/ world today news/ Another poorly directed and amateurishly presented self-made production is coming to an end. After today’s vote, the curtain falls and the calm desired by the Ministry of Finance has finally arrived.
The subject of debt is not that complicated to explain. Hardly anyone expects us to find hot water. The need to issue debt, the choice of time and specific financial instruments are debated all over the world. But why in our country, once again, common sense and cold-blooded reference to arguments and facts gave way to primitive politicking?
To begin with, the Ministry of Finance did what it took to cause confusion among almost all MPs with its initiative. The coalition partners of GERB, as well as MPs from the party who sing “second voice in choir” admitted that they were not consulted. Moreover, they were not even notified. Not to mention the opposition. Such an approach showed the traditions in the lack of desire and understanding on the part of the authorities to give explanations for their actions. What in normal countries is a mandatory practice, for our rulers seems insulting and humiliating.
Naturally, the fat man’s behavior provoked a corresponding reaction. And as “according to Radichkov”, in the artificially created commotion, who came from where got involved.
Ten days of competition between critics and supporters of the idea followed. We ignore the operetta “banknote appearances” of loud dilettantes.
The strange thing is that Finance Minister Goranov remained relatively indifferent. It was as if it was not he but someone else who had caused the public commotion.
To the repeated invitations to give clarifications, to consult with certain specialists, to check the numbers, he responded casually sparingly. Strange as it may sound, outsiders published far more meaningful explanations and arguments about the need to issue debt, about the model of medium-term debt frameworks, about the agreement with the banks in question, etc. The Ministry of Finance and the Council of Ministers watched from “the height of their position”.
At one point the taciturn minister concluded:
“I conducted many consultations, where on time, where not, but I understood one thing. Many of the parties that support the government had information ambiguity”.
This “insight” he probably expects us to reward with long o deafening applause?
Obviously, explanations, arguments and arguments are not strong points of the finance team in the cabinet, to say the least. Then what did Goranov rely on to push his initiative in the Plenary Hall? Just a day before the vote itself, we heard a series of categorical declarations of an impending negative vote. And from the DPS came a call to their colleagues from other parliamentary groups to attend the hall at any cost. The “surprise” (surprise?) came in the vote itself. It turned out that Goranov did not need to give explanations, seek support or rely on professional arguments to push the idea. The ratification of the new debt of up to 8 billion euros became a fact with the votes of GERB, RB, BDC, ABV and … note – DPS. With this joint action, DPS and GERB once again fueled the tales of the existence of a “floating majority”, “secret agreements”, “strategic” contracts, etc. The small coalition partners are once again shown their place in the corner. Otherwise, they can loudly continue to push for reforms and claim that they have made DPS a bypassable factor. Until the next serious project is voted on.
#vote #long #poorly #directed #production
What are the long-term implications of Bulgaria’s public debt strategy on its economic growth?
Thank you for joining us today for this special edition of World Today News. We are here with two experts on the topic of public debt and fiscal policy to discuss the recent developments in Bulgaria. First, let’s introduce our guests. Dr. Petar Petrov, Professor of Finance at Sofia University and Ms. Maria Ivanova, Economic Analyst at the Institute of Market Economics. Dr. Petrov, Ms. Ivanova, what is your take on the recent debate in Bulgaria over the issuance of new debt and its relevance to the country’s fiscal situation?
Dr. Petrov: Well, the issue of public debt is not new for Bulgaria. We have been struggling with it for quite some time now. It is true that the debt-to-GDP ratio is still quite low compared to other EU countries, but the government’s decision to issue new debt without proper consultation and explanation raises some serious concerns. It is important to understand that any debt issuance should be well-planned and justified by clear economic benefits, and this was not the case here.
Ms. Ivanova: I completely agree with Dr. Petrov. The lack of transparency and communication from the government on this matter is troubling. Furthermore, the timing of the debt issuance seems suspect, given the current economic climate and the potential risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe that more scrutiny and debate were needed before this decision was made.
W: It seems that there were mixed reactions among parliamentary groups regarding the new debt issue. Could you elaborate on this and what it might imply for the future of the ruling coalition?
Dr. Petrov: It is clear that the government relied on its allies to push this measure through, ignoring potential opposition from other parties. This is worrisome for the future stability of the coalition, as it signals a lack of understanding of the importance of bipartisanship and consensus-building in addressing critical issues such as public finance.
Ms. Ivanova: Yes, the divided vote shows that there is a clear split within the coalition. The government’s approach was short-sighted, as it could have used this opportunity to build cross-party support and demonstrate its commitment to responsible fiscal management. Instead
