Leader of the Opposition, Ralph Gonsalves, and former Finance Minister Camilo Gonsalves, give what they deemed the primary criticisms regarding the 2026 budget deficit and fiscal projections focus on the historic size of the recurrent deficit, unrealistic revenue assumptions, and a lack of strategy for economic growth.
The central criticism is the magnitude of the budgeted deficit on the current account, which stands at $105.5 million.
The opposition duo highlighted that this is the largest deficit budget in the country’s history. To illustrate the severity, they note that the combined budgeted deficits for the previous four years (2022 through 2025)—which covered periods of disaster recovery from volcanic eruptions and hurricanes—do not total the $105.5 million projected for 2026 alone,.
The opposition leader criticised the new administration for hypocrisy, noting that while in opposition, the current government frequently berated the previous administration for running much smaller deficits, yet has now presented a budget with a deficit significantly larger than any previously presented,.
They argued that the fiscal projections indicate the government is “treading waters dangerously” and potentially heading toward an IMF program.
Beyond the $105.5 million deficit, the government must find nearly $300 million for debt amortisation and contributions to the sinking fund. When combined with the deficit and projections for future years, the financing requirement is estimated to reach $1.2 billion over the medium term.
The budget documents project continued high deficits for the coming years, specifically a $74 million deficit in 2027 and an $84 million deficit in 2028.
A major critique involves the category of “Other Receipts,” which totals $160 million in the 2026 budget.
The opposition duo claims this figure relies on “slight of hand,” pointing out that the current administration previously called such receipts “fraudulent” when they were in opposition. They stated that this revenue assumes sales from passports (Citizenship by Investment), yet the budget lists a revenue projection for passport sales of only $10. Furthermore, there is no staff, budget, or plan established to generate the massive revenue implied by the “Other Receipts” figure, leading to claims that the projections are unrealistic,.
The budget estimates for VAT collection at the port ($142 million) and domestic VAT ($121 million) remain virtually unchanged from previous years. Gonsalves argue this proves the government is either not implementing promised VAT cuts or that the revenue numbers are factually incorrect.
The budget includes a plan to raise $200 million in local loans, which the opposition argues is not feasible.
Both former prime minister and former minister finance explain that “local loans” effectively mean borrowing from the regional market, where St. Vincent must compete with other Caribbean nations issuing bonds. They argue the market lacks the appetite to lend $200 million to a single country in one year, making it unlikely the government can raise the necessary funds,.
The opposition characterizes the budget as one designed to “control and dispense scarcity” rather than generate growth.
“The 2026 capital expenditure is $274 million lower than the revised estimates for 2025 and listed numerous cancelled development projects that were intended to drive economic activity, such as the Arnos Vale city development, the modern parliament and Hall of Justice, and the national science laboratory.
Gonsalves said the budget cuts capital spending and relies on unrealistic loans, the opposition predicts it will fail to sustain the economic growth the country experienced over the last four years.
Finally, the critics contrast the massive deficit with specific spending choices they deem inappropriate for a “tight” budget. They highlight an allocation of $600,000 for a fleet of vehicles for the Prime Minister and $1.5 million to refurbish the Prime Minister’s residence. This is contrasted with a meager $150,000 allocated for informal human settlements and significant cuts to housing support programs.
A $5 million allocation for “hurricane Beryl post-relief” under the National Emergency Management Organisation (NEMO) is criticized as a potential “slush fund” because the organization lacks the administrative capacity to manage such a sum effectively.
