Did Cabinet approve the Budget measures outlined last Monday?

Dec 02, 2016 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The stunned reaction of the government side of the National Assembly last Monday when Budget 2017 was read may have been due to the lengthy presentation by the Minister of Finance. Quite a few of the members of the government side were photographed dozing off during the presentation.
The Minister of Finance, at one stage, was speaking quicker than usual in an attempt, no doubt, to finish within the time limit. But in spite of all of these factors, it is hard to explain the less than euphoric mood in the House.
One has to ask, having read the excerpts of the Minister’s presentation, how those measures passed muster with Cabinet. Did the Minister detail to his Cabinet colleagues, including the President of Guyana, all of the measures which were announced last Monday? It is difficult to comprehend how such measures could have all been approved by Cabinet?
It is hard to see how the AFC could not approve applying VAT to water and electricity, regardless of the thresholds over which they become applicable. It is hard to imagine how a measure that is clearly inflationary could have been approved by Cabinet.
How can the AFC allow for comments made about the Guyana Sugar Corporation? How can the AFC have sanctioned a budget which imposes oppressive penalties on tax defaulters? How can the AFC, which has three lawyers within the Cabinet, not object to the garnishing of funds out of the bank accounts of citizens without a Court order. The AFC ought to know that this measure, when approved through enabling legislation, will be challenged on the grounds that it is unconstitutional because it amounts to the arbitrary forfeiture of property?
How can the AFC sit within Cabinet, if it did, and allow for measures that would allow for persons to be denied leaving the country because of tax liabilities? Surely the AFC must know that there is sufficient case law on this score to have such a measure deemed to be inconsistent with the constitutional protection of freedom of movement?
The AFC must explain its role in formulation and approval of the 2017. It must explain to the Guyanese people whether it is prepared to break ranks with its APNU colleagues on the measures in the budget which do not seem to be properly thought out.
When the government first came to power, it was announced that there was an Advisory Economic Council which would advise the government. The members of that Council were named. It involved prominent Guyanese economists.
The government should have second guessed the draft 2017 budget. It should have put the proposals to the Economic Advisory Council and ask them for an opinion before Cabinet would have debated the matter.
We are not sure whether this was done? We are not sure about anything? We are not sure whether Cabinet even debated the measures.
The government was clearly in a hurry to pass the budget so that it could boast about an early budget. There may not have been sufficient time for all the measures to be adequately debated.
That debate, if it did not take place then, should now take place. The estimates can be passed using the coalition’s one seat majority but the measures to achieve the revenue targets could be adjusted following a broader discussion on the matter.
It is not too late for the controversial Budget measures to be dumped. It is not too late for pursuing measures which will save jobs in the forestry sector, restore the Venezuelan rice market, stimulate economic activity and place the sugar corporation woes in proper context.
A debate on the budget within the government is needed before next Monday’s face off when the opposition is likely to maul the budget measures outlined last Monday.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News