The Editor, Sir:

I read with some interest your August 12 editorial entitled 'Two Different Strategies'. It comments unfavourably on the PNP's commitment to "containing government expenditure" which the editorial argues is "simply financial code for minimal social expenditure". You then posed the question as to whether other members of the PNP leadership understand the full social and other implications of what you characterised as "the Davies' line".

Let me begin by indicating that rather than this approach being seen as uniquely mine, the whole Cabinet recognises that the only way for Jamaica to emerge from a high level of indebtedness and a large fiscal deficit is to bring government expenditure in line with revenues. (I am operating on the assumption that the writer of the editorial supports debt repayment).

Lower interest costs

The benefits of this approach will be lower interest costs and contrary to your erroneous conclusion, the ability to expend additional resources on social and human resource development on a sustained basis. From bitter experience, not only in Jamaica, but worldwide, we know that it is counterproductive to seek to support social programmes through deficit financing.

There are many times in the past when I have noted editorials and columns in your paper condemning the PNP Administration for fiscal laxity. It is almost inconceivable that the editorial is now suggesting that containment of government expenditure is undesirable.

I am, etc.,

OMAR DAVIES, MP