The decision to hold a third general election has seemingly put the entire country in a foul mood. No one wants it. We are in the "blame-game" phase and there's a general consensus that the situation is not good. I wrote as much, on these very pages, three months ago. And now a bevy of articles are popping up about budgetary and project delays, bureaucratic deadlock and more, all because we are still saddled with a transitional government with no actual political power.
But are things really so bad? Perhaps things are better than we think – and maybe, let's say it cautiously, they are even better than having a functioning government.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
In recent years, up until the political crisis created by Avigdor Lieberman a year ago, we had a functioning government. There was a finance minister, a defense minister, a social equality minister – everything was working well. And what was actually happening? Money was being wasted, lots of money. The "Kahlon net" doled out money like there was no tomorrow – to young couples, parents, students, haredim, farmers, the disabled. The government ministries were having a ball. The education budget spiked, as did the budgets of every other ministry. The "fat man" of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the public sector, grew even fatter. Government employees were given raises, making their salaries far higher than the national average. But, as Margaret Thatcher said: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
The state deficit, which has ballooned to 3.7% of the gross domestic product, is a ticking economic time bomb. The large deficit means the state took out way too much loan to fund its expenses, loans we will have to pay off with high interest over the coming years. A smart functioning government could have reduced the deficit by slashing the national budget and lowering the salaries of government workers: Putting the "fat man" on a diet, so to speak, so that the "skinny guy," the private sector, can prosper more. Judging from the history of recent governments, and from the rhetoric in the populistic media, it's highly doubtful austere measures of this sort would have been implemented.
Anyone who is supported by the state struggles to envision success without it. Whether they are architects or artists, teachers or entrepreneurs seeking subsidies, all are used to receiving money through the secure government pipeline. The more the government siphons off taxes and passes out money, the more it increases the public's dependency and atrophies civilian entrepreneurship. And thus, any type of proactive move to cut the budget would likely have been met with broad opposition, and we can safely assume would never have been executed. Instead, they would have probably just raised taxes or redefined the deficit target, at the expense of future generations.
Therefore, it appears there's a silver lining to the government's present paralysis. The deficit isn't decreasing sharply but isn't growing. To be sure, some positive measures are frozen, but so are negative ones. Budgetary increases at the expense of the public are currently docked. There's no denying the anguish of those who have signed government contracts, but budget cuts would have resulted in similar anguish anyway. There's no getting around it: Ultimately, these same people will take their talents to the private and civilian sector, to the benefit of us all. This political paralysis is putting the government on a forced diet, without anyone to blame or to pressure, and the result could eventually be a blessing: a shift from relying on the government to relying on civil society and the free market which – unlike government mechanisms – form the basis for a healthy, vigorous society.
