Now it seems the same is happening over here. In advance of the debate today, the Council of Ministers has released a "comment" designed to sink the proposition to continue school milk.
It notes in part that:
The thrust of the Rural Economy Strategy approved by the States in 2005 is to reduce the level of Government intervention and to ultimately align production with market demand. In the dairy industry it has been possible to reduce the level of subsidy whilst at the same time holding down the wholesale price of milk well below the rate of inflation and this is a trend that we want to continue
This is despite the fact that the dairy industry elsewhere is well-subsidised (e.g. in the UK and Europe) as evidenced by the frequent comparisons made between Jersey and UK prices of milk.
From an economic development perspective, school milk subsidy has to be scored against the many other projects that need funding and which would provide a greater economic return to the Island.
What follows is a masterpiece of sheer obfuscated rhetoric designed to brow-beat and bamboozle the average member of the States:
The Economic Development Department (EDD) undertakes a fundamental review of its expenditure to ensure that it is delivering maximum value from its budget, in accordance with the Public Finances Law. The Department uses a "zero-based" approach that triages statutory, committed and discretionary expenditure. The 2009 budget review assessed all EDD outputs against criteria determined by the Department's key States Strategic Plan objective of realising 2% real annual economic growth. The review concluded that funding school milk had lowest priority of any potential "bid" for funding within these evaluation criteria.
What this means in effect, is that Philip Ozouf is convinced that the imaginary returns from investing in promoting Jersey overseas in China, India and the Far Eastern markets, and other business development proposals are calculated to be better than the real returns from investing in Jersey milk. Of course, to say that would let the cat out of the bag by presenting potential against actual returns, but that is where the money saved is in fact going towards, despite all the attempts to conceal it between the "zero-based" rhetoric. "Triage" basically means diverting money from one area to another.
What is zero-based budgeting? Here is a simple description by Steven J. Anderson (a private practice Certified Public Accountant):
Zero-based budgeting requires that the existence of a government program be justified in each fiscal year, as opposed to simply basing budgeting decisions on a previous year's funding level
However, as has been pointed out by Michael LaFaive:
If those appointed to conduct budget reviews are unwilling to truly assess every item in their budget, word will get out quickly that this new budgeting technique is more symbolism than substance.
This can be seen in the case of Oklahoma, where
Predictably, agencies designed "performance" measures that were at best measures of only inputs and outputs and at worst were a mockery of the concept. Oklahoma's Energy Resources Board, for example, submitted a measure that required the Board to increase the number of positive media stories.
Can you hear "increase the promotion of Jersey as a finance centre in China and the far east" as a performance measure?
In point of fact, in America, States like New Jersey changed to target based budgeting in 1983 because the zero-based approach was too cumbersome.
However, the Council of Ministers goes on to say, on the basis of its rhetorical flourish (do they get Sir Humphrey in to write these speeches?):
School milk funding from the EDD budget will not be available in 2009 and beyond. This is wholly consistent with the Public Finances Law that states that Accounting Officers officer are legally bound to deliver best value from the funding allocated to them. With regard to the Public Finances Law and above prioritisation process, the EDD cannot recommend the continuation of funding for school milk from its budget.
Then they turn their attack on the health benefits:
Turning now to the other perceived benefit – providing nutrition to young children. There is no doubt that the innate qualities of Jersey milk make it richer in nutrients than milk from, say, Holstein Friesian Herds. The real issue is whether there is a nutritional deficiency problem that is so serious that it demands intervention by Government in the form of a blanket provision of additional sustenance for all young children.
and here the Medical Officer of Health comes into play:
The view of the Medical Officer of Health is that increasing levels of obesity mean that the Island could be heading for an abyss of poor health in the future, with today's children having a shorter lifespan than their parents. To avert this crisis, Islanders need to be more physically active and to eat better, lower calorie food. It is her view that there would be much more to be gained by the provision of fruit than by the provision of milk. This would contribute to reducing obesity, improving child health, replacing sugary snacks (thus improving concentration and behaviour in school) and establishing the habit of eating fruit, which would ultimately reduce heart disease and cancer in the adult population.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment