February 16, 2003

Dear Sir,

After 11 years of those who love peace insisting that economic sanctions would work, over a half million Iraq children are dead from starvation and lack of medical care.

After 11 years of inspections and feckless attempts to impose them, Saddam Hussein is still the (hale and well fed) man the west left in power in Iraq.

Lately someone in the west got up on their hind legs and said that it had to stop. Bush doesn't have a good plan, but it has the advantage of being the only plan. This attempt to actually do something has brought the shrieks of the peace-loving world down on his ears. Apparently, they see the 12th year of sanctions and inspections as full of promise.

The relative silence that has attended all other times in the last 11 years, as people died and suffered, will not be forgotten by Arabs. The Middle East tonight will be wondering if the West perceives responsibility as a part of any of its actions. In Baghdad, where food is doled out to those who “deserve it”, people will be thinking of how to ingratiate themselves with the government and eat.

Certainly no one in Iraq should trust the west, as the Kurds learned all these years ago. Saddam will be watching CNN in something close to serenity. His son Udae will be having a session in his own special style to celebrate Daddy's success. Udae's parties are unique because of his privileges. He gets first go among his guards for any girls he sees from his limousine in the street. The guards literally pick them up. It's just how he likes to party.

It has been said that the 11 year party puts him in hospital sometimes but - you bet! - they always have medicine for Udae.

John Zuill

Pembroke

February 16, 2003

Dear Sir,

The gang that brought us such financial triumphs as The Bermuda Housing Corporation, Berkeley Institute, limitless Government travel, and other shenanigans that a gentleman never mentions has now, in its wisdom, brought forth a budget for the financial year 2003/2004 which can best be characterised as one of financial child abuse.

Others, including The Royal Gazette, have described the budget as “another sweetheart deal.”

Some sweetheart, some deal, when total government expenditure increases by 6.21 percent and there is no increase in taxes. The additional cost is, of course, financed by borrowing, and this means that current taxpayers are off the hook because at some indeterminate date, future taxpayers will have to meet the burden. The future taxpayers are probably children right now hence my description of the budget as that of “financial child abuse.”

Usually child abuse leads to a few years in the slammer - imagine the outcry if, for example, a cabinet minister made an under age girl pregnant. There would be calls for resignations and all sorts of protests. Spend the money of, and undermine the prospects of future generations and accolades are given because the pain is shifted from today's voters.

Total government spending now stands at $715.8 million, which means almost $12,000 per annum ($33 per day) for every person in Bermuda, including children. Government spending for 2003/2004 is now a runaway truck. Ten years ago in 1993, the total cost of government was $380 million, about half as much.

The question should always be - are we better governed now than we were ten years ago, and what does the future hold for our young people? It would be a great optimist who replied, against a backdrop of increased violent crime, collapsing tourism, educational decline, and government corruption that things are getting better, money is wisely spent, and the future holds great promise.

Government debt will balloon almost five times from around $60 million in the early 1990s to $286 million in 2004 - that is about $4,700 for every person in Bermuda. And the 2004 amount does not include the unknown millions required to fund massive government pension deficits. Why does this matter and why should anyone care - especially those who exercise power?

Politicians just love to spend money often congratulating themselves on their generosity with funds that do not belong to them. The public who have the money spent on them also love to receive gifts conveniently forgetting the essential principle of public finance that government can only spend what it first extracts from the public in taxes or what it can borrow. They forget that all debts have to be repaid, even government debts. Like drunken sailors who have no thought about the hangover tomorrow financial prudence will have to await the action of someone else, sometime in the future.

The harmful consequences of deficit spending are not clearly visible through the haze of a political smoke screen called “another sweetheart deal”. It takes a fair amount of logical reasoning to appreciate that borrowing consumes economic wealth and the future prospects of young people.

The childish brains in adult bodies in Parliament are obsessed with the present and not remotely interested in the future - although from time to time they make pious statements about the importance of youth. Their actions are all about shafting youngsters at school. The motto of those currently in power is that the golden age is the here and now; the debts created by the budget will be paid for by youth after we are dead and gone - so hey, why worry.

Unfortunately, our political system cannot impose prudence, temperance, self-reliance, fiscal discipline, or caution on financial illiterates who prefer folly, dependence, self-indulgence, and short term political gain. Bermudians, especially those under 40, may have to learn anew what people have learned the hard way in so many countries - a government cannot for long continue to borrow and live beyond its means before things start to go wrong.

In the meantime, those of us of mature age can break open the champagne and give a toast to the young people who are preserving our assets and allowing people like me to continue to travel first class. Cheers.

ROBERT STEWART

Flatts

February 13, 2003

Dear Sir,

Your correspondent, Royal Gazette February 7, 2003, who signed himself “Only in Bermuda” should never be “lonely in Bermuda”. Good letter, Sir/Madam, but like Trevor Moniz and the Editor you missed one important point.

The whole basis for the HRC's “indecision” was that the remarks were not made in the “workplace”. The two gentlemen in question are, by the very nature of their jobs, public figures and, therefore, their “workplace” must be anywhere that they make “public statements” - or should I say “statements publicly”?

If I am wrong then presumably Members of Parliament can only be taken to task for making inappropriate statements in their “workplace”, i.e. the House of Assembly. In that case, they can, of course, plead Parliamentary Privilege! The mind boggles.

COPPERKNICKERS

Paget

February 5, 2003

Dear Sir,

May I take this opportunity to express my concerns over the new condo development at Palmetto Bay, in Flatts. These concerns are heightened after reading in today's paper that the principal developer has now acquired the White Sands Hotel - property, which they reportedly plan to develop along the lines of Palmetto Bay.

The previous Minister and several press articles advised that there was to be a new hotel in the Palmetto Bay complex, which among other things signalled the revitalisation of Bermuda's lagging tourism industry. I ride past this development every day and note that physical construction has stopped, with several units now occupied.

My question is has the new hotel portion of this development actually been completed? If not when to the developers intend to complete the hotel?

One would hope That any Customs duty breaks afforded to the developers and contingent on the development of a new hotel, would be duly returned to the Government, and its taxpayers. Should no hotel development be forthcoming I'd trust the appropriate Ministry would investigate the application of any Customs Duty relief and act accordingly; especially if the same developer has their sights set on a repeat performance.

FLATTS LIBERATION PARTY