Pukkah:

A transformational government will leave no stone unturned to change the status quo.

We would not be discussing this if we wanted to sustain or defend the status quo which everyone knows is crippling and cannot deliver development.

For example, Sanusi Lamido once made the following statements:


“At the moment 70 per cent of Federal Government’s revenue goes for payment of salaries and entitlement of civil servants, leaving 30 per cent for development of 167 million Nigerians. That means that for every naira government earns, 70 kobo   is consumed by civil servants."

Is this not scary? What's government's plan to address this bad case?

What's government doing to reduce the expenditure on the National Assembly? A transformational government would engage the key actors and try to bring down the costs. But is the government also showing good examples in its own expenditure profile and tolerance for corruption?

Goddex:

[size=16pt]The bolded refers, truth is, no govt makes such bold reforms in its first term. Opposition will use propaganda to bring you down eventhough noble and no President wants that. That is why a few of the reforms during OBJ were all done in his second term.

Take the issue of fuel subsidy removal last year when a crowd of Lagosians trooped out to occupy Ojota due largely to inciting propaganda from opposition. No govt will plunge itself into labour crisis and mass revolt barely a year to the next election. Have you asked yourself why Fashola did not ban Okada in his first term?[/size]

Iolo:

I think GEJ just needs to do something drastic. Make some publically appealing moves like selling off his private and slashing his aides, then do something drastic like remove fuel subsidy. They country will burn but only till when people begin to feel the impact of the +900billion injected to our capital budget.

Iolo: The only way to balance the National budget is to reduce recurrent expenditure. Obviously you know the Government would have to sack staff to accomplish this.

Budgets are balanced by the realities on ground.

gboss4sure: Who compares a Government responsible for just a state with a Government responsible with 36 states in all areas. Kwanso or whatever his name is should just shut de crap up

gboss4sure: Who compares a Government responsible for just a state with a Government responsible with 36 states in all areas. Kwanso or whatever his name is should just shut de crap up

Pukkah:

If Jonathan does some drastic things like you've mentioned and then removes fuel subsidy, many people that went to Ojota would not even mind.

How about making solemn promises to use the savings from subsidy removal to build specific projects in all the geo-political regions (e.g. 4th Mainland Bridge, Second Niger Bridge etc) and saying that people must hold him personally accountable for the promises?

joker5180: you need not to sack anybody. The previous government in kano state was spending 60-70% on recurrent expenditure, kwankwaso didn't sack anybody in fact he employed more. Tackle corruption in the civil service and that sum will surely go down, MDAs are just diverting funds to recurrent expenditure to find an easy way of looting.

4 Play: I find the disingenuous posturing here laughable. The simple truth is that cutting recurrent expenditure will require huge cuts in the public sector headcount/pay and in fuel subsidies none of which is popular with those bemoaning the high recurrent spending ratio. Remember that the fuel subsidy spending is not even reflected in the ratio so our recurrent spending is even higher than is acknowledged.

There is a lot of mealy mouthed talk of cutting corruption and waste. Of course, these objectives are inherently good, however, in the context of the debate make little sense to me.

4 Play: I find the disingenuous posturing here laughable. The simple truth is that cutting recurrent expenditure will require huge cuts in the public sector headcount/pay and in fuel subsidies none of which is popular with those bemoaning the high recurrent spending ratio. Remember that the fuel subsidy spending is not even reflected in the ratio so our recurrent spending is even higher than is acknowledged.

There is a lot of mealy mouthed talk of cutting corruption and waste. Of course, these objectives are inherently good, however, in the context of the debate make little sense to me. Remember we are talking of ratios and proportions. Why would cutting corruption affect ratios? Is corruption more endemic via recurrent expenses than capital expenses? Some of the greatest heists in this country have been perpetrated through capital spending: Ajaokuta Steel, OBJ's power projects, Oduah's airport refurbishments, Abacha's railway projects, e.t.c. I would say that it's easier to steal money through capital projects than through ghost workers.

This debate is a phantom debate because no one actually wants to cut the ratio of recurrent expenditure.

OAM4J:

Of course corruption affects everything including the capital, recurrent expenditures and the ratios. Downplaying the effect of corruption has been one of the major wrongs of this current government.

If as a result of corruption we cannot account or remit all our income, it definitely affects the overall ratio of our budjet. Take for instance, just assuming, we are only able to account for 4tr of our earnings instead of the actual 6tr due to corruption and we must spend 3tr on recurrent expenditures, that means we are having ratio 25:75 (Capital:Recurrent) instead of 50:50 if corruption had not eaten 2tr from the source.

taharqa: What is this one talking about??

Akinmail:

Hey you!

Kano is an APC state not pdp. Okay?

And to give you more head-aches
Lagos state, Rivers state and Kano state are all APC states.
You sure know how important those states are don't you??

slydog: The op should change the topic of the tread, a balanced budget is one where recurrent and capital expenditure are equal.

Notwithstanding, developing economies like Nigeria don't need balanced budget, neither do we need budgets skewed towards recurrent expenditure. We need budgets where at least 65percent is spent on capital project.

slydog:
We need budgets where at least 65percent is spent on capital project.

Ilaje44:

That's very wrong. A balanced budget is one where your earnings equal your spending. A budget that is not balance need to be balanced, and there are several ways to achieve that e.g. Borrowing or selling off Governments assets. When you earn more than you spend, then we talk of Budget surplus.

Wallie: For the recurrent expenditure to reduce certain unpopular steps need to be taken, which most reasonable people will agree with.

taharqa: He is already doing just that right now, for Goodness sake. And, am talking about the #360bn FG share of SURE-P it has so far received...

Iolo:

All valid points you have raised. Same should go for the legislators salaries. But my take is these would only reduce recurrent by not much (less than 5%) so they are not significant per say.