Translated material
Budget with a development deficit
The resulting budget deficit is almost 3 trillion rubles. (this is slightly less than this year - 3.13 trillion rubles) the government intends to increase 1.86 trillion rubles. cover from the Reserve Fund. Thus, expenses from this source will be almost 1 trillion rubles. less than this year. But there is nothing more to take from the Reserve Fund - it will be devastated. For the first time, it is planned to take money from the National Welfare Fund - 0.39 trillion rubles. Another 0.69 trillion rubles. it is expected to attract through the issue of government securities, including 0.43 trillion rubles. by placing them on foreign markets. The deficit will continue in the 2011 and 2012 budgets. True, it is assumed that it will gradually decline and will be halved in three years.
The scientific director of the Economic Expert Group, Evsey Gurvich, considers the deficit to be the main danger for the federal budget. “It will not be easy for us to reduce the budget deficit, and there is a danger that it will take chronic forms,” the economist believes. But he hopes that it is likely that budget revenues next year will be more than planned and these funds will be used not to increase spending, but to reduce the deficit.
Considering the budget “a crisis, rescue budget, a budget for patching up holes,” senior economist at Troika Dialog Group Anton Struchenevsky draws attention to its main distinguishing feature from this year’s budget. “It is correct that the government has frozen the level of spending in nominal terms, which allows us to somewhat reduce the deficit and, consequently, macroeconomic risks next year,” the economist is confident. At the same time, he also hopes that “the government is calculating the budget using the most conservative option” and that next year’s revenues will be overfulfilled. “I hope that with income growth, the expenditure side of the budget will remain at the planned level. The deficit will be smaller. This would be a big plus for the economy to believe in the stability of the state financial system, and a plus for the development of the country as a whole,” says Mr. Struchenevsky.
The annual inflation rate should not exceed 8%. This is more than the 5-7% that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin demanded to ensure to create normal conditions in the field of lending to the economy and population. But still less than this year - according to the latest forecasts of the Ministry of Economic Development, prices will increase by 10.5-11% by the end of the year. It is clear that the implementation of plans to reduce inflation will largely depend on whether the government's forecasts for oil prices come true or not. The budget includes $58 per barrel of Urals oil. At this cost, the average annual exchange rate of the US dollar is expected to be 33.9 rubles. for a dollar. But yesterday, Deputy Head of the Ministry of Economic Development Andrei Klepach suggested that “if oil prices are above $80 and there is a high influx of capital into the country,” then a dollar in 2010 could cost 26 rubles, “and even 23 or 24 rubles.” " He hopes that such a strengthening will not happen, since even strengthening to 26 rubles. per dollar “could be quite dangerous in terms of economic recovery.”
The federal budget for 2010 was declared “socially oriented.” Indeed, social spending will account for 73% of the budget. It is planned to allocate 4.4 trillion rubles for pensions alone. (this takes into account the Pension Fund’s own funds, which from next year, when the unified social tax will be replaced by insurance contributions, will be collected directly into the Pension Fund, bypassing the budget).
Director of the strategic analysis department at FBK, Igor Nikolaev, admits that the budget is social, but considers this its main drawback. “Measures to increase social security and social spending, especially increasing pensions, cannot be anti-crisis. Especially now in our economy,” the expert is sure. -- 2.6 billion rubles. direct transfers to the budgets of social funds, mainly to the Pension Fund, are money to eat.” In his opinion, “the budget turned out to be samoyed and is clearly populist in nature.” “Naturally, people will like it. And I like it as a person, and I will be happy for my mother, how steeply her pension will grow,” says Mr. Nikolaev. - But if you approach this as an economist, then I categorically refuse to rejoice. The budget turned out to be pro-crisis. In our country, social spending has not yet stimulated consumer demand. Since the spring, pensions have already been increased and social spending has grown as a feature of our anti-crisis activities. At the same time, statistics from recent months show that our retail trade turnover in August had a record low level - 9.8% compared to the corresponding month of last year. At the same time, a record influx of deposits was observed in the summer month. Conclusion: people have no incentive to spend. They prefer to exchange rubles for foreign currency or take them back to banks. There is no anti-crisis effect from increasing social spending.”
Chairman of the ruling United Russia party and State Duma speaker Boris Gryzlov does not consider the federal budget to be overloaded with social obligations. “Our people must understand that the state will do everything necessary to maintain life at the proper level,” the speaker said, not too ambitiously, at a meeting with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on the eve of a discussion of the 2010 budget in the Duma. Therefore, he proposed to provide in the country's main financial document for additional expenses for the indexation of student scholarships and military allowances from September 1, 2010, and from November-December for increasing the salaries of public sector employees. In addition, he proposed to provide housing for all veterans, and not just those who managed to get on the waiting list before March 1, 2005.
“Our budget is quite obviously socially oriented. But the budget remains a development budget,” Vladimir Putin is confident. But not everyone agrees with this. “This budget, of course, is not a development budget,” believes Nikita Maslennikov, adviser to the Institute of Contemporary Development. “His main task is to maintain the situation and create minimally sufficient prerequisites for maintaining macroeconomic stability.” In his opinion, the main advantage of the current budget is that government spending is decreasing at a faster pace than income: by 10% over three years. “The design of the budget includes a strategic orientation towards reducing government spending and increasing their efficiency. This is the last budget, during the implementation of which we will come across a large number of problems that will force us to change a lot, including in budget policy. And they will force us, not in words, but in deeds, to move to structural reforms,” Mr. Maslennikov hopes. For example, he draws attention to the fact that today, in fact, the main item of expenditure (approximately 8.6% of GDP) is interbudgetary transfers. Of these, 6% are transfers to off-budget funds of a social nature (Pension Fund, etc.), which are comparable to the budget deficit. “Until we start restructuring the social services sector, everything will remain the same,” the economist warns, but expresses the hope that “the budget is pushing to carry out these structural reforms, which, unfortunately, were postponed during the lean years.”