Only the Scandinavian countries take more

As often, our President is right. It would be unreasonable to increase taxes. Nicolas Sarkozy reminded force earlier this month by launching the campaign of the UMP for the European elections: "When the level of levy that the France has reached, it does not increase taxes." State, local communities and social organizations have collected 838 billion euros last year. Even in the current Waltz of billion, one can feel that it's a lot. Only the Scandinavian countries take more. And if these compulsory levies returned to 42.8 per cent of GDP in 2008, their lowest level for more than a decade, is not that the Government intended, but that the fall of the activity made back the tax revenues of the State of 6 billion. Of course, "when on a growth rate that the France", to talk with the Sarkozy, it raises more taxes. Raise the rate to compensate for the attrition of the product, against this "automatic stabilizer" would be to push a French economy which already has the head under the water.

And yet... the Government eventually increase the tax. This is not a fatality. But a gentle slope where he will again drag. Step immediately, of course. In the crisis, we will continue to sink us into deficit, in reckless and almost cheerful. Public debt will make snowball. But the crisis will end well one day or another. And that day will go to serious things and reduce this cursed deficit. Not just for calm Brussels, as the susurrent a few poor spirit. But also to give a little air to public action, to attract lenders to soft interest rates, to deter the French save more than the inhabitants of all the developed countries as they are now out of fear of future increases in taxes or rolled superannuation. Already, this first stage has nothing obvious. Take for example the bet that the French Observatory of economic conditions will explain as always that it is much too early to consider reducing the public deficit.

The next step will be even less obvious. How, therefore, reduce the deficit The Government refers to lower spending. First he puts forward the replacement of half of officials who will go to retire next year. This is obviously an essential step. Those who denigrate the by explaining that it is not appropriate to save EUR 1 billion by removing 34,000 positions in full rise in unemployment have blinkers. When the administration hires, it increases not spending for a year but for sixty 40 years of active life and twenty of retirement. By removing 34,000 positions, it saves so (total of the salaries and pensions due) EUR 50 billion.

The problem is that it is not sufficient in the short term. The Government referred to as the RGPP (general revision of public policy). The problem is that it even less. After astronomical work of audit, analysis and committees at the highest level, the State removes a few posts here and some there, often creating irritation which will complicate future reorganizations of the work. Reduce public expenditure with the RGPP, it's like wanting to dig a pool small spoon: can do, but it takes much too long. Not to mention that the review does not affect local communities, who happily hire 50,000 employees per year.

We are in France "the culture of spending", emphasized the Pébereau report on public debt, which remains a cruel News four years ago. To truly reduce public spending, the State should completely change its way of working, as was done in Sweden, the Canada or New Zealand. Such a revolution will not be accomplished in interdepartmental meetings. It must be the heart of a platform. For the presidential election of 2012, it will be too soon. The economy is still very fragile. 2017 then Any changes would feel their effects in a decade... In the meantime, should reduce this damn deficit. This is why the tax increase.