The real work of nation building begins on the front line
The budget should serve the people. Yet, in too many South African communities, the teachers, nurses, and doctors who are needed most are not in the classrooms or clinics – they are unemployed, fighting for the chance to serve. The question is not whether the state employs too many people but rather whether it employs them where and when they are needed. This is the real challenge behind the politically contested public sector wage bill discourse: how do we invest in a workforce that actually builds our nation?
As the third iteration of the 2025 budget is tabled during Workers' Month, we are presented with a timely opportunity to shift the national conversation towards real solutions. The discourse around the public sector wage bill has become needlessly divisive at a moment when our country needs unity, clarity, and a government that brings people together.
'Bloated' public workforce vs frontline staff shortages
The public sector wage bill – sometimes criticised as 'bloated' – has in recent years become one of the most politically charged aspects of our national budget and often a scapegoat for the deep challenges facing public service delivery. As it accounts for around 35-40% of government spending, critics have increasingly pressured National Treasury to reduce it in the name of budget restraint and efficiency.
However, when one walks into any public clinic or school, the story on the ground is different. No one is complaining about too many doctors for the patients or too many teachers for the learners. If anything, the opposite is true: long queues, overworked nurses, and overcrowded classrooms have all undermined the quality and reach of basic services.
The contradiction is even clearer when placed alongside the country's mounting teacher, nurse and doctor shortages. As of 2024, there were over 30 000 teaching vacancies, nearly 16 000 nursing vacancies, and 1 800 vacant doctor posts in our public health system.
However, when one walks into any public clinic or school, the story on the ground is very different. No one is complaining about too many doctors for the patients or too many teachers for the learners. If anything, the opposite is true: long queues, overworked nurses, and overcrowded classrooms have all undermined the quality and reach of basic services. The contradiction is even clearer when placed alongside the country's mounting teacher, nurse and doctor shortages. As of 2024, there were over 30 000 teaching vacancies, nearly 16 000 nursing vacancies, and 1 800 vacant doctor posts in our public health system.
Clearly, something is off. Thousands of trained professionals remain unemployed, while the public services that rely on them are under extreme strain. The tension remains, though spending on public employees is perceived as too high for the value it delivers, yet frontline shortages in schools and clinics remain impossible to ignore.
A chance to finally get the public workforce right
South Africa doesn't necessarily have too many public workers, we have too few in the right places. The real issue is not the absolute size of the public sector wage bill, but its composition and effectiveness. While some state-owned enterprises and government departments have faced legitimate scrutiny for top-heavy wage structures, this critique does not apply across the board. In fact, labour-intensive services like education and health face the opposite imbalance: they are under-resourced at the frontline, weakening the quality of public services South Africans rely on.
Put differently: South Africa doesn't need a smaller public sector; we need a smarter one. One that prioritises frontline staffing, corrects structural imbalances, and ensures that every rand spent translates into better services for all. Budget 3.0 is a powerful opportunity to make this a reality.
A Budget 3.0 that builds a functioning public sector
In a bid to contain the public sector wage bill, the government has been blunt with a response characterised by ceilings, freezes on posts, and limiting headcounts of frontline services. However, this approach has come at a high cost with little to show for it. Rather than eliminating inefficiency, the government has effectively eroded the very frontline capacity our public services depend on – teachers, nurses, and doctors, while delivering little in the way of long-term savings or improved outcomes. The finance minister's welcome course correction acknowledges that the austerity, characterised by blunt measures like hiring freezes and headcount limitations, has not been effective in building a public sector that works for all. Schools and healthcare facilities face greater constraints in delivering quality public services for all, while wasteful and irregular spending continues without much recourse.
Now is the opportunity for the finance minister to table a budget that pays more than lip service towards course correction, not with symbolic cuts, but with strategic investment. A budget that builds a nation must take seriously the need to absorb skilled, unemployed professionals into our public sector. Not only will this reduce joblessness, but it will also restore the functionality of services people rely on every day.
Reinvesting in public services, the right way
Rather than blanket cuts, Treasury must adopt a targeted approach that protects and expands frontline posts in education and health, where human resource shortages are well-documented and the returns to nation-building are immediate. Despite the deeply regressive proposal of a VAT hike, Budgets 1.0 and 2.0 showed early signs of promise on the expenditure side, with commitments to strengthen basic education and health care. That momentum must be reinforced rather than being reversed.
This investment is not only urgent, but possible without resorting to a VAT hike. The now-scrapped VAT increase would have raised an estimated R11.5 billion this year, after accounting for zero-rating, but that same revenue space can be secured through more progressive means. As part of the Budget Justice Coalition (BJC), we have proposed alternatives that include targeting illicit financial flows and tax evasion (estimated at up to R800 billion), sustainably drawing on available reserves such as the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA) (R150-250 billion), and temporarily freezing GEPF contributions (R15-30 billion) as a stopgap for 2025/26 while longer-term reforms are pursued.
A meaningful response to fiscal pressure must begin with a top-down efficiency review to reduce bloated management layers and redirect resources to where they are most needed. Treasury should also reform budget structures to enable departments to prioritise service delivery and report on outcomes, not just spending. Finally, greater transparency around staffing, vacancies, and absorption rates can help rebuild public trust and ensure that budget decisions reflect both fairness and value. Budget 3.0 can be a turning point if it focuses on restoring the state's capacity to serve and shifting the public wage bill debate from cost to value.
Budget 3.0 is a test, not just of Treasury's numbers, but of its nation-building vision. In a moment of contention and contradiction, the government has the chance to table a budget that restores frontline capacity, affirms public dignity, and builds the South Africa we all deserve to live in.
Lencoasa is a budget analyst at SECTION27 and chairperson of the Budget Justice Coalition.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
These Presidential Breakups From History Have a Lesson for Elon Musk
This week, the vaunted political marriage between President Donald Trump and multipreneur Elon Musk blew up in spectacular fashion, as both men — once a seemingly unstoppable force — traded barbs on their respective social media platforms. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' Musk posted on X. 'Elon was wearing thin, I asked him to leave,' Trump retorted on Truth Social. The blowup devolved into Musk saying Trump is in the Epstein files and the president's minions calling on him to deport Musk, a South African immigrant and naturalized citizen of the United States. Not since the Bennifer breakup — the first or second one, reader's choice — has a relationship's demise attracted such rapturous attention, especially in politics. But we have been here before. Presidents have long enjoyed symbiotic relationships with captains of industry and media. This isn't the first time such a relationship came to a bitter end. If history offers any insight, it's that these breakups always end better for the president than the mogul. Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, but the presidency comes with greater power and prestige. Just ask Nicholas Biddle. Biddle was a wealthy and influential Philadelphia financier who served as president of the Second Bank of the United States from 1823 until its closure in the 1830s. Born into a prominent family, he parlayed inherited wealth and social connections to become a central figure in America's early financial system. Under his leadership, the bank became a powerful and stabilizing force in the national economy, controlling credit and regulating state banks. Most historians today regard it as a successful precursor to the national banking system that emerged many decades later. Biddle was also the perfect embodiment of the nation's monied class. He viewed 'men with no property to assess and no character to lose' as social inferiors — so it was no surprise that he would eventually come to blows with President Andrew Jackson, an avowed populist. But for the better part of 1830 and 1831, Biddle put on a charm offensive. Even as he lined up support in Congress for the bank's re-charter, he attempted to ingratiate himself with the president, who in turn fired off vague smoke signals indicating that he was open to a dialogue. Jackson met with Biddle repeatedly and expressed no strong opposition to the bank — at least not publicly. Biddle, in turn, wrote flattering letters to and about the president and attempted to work closely with Jackson's key allies, including Senator Thomas Hart Benton and Vice President Martin Van Buren. More than a few people in the know were surprised that the bank president and populist chief executive seemed to have struck up a decent rapport. Until things inevitably turned sideways. When Jackson ultimately stuck to his populist guns and vetoed the bank's re-charter, Biddle, who was genuinely surprised by the move, undertook a furious and public effort to overturn the decision. He told Senator Henry Clay, an ally, that Jackson's message announcing the veto was 'really a manifesto of anarchy, such as Marat or Robespierre might have issued to the mob of Faubourg.' Jackson escalated the conflict in 1833 when he ordered that all federal government deposits be removed from the bank and placed in selected state banks. His goal was to drain the bank of its influence and effectively dismantle it before its charter expired in 1836. The ensuing debate was public and polarizing. Jackson announced his policy in a series of fiery public statements and annual messages to Congress, framing it as a defense of the common people against a 'monied aristocracy.' Biddle, meanwhile, defended the bank in editorials, letters and congressional testimony. Newspapers across the country took sides, and the issue became a litmus test of political loyalty: You were either with Jackson and democratic populism or with Biddle and financial conservatism. Biddle, who boasted that he had 'been for years in the daily exercise of more personal authority than any President habitually enjoys,' soon found his life in a downward spiral. His reputation, once that of a brilliant financial statesman and intellectual, was left in ruins as the bank's closure generated financial problems for its shareholders. Although he had long enjoyed the status of a cultured gentleman — financial engineer, patron to artists and writers — he grew politically toxic and isolated. After the bank's collapse, Biddle was sued for fraud and mismanagement. He was arrested on related charges in 1841 but never convicted. Still, the litigation and disgrace consumed his remaining years. Although he had once been wealthy, his fortune dwindled, and he died in 1844 at the age of 58, a broken man — largely forgotten and discredited in the eyes of the public. Jackson, of course, went on to serve two terms in office. His decision to kill the bank and remove the reserves threw the country into a massive financial panic — but that problem, as well as the blame for it, fell to his successor, Van Buren. Another case in point: William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper publisher, early movie mogul and two-term member of Congress. In the late 1890s and early 1900s, Theodore Roosevelt and Hearst shared a mutually beneficial, if uneasy, relationship. Hearst's newspapers, particularly the New York Journal, were strong proponents of the Spanish-American War, and through its sensationalist accounts of that conflict — critics derided it as 'Yellow Journalism' — his media empire made a national hero of TR, whose famous charge at San Juan Hill might never have been famous at all if not for Hearst. Though they overlapped ideologically on issues like trust-busting and anti-corruption — and, of course, a muscular foreign policy — their alliance was more tactical than personal. Roosevelt reportedly found Hearst vulgar and untrustworthy, while Hearst saw Roosevelt as an ambitious politician, lacking gravitas. Their mutually beneficial relationship crumbled when Hearst grew too big for his britches. The media mogul, who served two terms in Congress and made unsuccessful runs for mayor of New York City and governor of New York, complained that Roosevelt was 'a creation of newspaper notoriety.' He had made Roosevelt a famous man and assumed he could use that power to replace him in the White House. A bumbled run for the presidency in 1904 disabused Hearst of that illusion, but his acid relationship with Roosevelt only grew worse. The split became unmistakable after Hearst published inflammatory articles and editorials suggesting that President William McKinley's assassination was the inevitable result of capitalist corruption — a line of rhetoric that Roosevelt, deeply loyal to McKinley's legacy, found abhorrent. 'Wide and equitable distribution of wealth is essential to a nation's prosperous growth and intellectual development,' Hearst argued. 'And that distribution is brought about by the labor union more than any other agency of our civilization.' Roosevelt, in turn, called Hearst a 'swollen-headed liar' and accused his newspapers of fueling anarchist violence. Though Hearst's newspaper empire once dominated American public discourse, its credibility and power began to erode in the years after his split with Roosevelt, as yellow journalism fell into public disrepute. Moreover, his strident opposition to U.S. entry into World War I and later sympathy for fascist regimes in the 1930s cost him public and political goodwill. The 1930s saw his business empire drowning in debt. While he didn't exactly die in penury or obscurity, he spent his remaining years relatively quietly, in sharply diminished material circumstances. Finally, there is the case of Joseph Kennedy. Born to a well-connected Irish-American family in Boston, Kennedy parlayed early success in banking into lucrative ventures in shipbuilding, real estate, Hollywood film production and the stock market, where he made (and managed to preserve) a fortune by anticipating the 1929 crash. By the early 1930s, Kennedy was one of the richest men in America and increasingly influential in Democratic politics. He supported Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1932 campaign and was rewarded with a series of key appointments, ironically, as the first chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1934. FDR saw Kennedy as the ideal regulator — someone who knew Wall Street's tricks and could, therefore, police it. Their relationship, cordial but pragmatic, reflected a mutual recognition of each other's political instincts and usefulness. When FDR appointed Kennedy to serve as U.S. ambassador to Britain — the first Irish Catholic to occupy the position — Kennedy began to envision himself as FDR's successor in the White House. That, of course, was not to be. While stationed in London, Kennedy grew deeply pessimistic about Britain's chances against Nazi Germany and became a leading voice for American isolationism, repeatedly breaking with the administration and warning against U.S. entry into another European war. His public statements, including a notorious comment in 1940 that 'democracy is finished in England,' outraged British officials and embarrassed the Roosevelt administration. FDR, who was moving steadily toward intervention and aid to the Allies, saw Kennedy's defeatism and political freelancing as liabilities. So, too, was Kennedy's virulent antisemitism, which placed him out of step with the increasingly liberal Democratic party. Their relationship collapsed entirely in 1940, when the White House compelled Kennedy to resign. FDR, who had once valued Kennedy's political acumen and fundraising prowess, now viewed him as a demagogue with alarming wealth and influence. As the American public rallied behind the president after the Japanese attack on Pearl Habor, Kennedy's future in public life dimmed. He turned his ambitions toward helping his oldest son, Joe Jr., achieve what he no longer could: the presidency. And when Joe Jr. perished in the war, his focus turned to another son, John F. Kennedy. To be sure, Musk has a lot going for him. He owns one of the most powerful media platforms in the country. He is the wealthiest man in the world. His companies have been singularly successful and provide him clout with foreign governments in need of anything from satellite capabilities to fight a war, to rockets able to reach space. But he's not the president — particularly this president, who has arrogated to himself unprecedented powers. Much like the rich men who came before him, Musk may soon learn that there is no breaking with the White House and coming out whole. It hasn't worked before, and if history is any guide, it seems unlikely to work today.
New York Post
20 hours ago
- New York Post
WH press secretary brushes off reports Musk ‘body-checked' Treasury chief: ‘Robust disagreement'
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Sunday downplayed reports Elon Musk 'body-checked'' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in a heated meeting, calling their dispute simply a 'robust disagreement.'' Leavitt acknowledged to Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' that she wasn't in the room when the April dust-up took place but contended she wouldn't call it a 'fistfight' based on what she heard second-hand about the scrum — which supposedly included Musk ramming into Bessent's rib cage 'like a rugby player.' 'I certainly wouldn't describe it as a fistfight, Maria,' Leavitt told host Maria Baritomo after the journalist characterized it as such. 'It was definitely a disagreement, although I was not there. I didn't witness it with my own eyes. Advertisement 'When this story originally broke, I said from the podium that there have definitely been healthy disagreements amongst the cabinet and Elon Musk,' Leavitt said. 3 White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Sunday downplayed reports of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Elon Musk coming to blows. Getty Images 'There were times in which they got frustrated with one another, but I think that really speaks to the heart of this Cabinet and the president's team, that they can have these robust disagreements and then still come together to do what's right for the people they are serving. Advertisement 'We have moved on from that,' Leavitt said. 'The president has moved on from it. 'And the entire administration is focusing on passing this bill,' she added of the proposed sweeping One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'Cutting waste, fraud and abuse from our government remains a critical component of this administration's agenda.' After Musk publicly went nuclear over the bill — and onetime ally President Trump — last week, presidential buddy Steve Bannon claimed the world's richest man had scrapped with the Treasury secretary two months ago. 3 Musk exploded at President Trump publicly last week amid a series of frustrations, including over the deficit. AP Advertisement 'Scott said [to Musk], 'You're a fraud. You're a total fraud,' ' Bannon told the Washington Post, recalling how Musk then rammed into Bessent's rib cage 'like a rugby player.' Eventually, multiple bystanders in the room supposedly intervened and pulled them apart. 'President Trump heard about it and said, 'This is too much,' ' Bannon added. Bannon, a former top strategist for Trump who hosts the 'War Room' podcast, has publicly called for Musk, a South African native, to be deported and for the president to invoke the Defense Production Act to seize control of his SpaceX company in retaliation for his public broadsides against the president. Advertisement Musk has not publicly commented on the alleged altercation, nor has Bessent. There had been a prior report from the New York Times alleging that the two men got into a shouting match at the same April meeting. 3 Bessent reportedly scolded Musk for overstating the spending cuts he could find with DOGE. Getty Images During the meeting, both men had pitched different candidates to lead the Internal Revenue Service. The president ultimately backed Bessent's choice. Musk had previously publicly backed then-Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick to helm the Treasury Department over Bessent. Trump ended up making Lutnick the secretary of the Department of Commerce. The day of the April meeting, Bessent also allegedly needled Musk for falling far short of his goal of cutting government spending by $1 trillion with the Department of Government Efficiency.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Steve Bannon Calls Musk ‘National Security Issue,' Says He 'May Be Here Illegally'
Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon seized an opportunity to air his grievances with Elon Musk amid the SpaceX founder's blowup with President Donald Trump. In a Friday interview with NPR, Bannon was asked about prior comments that Trump should cancel all government contracts with Musk. The tech mogul's companies, which include Tesla, SpaceX and artificial intelligence startup xAI, have been given billions in federal dollars over the years, according to The New York Times. 'I think we have as a country a national security issue here,' Bannon said Friday, adding that Musk has a reportedly 'massive drug problem' and a 'deep financial and business relationship' with China. The MAGA podcaster continued, 'And we know he's asked for private briefings of top secret information.' The Wall Street Journal reported in March that Musk had requested a Pentagon briefing on plans for a potential war with China. Trump told reporters at the time that Musk would not see the plans, citing his business ties to China as a conflict of interest. The formerly Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, a team tasked with rooting out supposed fraud and waste within the federal government, has drawn scrutiny over its access to classified materials and the personal information of U.S. citizens. Bannon then doubled down on his call to investigate Musk's immigration status. 'You have someone whose legal status is in question,' he told NPR, adding that you 'can't deport people from all over the world' and 'leave a white South African, who may be here illegally, here.' Bannon, who pleaded guilty this year to scamming people who donated money towards building a wall at the U.S. Southern border, added, 'It's just not right.' The South African-born Musk is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Last year, The Washington Post reported that Musk was working illegally in the U.S. at the beginning of his career in the 1990s, though Musk denied the allegation. Bannon has never been Musk's biggest fan, previously calling him a 'parasitic illegal immigrant' and a 'truly evil guy.' Speaking to NPR on Friday, Bannon theorized about the root of Musk's falling out with Trump and added one more insult to the roster: an '11-year-old child.' 'He hasn't turned up any fraud,' Bannon said, criticizing Musk's efforts at DOGE. 'So there's been a lot of tension. And Elon Musk, like the 11-year-old child he is, didn't take it very well.' Donald Trump Says He's 'Very Disappointed' In Elon Musk As Rift Grows Trump And Musk's Messy Public Breakup Only Goes So Far Musk-Trump Spat Hits New High As Musk's Ex Piles On
