Dear Editor,
I write with reference to Mr Roysdale Forde’s reaction to Budget 2023. Forde is an important voice in the PNCR, and accordingly, his perspective must be given both respectful and critical scrutiny.
In contradistinction to Mr Forde’s anti-analytic propensity to rely on adjectives when offering his views, I shall focus on the developmental orientation of Budget 2023, and the macro-economic policies put in place to realise the concomitant objectives. All told, while some of Mr Forde’s observations are conducive to constructive engagement, the totality of his contribution can only be characterised as “pending”.
Editor, I feel certain readers would agree that budgets are relational documents; meaning, in this instance, that a fair assessment can only be arrived at through the comparative method. More specifically, we need to compare the current budget with Budget 2019, which was delivered by the APNU-AFC.
Forde charges the following: (a) that despite the size of the Budget, too little resources are devoted to the “small man” (if I may use a PNC symbol from the 1970s); (b) that salary increases have not kept pace with inflation; (c) that the allocations for education are misdirected; (d) that expenditure on infrastructure is really a disguise of what is generically described as “corruption”, and (e) that there should have been more focus on inclusivity.
Editor, I say without regret that not even one of the above criticisms can meet the minimum evidentiary standard necessary to sustain the charges, either individually or severally. I will demonstrate why this is the case. Before doing so, allow me to draw on Ram and McRae’s analysis of the 2019 Budget by Mr Forde’s coalition. Editor, as you are well aware, Ram and McRae is a no-nonsense firm that has provided rigorous analyses of our national budgets for thirty-three years. It doesn’t pull punches.
Here is the determination of Ram and McRae on the APNU-AFC’s 2019 Budget: Apart from some good measures on disabilities and the employed and self-employed, the 2019 Budget “is silent on women and gender issues, single mothers, the unemployed, including the recently unemployed…”. They continue, “[t]hese inevitably lead us to conclude, as we did last year, that this Administration [APNU-AFC] does not seem to regard income and wealth inequality as serious issues, and accordingly there is nothing in the Budget that could be considered a pro-poor step” (Ram and McRae).
On these grounds alone, Mr Forde should be both cognisant and grateful that the 2023 Budget has filled the lacuna left behind. The honourable gentleman should know that measures such as the increase of the “Because We Care” grant, which was increased from $25,000 to $35,000, or the rise of OAP from $28,000 to $33,000, are only the DIRECT interventions aimed at combatting the worst impacts of the rise in cost of living.
It appears that Mr. Forde has forgotten that his coalition Government had totally removed the “Care” grants and replaced them with David G buses!
Behind these are a plethora of other instruments of poverty alleviation, cost-of-living adjustments, and boost in real income. The Part-Time Jobs Project, for instance, is allocated $10 billion, a policy commitment that would supplement incomes throughout the country. Beyond these instances, readers should also be aware that the decision to keep the excise tax on fuel at zero, reductions of other taxes and, in some instances, duties also enhance the human security of individuals and their communities.
Mr. Forde’s harping over the 8% pay raise as inadequate, combined with his charges that the 2023 Budget favours elites, conveniently pushes aside the substantially enhanced packages for nurses, doctors, and the uniformed forces. As for favouring the “elite”, it is the APNU-AFC that fits the bill. Ergo, “[t]he [2109] Budget seems to have been prepared along neoliberal lines, hopeful that the benefits of the business-friendly measures will trickle down to the rest of the economy” (Ram & McRae, 2019).
Ram and McRae were not at all impressed by Finance Minister Jordan’s disregard for the poor. They were concerned that the APNU-AFC Minister of Finance was not at all “fazed” by the plight of the market vendor, the single mom, and the unemployed and others who struggle at the lower rungs of the social ladder…” (Ram and McRae).
The observations on education are deserving of further consideration, but only if Mr. Forde injects more substance and specificity in his critique.
Charges of corruption have become a generic fancy of most anti-PPP/C critics, and Mr. Forde did not disappoint here. As usual, the charges lack the most elementary requirements of credibility. Instead of specificity, the reader must suffer through an amalgam of innuendos and irresponsible speculations.
In my own view, Forde’s suggestion that infrastructure development is by its very nature propitious to corruption reveals an anti-investment bias. This is the most generous conclusion one can draw from the charge that infrastructure equals corruption.
Mr Forde must be congratulated for raising the issue of inclusive growth. He needs to impress that point within his own party. Budget 2023 is perhaps best characterised as an “inclusive growth with development” plan founded on the principles of human security. Yet, one might also go further and argue that, in fact, the Budget is also based on “inclusive excellence”, a value I feel confident Mr. Forde supports.
I look forward to Roysdale Forde’s substantive contribution in Parliament come next Monday. I am most interested in finding out how the issues of economic equality and the protection of democracy are articulated in Mr. Forde’s forthcoming narratives.
Sincerely,
Dr Randolph Persaud
