Blame it on the budget

No, it is not funny that our budget for the new fiscal has already come and gone. CPD described it as everybody's budget, yet nobody's budget. The opposition denounced it, but I am not sure if the customary torch procession was brought out this year. Of course, there have been storms of intellectual debates as economists, bankers and businessmen engaged in threadbare analysis. Those identifiable with the government defended it. Others endorsed the opposition view and dumped mother lode of criticism on it. It was the budget rigmarole as usual. You know it. I know it.

This time a very tired finance minister has given a feisty budget. If all goes well, he predicts seven per cent growth for the economy. But then all will not go well in an election year, which is already mired in political quagmire as hyper action, change of government and lots of uncertainties loom in the horizon. In so much as economics is a science based on ceteris paribus i.e., all things remaining constant, any speculation on this budget is chancy like blind hand in a card game.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Perhaps there will be further debates and simmering discontents over the budget in future as people take closer look at allocations and taxes. The allocations determine which sector of the economy will get more importance. Taxes are basically a roughshod indication of how much the year will cost in terms of consumption, production and earning. It is no-brainer that some will hail the budget, while others hate it.

It is interesting that budget controversies have always revolved around numbers as people argued if more should have been allocated in place of less, or vice versa. Well, numbers are important because they set the parameters for national prosperity and wellbeing just like ingredients used in right quantities cook a tasty dish. It makes difference if more money is spent on defence than education, or taxes are lowered on luxuries as opposed to necessities.

Still, should the budget be all about money? Should it be all about tax cuts and subsidies? Budget is an instrument of growth, but lot depends on how we want to use it. Mere budget allocation can not raise the standard of education. Mere allocation can not improve the law and order situation. On the other hand, let us take tax reductions. Do you think if we reduce taxes on imported playing cards, more people will get addicted to gambling? For argument's sake, let us also take subsidies. If we give subsidy to medicine, are people not going to fall sick?

These may sound like faulty arguments, but I am trying to make a connection here. Taxes and subsidies can always give a budget, but the budget is not effective without social commitment. This is where we miss the point. Let us take the education sector for example. What can we get with more allocation? More schools, more buildings, more teachers? Then the question is how more of anything is going to raise the standard of education? The declining standards are not the result of inadequate funding. The decline has been in our hearts, not in the wallets.

Similarly, let us say we spend more money on the judiciary, appointing more judges and setting up new court buildings. Perhaps it will expedite discharge of pending cases, but more verdicts will not guarantee justice. Likewise, more fertilizers and more seeds may not necessarily eliminate hunger and more police and weapons can not give safe streets.

The funny part comes when we stop cold or get the willies if a RAB member is caught red handed for snatching a truckload of goods, or a director of National Security Intelligence and a medical professional are arrested for fraudulent activities in the same week. This is where I cracked up on the joke and decided to take a go at the budget.

Come to think of it, budget is the real culprit. We allocated funds, cut taxes and gave subsidies, but never took time to think about the original sin. It was wrong to turn the budget into a laundromat many years ago and ask people to use it for washing their black money. Now so much black has been released that it has polluted everything. If the minister takes bribe, some RAB operatives swindle money and the title of the most corrupt nation in the world hovers over our head like a permanent thing, it is because we chose to promote grotty behaviour under the state sponsorship.

None of us had the vision to see where it was going. None of us had the wisdom to see what was coming. One thing leading to another, we connived, then condoned and finally got convinced. All blame goes to budget because it slowly possessed us like a wicked spirit. As we sow, so we reap. When some RAB members keep their cut from anything they seize, it is the hyena's share of the lion's kill. Ever since our first budget, we have consistently preached that it was okay to steal and keep it as well.

Go back to the joke now, shall we? One enduring legacy of our budgets is that our children will grow up colour-blind, because someone must have wanted them to forget the difference so that they can not separate black from white. I have said the funny part. Now you may laugh, if you want.

mmad Badrul Ahsan is a banker.