The money did not disappear. But somewhere between the fiscal picture painted before the election and the one we are being shown now, something changed.
That is the question worth asking.
Earlier this year, Finance Minister Clyde Caruana spoke of a €250 million fiscal buffer – room to absorb further shocks while keeping Malta’s deficit below 3 per cent. It was a reassuring message: whatever happened to energy prices, Malta had some financial breathing space.
Now the arithmetic looks rather less comfortable.
Energy and food subsidies are expected to cost €391.7 million this year, more than double last year’s €188.1 million. Another €400 million is expected next year. The deficit still has to be kept below 3 per cent.
So where did the fiscal room go? Not, of course, into some mythical government bank account from which somebody has been helping themselves. The world changed. Energy prices changed. Government spending changed. Assumptions changed. Fine. That is what happens.
The problem is that fiscal responsibility cannot be something governments discover only when the money starts running out.
There is a legitimate defence available to the Government here. It can say that nobody could have predicted every external shock. It can say that protecting households and businesses from soaring energy costs was the responsible thing to do. It can say that forecasts are not promises and budgets are not crystal balls.
All perfectly reasonable. But then comes the awkward bit. What were the assumptions?
What did the fiscal baseline look like before the election? What does it look like now? How much of the difference comes from higher subsidies? How much from revenue? How much from additional expenditure? Which assumptions about growth, inflation, energy prices and government commitments have changed? And why?
The answer should not require another political speech. It should require a spreadsheet. This is where fiscal honesty becomes a democratic issue.
There is a profound difference between a government changing course because reality changed and a government making promises on the basis of assumptions that were simply too optimistic.
The first is the government. The second is politics. And voters have every right to know which one they are looking at.
This is not an argument for austerity. Nor is it an argument that every subsidy should suddenly disappear. Governments sometimes have to spend heavily to protect people from circumstances beyond their control. The €1.3 billion or so spent on energy and fuel subsidies over recent years can be defended as social protection. It can also be questioned as economic policy.
But whichever position one takes, the numbers should be visible. Publish them!
Show us the fiscal position presented before the election. Show us the revised position. Show us the cost of the promises. Show us the subsidies. Show us the revenue assumptions. Show us what changed. Then let us judge.
Because fiscal responsibility is not merely the ability to balance the books when the numbers become uncomfortable. It is the discipline of telling voters what the numbers actually are before they vote.
The money did not disappear. But if €250 million of fiscal breathing space has somehow become €250 million of fiscal anxiety, then somewhere between those two numbers lies a story. We deserve to see the arithmetic behind it.