Therefore this dynamic is not inevitable

Ah, the debt! The Government deplores the too high level. After successive UMP Governments did explode more than 8 points of GDP since late 2001, Thierry Breton boasts reduced in 2006 strongly and suddenly. In reality, this reduction is optical (the primary balance deficit remains), and is obtained by a profitable divestments (the motorway companies) and a "groping" (dangerous dewatering of the Treasury of the State). Figures are net: between late 2001 and late 2006, the weight of the public debt has increased officially more than 8 points of GDP.

This dynamic is untenable and concern. This is however not by creating a psychosis or culpabilisant the French that found better ways to deal with the more modest. The dynamics of the debt was not linear. Economic policies could allow more control over these past 20 years, or even to reduce the share of this debt in the national wealth, as was the case from 1999 to 2001. Therefore, this dynamic is not inevitable. It is reversible, provided they adopt a rigorous approach responsible, that we call our wishes and imposes to confront simultaneously both major, but distinct.

The debt stricto sensu, rigorously at Community level by Eurostat and defined precisely encrypted: debt weighed 66.6 of GDP end of 2005. The other part of long-term financial commitments, primarily related to the ageing population (dependency and retreats, all private sector as well as the public sphere).

The current dynamics of the debt must be reversed urgently: return to the balance of the primary balance must be the priority. Unfortunately, in 2006 as in 2007, the balance will be deficit. Other measures are necessary. The assessment and possible challenge "niches", tax and social spending must extend the approach to efficiency of expenditure and modernization of public action initiated by the Socialists, with the LOLF. There is no objective link between level of expenditure, or revenue, and the debt burden. For twenty years the weight of public spending has remained stable in GDP, while the weight of the debt increased by 40 points. However, the progression of famous "niches" is very high: according to the Council of the taxes, in twenty years, the cost of the first 15 tax expenditures doubled for questionable efficiency, according to the Court of Auditors.

The change in debt is not only of the expenditure, but it is hollow when the gap between revenues and spending increases. It cannot therefore exclude a priori any action on the revenue on the pretext of a simplistic conception of tax competition. Without this comprehensive approach, speech would be limited to a suspect only questioning of public policy advocacy. Long term financial commitments, they can be evaluated but not encrypted specifically, which must not of course reduce the importance. Their future amount depends, as public debt, a set of variables (growth, unemployment, employment rate, level of benefits) on which public action can and should have an effect. To face these commitments requires, therefore, to adopt as early as today a comprehensive strategy taking into account all of these data.

The control and reduction of public debt can also, and even must surely be part of this strategy, if it decides to devote as early as today a share of GDP to the financing of these commitments. The immediate reduction of the debt to find margins of debt for the future. Necessary decisions today have shut a priori no leverage. They should not be confused, as it is currently the case, control of public expenditure and a priori reduction.

Here are a few guidelines that should be followed by a Socialist majority responsible and concerned about the future to defend our social model:

(1) Find an economic policy which, through public investment and support for research and innovation, to raise the growth potential and reduce the unemployment rate.

(2) Reduce the weight of the debt to GDP, fixing the objective the sustainable return to the primary balance.

(3) Comply with the initial staffing of the pension reserve fund program (EUR 160 billion by 2020).

(4) Reform taxation, for greater economic efficiency and social justice by providing more progressivity to our direct taxation, including merging the CSG and the IRPP and questioning the fiscal and social niches ineffective.