LETTER: DA policy distorted in editorial

In a recent editorial comment, Business Day uncritically lumps together the policy proposal by the DA to increase the child grant from R480 to R644, and the Employment Equity amendment Act and National Health Insurance (“Tis the season for policy adventurism,” June 13). Is the DA engaging in policy adventurism or has the editor drawn a series of false conclusions?

The DA’s proposal is a prudent one that seeks to generate savings, plug fiscal leakages and redirect misappropriated funds towards the most vulnerable in society. We have also been clear that we do not aim to levy any new taxes to fund this proposal.

Our proposal will require an increase of about R2bn per financial year, which could be easily funded through closing the taps of corruption that flows out of the state and into the champagne glasses of cadres.

While we accept that it is difficult to ascertain the extent of corruption in rand value due to the hidden nature of illicit transactions, our assumption is based on government’s own projection of the cost of corruption of R27bn, which has been repeated by trade, industry and competition minister Ebrahim Patel on several occasions before.

It is well documented that a significant portion of taxpayer’s money is spent on government largesse such as VIP protection. Surely it is then both logical and rational to assume that these funds could be better allocated and spent on a programme of government that aims to alleviate extreme poverty?

As for the assertion that the DA “pledged to save the poor not by growing the economy, its long-standing mantra, but by increasing social grants” — this is patently untrue.

In the statement that accompanied the release of our new social development policy, it explicitly states that “while social grants and other forms of social welfare are never an adequate substitute for economic growth and job creation, they play a vital role in protecting the most vulnerable in society from extreme poverty”.

Noting that this is the statement that led to Business Day soliciting comment from myself on June 4, and which was then published on June 5, one then has to ask: why was this omitted from the story?

On a philosophical note, our proposal is perfectly consistent with our principle of a “social market economy” that aims to promote competition, stimulate innovation and allow participants in the market to decide what to purchase, where to invest and how much to produce. However, government does have a role to play in providing strong safety nets and trampolines for the most vulnerable.

Ultimately, we need to arrive at a position where more people are in jobs and fewer people are reliant on a more generous social assistance package — as is the case in many other industrialised nations. Surely, economic growth and social protection are not mutually exclusive but are in fact mutually reinforcing?

Mat Cuthbert
DA head of policy

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.​