FOR A FEW years, I have been reading the annual diatribe by junior Attorney, Christopher Ram, on the Budgets which the government has been tabling.  This year, I find that Ram’s comments have not changed from the usual lack of objectivity, professionalism, political attacks and political pandering. His comments have, however, especially since he joined a political slate of candidates, spewed more vileness and venom.  Also, since the ascent of Dr. Ashni Singh to the post of Finance Minister, Christopher Ram seems to have personally gone after him with an unusual amount of animosity and envy. I decided to pen this piece because Ram cannot match the capacity and abilities of Dr. Singh, and I feel he does not even deserve to be a sparring partner of the Hon. Minister of Finance. Dr. Singh’s credentials are impeccable. He has not only passed through Mr. Ram’s stage, but has exceeded and excelled all the way to the top — nothing less was expected of this brilliant son of Guyana. Dr. Singh has always been at the top, academically, of his cohorts.  A few weeks ago, at a popular social spot, I ran into a gentleman (a Mr. Michael Joseph) from St. Lucia, who mentioned to me how he started his Doctoral studies with the “bright and talented Ashni Singh.” 
Dr. Singh has acquitted himself in all his stations, and when asked to serve at the level of the Cabinet, has, in the last five years, delivered the goods in an exemplary manner. He has produced budgets that have kept us on a growth path, despite internal and external shocks to our economy — unprecedented spikes in food and oil prices in 2007; global financial meltdown and falling commodity prices in 2008 and 2009; an unrelenting opposition campaign to stop loans and assistance to Guyana, and, of course, unpredictable climatic changes. 
Ram’s contention is that Dr. Ashni Singh’s numbers are unbelievable, his projections unattainable, and paints a picture of our country that not only misrepresents our progress, but is dishonest at best. For example, Ram says:
“The Minister expects the nation to believe that the economy grew by 3.6%.”
I will answer him by quoting just two sources:
i.     Statement by an IMF Mission to Guyana
Press Release No. 10/448
November 19, 2010
“Therese Turner-Jones, chief of an International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission to Guyana, released the following statement today in Georgetown:
‘An IMF mission visited Guyana from Nov 8–18 to conduct the Fund’s yearly review of the Guyanese economy. Despite external and domestic shocks in 2010, Guyana’s economy has exhibited resilience, registering a fifth consecutive year of robust growth. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is projected to grow by just under 4 percent this year, above the outturn in 2009, supported by increased activity in the sugar, gold, and services sectors. Notwithstanding downside risks, including the global environment and concerns in the sugar sector, the team expects growth to continue on a steady path, supported by expansion in the mining and construction sectors. Despite a small increase reflecting movement in food prices inflation remains relatively low.’”

ii. Excerpts from the Report of the Managing Director of Republic Bank (Guyana)
“… However, in spite of the contagious effects of the global financial crisis, developments in our country’s economy enabled the Bank to deliver strong returns to its stockholder… an overall balance of payments surplus of US$34.6 million was recorded, while the Bank of Guyana increased its external reserve position from US$628 million at end of 2009, to US$677 million at end of June. Future Outlook – Republic Bank (Guyana) Limited takes confidence in the
performance of the economy which has been commendable despite the setbacks of the sugar sector and the global economy.”

Ram also goes further with his incomplete and dishonest analysis, and says:

“Contract employees continue to drive up employment cost, while some traditional public servants earn monthly salaries equivalent to less than US$175 per month.”

Ram fails to remind the reader that in 2010, the Government moved all the cleaners, handypersons, drivers and lower level skills to contracted positions.  Thus, there will be an increase in this category of workers.
Ram also fails to tell the reader that the U$175 he is quoting is on the pay scale for the lowest level of staff in the public service, and these are now all contracted workers. 
For clarity, and to leave it to your judgment, I list the pay scales of the public service:

BAND    MINIMUM G$/MONTH    MAXIMUM G$/MONTH
14    266215    494249
13    218774    385259
12    172838    304372
11    140402    233476
10    111635    182737
9    90270    140577
8    74572    111792
7    61159    90462
6    53107    66992
5    46136    58097
4    40947    47877
3    39160    45614
2    36229    41980
1    33207    37892

Ram makes it sound like the differential in corporation tax rates is something new. He now calls this tax policy an affront to the supreme law of the country. This differential has existed for decades. He knows that every country uses taxation, or lack of it, to discourage some activities and encourage others. SIN Taxes are a classical example.  So what is wrong if we would like to give an incentive to non-commercial activities in our economy? This differential was not created in this budget, Chris. A bit dishonest on your part!  NOT NICE, CHRIS!
Then he does a broadside with the paintbrush, claiming:
“Several entities with a poor record of audit and accountability continue to receive huge subventions, and, in certain cases, increases. Indeed, so pervasive is this situation, that only those entities whose audits are in arrears by more than five years are publicized.” 
Name them, I say, and speak with the Auditor General; he is responsible to Parliament for auditing and reporting on such, not the Government. 
Lastly, I will deal with the issue of his comments on Supplementary Provisions, by repeating from an earlier piece I published.
Supplementaries, in the case of the PPP/C government, do not mask the true picture of the government’s expenditure.  Much misconception is created by critics, and it is presented as if, in addition to what has been approved in the budget, there are all these additional “wicked” interventions: That is, supplementaries.

The evidence shows something different. In spite of several supplementary papers, overall expenditure has been lower than what was projected.  The table below demonstrates this point:
BUDGET    dollar value    supplementary       % of the budget      actual        expenditure
2008           119.2 b          11.7b                  9.8                         117.5 b
2009           128.9 b         15.7 b                 12.2%                     128.3b
2010           142.8             12.3b                 8.3%                       139.5b

For fiscal prudence, we ensure that we do not balloon the budget. However, this issue of supplementary amounts makes for great sensationalism and political grandstanding.  As M. P. Nandalall would say: “All fluff!”  Every government will have supplementaries. Why?
1. Some programmes, where there is faster implementation, will require more money than was approved in the budget. This addition, for it to be spent, has to be approved by Parliament.  Foreign inflows are a case posit.

2. There may be some projects that are delayed and would not be able to expend the approved resources.  What does the Government do?  Keep the bank accounts growing when our people need housing, better roads and social amelioration?  This PPP/C government would wisely spend the available resources rather than save it. What in fact happens is that some projects are brought forward to replace those that are delayed.
The point is that there is no reckless expenditure.  If there are emergencies, for example power outages to be fixed, it will be fixed.  If workers are laid off and help can be given, the Government will do it; if there is mechanical breakdown in ferries, it will be fixed. But look at the record – overall, the total accrued expenditure generally is in line with projections in the budget.
I can do a line-by-line rebuttal of Mr. Ram’s budget comments here, but I only used a few examples, for I am sure that his mentors on the opposition benches will regurgitate his comments, giving us much more space to deal with these comments. 
I challenge Chris to come into the arena, since, from his perspective, this government is so inept, has so mismanaged the State, and his friends in the opposition are so noble and brilliant. The PNCR is looking for a leader; go join them; test your theories.
Unlike the excellence of Dr. Singh, Chris’s claim to fame is as a critic. 
We are grateful for the talented Dr. Ashni Singh.  CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN, ASHNI!!!