The government has announced budget cuts of 10 billion euros in 2024,
and 20 in 2025. A budget cut is a reduction in spending. We are reducing
taxes on the richest, which this government is doing consistently (the
previous ones too, by the way), so others will have to tighten their
belts... ---- However, there was already a reduction in spending
provided for in the budget voted by parliamentarians. These budget cuts
are in addition to these reductions, by decree and without debate. And
this is undoubtedly what the government was most keen to avoid, a debate
and evaluation of its policies.
The first area affected by the cuts is "ecology, development and
sustainable mobility", and therein priority "energy, climate and
post-mining". It's not as if a planetary ecological catastrophe was
announced... In particular, while it's happening, the government will
first reduce the budget for heating and insulation aid. This is the
lesson he learned from the end-of-the-world and end-of-month problem
posed by the Yellow Vests. The categories "work and employment",
"research and higher education" and "school education" are affected
respectively by 1.1 billion, 900 million and 690 million euros in
canceled credits. Since we tell you that school and university are doing
too well... Public development aid is cut by 740 million euros, aid for
access to housing loses 300 million, culture 200 million, the national
police 134 million, the prison administration some 118 million and
defense 105 million. Well, for the police and the defense, maybe we
won't cry. So, rest assured, there will be no cuts to the innovation
support plan for businesses (France 2030 investment plan of 54 billion
euros).
To justify his plan, Bruno Lemaire took up the most hackneyed and
caricatured liberal argument, widely relayed by the press. Of course, he
ignores the tax giveaways which explain a large part of the deficit.
Some press still said that. But we must also not swallow the fable
according to which when we lack revenue, we must reduce expenditure.
This is true for us and for all households around the world. But this is
not true for states. A State is not a family, and the State treasury is
not managed like a good father. It is normal for a state to be in debt.
Governing means planning, isn't it? And the State is supposed to ensure
the expenses necessary for stability and the future: education, health,
adaptation to climate change, territorial defense, etc. The question is
not whether he is in debt. The question is whether his debt is
sustainable, that is to say whether he can repay it without becoming
poorer. The debt burden represents a little less than 2% of the wealth
created in France over one year (the famous GDP), around 12.5% of the
state budget. It's as if someone who earns EUR2,000 had a total of
EUR240 of credit to pay per month. We must not look at the debt, what
the State owes, but at the debt burden, what it must pay each year.
Someone who wants to become a happy homeowner will perhaps borrow
200,000 euros, but what matters to obtain credit is how much they have
to pay per month. France is relatively well rated on the financial
markets, which means that money is lent easily and not too expensive.
There is therefore absolutely no obligation currently to reduce the deficit.
So yes, there is still an obligation. The European Union is in the
process of reestablishing the Maastricht rule by which States undertake
to remain below a certain deficit. The timing doesn't seem particularly
good, but you can't stop a losing team. There is therefore an
obligation, but voluntary. But why, you will ask me, when all the
economists will tell you that it will penalize growth. Well, it's always
the same story. Inflation has resumed, and financiers don't like that:
it reduces their income. And when in addition the balance of power
allows us to take only from the poor, why deprive ourselves.
There is of course another reason. What are we cutting into? In the
ordinary expenditure of public services. What result will this have?
They will work even worse. That's good, it will be an additional
argument for their privatization, a privatization which is of great
interest to financiers, in search of new markets on which to exert their
nuisance.
If we break down the biggest cut, that which concerns "energy and
climate". There will be 1 billion euros less for maprim'renov, the
insulation assistance bonus. This will penalize many households and
quite a few craftsmen. No problem, it's not a big sector for
multinationals. This will slow down the objective of reducing greenhouse
gases. Obviously, this is not an important thing for those who govern
us. Except when it comes to promoting nuclear power, of course. The fund
to support local authorities for the energy transition will also be
affected (decrease of 400 million). Further reducing their room for
maneuver will not displease our Jacobin government. In total, more than
2 billion euros are taken from the "ecology, development and sustainable
mobility" budget. That's a green government! Afterwards, when we see
their brilliant ideas in terms of ecology, does it really matter if they
spend less?
Actually, what is the logic of all this? It is still a question of
firstly serving financial interests by fighting against inflation,
whatever the social damage that this fight causes. It is still a
question of continuing the logic of degradation of public service in
order to better privatize it. And as far as the destruction of the
planet is concerned, above all, do not thwart it. We might think that
this is suicidal: after all, they too are part of it. In fact, their
belief in technological solutionism should not be underestimated. They
really think the solution is in helping predatory companies. And they
are right: of course, climate change will get worse, but we will find
solutions so that the richest are protected from the unpleasant
consequences...
Sylvie
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4141
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
and 20 in 2025. A budget cut is a reduction in spending. We are reducing
taxes on the richest, which this government is doing consistently (the
previous ones too, by the way), so others will have to tighten their
belts... ---- However, there was already a reduction in spending
provided for in the budget voted by parliamentarians. These budget cuts
are in addition to these reductions, by decree and without debate. And
this is undoubtedly what the government was most keen to avoid, a debate
and evaluation of its policies.
The first area affected by the cuts is "ecology, development and
sustainable mobility", and therein priority "energy, climate and
post-mining". It's not as if a planetary ecological catastrophe was
announced... In particular, while it's happening, the government will
first reduce the budget for heating and insulation aid. This is the
lesson he learned from the end-of-the-world and end-of-month problem
posed by the Yellow Vests. The categories "work and employment",
"research and higher education" and "school education" are affected
respectively by 1.1 billion, 900 million and 690 million euros in
canceled credits. Since we tell you that school and university are doing
too well... Public development aid is cut by 740 million euros, aid for
access to housing loses 300 million, culture 200 million, the national
police 134 million, the prison administration some 118 million and
defense 105 million. Well, for the police and the defense, maybe we
won't cry. So, rest assured, there will be no cuts to the innovation
support plan for businesses (France 2030 investment plan of 54 billion
euros).
To justify his plan, Bruno Lemaire took up the most hackneyed and
caricatured liberal argument, widely relayed by the press. Of course, he
ignores the tax giveaways which explain a large part of the deficit.
Some press still said that. But we must also not swallow the fable
according to which when we lack revenue, we must reduce expenditure.
This is true for us and for all households around the world. But this is
not true for states. A State is not a family, and the State treasury is
not managed like a good father. It is normal for a state to be in debt.
Governing means planning, isn't it? And the State is supposed to ensure
the expenses necessary for stability and the future: education, health,
adaptation to climate change, territorial defense, etc. The question is
not whether he is in debt. The question is whether his debt is
sustainable, that is to say whether he can repay it without becoming
poorer. The debt burden represents a little less than 2% of the wealth
created in France over one year (the famous GDP), around 12.5% of the
state budget. It's as if someone who earns EUR2,000 had a total of
EUR240 of credit to pay per month. We must not look at the debt, what
the State owes, but at the debt burden, what it must pay each year.
Someone who wants to become a happy homeowner will perhaps borrow
200,000 euros, but what matters to obtain credit is how much they have
to pay per month. France is relatively well rated on the financial
markets, which means that money is lent easily and not too expensive.
There is therefore absolutely no obligation currently to reduce the deficit.
So yes, there is still an obligation. The European Union is in the
process of reestablishing the Maastricht rule by which States undertake
to remain below a certain deficit. The timing doesn't seem particularly
good, but you can't stop a losing team. There is therefore an
obligation, but voluntary. But why, you will ask me, when all the
economists will tell you that it will penalize growth. Well, it's always
the same story. Inflation has resumed, and financiers don't like that:
it reduces their income. And when in addition the balance of power
allows us to take only from the poor, why deprive ourselves.
There is of course another reason. What are we cutting into? In the
ordinary expenditure of public services. What result will this have?
They will work even worse. That's good, it will be an additional
argument for their privatization, a privatization which is of great
interest to financiers, in search of new markets on which to exert their
nuisance.
If we break down the biggest cut, that which concerns "energy and
climate". There will be 1 billion euros less for maprim'renov, the
insulation assistance bonus. This will penalize many households and
quite a few craftsmen. No problem, it's not a big sector for
multinationals. This will slow down the objective of reducing greenhouse
gases. Obviously, this is not an important thing for those who govern
us. Except when it comes to promoting nuclear power, of course. The fund
to support local authorities for the energy transition will also be
affected (decrease of 400 million). Further reducing their room for
maneuver will not displease our Jacobin government. In total, more than
2 billion euros are taken from the "ecology, development and sustainable
mobility" budget. That's a green government! Afterwards, when we see
their brilliant ideas in terms of ecology, does it really matter if they
spend less?
Actually, what is the logic of all this? It is still a question of
firstly serving financial interests by fighting against inflation,
whatever the social damage that this fight causes. It is still a
question of continuing the logic of degradation of public service in
order to better privatize it. And as far as the destruction of the
planet is concerned, above all, do not thwart it. We might think that
this is suicidal: after all, they too are part of it. In fact, their
belief in technological solutionism should not be underestimated. They
really think the solution is in helping predatory companies. And they
are right: of course, climate change will get worse, but we will find
solutions so that the richest are protected from the unpleasant
consequences...
Sylvie
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4141
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten