RUEL JOHNSON has emerged as one of the early critics of Budget 2014. Of course, critics of government measures, in any country, there will always be, particularly on such important issues as budgetary allocations. Such an exercise is seen to be a healthy manifestation of the democratic process, as it allows for constructive discourse. But when such a public dialogue has participants with defined political agendas, the expected path of objectivity, fairness, and balance of views are often inundated in the pool of bias and prejudice. Political grinding of the axe, far supercedes the necessity of reason.This has to be applied to Johnson, better known as a literary personality with two Guiana prizes to his credit. One would have thought that he would have been able to apply the rational skill of his vocation to his attempts at understanding what the measures contain in Budget 2014 mean for its beneficiaries.

Attempting to explain to, and convince, the readership that the Budgetary measure of $10,000 per year for each school child is wholly inadequate because of the absence of a needs-assessed basis; and not really providing any level of disposable income, as the Honourable Minister of Finance had announced during his budget presentation.
Immediately, this is such an erroneous interpretation/ perception of such measures, that Johnson is guilty of not understanding the larger picture. If he had, he would have known that such an intervention is another initiative, incrementally instituted, that brings further relief to the tens of thousands of Guyana’s families that have school-aged children. In fact, he should be reminded of the National School Feeding Programme that benefits more than 63,000 students, and the National School Uniform Assistance programme that caters for in excess of 200,000. Both these measures, in progress for over three years, have a tag price of billions of dollars. Further, in deciding who should benefit, government did not employ a means test as the former PNC government, with regards eligibility for old age pension at that time.
All categories, irrespective of family status, have been benefitting from such measures. This has been the unerring consistency of the PPP/C administration, to the extent where Johnson, in a bizarre act of dishonesty, is seeking to level assumptions of possible “widespread corruption” in the management of such an enterprise.
But since this writer has donned the political hat of the Alliance For Change (AFC) party, then one has to understand his motive in seeking to find fault with every conceivable project/initiative that government has implemented for more relief from the daily socio-economic challenges.