Is the Chief of Staff on a Spending Spree?

Read Comments Comments (6)

• Sammy 11 years ago

  The amount is huge

  The amount is huge

  reply
• KOO 11 years ago

  This administration cannot be taken serious on anything.While workers and government institutions are being asked cut down on expenses and sometimes starved of funds the presidential chief of staff keeps dipping his hand into ...
  read full comment

  This administration cannot be taken serious on anything.While workers and government institutions are being asked cut down on expenses and sometimes starved of funds the presidential chief of staff keeps dipping his hand into public funds without any checks.How can this government fight corruption when the roots are right before its corridor?.People do things with impunity.In fact many get away without being panelized for embezzlements and corruption yet this government keep telling Ghanaians that it is fighting corruption.Who ever believe this propaganda is doomed.

  reply
• ghanaman 11 years ago

  Kofi, without meaning to belittle the import of your contribution to the national development discourse, especially in the areas of accountability, probity and transparency, let me draw your attention to a simple arithmetic e ...
  read full comment

  Kofi, without meaning to belittle the import of your contribution to the national development discourse, especially in the areas of accountability, probity and transparency, let me draw your attention to a simple arithmetic error. Whenever we say a figure (or amount) y exceeds another figure (or amount) x, we basically are interested in the difference (y-x). In your article#s case, the actual expenditure of the office of Chief of Staff constituted Ghc48.8 million (y), as opposed to the budgeted provision of Ghc7.4 million (x), As you rightly pointed out, this represents and overspending of Ghc41.4 million.
  
  Another matter, if we wish to express the extent to which the overspending exceeds the original budget, in other words, the relation (or relationship) between the two. Remember, this is a measure of relative difference. Here, we are interested, not just in the absolute difference of Ghc41.4 million, but more so, in "by how many times (fold)" does this difference exceed the original. However, we cannot use the entire value of the actual expenditure (Ghc48.8 million) for the new calculation. We must restrict ourselves to just the difference, and only the difference, namely the amount of Ghc41.4 million. It is this amount that must be divided by the Ghc7.4 million, being the original amount allocated to the office of The COS in the 2014 budget. A division of Ghc41.4 million by Ghc7.4 million gives 5.59 times, or 559 percent, rounded to three significant figures. This is no meagre proportion, but by no means the 6,59 times or 659 percent quoted in your article. If we wish to restrict ourselves to just one significant figure, we may say 6 times or 600 percent, but clearly not nearly 7 times, or the implied 700 percent, in paragraph 4 of the article. Otherwise, good work, Kofi.
  Thanks

  reply
• JOE 11 years ago

  This is baseless whether 700% or 600% of the budgeted figure is immaterial the amount overspent was just too high. In any case why do we have to use the difference as the numerator in the division and not the actual amount? Y ...
  read full comment

  This is baseless whether 700% or 600% of the budgeted figure is immaterial the amount overspent was just too high. In any case why do we have to use the difference as the numerator in the division and not the actual amount? Your arithmetic is very suspect, how will you round 659 to the nearest hundred? Quite obviously 700 and not 600 as you quoted, which each of the students in my basic Math class will readily tell you.

  reply
• ghanaman 11 years ago

  @JOE: DearJoe, first and foremost, you are not Kofi Atta, the author of the article. next, the amount overspent is/was too high. Luckily, that's not being debated here.
  
  What is the extent to which the budget was overspent ...
  read full comment

  @JOE: DearJoe, first and foremost, you are not Kofi Atta, the author of the article. next, the amount overspent is/was too high. Luckily, that's not being debated here.
  
  What is the extent to which the budget was overspent? This is a question that demands an exact answer. Must we be subjective here? Can we answer mathematics questions by polling? If none of the students in a class have appreciable knowledge of relativity theory (general or special), must we rely on a poll to answer questions of great significance in relativity theory? If that's too difficult for you to comprehend, how many pupils "know" the Earth is flat before they encounter their first geographic or science/nature lesson that demonstrates that the Earth is a globe? Can't we just learn to appreciate simple truths without pomposity,especially when it (pomposity) is based on ignorance? May we be humble this Christmas. Thanks.

  reply
• KKO 11 years ago

  Kofi,
  As you rightly mentioned, this could be fraud, and a calculated one, for that matter. Remember this is not a new party in government and the Chief of Staff had at least the 2013 budget allocation and subsequent expend ...
  read full comment

  Kofi,
  As you rightly mentioned, this could be fraud, and a calculated one, for that matter. Remember this is not a new party in government and the Chief of Staff had at least the 2013 budget allocation and subsequent expenditure as guide.
  
  After all when you prepare a budget, you take the previous year's budget, look at the expenditure patterns and possible new items, to make the projections for the following year, with contingencies.
  
  Almost certainly, that is what guided Parliament in the approval of the COS's projections. So this more than 500% increase is just fraudulent misuse of the taxpayer's money and the guy ought to be charged for it. If President Mahama does not do anything about, it he is equally culpable in this plain daylight robbery against the people of Ghana, just as seems to have happened in the cases of GYEEDA, SADA, SUBAH, et al.

  reply