Priorities in Government Spending

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/...cstatement.pdf

For me it is Education, Health and Welfare. If you follow the link above to the Exchequer Statement EOY2010 you'll see that a total of 33.4 billion (each falling from previous years and likely to continue this pattern) was spent on these three alone while the tax-take total for the same period was 34.4 billion (and expected to rise).

Also outlined there are the myriad of other expenditure items. What, if any, do posters feel should be the governments main focus of spending?

The choices of "priorities" (as per the statement and voted on) are;

• Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
• Arts, Sport and Tourism
• Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
• Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
• Defence
• Education and Science
• Enterprise, Trade and Employment
• Environment, Heritage and Local Government
• Finance Group
• Foreign Affairs
• Health and Children
• Justice Group
• Social and Family Affairs
• Taoiseach's Group (incl Legal Votes)
• Transport

[Baron von Biffo]

It doesn't matter what we think. Last night in Mayo Kenny was asked about the possibility of a U-turn on Roscommon and his response was "No [...] our mandate is to fix the banks."

There you have it. Health or education or infrastructure be damned, FG was elected to give our money to the banks.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

It doesn't matter what we think. Last night in Mayo Kenny was asked about the possibility of a U-turn on Roscommon and his response was "No [...] our mandate is to fix the banks."

There you have it. Health or education or infrastructure be damned, FG was elected to give our money to the banks.

I don't disagree BvB.

I'm asking what you think the priorities of Government spending should be.

[C. Flower]

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/...cstatement.pdf

For me it is Education, Health and Welfare. If you follow the link above to the Exchequer Statement EOY2010 you'll see that a total of 33.4 billion (each falling from previous years and likely to continue this pattern) was spent on these three alone while the tax-take total for the same period was 34.4 billion (and expected to rise).

Also outlined there are the myriad of other expenditure items. What, if any, do posters feel should be the governments main focus of spending?

The choices of "priorities" (as per the statement and voted on) are;

• Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
• Arts, Sport and Tourism
• Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
• Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
• Defence
• Education and Science
• Enterprise, Trade and Employment
• Environment, Heritage and Local Government
• Finance Group
• Foreign Affairs
• Health and Children
• Justice Group
• Social and Family Affairs
• Taoiseach's Group (incl Legal Votes)
• Transport

Good question. If we went the Morgan Kelly/ULA route, and cut adrift from IMF/EU/UK borrowings, then we would need to make cuts.

I think, from my first hand experience of some departments, that there is a huge amount of obvious wastage that could be cut. However, as the cutting is done top down by the people at the top, front line services are usually the first to go, while supplies and rents paid by the public sector are way above the market norm. So, stop the public services being used as a slush fund for favoured suppliers...

Keeping people in work is the biggest thing we could do to save waste and it's a good long term strategy for retaining people's skills, health and sanity and saving money on health.

Germany did extremely well at this in their short term down-turn, by using short time working.

Education, particularly literacy and numeracy should be prioritised.

Basically, you're asking for a rational budget. The Government, with all its resources and special advisers, won't attempt one - they will just go for back of the envelop cuts - x % per Department and so on.

The "lose weight by cutting a leg off" approach.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

Good question. If we went the Morgan Kelly/ULA route, and cut adrift from IMF/EU/UK borrowings, then we would need to make cuts.

I think, from my first hand experience of some departments, that there is a huge amount of obvious wastage that could be cut. However, as the cutting is done top down by the people at the top, front line services are usually the first to go, while supplies and rents paid by the public sector are way above the market norm. So, stop the public services being used as a slush fund for favoured suppliers...

Keeping people in work is the biggest thing we could do to save waste and it's a good long term strategy for retaining people's skills, health and sanity and saving money on health.

Germany did extremely well at this in their short term down-turn, by using short time working.

Education, particularly literacy and numeracy should be prioritised.

Basically, you're asking for a rational budget. The Government, with all its resources and special advisers, won't attempt one - they will just go for back of the envelop cuts - x % per Department and so on.

The "lose weight by cutting a leg off" approach.

Which is my ultimate point - Fair play to you for spotting it so soon.

I do think that we will need to make cuts/savings, mostly in Social Welfare. If you look at the decreasing costs of 2 of the "Big 3" - with those savings - and the increase in taxes we might not be as bad off as some would have us believe. We could spend any surplus of those budgets on others in the list.

You're right; creating employment and keeping people in same will also have to be a priority.

[Baron von Biffo]

I don't disagree BvB.

I'm asking what you think the priorities of Government spending should be.

I'd agree with CF on education and also health since the demand grows in recession while the ability to pay drops.

Health and Children are separate departments now but the government doesn't take the Dept. of Children seriously (Has anyone checked to see if Frances FitzGerald is still in the country?) so spending there would be a waste.

Enterprise and Employment under Bruton is just a conduit for corporate welfare.

[C. Flower]

Which is my ultimate point - Fair play to you for spotting it so soon.

I do think that we will need to make cuts/savings, mostly in Social Welfare. If you look at the decreasing costs of the "Big 3" - with those savings - and the increase in taxes we might not be as bad off as some would have us believe. We could spend any surplus of those budgets on others in the list.

You're right; creating employment and keeping people in same will also have to be a priority.

Tourism is an obvious sector to be driving. We have the capacity and it would take people off Social Welfare. But at the same time, it can't solve the problem on its own.

I think we would have to continue borrowing, stepping it back year on year, but would be able to find lenders if we had a credible costed plan.

Cutting into peoples' spending power, if they are on normal or low wages, has been tried and has failed elsewhere - it just leads to faster contraction of GNP - and ours is shrinking very fast already.

All this presupposes that there will not be a spectacular collapse of the European and possibly the world economy, due to the "black holes" in the banking system and the overall stagnation of much of the European economy.

I think its very probable that this will happen, and believe we should have a very practical Plan B to meet that eventuality, which would have to include some radical measures to ensure that basic services are maintained and that people can eat and be housed.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

I'd agree with CF on education and also health since the demand grows in recession while the ability to pay drops.

Health and Children are separate departments now but the government doesn't take the Dept. of Children seriously (Has anyone checked to see if Frances FitzGerald is still in the country?) so spending there would be a waste.

Enterprise and Employment under Bruton is just a conduit for corporate welfare.

On that I completely agree.

[morticia]

The problem with health is that it will take whatever resources are thrown at it. Literally. If the budget were raised to 20bn, it still wouldn't be enough. And I'm beginning to lose my patience with the 40 per day smokers who never take a minute's exercise more than they need to. Having said that, there are genuine priorities....perhaps we could go for less admin, fewer top of the range new pharmaceuticals, more A&E and more manpower? I'd also recommend not allowing anyone without training as a doc, nurse, physio or other frontline healthcare worker, to take a job as a hospital administrator. The admin types need to understand what needs to be prioritised, and form filling is not one of those things.

Education; all avalable cash should be thrown at this, particularly in disadvantaged areas, starting with preschoolers. Focus uni research at UCD/TCD/UCG/UCC, try to widen social access as much as possible.

Social welfare; I think we need to start trying to create jobs, but with oil spiralling ever higher, that isn't going to be easy. I'd suggest throwing the young and able bodied at anything that could reduce fossil fuel demand. Workfare and intern schemes need to continue (yes, it's exploitation, but at least people get to put stuff on their CVs.

The other stuff can be dealt with at lower priority, imho.

[ang]

The 40 a day smoker is more than covering the cost of their health care via duty on the deadly sticks let alone the taxes and levies that they pay for health.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

The 40 a day smoker is more than covering the cost of their health care via duty on the deadly sticks let alone the taxes and levies that they pay for health.

So is the 20-a-day smoker. About 80% + of the price of cigarettes is tax.

[Baron von Biffo]

The 40 a day smoker is more than covering the cost of their health care via duty on the deadly sticks let alone the taxes and levies that they pay for health.

And they won't live as long so they cost less on pensions.

[morticia]

And they won't live as long so they cost less on pensions.

hmm, perhaps it's me that should feel guilty, bringing the kids on 10k hikes in the Wicklows.... (parents exhausted, kids still won't go to bed... what does it take to tire them out??)

[culmore]

they have no money to spend, thats the bottom line, untill they clean up the mess left by FF and that will take about 3 yrs, after that there might be a few bob to spend

[C. Flower]

they have no money to spend, thats the bottom line, untill they clean up the mess left by FF and that will take about 3 yrs, after that there might be a few bob to spend

They will be spending billions. The question is, what should they spend them on ?