Like most people I find Saturday morning is one of the most pleasant of the week; no work, time for oneself and the possibility of golf. Such was the case on Saturday January 22 -- until I started to read The Royal Gazette . There in all their splendour was the Premier (looking like the cat who had swallowed the cream) in the unlikely company of two executives of Bermuda Properties reporting on a "watershed development that almost by itself launches Bermuda tourism''. Alas, it does nothing of the sort but what it does is potentially commit every Bermudian to a payment of $500 (clue: divide $30 million government guarantee by our population of 60,000) to a combination of Bermuda Properties and Regency Hotels -- both of which are non-Bermudian companies.

Like every other person in Bermuda, man, woman and child, on Saturday morning I was possibly $500 poorer than I was before I went to bed on Friday night.

This was not a good start to the weekend.

For many people $500 is not a great deal of money, but for many who voted for the PLP eager to enter the promised land of affordable housing, lower taxes, better schools etc. it will be difficult to understand why every Bermudian should donate $500, or about a week's wages, to the coffers of two well-heeled foreign corporations. The official rationale is, of course, that without that subsidy the Castle Harbour Hotel might never again open its doors and a few more jobs in the tourist industry will disappear forever.

Who could possibly be against the prevention of Bermudian jobs and this "innovative'' way of resurrecting a moribund industry. Anyone who opposes this handout must, by definition, be opposed to the secure job prospects of all the bar men, maids and assorted staff employed by Castle Harbour. All those in favour of this proposal, including those who dreamed up this nonsense, must, by definition, be supportive of those Bermudians who will benefit from working in the new hotel if, or when, it opens in 2002.

Why should I and others who are against government handouts to private companies be opposed to this project when the benefits seem so clear cut? It boils down to the fact that it is necessary to consider the secondary and long-term consequences of the proposal in addition to its direct and immediate objectives, and also its impact on not only those whose jobs are at stake but its effects on everyone, including taxpayers. All subsidies are simply mechanisms for robbing Peter to pay Paul and government has nothing to give to anyone without taking it from someone else -- the taxpayer.

The question that needs to be asked is this. Why would the promoters of this project need a Bermuda Government guarantee if the project was financially sound? If it is required because the project would not go ahead under its own steam, it means quite simply that professional investors are not prepared to commit the necessary funds. If prospective investors are reluctant to invest, it means that there is some question about the viability of the project. Sound investment projects do not require government guarantees -- they stand on their own two feet. Bermuda hotels have not made money for years, and there is no reason to believe that the Regency Group would do any better than the Marriott Corporation, one of the most successful hotel companies the world has ever known.

There are four other points to ponder.

Firstly, there are many Bermudian taxpayers who cannot afford to support the treasuries of foreign companies. $500 could be used by taxpayers to pay the rent, help with the education of children or even buy a few groceries. I must confess that I find it difficult to understand why socialist governments like the PLP have this propensity to feed the fat cats of business rather than help their supporters meet their day-to-day financial commitments. Can it be, that they do not really understand how the business world works? Have they been seduced by the nonsense that if only government helps business everything will be wonderful? Do they really believe the smoke and mirror trick that the guarantee would be funded by land licence fees in the Credit Security Account? Have they been hoodwinked by sharper intellects than they themselves possess? Do they believe they have found a way to create money out of thin air? Secondly, the $30 million given to Bermuda Properties and Regency Group, will be $30 million that will not be spent in local stores on groceries or anything else. The hard hit retail industry is already reeling from foreign competition and could find that local customers will not have as much to spend as before.

There will also be an adverse knock-on effect on such people as painters, gardeners and anyone else in the local service economy.

Thirdly, the narcotic of government subsidy is more deadly than crack cocaine.

If a business operation cannot make a profit it means that it is not providing what its customers want. What it needs to do, is to improve its efficiency, or become more responsive to the market. Receiving a handout from government will simply perpetuate the same bad habits that caused the problem in the first place. Soon the $30 million will be used up, and then -- wait for it -- the operators will appear at the Cabinet Office, cap in hand, explaining that if they only had another $30 million to tide them over, everyone will prosper.

But there is even more bad news. According to the Premier, the guarantee was in addition to concessions on land tax, payroll tax, and duty-free drinks.

Guess who is going to pay the taxes? Fourthly, if the Castle Harbour operations receive a handout from taxpayers, it will only be a matter of time before other hotels seek an audience with the Premier to plead their case. Fairness, after all, suggests a subsidy for one means a subsidy for all. Now if hotels receive a subvention, why not retailers, Joe the plumber or Paul the taxi driver. After a while every man and his dog will want something from government, and as the French philosopher Bastiat pointed out in the 1830s we will end up in the position of where "The State is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else''. This nonsensical type of policy has been tried elsewhere in the world without any success. The result has been deadbeat economies like Albania, North Korea, East Germany and in the 1970s, the United Kingdom. Why should it be any different in Bermuda? It is a bogus argument proved time and time again in other countries that economic development is improved when a government commits taxpayer dollars.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson in a rare moment of frankness (and bad grammar) stated in connection with his `Great Society' programme that "We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the `haves' and give it to the `have-nots' that need it so much''. Jennifer Smith has updated that policy in 2000 by stating in effect that "We are going to take some of the money that every Bermudian taxpayer wishes to spend on rent and groceries and give it to two rich foreign-owned corporations to build a big hotel in the hope that they will make profits''.

This is the new Bermuda and an idiotic economic policy.

ROBERT STEWART Flatts Time limits on permits January 27, 2000 Dear Sir, I cannot hold my tongue any longer. I am strongly compelled to comment on David Ezekiel and Michael Dunkley's comments regarding the new proposals for tougher rules on work permits, specifically the issue of time-barring on work permits. Unless I am missing something here, did not these "guest'' workers currently employed on this Island enter on work permits with specified time frames? Or are we advertising and offering jobs to "guest'' workers that have no end in sight? Is the country now being enlightened about an activity that has been going on for some time, initiated by the previous government -- UBP? It would certainly explain the colossal mess we must now rectify. Is it any wonder that we are now faced with having to come up with a solution to deal with the thousands of individuals on this island who believe they are long- term residents and entitled to remain here and enjoy all the benefits that accompany citizenry/status.

Contrary to what Mr. Ezekiel would have us believe, I know it is quite possible to attract quality people to come here for a specified period who understand that when that time period has passed, they must depart, persons who understand that they will be charged with the task of training and preparing a Bermudian to step into their positions when that time period has passed. Does Mr. Ezekiel really think that we are all so naive and simple-minded as regards international business, that we are not aware how these `guest' workers with their broad and varied backgrounds acquired them? It certainly was not by staying with one company for 25 years, that's for sure. Let's discuss the incentive to come here. I wonder might it be the enormous salaries and benefits (such as housing allowance, and tax-free income etc.) or perhaps it's the year-round pleasant weather. I for one would like to hear Michael Dunkley say something positive about a "Bermudian'' (all, not just certain segments) and the potentials they might possess. This steady diet of the negative and constant reminders of what Bermudians don't have to offer to international business is giving me heartburn. There are some fundamental premises to doing business, (which seem to only be practised outside of this Island), one of which is to get the best person possible for the job. It seems we have become preoccupied with the idea of individuals having global exposure and are now using this as a new `benchmark'' or symbol of worthiness.

So with this thought in mind why doesn't Mr. Dunkley and his ilk use their seemingly endless resources and contacts to expose Bermudians to the global community so that the international businesses that exist in our midst will have an abundant well from which to draw the creme de la creme. I suggest to Mr. Dunkley he channel his energy towards devising a plan that allows Bermudians who have the requisite education and/or ability, to leave this island and go anywhere in the world, to work/stay for as long as they wish, and acquire as much global exposure as is necessary so that when they return to Bermuda if they wish, there will be no need to have guest workers on work permits and the international business will have the best persons available for any job.

C. CROCKWELL Hamilton Parish