Address on the Stabilization of Public Budgets Delivered by Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek in the Chamber of Deputies on 7 June 2007

Dear Ms. Speaker and Dear Colleagues,

I am delivering this address as the introducing member of the bill who has the last word, and to begin, I will, as I usually do, say a few words that have been conceived and said by others.

I have a very high esteem for two European politicians who have either ended or are about to end their domestic political career. One of them is Tony Blair and the other is José Maria Aznar. I know Aznar better than Blair, even though I have met Blair on numerous occasions, and we will see each other again next Wednesday. Aznar and I met yesterday. I respect both of them, despite the fact that each comes from a different side of the political spectrum.

In 1996, Tony Blair wrote in the Sunday Telegraph: "Politics are not an exact science, as the Marxists believed. Politics are as complicated as human nature, and they must leave open the possibility to make decisions and to take responsibility." And today, I want to ask you to leave open the possibility to make decisions, so that you will be able to take responsibility.

José Maria Aznar has said something that right wing politicians find very pleasing, but it applies to left-wing politicians as well: "The danger faced by Europe is so-called light politics, that is politics that rely on public opinion surveys without the willingness to enforce unpopular reform projects."

I ask you to try to act in way allowing you to implement necessary unpopular projects as opposed to focusing only on projects formulated based on public opinion surveys.

I will add a quote from my favorite book, "Politics for Everybody", which was written by Prague Spring proponent Procházka, a former member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. He says: "It is useless to ask firefighters to take off their boots at the door when the whole house is on fire." By saying this, I do not want to scare anyone in any way. What I have always had in mind is that we should be able to explain properly what is the state of public finances and what dangers we face. My "scary" words are in fact nothing more than telling the truth. It might be unpopular, but it is necessary. Let us not be afraid to tell people the truth.

As Petr Nečas has already said, the fact that some people who are partly responsible for setting the fire and are now asking the firefighters to take off their boots is just another aspect of what Jiří Paroubek calls "the interesting and escalated political situation of the present time."

So, what are really the objectives of the reform of public finances whose first phase – the stabilization stage – we are discussing today with regard to Bill 222? The primary goal is to reduce the government deficit and to stop the government debt from growing. Our ambitious goal is to achieve a reduction to 3% of the gross domestic product next year and to 2.3% in the year 2010. We want to turn around the unsustainable trends of government spending and mandatory expenditures and to improve their effectiveness. We want to reduce the tax burden. We also want to reduce the administrative load and tax distortions by simplifying the taxation system. We plan to reform the old pension system and the healthcare system. By improving public finances, we want to achieve a situation, where the state budget encourages successful economic development as opposed to hindering it. By setting tax rates in a suitable manner, we want to support families with children. We want to use a sensitive approach to the economically inactive part of the population – retired people, students, and disabled persons. We want to fulfill our obligations to the European Union and to take maximum advantage of the European Union's funds. That is our policy statement. The vast majority of you would endorse such a policy.

I want to say that the discussion we have had here was not populist. I listened carefully and learned many things from it. One of them is that as part of this first reform package, we can much more effectively confront the stowaways who abuse the social system. As I have understood from the discussion, it is possible to instate stricter conditions for the disbursement of welfare benefits in cases where an unemployed person is inactive, does not want to under requalification training, does not want to participate in a training program, or does not want to perform community work. This is what I have understood from the discussion.

I have decided to stop using a confrontational approach because there is no time for that right now. I will only say this. Ferenc Gyurcsány and his well-known statement that "we lied in the morning, we lied at noon, and we lied in the evening" has his followers in the Czech Republic who essentially say what could be rephrased as "we lied yesterday, we lie today, and we will lie tomorrow."

This is only the first step that we are making to recover public finances. Every government would make such a step. Paroubek's government would do the same, even though they might choose slightly different instruments; however, the objectives would be identical. Without taking this step, no further action will be possible. We will simply not have enough money. That is the hard truth that cannot be changed by any ideology, any excited speeches, or any promises. This step deals with problems that have originated in the past and ensures the stability of the present. However, we must mainly concentrate on the future. That is why we are here, why we vote, why we have a government, and why we have a Parliament. The steps that will follow are described in detail in the government's policy statement as well as in the document that you have received today. These are the objectives of the government's policy.

I have no intention to comment on some of the amusing words that have been said by my colleagues during the last two weeks. Each of the two hundred deputies has some objections, including me. Nonetheless, what I offer is exactly what Jiří Paroubek wants. It is a compromise that stems from the outcome of the elections held last year in June. If you take off your ideological glasses, you will have to agree.

All of you know what will happen if this package is rejected. I am not talking about political consequences, but about the economic costs. Basically, the system of public finances will gradually disintegrate. The social system will follow. After that, the healthcare system will collapse. There will be no money for investments. Then, we will have no funds for social benefits, healthcare, and old age pension. None of us wants this to happen, including the Social Democratic Party that aspires to take power sometime in the future.

In my first presentation, I deliberately avoided criticizing all the things that have been done by the past governments during the last eight years, even though I think that they were wrong. I wanted to stay away from unproductive disagreements – I did not succeed. Nevertheless, I want to argue about the future. I am concerned about what we will do for our people in the future. I believe that the future is the only thing that people are concerned about as far as the present discussion is concerned.

Our efforts are not motivated by a desire to be remembered as reformers. What we do is motivated by a desire to give people assurance that the state will have enough money for healthcare, education, old age pension, security, and transportation.

At this point, I only want to ask you to put aside your party prejudice and to allow this government to go ahead with this compromise, this non-ideological measure, this step that is necessary for recuperating public finances.

Try not to close your eyes to reality. I say to my right-wing colleagues that if you have read the government's policy objectives carefully, you know that this is the first step that will be followed by other measures. To my left-wing colleagues, I say that you will have enough time and space to vigorously confront the government's proposals and to propose better instruments for achieving this objective. Nonetheless, I believe that this is not a good time for political quarrels. If you do not let this document pass to the second reading, you will essentially say to the public that we do not care about the future. That we only care about the present, our political fights, and taking advantage of the present deadlock situation. You will be telling people that you do not care about them, and you will be saying to municipalities that there will be less money for their financing and executing their projects. You will be saying to our European partners that we disregard all the agreements we have made and the promises we have given. I urge you to be responsible and let Bill 222 pass to the second reading.

Thank you for your attention.