Will the strict Dutch budget culture, infamous throughout the EU, be overhauled? It is what the VVD wants you to believe on Wednesday. On the first day of the financial reflections, the debate about the financial and fiscal policy of the cabinet, the party stands out with an argument to pay for urgent, large investments in climate, defence, education or the construction of homes with a higher national debt. .
“We are a frugal country, but we should not become stingy,” says VVD MP Eelco Heinen. “We need to use the space we have now, especially given the challenges we face and the low interest rates we are now paying.” Thanks to the low interest rate, the Netherlands can borrow almost for free. With a government debt below the European limit of 60 percent, the Netherlands has a very creditworthy reputation. In addition to the previously established ‘Wopke-Wiebes Fund’ (20 billion), a ‘National Recovery or Transition Fund’ could very well be established, says Heinen. Incidentally, without mentioning a concrete amount, a sum of between 40 and 60 billion euros quickly circulates.
There are more big plans with the Budget Memorandum on Wednesday. The CDA is pushing for a different budget cycle: the presentation of the budget must be moved from Budget Day in September, right after the summer holidays, to the spring. That gives the House of Representatives more time to influence the cabinet plans, and thus makes the House stronger, argues MP Inge van Dijk.
Various parties, from left to right, also want more attention to be paid to a ‘broader’ budget method, in which not only GDP is considered, but also, for example, biodiversity or the effects of policy on later generations or on other countries.
But it is Heinen who steals the show with his proposal to borrow more. The idea is also in a formation piece, which is Tuesday already leaked to the NOS. It talks about the possibility of ‘incidental packages to tackle current problems related to nitrogen, climate and overdue maintenance’. No amounts in this either, but the mindset is clear: under a possible Rutte IV cabinet, the national debt could well go up.
Heinen immediately adds that this does not mean “that the money locks can just open”. There must be guarantees that the money is actually well spent. It is, he says, a one-time expense. Ordinary cover must be found for structural elevations.
Immediately there is criticism, also from the ChristenUnie, one of the three parties with which the VVD is now sitting at the formation table. “When I see the VVD take the occasional flight forward, I think: oh, then they will want to tighten the thumbscrews structurally,” says Pieter Grinwis. In other words: in this plan too, economy will definitely be the trump card. The CU Member of Parliament finds the word ‘occasional’ problematic. Solving the nitrogen problem will certainly take “ten, fifteen years.” And in the case of climate and energy, transition periods are ‘of at least 30 years’. Grinwis: “When is incidental actually still incidental and when does it become structural?”
“I am glad that the VVD has let go of the taboo on increasing the national debt,” says MP Bart Snels (GroenLinks). “In any case, that’s already a win.” According to Snels, the European budget rules (60 percent government debt and 3 percent budget deficit) “go from an old time” and it is good to be more flexible with them. But just like Grinwis, Snels is also struck by the one-off nature of the VVD plan. “We are talking about very large transitions, whether it is about climate, about nitrogen, or about the housing market. You can’t just do that with incidental money.”
Redemption fee
Henk Nijboer (PvdA) calls the proposal a “buy-off payment” in order to remove tensions in advance within a possible new coalition. In short, a solution for a political problem, and not for ‘the big problems of our time’. Shouting that you are going to spend a lot of money, when you have no other plan, only makes problems worse.
Also read: The billions from the Wopke-Wiebes Fund are not yet published
The Member of Parliament refers to the Wopke-Wiebes Fund: spending those billions is only partially successful because many investment proposals turn out to be substandard. Something similar is happening with the 8.5 billion euros that the cabinet made available – once – for education in February. The money is flying in all directions, but it is highly uncertain whether the problems in education will be solved structurally with it.
Nijboer has nothing against one-off expenses, he tells Heinen. “There are quite incidental things, like nitrogen and the like. But the quality of education is declining. You need structural money for that.”
According to Heinen, Nijboer is “anticipating an outcome that we don’t even know yet what it will look like.” According to him, the plan will be fleshed out in the formation. “I’m quite optimistic that we can get out of this.”