I simply attempted to answer the question by pointing out that in many other social programmes it is done on a needs basis and so SHOULD it have been done this way then I am thinking it WOULD have been better than free for all because freeness as YOU so clearly pointed out in another blog post tends to diminish quality.
It therefore means that we departed (or so I thought) from the discussion of Bruce freeness to the ideology of is FREE better for Jamaica? You asked the question how it would work, I attempted to suggest how it does work elsewhere. But now you imply that I am thinking that Bruce should renege on his promise.

You know this discussion inspired me to really go back and re-read your Purpose as perhaps I am being unfair to you. I did and I see I am being unfair you did after all “promise to be blunt and scathing as I laugh each day at the nonsense that goes on in this our Jamaica” and that (unlike the Govt) you are keeping your promise.

Paulwell’s initiative is one of many. There are some..in fact most..which the impact cannot be measured in $ and cents but how well recipients of the programme made out overall. Take for instance the JUTC bus system….it is heavily subsidised by the government which has put its finances in a tailspin….the numbers people may say cut it out….but others may say…keep it…because if you don’t…then there will be repercussions.

For example:

– Removing subsidies from the JUTC could cause the following:
*More cars on the road since people will struggle to buy a car and put gas in it (in the long run it makes more sense than paying an unsubsidised bus fare).and it will send up the national oil bill*

*Higher accident rates as there may be more cars on the road*

*Wear and tear on the road surface, due to the number of the vehicles – Means that taxpayers will have to fork out more for the upkeep of roads*

*Carbons being released into the atmosphere contributing to global warming*

*Inability to get to school on time (for those who have parents who can buy a car. Inability to get to school – PERIOD – due to the bus being unaffordable*

*Take a guess about the social implications for those who cannot go to school*

This is just a fraction of what can occur just by removing a subsidy from something like public transportation which is bleeding taxpayers currently. Do we let it stay? Do we remove it? How much will it cost us now? How much will it cost us later? My opinion is that the long term “cost” may be more detrimental to the city of Kingston…..what do you think?

Again, in the name of fairness I did not say the poor should pay up and collect later. I clearly said that the “JTA President” advocated for “parents who COULD pay were to pay until they were refunded”, a principle I firmly believe in because it would my child I am spiteing not Bruce’s.

You are right it will take a while for us to FULLY appreciate the extent of the value of the Cabinet but I daresay some things will not take that long. There are policies of the PNP and programmes that I did not need even 5 years to determine that they were working and were solid decisions made by the Minister….albeit not many but there were some. Take Paulwell’s decision to “tax” incoming calls from overseas providers. That fund grew enormously in two years. I don’t need 5-10 years to assess the worth of that fund and if I had to pay Paulwell an extra 5 million per year for that idea and excellent negotiation I would say he was worth an additional 10 million alone.

But as I say JGirl this is one we will probably have to agree to disagree. Till next time take care.

If you think you have heard one colleague say they are not paying, my helper told me her entire district wasn’t paying a cent. She said the government will take care of it and they weren’t putting up a cent until they heard how the election went. How about that? Should those very poor people pay up and then collect later? To be honest they probably are all on the PATH programme which would mean that it was neither here nor there to them…all they knew is that they wouldn’t even bother tangling up with PATH to find out of the qualify or not…because it’s free now. Not even the little auxillary fees they wanted to put up because they thought that govt would deal with that.

Are we to now believe that because the election day was set too close to the opening of school (which was unconventional and unwise) that that is the cause of why refunds are not forthcoming? Yes we may be able to get some statistics from the various govt bodies but I do not believe that we can measure the true impact of this administration for another 5 years at the very least. I say this because usually when a government is new it takes a while for them to implement projects and really work to make them successful…….it may take up to 10 years minimum..who knows…but I am saying this because it usually takes at least 2 terms to measure the benefits. When I said “wait 10 years for a refund” I was just playing devil’s advocate…they have yet to say when the process will begin.

As I have said…I am not entirely happy with one single party. They have BOTH contributed to Jamaica’s downfall…..

JGirl alot of persons have failed to appreciate what Dwight Nelson said TWO days after election day when accused of not refunding the people…..TWO days after. He reminded that when they presented their manifesto no one had ever thought that the PM would have set a date so close to school, which many believed went against political convention and was unwise. But the date was set and now the complications that arise are directed to others. Interesting.
As for how long we would have to wait to determine value for money. I don’t understand why we would need 5 years. Every month we get reports from BOJ, PIOJ, STATIN etc providing indicators on the countries economic status and performance and certainly by the end of any financial year we are in a position to assess projections versus actual achievements. I don’t understand the statement. But it is statements like that and the question “do we wait 10 years for the refund” that leaves me thinking that you are being disingenous. It smacks of something I can’t quite put my finger on.
You know something I had been planning to look at the 2002 PNP manifesto to determine how much they actually achieved and since the election passed I decided it was not necessary but I think it might even be more relevant now. It would be very interesting to see.

Let me end this by saying, I was very happy when I discovered your blog, mostly I read and only comment when I feel it most necessary. I was pleased to find somewhere, an outlet to share concerns, ideas, visions, thoughts and as I read here I would share with others views aired on your blog. I am careful in my criticisms because you have done something I have only talked about doing and for that you really have my respect. But it is only because I think what you are doing is so very important and laudable why I am being very frank about my concern for balance and fairness.