Covering the Budget
Sunday Feb 15, 2009
Just too many numbers. That was my initial feeling in reviewing TV coverage on the evening of Budget day.
Some of the Budget coverage I saw on TV followed the stale tradition of throwing figures at the viewer, in the form of graphics, and at the listener, in the voiceover.
A billion there, 10 billion here. What does it all mean?
Without context, the figures are worse than meaningless. They are boring.
The only figures that I will bet people really grabbed on to were those that applied to increases in the cost of tobacco, alcohol and petrol, because these are numbers that people deal with every day.
And yet even here I don't remember anyone telling me how much a bottle of mid-range blended whisky might now cost.
Partly, it's the fault of how the Budget is presented.
I cannot help but remember the suprise that Derek Keys, finance minister in the government of national unity, sprang on Parliament when he handed in a Budget speech of a few pages, on the basis that the details were all in the Budget Review anyway.
I guess the Finance Minister is doing what's expected of him, and the speech is not unendurable, though I did notice some of the backbenchers shifting uncomfortably in their chairs as if they were trying to stay awake at some parts.
Yet it is peppered with figures, sometimes without context, as well as a level of language that I guess leaves quite a few people behind.
His oratory is impressive. True, it does at times look as if he is preaching to a
congregation rather than speaking in Parliament. He looks heavenwards quite often, as if seeking inspiration or divine guidance.
Manuel does liven things up with his now legendary attempts at speaking in some of South Africa's other official languages.
Sometimes he does explain the thinking behind particular sums.
Take the paragraph in the speech about spending to reduce poverty.
Manuel mentioned that R25 billion would be "added to the budgets of provinces, mainly for education and health care, and R13 billion for social assistance grants and their administration. R4 billion is added to the school nutrition programme and R2.5 billion goes to municipalities for basic services."
He went on to point out it was not the amounts of money that were important.
"Madam Speaker, the quantum of the rands and cents allocated to these programmes is not what provides relief. No, we can only be satisfied when we know that the quality of life of the poor is improving, that children are being properly educated, that learners have access to food in schools, that mothers visiting clinics get proper and dignified treatment, that the criminal justice system is putting those who rob and thieve behind bars."
And as a stab at those on the Left who have criticised him for running budget surpluses and not spending more to combat poverty, he stressed:
"It’s what the money buys that matters, and so fixations with the size of deficits or surpluses are illusory detours."
This has been Manuel's theme all along. Throwing money at problems won't help.
In any case, what was the real story behind the numbers? Usually this takes a bit of time to sink in. The news magazines often find out a week later, after the flurry of headlines.
I guess one story was that he has been vindicated, and South Africa will probably weather the global economic storm a lot better than many other countries.
Another obvious one is that the Budget is counter-cyclical in borrowing to continue funding the ambitious infrastructure programme along with all the other spending government is committed to.
However, an examination of the Budget for what was not said often reveals some really interesting material for articles.
Already I note that social welfare lobbyists have expressed disappointment that bolder moves were not made in extending social grants.
Neva-Seidman Makgetla writes in the Sunday Times that despite the R13-billion extra funds, the actual increase in social grants do not in fact keep pace with inflation.
Cope communications head Phillip Dexter had some trenchant criticism, calling the Budget on close examination "fresh gravy on yesterday's dinner".
Among other things, he writes, the increase in the education budget only caters for growth in student numbers, not increased teacher pay.
On the revenue side, Maya Fischer-French has claimed the Mail & Guardian that the R13.6-billion “tax cut” mostly neutralises the effect of inflation for lower income earners.
Higher income earners will actually be worse off, she says.
The business pages of City Press lead with a story claiming the department of trade and industry is disappointed with the R1.6-billion added to its budget vote over the next three years.
This additional money is for industrial development and supporting small businesses. According to City Press, the dti wanted R9-billion extra.
There will be more negative stories, I guess, because Manuel has had his chance to put his particular gloss on the Budget. Now the critics can start to find the flaws.
Some of the Budget coverage I saw on TV followed the stale tradition of throwing figures at the viewer, in the form of graphics, and at the listener, in the voiceover.
A billion there, 10 billion here. What does it all mean?
Without context, the figures are worse than meaningless. They are boring.
The only figures that I will bet people really grabbed on to were those that applied to increases in the cost of tobacco, alcohol and petrol, because these are numbers that people deal with every day.
And yet even here I don't remember anyone telling me how much a bottle of mid-range blended whisky might now cost.
Partly, it's the fault of how the Budget is presented.
I cannot help but remember the suprise that Derek Keys, finance minister in the government of national unity, sprang on Parliament when he handed in a Budget speech of a few pages, on the basis that the details were all in the Budget Review anyway.
I guess the Finance Minister is doing what's expected of him, and the speech is not unendurable, though I did notice some of the backbenchers shifting uncomfortably in their chairs as if they were trying to stay awake at some parts.
Yet it is peppered with figures, sometimes without context, as well as a level of language that I guess leaves quite a few people behind.
His oratory is impressive. True, it does at times look as if he is preaching to a
congregation rather than speaking in Parliament. He looks heavenwards quite often, as if seeking inspiration or divine guidance.
Manuel does liven things up with his now legendary attempts at speaking in some of South Africa's other official languages.
Sometimes he does explain the thinking behind particular sums.
Take the paragraph in the speech about spending to reduce poverty.
Manuel mentioned that R25 billion would be "added to the budgets of provinces, mainly for education and health care, and R13 billion for social assistance grants and their administration. R4 billion is added to the school nutrition programme and R2.5 billion goes to municipalities for basic services."
He went on to point out it was not the amounts of money that were important.
"Madam Speaker, the quantum of the rands and cents allocated to these programmes is not what provides relief. No, we can only be satisfied when we know that the quality of life of the poor is improving, that children are being properly educated, that learners have access to food in schools, that mothers visiting clinics get proper and dignified treatment, that the criminal justice system is putting those who rob and thieve behind bars."
And as a stab at those on the Left who have criticised him for running budget surpluses and not spending more to combat poverty, he stressed:
"It’s what the money buys that matters, and so fixations with the size of deficits or surpluses are illusory detours."
This has been Manuel's theme all along. Throwing money at problems won't help.
In any case, what was the real story behind the numbers? Usually this takes a bit of time to sink in. The news magazines often find out a week later, after the flurry of headlines.
I guess one story was that he has been vindicated, and South Africa will probably weather the global economic storm a lot better than many other countries.
Another obvious one is that the Budget is counter-cyclical in borrowing to continue funding the ambitious infrastructure programme along with all the other spending government is committed to.
However, an examination of the Budget for what was not said often reveals some really interesting material for articles.
Already I note that social welfare lobbyists have expressed disappointment that bolder moves were not made in extending social grants.
Neva-Seidman Makgetla writes in the Sunday Times that despite the R13-billion extra funds, the actual increase in social grants do not in fact keep pace with inflation.
Cope communications head Phillip Dexter had some trenchant criticism, calling the Budget on close examination "fresh gravy on yesterday's dinner".
Among other things, he writes, the increase in the education budget only caters for growth in student numbers, not increased teacher pay.
On the revenue side, Maya Fischer-French has claimed the Mail & Guardian that the R13.6-billion “tax cut” mostly neutralises the effect of inflation for lower income earners.
Higher income earners will actually be worse off, she says.
The business pages of City Press lead with a story claiming the department of trade and industry is disappointed with the R1.6-billion added to its budget vote over the next three years.
This additional money is for industrial development and supporting small businesses. According to City Press, the dti wanted R9-billion extra.
There will be more negative stories, I guess, because Manuel has had his chance to put his particular gloss on the Budget. Now the critics can start to find the flaws.