GUYANA’s parliamentary Opposition, the APNU and AFC, seem unenthusiastic with regard to meeting a consensus with the government on its proposed budget cuts. Leaders from the two opposition parties were, up to last night, in discussions with President Donald Ramotar and a team of Government officials with the aim of trying to reach some form of consensus or agreement ahead of today’s crucial sitting of the National Assembly.
President Ramotar, since early yesterday morning, and even the previous night, initiated talks with the Opposition in a committed effort to find common ground.
However, during a joint press conference yesterday afternoon by  the Alliance For Change (AFC) and A Partnership For National Unity (APNU), in the Committee Room 2 of the National Assembly, Opposition Leader David Granger told reporters that, from the inception of the presentation of the 2012 estimates in the National Assembly, his party (APNU) had taken measures in an effort to bring down the cost of living for Guyanese, since in its view the budget fell far short of the expectations of the party and the nation.
APNU, he said, feels that the course of action it has embarked on will adequately address some of the issues facing the populace, promote economic growth, and improve the quality of lives of the citizenry.
“Every step that we have taken so far has been based on principle, so that their objectives could be realized,” Granger told the media.  He opined that the party’s objectives may presently be in jeopardy.
With this in mind, Granger said that APNU was proposing serious measures so that the Guyanese public can be satisfied.
Leader of the AFC Khemraj Ramjattan, in his remarks, reminded of the party’s initial stance of not accepting the budget without their proposed amendments.
According to him, the AFC has a number of issues with this budget, one of which is that the revenues in the budget do not reflect all the money collectable across the board. “We feel that lots more monies ought to be put into the Consolidated Fund from a variety of sources,” Ramjattan said.

He did not spare the government-backed Marriot Hotel project, but said the AFC would not do anything about it “as yet”, since it is not in the budget. However, he opined that too much money is being spent on the project, and that money can be used to better the lives of the Guyanese.
At this stage, Ramjattan said he believes the opposition parties are not meeting a consensus with the government side, since they are holding firm on having their budget passed in the National Assembly.
While he welcomed the increase in old age pension to $10,000, which came through successful dialogue between the President and the Opposition, he believes that more can be done.
With regard to the parties meeting in dialogue, the AFC Chairman confessed that the AFC was annoyed for not being part of the talks with government; but, for the duration of the week, he lamented that there have been a number of developments.
With regard to the meeting that was held yesterday with President Ramotar, Ramjattan said it was an ongoing exercise.
The AFC sought to convince the public that it does not want a collision course, but would rather like to negotiate in the interest of the citizens.
On the issue of the reduction of the Value Added Tax, to 2 percent, as was proposed by the opposition, Ramjattan is maintaining that it will help the entire country, something that was vehemently dismissed by Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh who went at lengths to explain that a reduction in VAT will help the rich instead of the poor.
Meanwhile, Granger, in response to a question posed by the media on the meeting that was held earlier in the day with President Ramotar, said that the points that were advanced by the party were not (up to that point in time)  carefully examined by the government.
Former Finance Minister and APNU official, Carl Greenidge, told reporters that the Opposition coalition only wanted to facilitate a more meaningful dialogue. He also expressed the view that the people of Guyana wanted a budget that, when passed, represented input from all sides of the House; and as such, he believes that the government should be open to their ideas.
According to Greenidge, APNU does not want to take over the budget, but it must reflect what the people want. He pointed to the two agencies that were singled out for cuts — Government Information & News Agency (GINA) and the National Communications Network (NCN). According to him, the cuts were not proposed because they do not like the agencies and the workers, but feel that state revenues should not be used to fund what he deemed as ‘propaganda’, exclusively.
In this regard, he called on the government to have respect for the taxpayers, and reiterated that they will not support such expenditures.
Greenidge lamented that they have not, thus far, seen a package by the government that shows they are willing to meet the calls from the joint opposition.
He was confident that, at the end yesterday, an agreement would not have been reached, since the one earlier did not yield good results.
Pointing to the initial meeting on the budget, he said government had shown some amount of interest in a few of their proposals, one of which was to set up a Fund to enhance employment and training in depressed areas.
Another area that was highlighted was that of VAT, of which Greenidge said the talks have not been satisfactory, and there has been no indication on any forward movement in this regard.
Commenting on the proposed cuts for GINA and NCN, Granger said that the party did not want to send anyone home, but was calling for a reform of the institutions, whereby proper financial management can be practised.

Ramjattan, who offered to comment on the issue, said, “We have to approve a subvention for GINA, we have to approve a budget for NCN, and then when we do that at the parliamentary level, (NCN/GINA) then comes and smack eggs at our faces”.
He made it clear that they want to see the reforms, and the balancing of the news. “If, when we do this cut and we see the reforms, there is something called supplementary appropriation, they can come as they have come all the time and we can restore the money to them; but if they don’t show any sign in moving forward with the reform, we cut because we are literally funding them to do damage to the opposition.”
Ramjattan said he was pessimistic with regard to the continued dialogue with the government, since everything that the opposition parties had proposed was rebutted by the President.