AS ANTICIPATED, the main opposition party has not found favour with the National Budget for this year, and has been describing it repeatedly as an “elections budget.” This description was continued during the start- up of the debate in the National Assembly by the PNCR’s new Shadow Finance Minister, Ms. Volda Lawrence.
But this assertion by the PNCR does not stand up to scrutiny, because there is no evidence to show that this budget was crafted for electioneering and winning votes.
At least, the party has not yet provided any such evidence, and is not likely to do so, because if one were to analyse the budget thoroughly, there will be no factual material to support this contention.
So, clearly, this is just pure politicking by the PNCR in an election year, and it is hoping that because of this, its repeated mantra of an “elections budget” will catch on.
As the budget debate warms up, we will see whether that party could come up with any substantive and sound criticism of the national budget, which is only to be expected of a responsible opposition, and one that does its homework well.
One of the main characteristics of an ‘elections budget’ is an increased deficit, because incumbent governments tend to spend more on projects that would help win votes, and help its re-election chances.
So, in this instance, what is the reality?
The reality is that the deficit has remained basically the same, but because of the improved state of the economy, more spending on the social sector could be afforded.
On this note, Minister within the Ministry of Finance, Jennifer Webster, was on the ball. Speaking at the opening session of the budget debate, she declared:
“This budget is not an election year budget; it does not reek of expanded deficit.” 
She added that in 1992, the budget presented by the PNC administration showed a budget deficit of 39.8 per cent as a percentage of GDP, some 21.2 per cent higher than the previous non-election year of 1991.
“In 2011, under this responsible PPP government,” she said, “the fiscal deficit is budgeted to decline in an election year. This highlights our government’s unwavering commitment to fiscal prudence, and to ensuring a sustainable development path that does not see our country returning to the days of old, where the debt burden was the albatross that strangled the then administration’s ability to do anything for the Guyanese people.”
Noting that the PPP/C government has moved Guyana from an insolvent and unsustainable debt position, to one of debt sustainability, the minister said: “Over the past five years, the net present value of debt-to-government ratio — Guyana’s main debt sustainability indicator — has consistently remained below 200 per cent; well below the sustainability benchmark of 250 per cent, which inspires confidence in our economy both domestically and internationally.”
Apart from this, the government does not need to have an “elections budget” to win votes; its mere record of achievements during its stay in office in all sectors will suffice to do this.
Improvements in health, education, agriculture, tourism, infrastructure and debt reduction are enormous, and consequently, the country has been transformed from one which, under the former government, was known for having a tottering economy, high indebtedness, rundown health and education systems, collapsed infrastructure, declining agricultural production, runaway inflation, an unstable dollar, food shortages and shortages of almost every consumer item.
The country had reached a stage where it had to borrow to repay loans owed to the international financial institutions. We were known as the black market economy, which many seem to have forgotten or simply are conveniently forgetting.