What does the budget deficit indicate?

In most of my articles, I do not dwell too much on figures. The reason for this is not an inability to access the data, but rather my belief that it is much more meaningful to move beyond short-term abstract images and discuss long-term concrete structures in my conversations with valued readers.

Setting aside the 2000 crisis year, the 2023 budget deficit has reached the highest level of the last twenty years—that is, the AKP era—at a high rate of 6% of the national income. Naturally, the earthquake that occurred has a very large share in such a massive deficit. However, the government, which does not hesitate to throw its weight behind capital and the wealthy, cannot brush off this large deficit by hiding behind the earthquake. This is the issue that our people must also consciously focus on. 

It is very clear that government officials, who constantly shout on TV screens that 'not a single penny is coming out of the budget' while promoting the build-operate-transfer model, were not thinking about today, or perhaps were unable to. And so we have arrived at this point, where billions of liras are flowing from the budget as resources to the owners of capital through build-operate-transfer or public-private partnership projects. We must perceive this process very clearly. Because there are two important points we need to pay attention to in this process.

One of these is that while the payments made to the capital owners undertaking these infrastructure investments are dollar-based and unaffected by price increases, these payments unfortunately accelerate price increases in the economy. This means that, our state protects and consistently supports capital at the expense of its people. The second point to consider in this regard is that under today's globalization conditions, our national governments no longer serve national interests, but rather the interests of international capital. A clearer explanation of this process is as follows, our national government is now at the command of imperialism and has turned its back on its people. 

Another source of the budget deficit, regardless of its amount, is the contributions made to the foreign exchange-protected deposit scheme, which was implemented as a great injustice. Foreign exchange-protected deposit It means that the purchasing power of the wealth of affluent individuals who hold large amounts of foreign currency is being guaranteed and protected by the state. Some of these guarantees are paid by the Central Bank and others by the Treasury; while both protect the wealth of the affluent, they are draining the lifeblood of the public. The lesson we should learn from this is that the government we brought to power with our votes stands on the side of the wealthy. Meanwhile, the money of laborers, retirees, and the general public is constantly melting away due to inflation. In short, the public's money must melt so that the wealth of the affluent remains unharmed. This picture is both strange and deeply disheartening. 

Another similar issue is that the government, which tries to manage affairs solely indexed to elections through constant misguided policies, can temporarily finance the current account deficit with cash resources obtained from foreign countries in exchange for debt. This situation not only places an unfair burden on our people but also offends our national pride. Another aspect of this matter is that the funds to be borrowed as a result of the increasing debt stock are being obtained at much higher interest rates, which will again come out of the public's pocket. In short, as the government, which is trying to conduct domestic policy, insists on wrong policies, the burden on the public increases. The contradiction lies in the fact that the government, which receives votes while making election investments, shifts the cost of this to the public through taxes and other obligations after the election, by which time the horse has already bolted. Such time gaps push voters toward wrong decisions, and in this process of wrong decision-making, members of the government benefit by keeping their seats. 

Another issue that constantly comes up when discussing budget deficits is the valuable resources spent in the fight against terrorism. For over 40 years, Turkey has tried to solve the issue of terrorism through police and military means. It has now become clear that the outcome of this process has been extremely heartbreaking for both sides. Therefore, it is evident that if the government attempts to resolve the process through political relations and dialogue, in line with national interests, the result would be in favor of both sides. Furthermore, resolving the terror problem would eliminate a leverage point that imperialist countries could use against our country. With the funds that would be freed up by ending the conflict, children in the field of education, especially in the Southeast Region, could be spared from traveling long distances in snow and winter for education, and more abundant healthcare services could be provided to our people. In short, it is clear that one way to rationally use national resources is through the rational resolution of certain problems.

The budget deficit in question merely reveals how political preferences in spending are biased in favor of the wealthy. The revenue system implemented to close this deficit is a second trauma. The consumption taxes showcased on TV channels every day impose heavy and unfair burdens on our people, especially on low- and middle-income citizens. This means that, the political cadre we brought to power with our votes has very decisively made its choice in favor of capital, and even international capital, and has taken on the role of an intermediary in shifting the cost onto the public. 

When we look at the issue in terms of both public expenditures and public revenues, a picture becomes clear. It is that the government is very clearly on the side of capital and the wealthy, and has turned its back on the vast segments of the population from whom it received votes. Today, this situation is further compounded by the practice of maintaining public services using international currency, to the detriment of the public and in favor of international capital.