What did the Union Budget 2015 prove?

confuzzled dude wrote:that Modiji is another power hungry politician, not an unparalleled grandiose reformer as his veer-bhaktas have been shouting their lungs out all along.

southindian wrote:Thomas engine, stop acting smart. That's how every government in every country do their budget.

US has been borrowing to spend... for how many years now?

swapna wrote:
that the government of india understands how plans for economic development, tax revenues, government spending, fiscal deficit, inflation, fdi-friendliness, gdp, income distribution, job creation, social welfare programs, and standard of living are all interlinked.

such an internally consistent (funding) plan - called the budget - was presented yesterday to the people of india.

in sharp contrast stands the government of delhi, run by rank amateurs, including naive iitans, making arbitrary, rash promises about the pricing of electricity, water, and sanitation, with no viable plan to fund production.

if you have any disagreement with the government of india's budget, say what it is, and discuss it.

swapna wrote:
I have opinions about some of its inadequacies, for example:

1. the privatization of public-sector units, including the railways; too slow, according to the budget;

nearly all p.s.u.s can be partially privatized, .e.g. by the government leasing out existing facilities (plants, equipment,  and structures) to private-sector companies, to operate, maintain, and do business with;

2. the development of solar energy does not occupy a prominent enough place, as far as I could see, in the budget, nor are incentives for its rapid growth specified.

Nobody expressed the disappointment better than Yashwant Sinha, Finance Minister during the previous NDA regime, which had to battle a far more hostile domestic as well as global environment through the late 1990s to the early 2000s. “He (Jaitley) missed an opportunity. This is far from a big bang budget”, Sinha told The Indian Express.

Sinha felt that the real miss in Jaitley’s budget was the lack of thrust on housing. This was a sector that had received a particular boost from Budgets in 2000-01 and 2001-02, taking into account its huge multiplier effect for growth, employment and demand for everything from steel to cement.

The other big disappointment from the Budget has been the inability to address the issue of untargeted and open- ended subsidies. Just a day after the economic survey had talked about leveraging the “JAM  trinity” — Jan Dhan, Aadhaar and Mobile — to replace subsidies with Direct Benefit Transfers, the Budget offered little by way of a  concrete action plan in this regard.

Jaitley’s speech didn’t make even any mention of food and fertiliser subsidies, which were left at the same levels as last year. Only the petroleum subsidy is expected to be around Rs 30,000 crore lower in 2015-15 — but that’s thanks only to lower global oil prices.

Not touching subsidies meant that not only the fiscal deficit, but even the revenue deficit for 2015-16 is going to be higher than that in the original consolidation time table.

swapna wrote:

that the government of india understands how plans for economic development, tax revenues, government spending, fiscal deficit, inflation, fdi-friendliness, gdp, income distribution, job creation, social welfare programs, and standard of living are all interlinked.

such an internally consistent (funding) plan - called the budget - was presented yesterday to the people of india.

in sharp contrast stands the government of delhi, run by rank amateurs, including naive iitans, making arbitrary, rash promises about the pricing of electricity, water, and sanitation, with no viable plan to fund production.

if you have any disagreement with the government of india's budget, say what it is, and discuss it.

I have opinions about some of its inadequacies, for example:

1. the privatization of public-sector units, including the railways; too slow, according to the budget;

nearly all p.s.u.s can be partially privatized, .e.g. by the government leasing out existing facilities (plants, equipment,  and structures) to private-sector companies, to operate, maintain, and do business with;

2. the development of solar energy does not occupy a prominent enough place, as far as I could see, in the budget, nor are incentives for its rapid growth specified.

TruthSeeker wrote:Hi RE,

"Make in India" - Solar Panels - Cheap with quality. And Use. Solar energy does not have to cost as much as in US. Should be fraction of the cost.

Harvest Rain Water - Make in India.

India has God given geographical advantage.

Make... and Use in India. Its high time.

I am more or less convinced that Congress only "looted" India. So anything else, no matter what, can only be better. If India were Pakistan, many in Congress will be executed for their misrule.

A lot can be said, but enough for now,
TS.

confuzzled dude wrote:that Modiji is another power hungry politician, not an unparalleled grandiose reformer as his veer-bhaktas have been shouting their lungs out all along.

TruthSeeker wrote:Hi RE,

"Make in India" - Solar Panels - Cheap with quality. And Use. Solar energy does not have to cost as much as in US. Should be fraction of the cost.

Harvest Rain Water - Make in India.

India has God given geographical advantage.

Make... and Use in India. Its high time.

I am more or less convinced that Congress only "looted" India. So anything else, no matter what, can only be better. If India were Pakistan, many in Congress will be executed for their misrule.

A lot can be said, but enough for now,
TS.

southindian wrote:It ONLY proves that CD has Insider information from EVERY government ministry in India?

CD is confident and KNOWS everything that only very few people are aware of.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:CD:

I don't like what Modi is doing for AP but, overall, he is doing better at the national level compared to CONartists. He is not a CONman like Jagan, Raja, Laloo, etc.

Oddly, the recent Budget of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) junks these insights and goes back to the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, when growth and development sounded synonymous, physical capital was thought to be the key, and human capital took a back seat. Growth, we are told, is the overriding objective of economic policy — the rest will follow. And the key to growth is “infrastructure” — or rather, a certain kind of infrastructure that the corporate sector supports. Further, infrastructural investment has to be done mainly by the government. So, public investment in infrastructure (mainly roads and railways, à la Nehru) gets huge funds, and most other things get squeezed with the notable exception of defence. Health and education, in particular, receive unprecedented shock treatment.

Predictably enough, corporates have been falling over each other to praise the Budget during the last few days. The fallout for the social sector, however, is catastrophic. For the first time ever, critical social programmes like school meals and the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) have come under a heavy axe. The gap is to be filled, we are told, by State governments using their enhanced share of national tax revenue. Anyone with a minimal understanding of Centre-State relations is likely to hear alarm bells. Also, it is not clear how State governments are supposed to make instantaneous adjustments in their 2015-16 Budgets to fall in line with this cold turkey approach.

Perhaps the worst victim of this Budget squeeze is the health sector. As is well known, public spending on health is lower in India than in almost any other country in the world, as a proportion of GDP. This year, it may go down not only as a proportion of GDP, or in real terms, but even — for the first time — in money terms. Incidentally, in the previous Budget, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced a grand plan for “universal health assurance”. There is not a word of it in last week’s Budget speech. Instead, the Minister now promises a new grand plan for “universal social security.” As before, there are no specifics, no timelines and no budgetary commitments worth the name.

The most worrying aspect of this squeeze is that it was greeted with glee in the mainstream media. It signals, we are told, a welcome shift of emphasis from “handouts” to productive investment. But the big-ticket handouts, like subsidies for the privileged, actually remain, despite some proposed changes in the mode of delivery. Social programmes that can make a real contribution to people’s well-being and productive capacity, on the other hand, face severe budget cuts. Welcome back to the Third World.