Dr Clive Thomas’s unfeasible $1M cash grant proposal unrealistic

Dear Editor,
Dr Clive Thomas’s proposal to provide a $1 million cash grant per household is an unfeasible and challenging suggestion that undermines Guyana’s development priorities.
The proposal seems politically motivated, and may detract from substantial progress achieved under the People’s Progressive Party /Civic administration.
The PPP/C has worked tirelessly to reverse the economic damage inherited from the prior A Partnership for National Unity-Alliance for Change (APNU/AFC) Administration, which perpetuated a legacy of fiscal mismanagement under the People’s National Congress (PNC). Adopting this proposal would not only jeopardize the strides made toward sustainable development, but also risk destabilizing the nation’s economy.
The impracticality of the proposal is clear when its financial implications are considered. Allocating Gy$1 million to approximately 300,000 households would cost around $300 billion, significantly depleting the country’s oil revenues.
The country’s oil revenues are essential for strategic investments in infrastructure and healthcare, education and economic diversification — critical pillars for building a resilient and prosperous Guyana. Diverting such a vast amount of resources to cash grants would squander opportunities for long-term growth, and undermine the country’s future economic stability.
Economically, the proposal is fundamentally flawed. Dr Thomas, with his background in economics, should know that injecting US$1.43 billion into the economy without a proportional increase in goods and services is risky. This action would inevitably drive inflation, causing prices to rise and eroding the real value of the grants. Instead of providing meaningful financial relief, his proposal would cause economic difficulties, particularly for vulnerable households already struggling with rising costs for essential goods.
The logistical challenges further complicate the proposal. Guyanese households are diverse, with various structures, including nuclear families, extended families, and shared accommodation. Figuring out eligibility across these different living arrangements would require a massive administrative effort, leading to delays, inefficiencies, and potential misuse. Dr Thomas has not addressed these operational complexities, thus making his proposal financially challenging and impractical.
Even within his political circle, there was skepticism about the feasibility of such cash grants. Former Finance Minister Winston Jordan, who served under the APNU, had said this idea “would not fly,” raising concerns about the economic strategy behind the proposal. On a platform of poor fiscal management, this proposal seems more like a politically ambitious suggestion, rather than a credible economic solution.
In every respect, Dr Thomas’s proposal must unequivocally be rejected.
In stark contrast, the PPP/C government under President Ali has proven responsible and adaptive governance. Faced with the challenges of the original $200,000 per household proposal, the Government made a prudent adjustment to a $100,000 grant for every adult 18 years and older. This change reflects true leadership, swift action, and balancing the need for immediate support with the goal of keeping fiscal stability, while simplifying the distribution process to avoid complications in defining household eligibility. This policy exemplifies the PPP/C’s commitment to thoughtful policymaking that serves the people’s needs without compromising the nation’s financial health.
The PPP/C Administration’s approach should be viewed as part of a broader economic strategy aimed at fulfilling its commitments to the Guyanese people. Alongside the cash grants, Government has raised the income tax threshold to $100,000 per month, relieving 39,000 individuals from the tax burden, and increasing meaningful disposable income in the economy.
Starting in 2025, parents would also receive help from a monthly tax deduction of Gy$10,000 per child, easing financial pressures on families. Additionally, the Government is taking decisive action to improve public sector wages, ensuring that by the end of 2025, no public servant earns less than Gy$100,000 per month. This initiative builds on recent salary adjustments, and would encourage similar wage increases in the private sector.
Other measures include resuming the “Because We Care” cash grant at $40,000 per child, raising the old-age pension to $36,000 per month, and undoing 350 tax measures imposed on the Guyanese population by the past Coalition government.
President Ali’s announcement of free university education at the beginning of 2025 and the elimination of tuition fees at state-owned technical institutes are significant investments in human capital. These policies will deliver tangible benefits to countless Guyanese and reaffirm Government’s commitment to social and economic transformation. By expanding access to education and economic opportunities, the PPP/C is laying the foundation for a brighter and more prosperous future for the nation.
The administration is also driving transformative investments in agriculture, infrastructure, and renewable energy, thereby positioning Guyana for long-term growth. With an ambitious goal to reduce electricity costs by 50% by 2025 through sustainable energy projects, Government is aiming to lower household expenses while boosting the nation’s economic resilience and competitiveness. These forward-looking strategies embody a commitment to future-proofing the economy, and they stand in complete contrast to Dr. Thomas’s proposal – which lacks a realistic plan and the vision needed for sustainable development.
The decision to revise the cash grant policy from $200,000 per household to $100,000 per adult shows a keen understanding of Guyana’s economic realities and a commitment to responsible governance. This approach contrasts sharply with Dr. Thomas’s unrealistic suggestion, which is rooted in rhetoric rather than well-thought-out policy planning. His proposal lacks the seriousness needed to address the nation’s challenges, and distracts from the meaningful progress already underway.
Dr Thomas’s $1 million per household proposal is not merely flawed; it poses significant economic risks to the progress achieved under the PPP/C government, potentially affecting the country’s economic stability.
Guyana deserves policies that prioritize sustainable growth and deliver real benefits, not empty promises. The PPP/C’s strategy of responsible economic management and long-term development is the path that would secure a stable and prosperous future for all.

Sincerely,
Mahendra Hariraj