THE WISH of the government to annex some of the excess National Housing Trust (NHT) funds for use in education has become a major ethical issue.
As I have heard it, the main objection is that the money was received as money for housing and should be kept as such (Edward Seaga et al); the Trust has not completed its mandate for providing houses for lower income persons; and, there is a continual expansion of squatter communities.
It is by wishing to treat the trust as sacrosanct that Mr. Seaga has suggested that casino gambling should be used instead to fund the educational reform, since the proposed raiding of the NHT purse, in any case, cannot complete the job that needs to be done. Using the NHT funds for education will set a bad precedence, in terms of fiscal discipline. It is the thin edge of the wedge in fiddling with designated funds, which will provide the justification for dipping into other funds. The recent move to call on funds from the National Insurance Scheme is a case in point.
However, the decision to use the NHT funds must be seen as a judgement call. In the critical situation of the education sector, the Government has four options to access urgent additional resources:
Re-allocate current resources The efforts to create new resources is an ongoing task, the outcome of which tends to more medium-term and long-term than short term. For several reasons, the success of governments in this area has been poor or mediocre. Clearly, if we had a track record of creating wealth, the present discussion would not be taking place.
Nevertheless, the Government may want to look seriously at this option because this is the only way to ensure a sustained response to the demand for money, which education, like other sectors will have in the coming years. While we await successful attempts at wealth creation, however, the needs in education stare us in the face. It is a luxury to pontificate about what could have been done to save us from this hour, without at the same time seeking to address the needs before us.
The second option is borrowing. I suspect there would not be any outcry if the Government had secured another loan from the World Bank for the same purpose. The point is that we have become so used to being in debt that we seem to regard indebtedness as everlasting life. As much as debt may be recurring, the salvation for Jamaica is not everlasting debt. Future governments must stake their credibility on the success of their efforts to release the nation from this stranglehold.
AVOID INCREASING
THE DEBT BURDEN
To my mind, then, we should avoid increasing the nation's debt burden whenever we have an alternative, which means an argument in favour of borrowing for this cause cannot be accepted.
The third option is taxation. I believe that unlike the case with borrowing, there would be a serious outcry at direct taxation - and rightly so! Increased taxation, without a reform of the tax policy, will only result in a greater burden for middle- and lower-income families. A way has to be first found to make the earners of higher income pay proportionately more tax, as they can absorb the greater burden.
Casino gambling, which is a form of indirect taxation, cannot either be seen as a better ethical option. The problem with gambling is the false hope of economic fortune it offers, while taking proportionately more from the poor. Remember that while the rich may gamble for fun, for the poor it is no fun and game business. It is a serious attempt to get rich quickly. From an economical point of view, the benefits of gambling in general, or casino gambling in particular, are weighted heavily against the poor gambler. It would be a shame, then, to further prey upon the poor gambler while offering the hope of sweet success that 99 per cent of those who gamble will never see.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES
The fourth option is the reallocation of resources. When considered alongside the other options, the Government's decision to go the route of reallocation of resources may be seen as fair ethical judgement. This conclusion is based on the fact that it has not been shown that the other options, as mentioned above, would result in a more desirable state of affairs. Moreover, the objections raised so far are not sufficient grounds for constructing a firewall around the excess funds. For example, the objection would be sustained if it were not the case that the Government is seeking a legal basis for their action. The objection would also be sustained if it were shown that other funds could be accessed with fewer negative consequences for the economy and more positive implications for good fiscal management.
The point, then, is this: when an ethical decision is made, those who challenge the decision must put forward arguments of a more convincing ethical quality. None of the arguments advanced so far is ethically superior to the choice to reallocate excess resources.
Rev. Dr. Livingstone Thompson may be reached at livi_thompson@yahoo.com.
