As President I resorted to my constitutional powers to impose veto on the revision of the budget. I clearly formulated my motives, which, I believe, serve the national interests. I am also convinced that this is how the rule-of-law state works – each authority should stick to their constitutional powers.
Neither imposing a veto, nor overriding it are actions that can harm democracy. The apocalyptic scenarios that have been constructed in the public space in the past weeks did not materialize. Yes, the majority may decide not to take into account the President’s veto. Such an option is envisaged in the Constitution and this is the correct approach because those who support the government should assume the responsibility.
The arguments I put forward were very concrete and not a single one is political. I called for more transparency of expenditures and for conducting reforms instead of “allocating extra funds”; for more ambition instead of a standstill in the efforts to secure a more efficient collection rate of revenues; for covering the current expenditures with the revenues, for ensuring that running up a new debt should be related to taking measures that promote growth and competition. Are my motives for transparency of the expenditures, for conducting reforms and making investments to promote growth political?!
I called for more transparency and debate on the budget. I believe that the citizens expect the same things from politicians. The government and the parliamentary parties that support it had the excellent chance to display in effect their sincerity and their specific intentions and thus dispel any doubts that part of the public harbor about the motives for revising the budget.
I support the extra funds allocated to meeting social needs and therefore I insisted that these funds should be set as targets in the budget of the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy. My arguments regarding the intention declared by the state to settle its debts with the business were clear. To dispel doubts, the specific numbers should have been indicated in the budget of the ministries. Apparently the voting majority did not adhere to these principles.
I would like to draw attention to another trend that was observed at the debates held today. The veto on the budget was overridden by the Assembly deputies by putting forward arguments that this was the way things used to be done in the past. If in 2010 the current power holders criticized an approach whereby the funds allocated to the items under the contingent and urgent expenditures heading were increased, I cannot see why they are doing the same thing in 2013!
Each Bulgarian citizen will decide whether the debate held today increased transparency and the clarity regarding the reasons for the revision of the budget. However, for sure democracy suffered from the disgraceful statements and offensive remarks some Assembly deputies made against the Head of State from the highest rostrum.