How to state budget

The state budget deficit for this year will exceed 5,5% of GDP, ie in numbers it will be over 160 billion crowns. How high must the deficits be in order for us to realize that the way the state budget has been managed so far will no longer work? When, in the end, will it be responsible for the mere parametric adjustment of the type of tax increase / reduction or quasi-reform to not repair the state finances in any way?

The crisis of public (and state) finances that is pouring in on us around the world is opportunities for change. It is an example of the fact that the current scattering system, where the state guaranteed-protected-served, is unsustainable. What with this?


Corruption is a relatively big problem in our system. Almost all parties running in this year's elections generally focus heavily on this issue. All those parties have their more or less original recipes, but most of the time they are usually recipes that combine two words: restrictions and transparency.

I have de facto nothing against transparency, but what bothers me is the word restriction. Instead, I would much rather see the word simplification. This can not only solve the problem of corruption, but also reduce the inefficiency that money is treated in sectors that live off the state budget.

How do I envision such a simplification?

I would like to know how much it is necessary for the government of the Czech Republic to own CSA. If even New Zealand, where I would understand the state airline as an island state, was able to get rid of the state New Zealand airlines in the 80s, I see no reason why the Czech Republic, whose government has a government squadron and an army of some kind of army air force, should own CSA. Despite the fact that CSA is often in the hands of the state just another newsagent for extinct politicians. But that's what it looks like there too: stocks are de facto unsaleable today. At least Bratislava has been trying to get rid of its share (about 1%, but I'm not sure) for many years. And still not and do not find buyers.

I would like to know how much it is necessary for the Czech Republic to own hotel Thermal in Karlovy Vary. Let us now abandon that the hotel functions as a "classic state hotel". It seems completely useless to me to own a hotel, despite the fact that if the Czech Republic wants to use the services of a hotel, it still has to pay for them. This is a completely useless asset. Why not sell it?

I wonder who gave the state the right to be dominant founder of education. Here I will borrow an analogy from the USA, where until about 50/60. For years, there was no "Ministry of Education" or public education as such. Nevertheless, everyone had an education, everyone could achieve it. Despite the fact that since the state began to mount itself in education, the level of education in the USA - especially in "problematic neighborhoods" - has been falling sharply.

In the XNUMXs, Harlem, a neighborhood in New York City, was devastated by unrest. Many young people, students and pupils, were expelled from schools. Groups of troubled parents and teachers decided to do something - use private funds and buy empty shops. founded schools known as "schools in shop windows". One of the first and most successful was the school Harlem Prep aimed at young people for whom normal education was ineffective.

This school was poorly technically equipped, and many of the teachers who did not have the "right piece of paper" to say that "they are qualified to teach in public schools." Despite this "disadvantage", however, this did not prevent those teachers from doing a good job. Many of the students at the school were losers and expelled, but they found the education at Harlem Prep, what they wanted.

Harlem Prep was very (phenomenally, as M. Friedman writes in Freedom of Choice, on pages 159 and 160) successful. Many of their students went to "college" (similar to high schools), including some "better", more lucrative.

Everything looks good so far, doesn't it? However, this would not be the right story from education if it turned out well - after the crisis ended, the school got into financial difficulties. The school board offered Ed Carpenter (the school principal and one of the founders) money, provided he submitted to it. After a long struggle for independence, he gave up. The school was taken over by bureaucrats.

"I suspected that a school like Harlem Prep would certainly perish and not prosper in the hands of the rigid bureaucracy that came from the school board. 'We had to watch it happen. I didn't believe it would turn out well and I was right. Not everything was good before we came under the control of the school board. It's not completely bad now, but it's worse than good. "

I wonder why the state establishes and finances the Wine Fundwho does market research for winemakers, marketing events and more. If winemakers want something similar, let them set it up, let them finance it. No one is stopping them - why should the state do it?

I wonder why the state establishes and finances Integram, who represents the authors of audiovisual works, collects royalties and assists them in various legal matters. The same is true as with the Wine Fund - if artists want an organization like this, let them start it, let them finance it, let them negotiate royalties. Why should we all pay it? What is the state in audiovisual works?

I wonder why the state is established and financed by the Energy and Regulatory Office, without which we did quite a long time. What the ERO is doing today, the market would be able to handle quite playfully. There is no reason for the continued existence of this additional repository of bureaucrats.

I wonder why the state establishes and finances the Theater Institute, without which both theaters and taxpayers can do without. Theatrical publications can be published by any private publisher if they are interested. If there is no interest in them, why publish them?

Many and many other unnecessary institutions that the Czech state is setting up and financing could be abolished. Not only that saved a lot of money, it would reduce bureaucracy, but it would also open up an environment for more private actors, which is always to the benefit.