Rennie Parris’s analysis on PNCR’s Budget 2025 proposals misleading

Feb 11, 2025 Letters

---

Dear editor,

I must correct a math error in a column published in your 9 February paper which amounts to over $200 billion dollars. I do so not out of an urge to humiliate your columnist, but because it has resulted in very misleading analysis. In his column Talking dollars and making Sense, Mr. Rennie Parris appears to double count the existing wages of public servants ($210billion) when he tries to criticise the PNCR’s proposals for budget 2025. He mistakes $285 billion dollars for the cost of our proposed 35% salary increase when it represents the cost of both the increase and the existing public sector wage bill.

I must admit this is surprising, since even a casual glance at the numbers would indicate a 35% salary increase cannot cost $285b (unless the public servant wage bill were over $800 billion, which it most certainly is not). As a result, instead of a total of $1.4t being the cost of an alternative PNCR budget, according to his method of summation, he instead arrives at $1.618t. Sadly, Mr. Parris then attempts to make the case that the PNCR’s proposals are not affordable, a case which rather falls flat given $1.4t is similar to the existing 2025 budget of $1.382t. He has made a few other errors, which he may spot in time, but there’s no point in dwelling on them right now.

I see the real source of his mistakes, however, as due to an odd willingness among Guyanese commentators to advocate spending hundreds of billions of dollars on traditional policies which have largely failed us, rather than embrace policies tailored to our unusual national challenges. It is easy to reject direct cash transfers, as they are unfamiliar, even when they come from carefully thought-out policies. Like many in the PPP, Mr. Parris fails to stress poverty alleviation in his analysis, which is disappointing given a wide range of authorities, from the World Bank, to UNICEF, to statistic websites like statista.com have stressed that between 35 and 48% of Guyanese live in poverty.

On the other hand, the World Bank has now classified Guyana as a high-income country, with the IMF expecting our GDP per capita to surpass the UAE this year, adjusting for prices. Doesn’t this mean it’s realistic for Guyanese to demand an end to poverty? If not now, when will this be realistic? Guyana will continue to be a nation of contradictions until we confront the striking changes that have taken place in our country. Our proposals will eradicate poverty in two years, and any approach that minimizes this central issue should be looked upon with extreme skepticism. Along these same lines, it is realistic that middle class citizens expect that their lives will be significantly improved and everyone earn a livable income. After all, there isn’t much point to a wealthy country if its people are hungry and frustrated.

On the other hand, our targeted policies recognize the very distressing challenges we face. Our $50,000 monthly stipend for those pursuing higher education and further training will target those at the University of Guyana and technical schools first, but over time increase to those looking to rewrite or write for the first time Mathematics and English at CSEC, or those looking to learn skills like plumbing and electrical work through government certified apprenticeships. We recognize that roughly 80% of Guyanese do not have a Mathematics and English pass at CSEC (this can be calculated by combining the historic high school dropout rate and CSEC math failure rate), and thus this will serve as an incentive to mature students to seek to enhance their qualifications.

Because qualified students can expect a higher wage, according to studies by the Brookings Institution and others, these types of policies will pay for themselves in time, as additional VAT and Income tax revenue is generated. This policy has its roots in Brazil’s Bolsa Familia, which, while targeting children, has nonetheless demonstrated that cash transfers can generate substantial increases in educational attainment. More fundamentally, however, we ask this question: what wealthy country would not provide a path to attain useful qualifications for 80% of its citizens? Orthodox policies, which focus primarily on children, would obviously completely miss these hundreds of thousands of adult Guyanese.

These are the types of serious policy questions we need to grapple with as a nation, and it is frustrating to have to spend time on basic math errors when we could be exploring them in more depth. Mr. Parris has written at length about when the Leader of the Opposition misspoke during an interview. Clearly, he is now aware that errors occur from time to time. Duly, we will expect him to retract his remarks that our budget proposals add substantially to the cost of the current national budget. As I’m confident he is a well-intentioned, humble man, he will certainly oblige.

Sincerely

Elson Low

Economic and Youth Policy Adviser to the Leader of the Opposition,

Opposition Oil and Gas Spokesperson,

Treasurer, PNCR.

(Rennie Parris’s analysis on PNCR’s Budget 2025 proposals misleading)

(Rennie Parris’s analysis)

---

• budget 2025, Elson Low, Mr. Rennie Parris, PNCR budget, PNCR’s proposals

---