Neither easy promises nor handouts, says prime minister
Why were the elections moved forward? For two main reasons. The first has to do with the fact that the 2008 budget has assumed a particular importance as our priority, dictated not only by the country’s needs but also by our obligation to the EU to balance the budget by 2010. The budget must comprise a number of priorities, such as the continuation of fiscal adjustment, it must serve clear social priorities and at the same time not allow for divergence under any form of pressure. The second important element is that the country had more or less entered an extended pre-election period. That is the reality. An important initial cycle of reforms and changes had begun, but many more major ones are required. So an extended pre-election period would serve no purpose, given the tensions and rivalries it would usher in. We couldn’t waste any time in furthering the changes and reforms, since it would be very difficult to promote such policies in such a climate. How do you reply to criticism that you have recently begun a program of extensive handouts? You will remember that six months ago I had said that under no circumstances would we resort to easy promises and handouts. The draft laws we tabled at the time, to be passed by the government right after the elections, concerned commitments we had made to people who were in greatest need, such as agricultural fund (OGA) pensioners and families with three or more children. In our original plan, when we believed that the deficit was around two percent, these would have been spread over a year or a year-and-a-half. However the deficit was 7.9 percent, six times larger than yesterday’s governments had claimed. So the fulfillment of our commitment had to be postponed. We wanted to do all these things earlier, but the economic situation did not allow it. If you had waited another two or three weeks to proclaim elections, those bills would have been passed and you would not have held people hostage, as the opposition is claiming. We can turn that argument on its head. Beforehand, they were telling us that these are last-minute campaign handouts. Now they are saying something else, contradicting themselves. The reality is that we have made good on our promises. The bills have been tabled, to be passed by the government that will emerge from the elections. If we happen to be that government, we will pass those bills. If not, the next government will decide on its priorities. What do you think should change in the country from now on. Is your main slogan the continuation of reforms? It is to define the main aspects of the reforms from the outset. They are absolutely clear in my own mind. They are the continuation of fiscal adjustment, including the developmental aspect of that term. They are the continuation of reforms in the State structures, the necessary changes that will allow us to move toward a more modern, more effective State, one with more credibility. That includes administrative reforms and decentralization. We have already begun talks with local government representatives with the aim of having fewer and stronger units. In the Europe of regions we must have stronger, more functional units. We also need to continue reforms in the education system, and the welfare state and by the latter I do not only mean an attempt to broaden it, but a social policy aimed at clear, planned actions for those who are really in need. It is clear that a lot of money is being wasted and serious changes need to be made here. More resources need to go to those truly in need, and that will be served by the National Social Cohesion Fund.
