Dear Editor,
 
Watching Hubert Ingraham officially open one building after the other, spend the public's money like it's his own or that of one of his millionaire financial backers, or borrow money from international institutions sinking the Bahamian economy deeper into the abyss, gives me the impression of a desperate man.  At times it appears as if he is going to become unhinged.  It is obvious that he would do everything, say anything, to preserve his legacy.
And what will the legacy of Hubert Ingraham be, rather what should it be having regard to some members of the news media who have defended, excused, validated and justified every public pronouncement he has ever made, no matter how damaging?
Hubert Ingraham attempted early in his tenure to paint the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government as being reckless with the public finances.  He went to great lengths and verbosity to demonstrate how his administration would be different.  He wrote these words for his first Speech from the Throne: "My government will restore fiscal discipline to the public finances of the country, and will ensure that value is obtained for public expenditure and public business."
In his first budget communication on November 25, 1992 he claimed that: "Indeed, it was the indiscipline of the previous government, which did not properly plan the generation and use of public finances, which has resulted in the fiscal difficulties facing our nation at this time."
Time has proven that Hubert Ingraham cannot credibly lecture anyone on the merits of fiscal discipline.  When he returned to office in 2007, Hubert Ingraham met the national debt at $2.9 billion.  By the end of December 2010 he and his government had grown the national debt to $4.2 billion.  It now stands at $4.6 billion, but by the end of this fiscal year the national debt is expected to be in the area of $5 billion.  That is a net increase of some $2.1 billion in just five years.  How's that for fiscal discipline?  Furthermore, Hubert Ingraham and the Free National Movement (FNM) increased the government debt as a percentage of GDP by 2010 to the dangerous level of 49.2 percent.  Some believe that it is now over 50 percent.
For sure, the numbers were impacted by the recession.  But if you believed Hubert Ingraham during those days of euphoria in the early 1990s, you have to conclude that he could have done a better job of managing the economy.  Here is what he had to say in his first budget presentation in November 1992: "Furthermore, these budgetary problems were allowed to develop at a time when a prudent government would have recognized that cautionary measures should have been in place to meet any likelihood of a major recession in the U.S. economy, and to cushion the resultant impact on our tourism driven economy."
He went on to say: "It cannot be said that those who were responsible for managing the economy did not know hard times were coming, they just chose to ignore all the indicators."
I wonder if Hubert Ingraham and the FNM realized that hard times were coming in 2007?  What time is it now, Mr. Wolf?
The FNM likes to justify the reckless borrowing and spending by pointing to the fact that you can see and touch what the money had been spent on.  What a ridiculous assertion!  This irresponsible 'the end justifies the means' attitude to public spending on capital works is the primary reason why public finances are in such a crisis position.  You spend over $150 million on roadworks, in the process you damage and destroy family-owned businesses which had been in existence for decades; you disturb travel on almost every major street.  I can hardly believe that this is the same prime minister and minister of finance who once said the following: "The previous government's reckless disregard for  fiscal discipline was evident also in the manner in which capital projects were poorly planned and implemented."
How open and transparent was the process that ended up with Cable and Wireless purchasing a 51 percent stake in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC)?  Cable and Wireless was not even a part of the bidding process.  Yet, the committee appointed to oversee the process was in discussions with Cable and Wireless even while apparently evaluating bids submitted by other companies who did submit bids.
The new contract the Bahamas Electricity Corporation (BEC) signed with OTEC recently smacks of lack of transparency.  It appears that the OTEC contract, which was again awarded behind closed doors, seemed to be some gift to the Lyford Cay dynasty.  Open government?  Hubert Ingraham's idea of open and transparent government is to hold the opening of Parliament in Rawson Square.
Nowhere is Hubert Ingraham's legacy more lacking than in his failure to maintain public safety.  The FNM thought that the reduction in crime, especially violent crime, was a legitimate issue for their trust agenda.  How can anyone trust the FNM after they have presided over the most murderous and violent era in the history of The Bahamas?  This is an indisputable fact; over 457 murders over a period of less than five years.  This number does not take into account the scores of unclassified deaths over this period.  Moreover, Dr. Duane Sands has alleged that number does not tell the true picture of the level of violence in the society.  He claimed that the 457 murders would have been significantly higher if it had not been for the talented doctors and nurses at Princess Margaret Hospital.  What an indictment!
Desperation seems to be driving the FNM.  The secret (at least to Bahamians) visit by Haitian President Michel Martelly was the straw that broke the camel's back.  We would have expected the prime minister to demonstrate the foresight and explain to the Haitian president that a few weeks before the election was not a good time to visit The Bahamas.  We should at the very least expect him to say to the president that when you speak to your nationals do not say anything that could possibly be interpreted as political.
Those former Haitians who now have Bahamian citizenship should owe their loyalty to The Bahamas and not still be under the influence of the Haitian president.  Their loyalty should now be to The Bahamas, its flag, its constitution and to its culture.  How could so large a number of Bahamian citizens have divided loyalty and still regard the Haitian president as their head of state?
That is what happens when you dispense Bahamian nationality for political reasons; you cheapen and disvalue your citizenship.  Tell me how could the Haitian president tell a group of supposed Bahamian citizens to vote in bloc?  Of course I am assuming that only Bahamian citizens could still vote.
 
- Eric Gardner

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian