Dear Editor,
MR Vishnu Prashad’s letter regarding the “Because We Care” cash grant raises an important issue about public finance and democratic governance, but his analysis ultimately collapses under the weight of economic reality and historical context.
No serious government official disputes that public revenues originate from taxpayers and state earnings. That is elementary public economics and finance. However, Mr. Prashad’s argument deliberately ignores the central issue in governance — the existence of revenue alone does not guarantee social programmes. What matters is how governments manage national resources, generate fiscal space, prioritie expenditure and translate state revenues into public outcomes; and more importantly, how government ensures that the revenues are shared across the population, as these cash grants are without favour.
The “Because We Care” grant is not simply the automatic redistribution of taxes. It is the product of fiscal policy decisions. Governments must first create the economic conditions necessary to sustain social spending. This requires economic growth, revenue expansion, disciplined budgeting, macroeconomic management and strategic allocation of expenditure.
Guyana’s current fiscal position did not emerge in a vacuum. Over the last several years, the country has experienced rapid economic expansion driven by oil revenues, increased investment, higher state revenues, and broader economic activity. However, revenues alone do not automatically produce social programmes. Governments determine whether those revenues are directed towards schools, healthcare, infrastructure, pensions, debt reduction, or recurrent consumption.
The current administration made a deliberate policy decision to expand social transfers to households, particularly in education. That is a matter of governance and political philosophy with a long term impact, preparing the next generation of Guyanese.
It is therefore intellectually dishonest for critics to argue that governments deserve no recognition for programmes financed through public revenues. If that logic were applied consistently, then no administration could ever properly claim credit for expanding healthcare access, building roads, increasing public-sector wages, lowering debt, or improving education outcomes. Governments everywhere are judged precisely on how effectively they convert national revenues into tangible public benefits.
More importantly, Guyana’s own recent history directly undermines Mr. Prashad’s argument.
Between 2015 and 2020, under the APNU+AFC administration, the “Because We Care” grant was discontinued. This occurred despite the fact that taxpayers continued paying taxes during those years. If taxation alone automatically guaranteed educational grants, then the programme would never have been removed in the first place.
The restoration and subsequent expansion of the grant after 2020 therefore reflects a policy reversal and a different fiscal priority under the current administration.
That is not propaganda, it is empirical fact.
The broader economic point is even more significant. Social programmes require sustainable fiscal management. Governments that mismanage economies often face rising debt burdens, declining revenues, inflationary pressures, or fiscal deficits that ultimately force reductions in public spending. Conversely, governments that expand the revenue base and maintain fiscal stability create the capacity to finance grants, subsidies, and welfare programmes over the long term.
In this sense, the “Because We Care” initiative represents not merely a transfer payment, but an example of redistributive fiscal policy aimed at reducing the financial burden on households while investing in educational access and human capital development.
Mr. Prashad also mischaracterises the nature of democratic accountability. Citizens are not “subjects” because they acknowledge successful policy implementation. In representative democracies, governments are evaluated on outcomes. If an administration removes benefits, it is criticised. If it restores and expands them, it receives political credit. That is how democratic systems function.
The consolidated fund belongs to the state, but elected governments are entrusted with the responsibility of managing it. Their success or failure is measured not by the mere collection of revenue, but by how effectively they utilize national resources to improve the lives of citizens.
The current administration chose to restore assistance to children after it had previously been withdrawn. Citizens are intelligent enough to recognise that policy choices matter.