The most expensive item in the state budget: public trust

The situation surrounding next year's draft state budget remains unclear. There is no point in getting involved in the tug-of-war over the missing billions on the revenue side or the surplus on the expenditure side. Perhaps more important is the impact on confidence in the institutions on which our society is built.

The saddest thing is that the general public does not know whether to believe one side or the other. Or neither. The government (in the broader sense) is losing the trust of society, and in such a case, more repressive measures must be used for the functioning of basic things, such as tax collection, etc., than when society functions on the basis of consensus and trust in the government.

People fail. Sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes intentionally. That is why there are rules with a system of checks and balances. In the case of public finances, this system includes the Budget Responsibility Act, the National Budget Council, and the president.

Unfortunately, the Budget Responsibility Act is not a constitutional law and has already been taken out of play once. Why couldn't it happen again? The National Budget Council does not have a suitable method for appointing its members. Under certain circumstances, the council can easily become too dependent on the government. The president has never vetoed a draft state budget (in 2022, it was a veto of an amendment to the state budget law).

The problem arises when both people and rules fail as safeguards. Add to this chaotic communication, mutual recriminations, and an unwillingness to admit mistakes, and you have an environment that contributes to public fatigue and resignation to the possibility that public finances can be managed responsibly and predictably. If trust is lost, it is not just the state's balance sheet for next year that is at stake, but the long-term ability to push through necessary reforms.