Dear Editor,

I HAD the opportunity to read or listen to the budget remarks in Parliament and views in the media. Responses from political combatants were on expected line. There is no middle of road critique from opposition figures. Objective commentaries from the public should be appreciated. Thus, if someone like me were to give an objective appraisal, praising aspects of the budget, I should not be labelled as pro or anti- government. Objective comments and proposals should be encouraged as they serve the public interests. But some of views are very biased or partisan as appeared in the media.
I have not seen comments about the budget from UG students or staff. When I was doing doctoral studies in Economics during the 1980s, professors would task students to critique the US budget. Lecturers should do same at UG with objective, balanced views.

Guyanese partisanship contrasts sharply with some other countries where objective opinions from professionals and politicians are welcomed and respected.  In the US and UK, legislators from both sides of the aisle are critical and or praiseworthy of a budget. In the US, Members of Congress were known to challenge aspects of the President’s budget and sought to inject funding for programmes in their districts. The President cuts deals with MOC to get his budget passed. Regrettably, this is not done in Guyana or most third world countries.

I feel that if the opposition or a commentator was to make a strong case for increasing or decreasing the amount budgeted for a programme, the government would (or should) consider it. Likewise, if the opposition were to make a request for budget funding for a (new) worthy programme, and making a convincing case, the Vice-President or President would (should) give it consideration. But in our toxic politics, in which the opposition has refused to play by democratic rules, it is difficult to make deals to serve the best interests of the country.

As I read, the budget was presented after widespread consultation with the public, all sections of society. Opposition politicians say there is little by way of relief for the common man, middle class, and small business long reeling from the pandemic, and they describe it as favouring the wealthy and private sector. But they seem to have forgotten that they were in government for over five years and failed to do the very things for which they now criticise the government.

The public says the Coalition hardly did anything much to help the poor during the pandemic from March to July. And its governance was politically partisan. In addition, it squeezed the private sector with rising taxation causing many businesses to close shop.
Conversations with the public reveal that they support the budget describing aspects as “progressive”, especially for farmers and the youth to provide job training in the energy sector. Some feel that not much relief has been provided to those (numbering over 10K) who lost their jobs during the Coalition rule. There is relief for small businesses.

Professionally, from an economist’s point of view, the budget is pragmatic. It is not driven by politics. It is financed by deficits (of some five per cent) that would grow the debt which is financed with borrowing. The government can afford the debt as money would be coming in to pay the loans.  The debt is at a sustainable level. It is not current expenditure for a public feel good that blows away money without any return on investment. It is heavy loaded towards capital expenditure – infrastructure is some $217B or some 40 per cent. It lays the structure for productivity to benefit future generation which is a primary goal of the NRF. Once revenues are generated from these capital outlays, money would be generated for social welfare programmes.

One shortcoming of the budget is inadequate tax exemption. Government should have waived taxes for monthly income below $100K and reduce the tax rate for others and the business sector, especially that the country is transitioning towards an oil revenue economy. The tax system needs to be revolutionised. The government should consider giving duty concessions to double cab (four doors) pick up vans, the same as single cab (two door) vans. Several people lost their lives in the single cab pickups. The double cab is more stable, especially on the rough farm roads. Concessions and a reformed tax system will stimulate private investment and increase productivity and wages leading to growth.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram