Tough: that is what we have been told to expect with the 2015-16 Government Budget. We will soon know whether that means tough for those who had to put it together, or tough on all the rest of us. Or both.

No guesses or predictions or special wishes here; the document is drafted and ready for delivery, and instead today, Mr Editor, a kind of political potpourri of leftovers as we brace ourselves for the worst. But you will detect a common theme: money. Isn’t it always?

Only recently I was reminded of one of my favourite definitions of an expert: someone we bring in from outside who takes our watch and tells us what time it is — and usually for a princely sum at that.

Bermuda is geographically not in the Caribbean. We are in the North Atlantic. We are only 90 minutes from New York. We cannot be all things to all people. We must not invent events and try to make ourselves look like something we are not. We must fish where the fish are.

I am not trying to be unkind here; just looking to make a point. We know all of the above to be true. Bermudians, by and large, have heard and said it all before — and so, so many times before, too.

We have also come to appreciate and accept, I think, even if begrudgingly in some cases, the big, big challenge facing Bermuda to make tourism once again a thriving pillar of our economy. It will not be easy and, as we are repeatedly told, any turnaround will not happen overnight.

But we did get more promises of better days ahead with the announcement that the year 2014 was yet another year of decline — not just in numbers but in visitor spending. But promises are not what people pin their hopes on any more; it’s results. The Bermuda Tourism Authority now “owns” 2015 — a year or so on from creation. I should say so.

Tip of the hat, too, to the BTA head for disclosing his salary. I always considered non-disclosure a non-starter right from the start and on so many levels and for so many reasons.

Why even the resistance in the first place? The BTA is a creature of public, not private, statute and no matter how it might wish to operate like a private enterprise, it isn’t one.

The BTA, after all, owes its very existence to the legislature along with all its powers and rights, and it is to the legislature that the BTA will have to account on all matters, spending included.

Even more intriguing are “the strict performance parameters” that will be employed to determine bonuses. First observation (and the questions have already started): will any be paid for 2014? Second observation: what account will be taken going forward of the America’s Cup and the impact that it alone is expected to have on numbers?

To date, a lot of the credit has been given to the Minister of Economic Development and, by extension, his Government, for spearheading and putting together the team that brought us the Cup. Bonus for him, you think?

Of course not. That is not the way our system works. Pay for our parliamentarians is set by the House of Assembly; they are fixed sums.

Although, actually, now that I mention it, there is, ahem, meant to be a Legislature Salaries Review Board, which is required by statute to conduct salary reviews of our parliamentarians every two years.

It reports and makes recommendations to the House. At least it is supposed to. But I don’t think we have heard much, if anything, from this body in recent years. One wonders what in fact has happened here and why?

The board’s legislative scope is pretty broad, too. It includes taking into account economic considerations and any other factors that the review board thinks appropriate. In view of recent events, not to mention pronouncements, it would be interesting to see what it came up with. The Act does not say salaries can only go up.

Speaking of which, tongues have been wagging over the appointment of yet a third junior minister in the House. No question but that the Bermuda Constitution Order 1968 allows for up to 12 ministers and junior ministers on the Hill.

That same Constitution Order also allows for a minimum of seven Cabinet Ministers (Premier plus six) and you may reasonably conclude that they would be assisted in the management of their large portfolios by appointment of five juniors.

Remember SAGE? It thought Cabinet could be whittled down to eight (right away, it said) and the House eventually reduced to 30 members (a constitutional change that would take a little longer).

The SAGE commissioners had a different agenda: they were, of course, looking at ways to save money and to create greater efficiencies starting at the top. They estimated a potential savings of more than $700,000, as I recall.

Remind me again, Mr Editor, what the Ag Show costs us.