With every budget that is crafted, there is an opportunity to set the stage for major reform. Consistently however, budgets passed have failed to truly live up to the hype that is sold by the actors behind it. Every year, we hear the standard shouts of this being our biggest budget ever, or a budget for the people. When what we get is a predictable set of measures that does nothing to truly impact developmental sectors such as education and health, nor anything sufficient to offset the living costs of the population.
So the budget, like the ones before it, is not groundbreaking, but of course, it is not meant to be. Largely, it is meant to sustain the government’s work and protect its interests. This is often achieved through major tax cutbacks or rewards for the private sector and one-off “top-ups” to sections of the population. It seems as if the government is a firm believer in trickle-down economics despite the multitude of ways it has continuously been proven wrong, and has demonstrated that the only ones who benefit from more money to the rich, is the same rich ones you’re giving the money to. There aren’t many bleeding hearts in our private sector and this is part of the reason that their wages have remained dismally low.
Aspects of the budget such as increased school grants and old age pensions have been a point of celebration for many however, and this is understandable. Cash grants are important. They can have an immense impact on families who might not have the means to constantly go into their pockets to buy necessities. The importance of these grants should not be dismissed, but cash grants done through a one-off distribution with very little changes to the overarching structures that necessitated them in the first place, does very little. It does not have to be an either or situation. We can fix systemic gaps, while also providing economic relief.
Too often though, people move forward without thinking about long-term sustainability. This is also why funds are being earmarked for new hospitals, when the ones we currently have are severely underfunded, under-staffed and its workers, underpaid. I also think about the budget allocations for the distribution of menstrual hygiene products to young girls. This is a great initiative that needs resources. But it also speaks to the general way issues in Guyana are addressed, through stopgaps. Providing communities across the country with these products will definitely go a far way, but why are menstrual products so inaccessible to begin with? A large part of that has to do with how much it costs. Menstrual products attract both duties and value added tax (VAT). If the government is really serious about reducing the rates of period poverty across the country, one would think removal of these added costs, which places period products out of the reach of many, would be a smart direction to go. Doing otherwise is giving off, “digging a hole to fill another hole” energy. At the end of the day, a hole is still there.
In their analysis of the 2022 budget, chartered accountants Ram and McRae stated that transfer payments such as cash grants, and allocations made for vulnerable groups to cushion the impact of the rising cost of living, are very susceptible to dishonesty and “will need to be examined by the Auditor General on a continuous basis.” The large sum of five billion dollars that was earmarked for easing the cost of living of vulnerable groups was dubbed, more of “an intent rather than a measure and will have no immediate impact.” Looking at how transfer payments such as the $25,000 COVID-19 grant played out to date, will give a good indication of the great inefficiency that will be brought about soon enough. Governmental support to people is never something to argue against, but is that support well thought out? Is it equitable? Is it sufficient? Are clerks accompanied by police officers really the best way of distribution? Sometimes I really wonder about the decision-making capacity of those in power, because the programmes and their implementation continuously make it clear that they are really just winging it.
Guyana’s population, particularly those who experience vulnerabilities need and deserve assistance from the government through cash grants. These grants however, do not absolve the government of their responsibility to fix the gaps that contribute towards these vulnerabilities in the first place.
