(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
While the incoming government parties are very specific in quantifying the Conservative Party's flagship issue – lower taxes and fees – the promises of welfare increases amount to only a fraction. Roads, public transport and renewable energy are the only expenses that are quantified.
25 billion
According to the government declaration, four taxes and fees must be completely eliminated: The benefit tax on own housing, the air passenger tax, the tax on dividends and the tax on the employer's payment for treatment of illness. In addition, the parties list 12 points where taxes and fees are to be reduced. The total price tag at the end of the parliamentary period will be 25 billion per year. year. In addition comes the removal of the investment tax, with a price tag of six billion on an annual basis. The Storting majority has previously decided to remove this tax from 1. April next year, but the Government is in the draft state budget to postpone the removal by half a year.
In comparison, the bourgeois parties' quantification of expenditure increases amounts to just over NOK 3,2 billion, depending on how it is calculated. Over ten years, NOK 100 billion will be spent on renewable energy sources – ie half a billion a year. In addition, 1,5 billion is promised for energy research. The public transport investment is the largest, with NOK 2-600 billion. Road allocations will be increased by NOK XNUMX million.
Greater expenses
How much money the incoming government intends to spend on other purposes is not entirely clear. Some pointers still exist. One of them is the development assistance budget, where the Christian People's Party has apparently gained support for the development assistance to be increased to one percent of GNI by 2005. If one had been ashore already next year, the allocations would have had to be increased by about 1,5 billion kroner – twice as much like the Labor government's proposal for an increase as it was presented in the budget proposal yesterday. The problem for any sitting government, however, is that the Norwegian economy, so to speak, runs away from them in development aid policy. Every year throughout the 1990s, development assistance has increased nominally. Nevertheless, development assistance as a share of GNI has fallen in most years, from well over one per cent ten years ago. The reason is that GNI is increasing so fast, not least in a Norway that extracts large riches from the bottom of the North Sea.
The bourgeois parties will also invest in kindergartens – but it is not clear whether they will extend significantly beyond the investment of one billion that the Labor government has proposed for next year. Cash support will be increased, but the parties do not say anything about how much. The municipalities will also have real growth. In the school sector, it is the Conservatives who have won again. To the extent that there is some investment, it will increase the number of hours in primary school. The Conservatives have usually financed this in their alternative budgets by cutting the after-school care schemes. What the coalition government will do is not clear.
However, one of the major spending bombs – which will fall under so-called "regulated spending" – could hit the health sector. The bourgeois parties promise that the right to treatment within set deadlines must be legislated, and that patients must be offered treatment at private hospitals or abroad if public hospitals do not have the capacity.
Higher interest rates
- They must either cut government spending, or use more of the oil fund, LO economist Stein Reegård states to Ny Tid. He believes that the cost will be a weakening of welfare and higher interest rates, and he does not believe that the parties will reflect on the tax promises when they enter government offices.
- No. There is so much precision in this that they will implement the tax reductions. The costs will be weaker welfare and higher interest rates. It is not the case that there is only dead meat in the public sector. Even if you make the public sector more efficient, it will take time, says Reegård, and puts the label "Conservative scheme" on the government declaration.
- Is it possible to estimate how large cuts the bourgeois parties must implement to finance this?
- No, they have not said that much about themselves. But you can look at the Conservative Party's alternative state budgets from previous years. It probably gives the best clue. Then they had to cut sick pay by five billion kroner.
- It will not be so easy now that the parties in working life have reached an agreement?
- No. It will be very difficult for them to find another cover.
- Do we have to assume that the cuts will be in the same order of magnitude as the tax promises – ie about 25 billion kroner?
- No, I do not think there is talk of so much. But we have to wait for the budget and see.
Stein Reegård fears, however, that the Conservatives will gain support for their tax cuts simultaneous which KrF gets through for its expenditure increases. From the Labor Party, this effect from the Willoch government has been pointed out as an important background for the economic problems in Norway in the late 1980s, although the right-wing parties do not agree.
- It can be better for welfare in the short term, but high interest rates in the long term, Reegård believes – even though he does not agree with Ny Tid's proposal that the interest rate will be 17,5 percent.
Right-wing politics
At the same time, the LO economist believes that the government declaration contains a number of positions that are very problematic for the trade union movement, beyond those that directly concern the budgets. He points out in particular that the Danish Competition Authority must be given a much freer role.
- This is a serious matter, in line with the dismissal of Norges Bank, and there is a lot of Conservative politics in this. NHO strongly wants such a change, says Reegård.
He also believes that there can be a shift in power in the labor market, from employees to employers. – Employers will have greater power if the protection against dismissal is weakened and labor immigration is increased.
Reegård also raises his index finger at those on the left who support the proposals for increased labor immigration. He believes that the migrant workers who come will be an "easy victim of the employers 'rudeness and greed" because they will be weak and also come from countries where workers' rights are less established. He points out that if labor immigration is to help with the pressure in the labor market, it is precisely "use and throw" that is needed. – If the working immigrants are properly integrated into working life and get rights like others, they become both consumers and consumers. It provides increased economic growth, but does not dampen the pressure in the economy, Reegård points out.
The LO economist believes it is inconceivable that the Bondevik II government will make a budget together with the Labor Party at some point in the parliamentary term, and that they will thus have to seek cooperation with the FRP every autumn and spring.
- A collaboration between a new government and the Labor Party is both factually and politically impossible. The positive thing is that you bring out the differences in politics, says Stein Reegård.
