A thoughtful response

Aug 19, 2015 Editorial

After a formal welcome of the opposition PPP led by Bharrat Jagdeo to Parliament by the Speaker on Monday August 17, 2015, it was déjà vu.
The budget debate opened with a blast as the fiery former Minister of Tourism and Housing, Irfaan Ali wasted no time in rebutting the government’s claim that the budget represents a sound economic plan to develop the economy and move the country forward.
With each side hurling invectives at one another, Ali chastised the Coalition Government for reneging on its campaign promises.
This theme was echoed throughout the first day of the debate by the opposition who did not find much to criticize in the budget because there were no increases in taxes and no real expenditure cuts, except for the reduction of capital expenditure from $50 billion to $39 billion.
During the debate, the PPP MPs were reminded by their colleagues in the government that their track record was poor with respect to fiscal discipline, including the reduction of taxes and the cost of doing business.
In fact, most of the opposition MPs seems to recognize that the budget offers some measure of hope in this difficult period. If anything, the new tax reduction measures and increases in salaries and old age pensions would reduce their financial burdens and improve their economic benefits.
As was evident in Parliament, it was difficult for the opposition to react negatively unless they were simply indifferent or totally unaware of the financial benefits.
Having spent the last fifteen years inflicting severe pain on the people with the same poor results, one would have thought that the PPP would have learnt from its mistakes. Instead, there was a callousness to the taxpayers that begs the questions: in whose interest was the PPP acting?
For sure, it could not have been in the interest of the average Guyanese or the taxpayers. These groups were worse off as a result of several punishing budgets by the former government which catered only to their rich friends and business partners.
Even the poor, who the PPP regime professed to defend, were cruelly treated by the imposition of a stifling Value Added Tax (VAT) on food items. This policy, along with the refusal to reduce taxes on the poor, and not lowering the toll on the Berbice Bridge are the most recent indicators from a tax perspective that the former administration just was not on the page that it should have been, in terms of helping those in need.
While it is politically appropriate for the opposition PPP to claim that the new government’s budget has nothing for the poor and working class; it was inconceivable that the same PPP government not only took away most of the allowances and deductions that the taxpayers had enjoyed for years, but it also persistently increased taxes on the same group of people under the guise that the Government’s fiscal strategy was about protecting the country’s foreign reserves.
That answers the question about the PPP saying one thing while in government and something else while in opposition. It raises more questions about the hypocrisy of its menacing behavior to the lower income earners.
The PPP will have its say during the next fortnight about what it wants the budget to offer, but the reality is that even some of the harshest critics have agreed that the Finance Minister has packaged something which is clearly a supporting financial proposal of the government’s campaign promises.
We reiterate that the Minister acknowledging the gravity of the problems, especially the external debt, has gone a long way in convincing even the most casual citizen, that there is good intent. A thoughtful response was unveiled in a truncated budget.