...does the national budget for fiscal year 2012/13 address the important promises that were made during the recently completed general election campaign?

The Budget: Part I

Consider this

By Philip C. Galanis

On Wednesday past, May 30, the prime minister and minister of finance presented his much-anticipated first budget of the new administration that was elected only two weeks ago.  This week, we would like to Consider This… does the national budget for fiscal year 2012/13 address the important promises that were made during the recently completed general election campaign?

The short answer is that it begins to do so.  However, the extent to which it does is severely constrained by the distressing state of public finances that the Christie administration inherited from the former administration.  In addition, there is a time constraint challenge that significantly factors into what was contained in Prime Minister Christie’s recent Budget Communication.

For the past few terms, when general elections were held in early May of 2002, 2007 and 2012, the usual mid-May budgetary process has been punctuated by a change of government which imposed severe restrictions on the victor because of the very narrow time line between the elections and the required presentation of the national budget.  Therefore, in the absence of a predetermined fixed election date, successive governments should make a deliberate effort to avoid holding general elections in May because of the constraints that this event places on the implementation of a national budget designed to address the victor’s national agenda.  More about that at another time.

The state of public finances

It is now becoming increasingly evident that the former FNM administration that has always claimed to be a government of accountability and transparency has been neither. An early indication of this was first observed in the Ingraham Administration’s deliberate negligence to submit its customary and much anticipated mid-year budget report earlier this year.  It can be reasonably surmised that the former prime minister and minister of finance consciously decided to forego this practice in 2012, which he himself introduced with much fanfare and consistent conformity, for purely political reasons.

The former prime minister and his Cabinet clearly realized that if they honestly reported the state of public finances at mid-year, their deplorable financial performance would have been received with shock and awe by the Bahamian citizenry.  In the run up to elections, an honest report would likely have brought about an even more devastating outcome at the polls, and therefore, presumably, the FNM government took a conscious decision to withhold such reporting from the public, hoping that the public would place the lack of a report in the “no news is good news” category.

Another example of the FNM government’s willful refusal to report on the true state of public finances pertained to the New Providence road works, which the Public Accounts Committee, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Dr. Bernard Nottage, revealed had incurred a budget overrun of nearly $100 million.

A third instance of the FNM government’s lack of accountability regarding public finances was exposed in the current prime minister’s communication last week when the latter reported the horrendously high and historically unprecedented total deficit for 2011/2012 which rose to a record level of $570 million versus an approved total deficit of $314 million, an increase of $256 million or 82 percent more than was originally anticipated.  In line with the International Monetary Fund Government Finance Statistics (GFS) concept, the GFS deficit, which is the total deficit less debt redemption, for 2011/12 is projected to result in $504 million or 6.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). This is double the 3.0 percent that was presented by Mr. Ingraham as the forecast in last year’s Budget Communication.

Finally, the FNM government’s legacy to the national debt is equally disappointing and extraordinarily dismaying.  The national debt increased from $3 billion to $4.3 billion during its term in office from 2007 to 2012, an increase of 40 percent in five years.  This represents an historically high debt to GDP ratio of 56 percent.  Because of this inherited unparalleled GFS budget deficit of $504 million for 2012, the Christie administration will have to borrow an additional $504 million in order to pay off the financial excesses of the Ingraham administration.

The national debt will therefore increase to $4.8 billion by the end of the next fiscal year. But it gets worse. Again, because of the excessive commitments and spending of the Ingraham administration, all things being equal, and barring any unforeseen catastrophic developments over the next two years, given a projected record GFS deficit of $550 million for fiscal year 2013/14, is anticipated that the national debt will increase to well over $5.4 billion by 2014. This will represent a disastrously high debt to GDP ratio in excess of 60 percent.

All these unmatched and unequalled negative performance measures that the government inherited were incurred by an FNM government that frequently and triumphantly trumpeted its commitment to good governance, fiscal prudence, sound financial management, accountability and transparency in public finances.

It is fair to say that so-called good governance, fiscal prudence, sound financial management, accountability and transparency in public finances notwithstanding, Mr. Ingraham and his FNM Government have unquestionably left Mr. Christie and his government in a financial pickle.

Promises to keep

In spite of the alarming news, the Christie administration is still very determined to implement its agenda as articulated in its 100 day promises, the Charter for Governance, the Speech from the Throne and the Budget Communication.  While it will be enormously constrained by the fiscal realities that it has inherited, the new government has set about delivering on the social contract that serves as a basis of the mandate it was given on May 7.

It will be important for the new government to regularly give the Bahamian people an open and candid account of its stewardship over the next five years if it hopes to break the recent trend of one-term governments.

Conclusion

Next week, we will examine how the new administration’s budgetary provisions plan to remain true to its pledges to an impatient and hurting populace whose expectations for relief and renewal are extremely high and to what extent the national budget for 2012/13 will seek to meet those high expectations.

Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament.  Please send your comments to: pgalanis@gmail.com

Jun 04, 2012

thenassauguardian

The Budget: Part II

Caribbean Blog International

The Government's own projections show its direct debt standing at 50.6 per cent of GDP, or $4.057 billion, as at end-June 2012... ...then increasing to $4.607 billion, or 54.5 per cent of GDP, by the close of the 2012-2013 fiscal year

National Debt To Exceed $5bn By Mid-2013



By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

THE Bahamas' national debt will breach the $5 billion mark before the end of the upcoming 2012-2013 fiscal year, the Government's Budget projections disclosed yesterday, with the debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio also surpassing the 60 per cent threshold.

Unveiling what fiscal conservatives would likely describe as 'a horror show', Prime Minister Perry Christie unveiled a projected $550 million GFS deficit for the 2012-2013 fiscal year, a sum equivalent to 6.5 per cent of Bahamian GDP.

Together with the projected $504 million deficit for the 2011-2012 fiscal year, which is set to close on June 30, this means the Government will have to borrow more than $1 billion in just two years to cover both its recurrent and capital deficits.

And the $1.054 billion financing gap does not include debt principal redemption, which is set to total $66 million and $121 million, respectively, for the fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Together, that adds a further $187 million to the fiscal deficits, taking the gap between revenues and spending over the two years to $1.241 billion.

The Government's own projections show its direct debt standing at 50.6 per cent of GDP, or $4.057 billion, as at end-June 2012, then increasing to $4.607 billion, or 54.5 per cent of GDP, by the close of the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

Yet this masks the extent of the overall problem, because it does not factor in the $551 million worth of debt the Government has guaranteed on behalf of state-owned Corporations and agencies.

That sum was equivalent to 7 per cent of GDP at year-end 2011. Placed on top of the Government's direct charge, that takes the Bahamas' total national debt to $4.608 billion, or 57.6 per cent of GDP, at June 30, 2012.

And, when added to the projected $4.607 billion direct charge on government at the end of the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the Bahamas' total national debt will hit $5.158 billion - a sum equivalent to 61.5 per cent of national GDP.

And, if the Government's medium-term Budget projections are correct, GFS deficits of $357 million and $272 million in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, respectively, will take the direct charge to $5.215 billion at the end of the latter period.

Assuming the $551 million in government guaranteed debt remains relatively unchanged, the total Bahamas' national debt will hit $5.766 billion by June 30, 2015, a sum equivalent to 63.3 per cent of GDP.

That indicates the fiscal position will likely continue to weaken despite the improvement generated by positive GDP and economic growth, and also suggests the Bahamas will hit the $5.5 billion debt mark more than a year earlier than the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) 2016 forecast. It also appears that the Government is again relying on economic growth to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio below the 70 per cent the IMF has classified as a 'danger' threshold.

The toll this will exact on the Government's finances, and its ability to fund spending priorities and areas such as education and health, was brought into sharp relief by the Prime Minister yesterday, when he said debt servicing (interests) and debt principal requirements would collectively total $328 million for the 2012-2013 fiscal year - a sum equivalent to 18 per cent of recurrent spending.

Overall, the Budget was pretty much what observers expected, with Mr Christie, as Minister of Finance, performing a delicate balancing act between conveying a message of fiscal prudence and 'holding the line' on the deficit on one hand, while trying to stimulate the private sector and deliver on pre-election campaign promises with the other.

The main 'political battleground' themes surrounding the 2012-2013 Budget were also well-defined yesterday, with the Prime Minister describing the Government's deficit and debt levels, and overall fiscal position, as "much worse than we had anticipated".

Michael Halkitis, his minister of state for finance, went further in castigating the former Ingraham administration for "reckless" spending, particularly during the final months of its term.

He added that the previous government's fiscal policies had "severely constrained our room to manoevere", a signal that the PLP administration will likely lack the financial headroom to implement at least some of its pre-election manifesto promises.

The Opposition Free National Movement (FNM), though, will likely retort that the Government already knew the extent of the Bahamas' fiscal woes, having been fully briefed on the New Providence Road Improvement Project cost overruns and voted on all borrowing/spending resolutions brought to Parliament by the former administration.

It will argue that the Government is simply looking to blame the Ingraham administration, and in doing so, provide a cover for why it is unable to deliver on pre-election promises that the FNM has branded unrealistic.

Still, whichever way it is sliced and diced, the Bahamas' fiscal situation is dire. "The fiscal accounts are in much worse shape than we had expected as we came into office," Mr Christie warned yesterday.

"Indeed, this year's projected GFS deficit outturn is significantly higher than had been forecast by the previous administration last year's Budget communication. The GFS deficit in 2011-2012 is now projected at $504 million, up by a full $256 million from the previous government's estimate of $248 million."

The $256 million overshoot on the GFS deficit is 103 per cent, or more than double, the FNM's 2011-2012 Budget forecast, with the total $504 million deficit equivalent to 6.3 per cent of GDP - an unsustainable level more than double the 3 per cent estimate.

As a result, the Government's direct debt-to-GDP ratio will hit 50.6 per cent at June 30, 2012, as opposed to the 46.2 per cent level projected in last year's Budget.

Mr Christie's presentation, though, indicated that the majority of the GFS deficit overshoot for 2011-2012 was attributable to capital spending set to come in $119 million, or "almost 43 per cent", above target at $399 million - compared to the forecast $280 million.

The Prime Minister said the capital spending overshoot was "due in substantial part to a considerable increase in spending on the New Providence Road Improvement Project".

While faring a little better, the FNM administration also seems set to exceed its recurrent deficit estimates by 54.8 per cent, the projected outturn for 2011-2012 being $257 million as opposed to $166 million.

This, Mr Christie said, was the result of a combination of recurrent revenues "underperforming relative to the forecast" and recurrent spending beating projections at $27 million to hit $1.707 billion. Recurrent revenues for 2011-2012, he added, were set to come in at $1.45 billion, off target by $64 million.

Moving forward, Mr Christie pledged that the Government would move to "redress the unsustainable balance in our recurrent account" through a two-pronged strategy.

This, he said, would involve constraining recurrent spending so it grew in line with the Bahamian economy's growth, and "engineering a transformation of recurrent revenue to bring it to a more appropriate level relative to the size of the economy".

Promising to "hold the line" on recurrent spending in 2012-2013 "to the maximum extent possible", Mr Christie said it was still projected to rise by 6.7 per cent or $114 million to $1.821 billion, compared to $1.707 billion in the last fiscal year.

He added that $55 million of the recurrent spending rise was due "to the increased requirements for debt redemption in the coming period".

As for recurrent revenues, Mr Christie said they were projected to improve to 18.3 per cent of GDP in 2012-2013, up from 18.1 per cent in the current fiscal year. The Government is forecasting an increase from $1.45 billion to $1.55 billion, due to improved collections from Excise Tax and real property tax reforms.

As for capital spending, the Prime Minister said this would remain flat at $400 million in 2012-2013, attributing this to "a large inventory of ongoing projects" - including the $77 million borrowing for the New Providence Road Improvement Project.

May 31, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

The Bahamas 2005-2006 Fiscal Deficit is Projected to Increase Over the Previous Period

The Bahamas 2005-2006 National Budget Projects The Government Finance Statistic (GFS) Deficit of $172 million

Budget Deficit Soars

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

26th May 2005

The 2005-2006 budget projects a GFS deficit of $172 million, which would be $30 million more than the deficit expected when this fiscal year draws to a close on June 30.

The $172 million deficit would be 2.8 percent of GDP and would be the highest deficit since fiscal year 2002-2003 when the spending shortfall came in at $184 million.

There are several factors that are expected to contribute to increased spending in the 2005-2006 fiscal year, Acting Prime Minister Cynthia Pratt announced in the House of Assembly yesterday.

The recurrent expenditure is pegged at $1.214 billion, which is an increase of $39 million or 3 percent over the 2004/2005 budget.

"The single major component of the increase is the provision in the Ministry of Finance Estimates to pay increases for public servants and related groups, arising from the present negotiations, as well as some increase in benefits for retired public servants," Mrs. Pratt announced.

"Another important increase is for the improvement in insurance arrangements for the Royal Bahamas Police Force, the Royal Bahamas Defence Force and the other law enforcement officers."

This comes to a total of $8 million, the Acting Prime Minister announced.

In addition to the GFS deficit, one of the traditional highlights in the annual budget communication is the ratio of government debt to GDP given that financial experts continue to advise that this ratio should be kept as near as possible to 30 percent of GDP to avoid the problems which would arise from a ratio significantly in excess of that level.

Exceeding the 40 percent mark could mean that the government’s ability to borrow money would be severely constrained and it would be forced to sharply increase taxes, Mrs. Pratt reiterated during her communication, which she delivered on behalf of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Perry Christie, who is still convalescing at home three weeks after suffering a slight stroke.

"Fiscal deficits arise if we spend more than we earn in revenues and if this situation continues for long enough we build up massive borrowing problems," Mrs. Pratt pointed out.

She added that circumstances are quite different if the ratio of government debt to GDP is closer to 30 percent.

"There would be much greater scope to avoid these drastic remedies because there would be the capacity to borrow until the economic situation improves and until revenues recover so as to again close the gap between revenue and expenditure.  This is what transpired in 2001 and 2002," the Acting Prime Minister said.

She said in order to bring the ratio of government debt to GDP as close as possible to 30 percent revenues must consistently attain the level of 20 percent of GDP.

"At that level, we can also provide the level of revenue resources which we need for ongoing public expenditure while containing the fiscal deficit," Mrs. Pratt said.

She also noted that successive governments have tried to attain the ratio of government revenue to GDP of about 20 percent.

At that level, Mrs. Pratt said, Bahamians could enjoy a reasonable level of public services without the introduction of taxation to pay for them.

"However, the ratio of revenue to GDP of 20 percent is becoming increasingly hard to achieve because of the narrowness of our revenue system, heavily dependent as it is on customs revenues and the non-taxation of services.  Thus, the expansion of essential public services has resulted in fiscal deficits emerging, which have been met by borrowing.

"As a result, the level of government debt to GDP has risen inexorably since the year 2000.  In recognition of this issue, in the 2005/2006 budget- the government is aiming to contain the ratio of government debt to GDP to under 38 percent."

The Acting Prime Minister also said that the government is continuing an aggressive process of addressing tax reform to improve its revenue situation.

The 2005-2006 budget projects recurrent revenue of $1.145 billion, an increase of $93 million or 9 percent over the 2004/2005 budget.

"The reason for projecting an increase of 9 percent over 2004/2005 is because of the strengthening of the economy, with growth in current terms of over five percent and the heightened emphasis being given to concrete and specific improvement in revenue administration," Mrs. Pratt said.

The Acting Prime Minister also announced that the government plans to improve all of the country’s national airports to raise them to the highest standards required.

"Accordingly, a variety of air navigational fees and related charges in the Family Islands are being increased to more realistic levels to meet part of the cost," she announced.  "In addition, it is intended to implement passenger facility fees at major airports as part of the cost recovery exercise."