The main opposition Democratic United Party drew ardent support from young voters several months ago when it made an election promise to cut university tuition fees by half. Now it has taken one step further by promising to pay 12 million won in subsidy to students fresh out of high school if they forfeit the tuition benefit by not being admitted to university.
The 12 million won subsidy is just one of a wide array of generous welfare projects to which the opposition party commits itself ahead of the upcoming parliamentary elections. They range from the expansion of free education to the provision of subsidies for young people looking for jobs upon completing active duty.
Election promises by the ruling Saenuri Party are more moderate than those by the opposition party. Still, some of them are little different from those which the opposition party has made. Among them is free education. The ruling party promises a phased implementation in high school while the opposition party commits itself to starting free education in one fell sweep.
The ruling party matches the opposition party’s tuition-cut proposal with a promise to provide students committing themselves to seeking jobs at small- and medium-sized business enterprises with scholarships equivalent to tuition fees. It also promises to provide subsidies for the employment of those aged 60 or older and pledges greater financial support for households in low-income brackets and handicapped people.
These and other welfare promises should be pleasing to the electorate. What should be no less gratifying is that the parties promise that few additional taxes or more borrowing will be needed. They say that they can make good on their election pledges mostly by readjusting spending plans.
But the problem is that these promises are too good to believe. Indeed, budget officers of the administration say the parties are deluding the electorate with dubious revenue and spending projections.
The ruling party has recently committed itself to spending an additional 89 trillion won during the five years from 2013. The opposition party promises to spend almost twice as much, or 165 trillion won, during the same period.
By doing so, the parties are playing with fire. A whopping increase in welfare spending will prove to be an unbearable burden if the economy tanks. A welfare commitment, once made, is hardly reversible no matter what economic condition the nation is placed in.
In addition, it is unrealistic for the ruling party, not to mention the opposition party, to spend as much as it wishes on welfare without issuing treasury bonds and creating new taxes, raising the rates of the existing taxes, or both. A cursory look into the nation’s budget structure shows why.
The 2012 budgetary spending is set at 325 trillion won, up 16 trillion won from last year. The increase is smaller than 18 trillion won ― the average amount of money the ruling party wishes to spend on welfare alone. In other words, the ruling party may not fulfill its election promises even if it earmarks the entire spending increase for welfare alone.
The ruling party says it will finance any shortfall with savings from non-welfare projects. But that is easier said than done, with 60 percent of the entire spending impervious to downward readjustments. They include subsidies to provincial governments, payrolls and defense spending. Moreover, special interests will howl against any proposal to cut spending on education, research and development, infrastructure or support for small- and medium-sized business enterprises.
Simply put, increases in welfare spending, as proposed by the ruling and opposition parties, are a hoax unless they are backed by borrowings and tax hikes. The electorate must not allow itself to be fooled. There is no magic wand.
It is an anathema for a political party to propose to take on additional debt and raise tax rates in election year. No wonder, the ruling and opposition parties are now denying they are considering incurring more debt and increasing tax revenues.
The only alternative to the party having won the April general elections would be to abandon many of the welfare promises. In such case, the party would have to be held accountable for deceiving the electorate.
