PPP Squanders even Communist Ideologies

by Peter R. Ramsaroop

With a communist government in power here in Guyana under the banner of democracy, there has understandably been a level of resistance to certain aspects of a free market economy. Hence, I feel a sense of urgency for the benefit of our nation to investigate the many ways by which Guyana could benefit from establishing a more open market.

I do not believe the government to be even true to communism, in the true sense of the word but more of a dictatorship. The government touts this ideology; however, it stops far short in achieving its proclamation of communism in the distribution of the wealth acquired through the public-owned businesses, taxes and international aid.

This shows that perhaps the PPP/C is only communist in theory, but not in application. If indeed the communist notions of distribution were in fact applied to Guyana , those in the government would not own homes that cost far more than what an average Guyanese could make in his/her life. As a result of this failure to apply core principles of the philosophy of communism, their only option would be to embrace the by-product of communism – dictatorship.

I challenge those in the government to prove their loyalty to the ideas of Marx and Lenin by making their salaries known to the public. Please also include any fringe benefits that are not reported, including any extra money received from the contracts unfairly given out to supporters. If it were found that any person employed by the government is making above the average national wage, then that person's salary should be cut to reflect the same as the rest of Guyana .

Further, the public should also be made fully aware of all personal assets, including homes, cars, jewellery and any other share holdings or possessions. Subsequently, each government employee who claims to be a staunch advocate of communism should be required to liquidate those assets for the good of society.

The monies gained from the decreased governmental salaries and the sales of personal assets would then be used to build a better infrastructure, help curb poverty, pay the police more money and provide better education. I bet the sale of just a couple homes in Pradoville would go a long way toward cleaning up the canals and buying the necessary equipment to prevent further flooding.

I wonder when these same people are no longer in Government, how they would afford these homes and the Prados they drive.

However, if our communist government officials are not so inclined to give up the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, then perhaps they should consider allowing the rest of the country the opportunity to acquire that same type of lifestyle by introducing a tad more capitalism to the economy to help the government's communism attain some form of life.

Right now, the PPP/C's version of communism has got Guyana on the economic declining line and, from what I see, there does not seem to be any hope of resuscitation in the near future.

If the government does not want to take me up on this challenge to truly follow the letter of the law concerning the communism they are so proud to profess, then perhaps they would be more willing to consider the following information.

Let us first consider the recent tax modifications of the newly proposed budget. At this point, it seems the government intends to compensate for the taxes lost by omitting a larger portion of the population obligated to pay taxes (an additional 20,000 people of whom make less than $25,000/mo) by increasing what must be paid by the taxable portion of the nation to a flat rate of 33.3 percent.

Would it not be logical then to earnestly strive for a larger portion of taxable incomes? This logic would maintain that the more people who are making a hefty income, the more taxes that will be collected. The more taxes being collected, the more money the state has to allocate to such projects as the canals, education, crime, roads and the like.

At this point, there is very little action on behalf of the government to encourage local entrepreneurialism or to attract foreign investors.

It is therefore only reasonable to assume that, if Guyana were indeed allowed to experiment in a truly free market economy, the poor would reap the benefits of the success of their countrymen through jobs, yes, but also through the increased taxes brought in from the increased incomes.

This is exactly how countries like China and the U.S. are able to maintain their modern and advanced infrastructures. This is also how such nations are able to provide for single mothers, the terminally ill and the mentally ill. It is through the taxes collected from the more wealthy portions of society.

In fact, the progressive tax rate in the U.S. currently tops at 35 percent, just a little more than the flat tax proposed last week by Guyana's Government; however, there are far more in the U.S. who fall into this bracket because of the free market economy, therefore there is far more money brought in through taxes for the good of the entire nation.

Further, there are some in both the U.S. and in China who make millions (in U.S. dollars) in taxable income. So in these free markets or in China's case, market socialism, which is a combination of the advantages of a free market in terms of economic efficiency with those of socialism, there are more contributors to the state revenue and therefore a substantial amount more of money to use for the good of the society.

In its current state, Guyana has so little because cumbersome bureaucracy and burdensome trade levies slow economic growth in all business sectors. It is not immoral to want to make money or to have money. In fact, it is more immoral to neglect the poor that could be helped if only there were money to do it and it is wrong to withhold decent education from our children simply because the state cannot afford to pay its teachers, so they all run to other shores that will pay them.

It is immoral to allow crime to torment our communities as we wallow in the self-pity of poverty simply because the government says their communist agenda is moral.

I see nothing at all moral about the miserable state of our country. In fact, I see the blatant immorality of those who would refuse its citizens the opportunities that are enjoyed by so many others throughout the world – and which is in fact enjoyed by most of those in that government.

Presently, Guyanese work hard for very little – this ought not be. All Guyanese should be afforded a real chance to work hard and create a prosperous life for themselves and their children, without regard to political preference. All Guyanese should be given the opportunity to go home to a nice house, just like their government officials do.

We all deserve the right to maintain our homes without fear of flood or thieves, or senior government officials ordering destruction of our property. These are luxuries enjoyed by those who live in countries who value innovation and entrepreneurialism. In Guyana, these important ideals are scorned and in the process, our nation is left breathless with exasperation and reduced to beggary, as we wait for the next handout in aid from the very countries we treat with contempt because they have what we want – the opportunity at a better life.

If God helps those who help themselves, then it is high time that as a nation, we start to demand a free market that will create the opportunity for us to help ourselves.

Finally, Peeping Tom's Column in Kaieteur News on Thursday 26 th questioned my comments on the amount of money it took to fill a swamp behind my house ($3 million). A few years ago, the Government did some minor repairs to State House, the cost was $99 million. A major contractor was given a contract to build a new school building for Tutorial High to the tune of over $300 million. Another prominent contractor fixed a few kokers and said that he spent $1.4 billion. City officials received $50 million from the distributor of Government money. The President of Guyana, and, in my opinion, has not shown what was accomplished for the money spent.

This last Christmas, the President distributed cheap dolls and toys in Sophia. When a reporter asked the Permanent Secretary about the cost; she shrugged her shoulders and said "about $5 million.” It is reported that there are millions of dollars spent on trips to New York by government officials and their companions, local and foreign. These trips include expenditures at establishments such as the Avalanche Club and include the high costs of club ‘activities.' Why isn't Peeping Tom questioning the expenditures of these funds instead of questioning a private citizen's spending pattern?