Controversy over Budget 2009

Madam, - Government Ministers are right to say this is a time for patriotism, and we would come through economic difficulties…

Madam, - Government Ministers are right to say this is a time for patriotism, and we would come through economic difficulties better and emerge from them sooner if we were united in facing them. But they fail to see that their Budget creates division.

I think they are mistaken, too, in repeating, over and over, that hard times require hard decisions. They do, of course, but not bad ones; and it is the duty of citizens in a democracy to examine all government decisions and to reject bad ones. Most citizens, I believe, have rightly identified the following:

The failure to adjust income-tax rates and thresholds to raise more tax is a bad decision.

Imposing another form of income tax and calling it a levy is a bad decision.

READ MORE

The failure to raise or abolish the PRSI threshold is a bad decision.

The failure to address tax breaks and tax avoidance, by which wealthy people legally frustrate the purpose of the tax code, is a bad decision.

Depriving old people of medical cards is a bad decision.

Collapsing the Combat Poverty Agency is a bad decision. It is a valuable body in good times and an essential one in bad.

The failure to cull "ministers of state" - under-employed and over-paid politicians provided with free cars and drivers - is a bad decision.

The failure to prohibit salary increases and bonuses for highly-paid public servants is a bad decision.

Lowering the standard of education is the worst decision of all.

I agree this is a time for patriotism. Government leaders would show patriotism and earn our respect if they acknowledged that they blundered in their first attempt to respond to hard times, learnt from their error, and produced a new response that most citizens would accept. If through vanity, obstinacy or party politics they refuse to do so, an enlightened electorate will remember their refusal. - Yours, etc,

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Grosvenor Square, Dublin 6.

Madam, - Many contributors have expressed serious doubts about this Government's track record, and its ability to lead the country wisely and effectively through the current difficulties. But one of the biggest problems facing the electorate is the absence of any credible alternative government. Voters do not trust any of the parties, and the Lisbon Treaty referendum reflected this.

Several economists in your pages over recent weeks have spoken of the "common good". It is good to see economists using this language, even if belatedly. Our political system rewards clientelism, vested interests and short-term populism. We can see from the current mess what we have harvested from this approach.

At the last election, there was no alternative government credibly championing the "common good". Instead, there was a bidding war over lower taxes. Yet much of the recent correspondence to your newspaper shows that, contrary to what politicians and some commentators tell us, not everyone is obsessed with low income tax at all costs.

A significant number of people want a system of social service provision that is fair, transparent, cost-effective and properly managed, similar to that in several other EU countries. Such a system would cost money, but while I am not wealthy, I would be happy to pay my share because it would create a far healthier society for my children. I believe many people share this view,­ yet we are politically disenfranchised.

Is it too much to expect a potential alternative government to adapt a functioning EU model, tell us exactly what that should cost in the Irish context and clarify how it will guarantee that the money will go into the services for which it was intended? I have no wish to pay more tax that gets siphoned off to bail out incompetent or corrupt financiers, or pay incompetent HSE executives' bonuses, or cover the non-payment of tax by the wealthiest in our society. - Yours, etc,

SEAN LOVE, Tara, Co Meath.

Madam, - I am bereaved, though no one has died. It's the Budget. I've decided I must be going through the five stages of bereavement identified by Kubler-Ross in 1969: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Last week I still had my head in the sand. This week I am angry, disgusted even: how could the Government aim its spending cuts at the weakest and most deprived in society and abolish the agencies that advocate primarily on their behalf? The bargaining is going on in a danse macabreof protest and U-turn. Depression is looming: the Greens went along with it, damn them. But I feel the inexorable pull of acceptance luring me into a state of helplessless. No! We need an election, I want to fight this. - Yours, etc,

ELAINE MULLAN, Lahardan, Portlaw, Co Waterford.