Two years later

The government finally kneaded tax changes. Now we will not discuss insignificant things so often. According to Andrei Neshchadin (expert Institute of the RSPP), the office will be in a turnover related to budget planning. And this is the only process where the activity of the cabinet is obviously useful and effective. And even a little too much: in order to reduce and count state money, it is not necessary to have a surplus or even a deficiency budget. That is, the government has where to grow, and so far it is impossible to expect more from it.

It would be very good if now without the fuss and break the vests there were those who could actively discuss the necessary reforms, noticing, including determining the flaws of politics and public administration for the result. And my first statement will be from experience: if in taxes , medicine , education and the army is discussed something technically complex, understandable only to experts, and not just educated readers, then there is no content in this discussion . And there is a deception.

It was not difficult to predict the collapse of pension reform ( which we constantly did). Only a discussion of insignificant things could take the media and society in this topic for so much time. Non-essential things are a more or less intelligent financial scheme of reform, the market of insurance companies, etc. The circumstance is significant for discussion - what will force employees to find out and be interested in how many employees pay for him, in exchange for which the employer will go to legalize salaries, in exchange for what kind of benefits the employee will increase payments for his and someone else's pension. And this is exactly what the authorities could discuss with society and citizens: anyone will understand the conversation about their money.

If you bring to a hard thesis, then everything that we are trying to pass off for reforms is actually a conspiracy of one or two corporations. So, the pension reform turned out to be a conspiracy of the Pension Fund and insurers, where the latter were actually “thrown”. This is a fundamental flaw: at the site of politics and political goals - small (not in a monetary assessment, of course, but in relation to the purposes reasonable for the country) conspiracy.

We see the same thing in all areas that are supposedly planned to modernize. S.V. Shishkin (Institute of Social Reforms) described at the International Conference a political situation in the education reform in a similar way. For a decade, the position of the educational corporation is defensive - “Give more money and do not go into our affairs”, and the government’s position is complimentary - “We will not climb, but we will give a little money.” Similarly in medicine and even more so in the army.

As a result of this collusion, nothing happened. Meanwhile, in the very, say, educational corporation there is a clear criticism of the system, for example, Vyacheslav Kuzminov (HSE) at the same event spent it, it seems, in an almost exhaustive way.

Moreover, in his logic there are also judgments that could be directly turned into action. For example, an analysis of the effectiveness of spending a meager budget reveals many absurdities, for example, learning a foreign language from grade 4 - this is a managed profanation: money is spent, and schoolchildren will not learn the language. But the strongest is the fantastic excess of poor higher education: by 2010 more than half of citizens in the labor market will be with higher education and without a demanded (and often without any) qualifications.

By the way, the socio-economic part of the HSE conference was most interesting, if by and large. But here the inertia of insignificant worked. Everyone paid attention to the attacks against colleagues in the speech of Herman Gref, who, most likely, are simply a consequence of the specific manner of the minister to joke in a friendly environment. One could also notice how colleagues frankly made fun of Andrei Illarionov during his performance. But who should this be worried at all?

The real question was asked by Evgeny Yasin after a speech about the plan of healthcare reform (L.I. Jacobson): What will be realized from this by the government? The speaker answered relatively in detail.

- Has you satisfied the answer?

“I understood everything,” answered Evgeny Yasin.

You do not need to be the same big expert to understand too. The country is full of specialists who, with the correct setting of a political task, can design different pieces of different reforms. We have almost no such deficit. The main deficit is politics and political goals and objectives. There is no one who would order reforms.

There is another deficit - management. There is no one who could manage the reforms. Oleg Genisaretsky at a lecture at Polit.ru recorded “flowing” from the sphere of politics into other areas. Yes, we are observing some concentration of efforts in management: territorial reform, government reform, etc. Only what tasks is this control increase? So far, it finally solved the issue of elections.

Meanwhile, in the reform, say, health care, a significant issue is not whether there will be compulsory public insurance or simply state medicine. Actually, it’s almost the same. One of the most significant issues is who will control the reorganization of the network of clinics and hospitals. This issue is not discussed at all in the government or experts. So we know what will happen to medical reform. And not only with her.

So far, circumstances are given time to realize trouble with our political and managerial spheres and try to build something. But time is not endless. It is in the first approximation is limited by the successes and failures of the United States in the Middle East. It is very likely that in about two years we will not need anyone with our oil . And another ten years later, no one is afraid with their outdated nuclear weapons.

After all, everything is simple - if we cannot build life in our country, then other countries can do this on our territory.