, in fact, that he had made it.

After scraping back into office, the Prime Minister and his government had no qualms about breaking their promise. That was not surprising; political history is littered with the sharp shards of broken promises.

Yet it was surprising that Gonzi did not mind being recognised as a sham in this regard, or at least as someone who, if he really meant what he said, had been wrong about it.

It was clear from the outset that the proposal to slash income tax for high earners, aside from being socially unjust, was also economically wrong. There was no way that the measure would finance itself through economic growth materialising as a result of it. Simple economics say that the higher one’s income, the higher the likelihood that a large part of an increase in the lucky fellow’s disposable income would be saved, not spent.

There might be one-off exemptions. If so these were more likely to see higher expenditure going into conspicuous consumption, usually imported, rather than into consumption of the type of domestic goods and services that significantly boost economic growth.

It is quite incredible that the Prime Minister and PN leader, rather than apologising for his broken promise, is continuing to attempt to take Malta for a ride.

He put out a glossy publication, financed by taxpayers’ money, trumpeting his government’s record during three years in office, but with no sincere comment on the pre-election commitment. The Times, reporting the Prime Minister on April 5, picked up the point that the pre-election pledge to slash income tax has not been honoured.

The Prime Minister was questioned about it. He tried to squirm out of it, saying the promise would be honoured when the government was satisfied it will benefit competitiveness and growth.

None of the journalists present, it seemed, pressed Gonzi to explain the blatant way in which his current stance contradicted his pre-election promise. Back then, he had said it would benefit competitiveness, growth and more. Had he been simply playing to the gallery in another example from the old-politics handbook? Or had he not truly known what he was saying?

My own theory is that Gonzi really believed that cutting income tax would finance itself, but the Finance Minister’s economics team disabused the government of that misconception. If not, the Nationalist leader had simply misled the electorate, promising something he knew he could not deliver.

So, what now? The Prime Minister continues to speak of Malta’s economic performance in glowing terms. We have fared better than many countries, no doubt about that. But the fiscal deficit targets, adjusted for the structural changes that have taken place, such as the end of the Drydocks subvention, and measured against the government’s original budget forecasts are still unfulfilled.

Growth in the domestic economy is uneven, unduly skewed towards the new part of the services sector and irregularly distributed along the visible export spectrum. That the economy is not doing badly does not mean that it is doing well enough relative to its potential.

So when will the Prime Minister deem it opportune to remember his pre-election income tax promise and put it into effect?

One answer is, at no time this side of the election, but he will make the promise afresh in the electoral manifesto for the next election, saying the time was ripe and, if the people trusted him again, income tax would definitely be cut in the first post-election budget.

There is another possibility. The government will announce a reduction in income tax rates in its last budget, though there will not be a full year left for it to work out its true effect. That would leave the next government to pick up the tab.

Cynical? Certainly. But some will not have forgotten what took place in 1996. Then, Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami, though he had in hand a secret report from his Finance Minister detailing the parlous financial position, called an early election claiming all along that money was not a problem.

It was left to the incoming Labour administration to deal with the horrendous structural deficit left behind by the defeated Nationalist government. Will history repeat itself?