From the article of 'Petrel'
No.669 / March 15, 1998
Please
send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.
If it is a deficit-covering bond, is it good?
For the financial expansion policy with the fraudulent reason.
The voice that the distinction between the deficit-covering bond and the construction national debt can be lost in the bourgeoisie becomes strong. It depends on the reason why there is no change in the national debt.
The reason for becoming of such a criticism to recent and going out is that the Liberal-Democratic Party and the bourgeois intellectual think that this distinction is one trouble when finance goes to the business measures effectively and promptly.
The issue of the construction national debt did not legally have any restriction up to now. And, the issue additional notes whenever there as a center of the business measures.
The purpose of the construction national debt(road, bridge, harbors, or basic creation of industry, etc.) is to invest public and it is expended for "expenditure" ordinary. It is "Will remain in the future" one unlike the deficit-covering bond only of consumption entirely. The load is not only left for the generation at the future life even if the fiscal deficit accumulates at that time. This was a reason that you the bourgeois had emphasized up to now. However, their these days tones of argument are different. Recent, their tones of argument are different.
The opinion such as administrative reformations and small governments can already be hardly heard by actually going out from the inside of bourgeois power on. A bourgeois speed of your change body and their opportunism are just surprised. Now, the opinion before half a year disappears and only the opposite theory spreads.
One of the reason (Nonsense!) which is on a roll and insisted to such a trend of the age is "Lose the distinction between the deficit-covering bond and the construction national debt". The reason is following.
The deficit-covering bond has been variously limited though the construction national debt can be freely issued up to now. (Not only on the system but only also on the reason.) The limitation of this deficit-covering bond will be biased and concentrate to the construction national debt as a business measures, and the bubble economy etc. be brought. Consequently, it narrows the room of the business measures and has shortened the effect. The result became the accumulation debt of a national organization of 500,000,000,000,000 yen.
It might be a dogma such as a public business (construction national debt) is not so though the tax reduction (deficit-covering bond) is efficient as the business measures which does not agree with the fact. For instance, the income tax reduction of 6,000,000,000,000 yen was held by the schedule for three years per 1994 term. You the bourgeois easily forget having been said, "This policy did not have a wonderful effect. The expansion of the consumption in 95 terms was smaller than the previous year." as the summary. Moreover, saying as the accumulation deficit of 500,000,000,000,000 yen is not necessarily responsible only for the construction national debt and the deficit-covering bond is also similar. Can you the bourgeois deny this? In short, any right grounds are not in the rejection of the construction national debt and the recommendation of the deficit-covering bond.
That is natural because the construction national debt criticism is not their real intentions to tell the truth. They are only getting indignant without worrying increasing of the issue of the national debt too much and opposing it to cannot the free issue of the deficit-covering bond to no restriction.
If their opposite to construction national debts is the opposite to national debt general, there were some meanings in their shout. However, they are actually protecting the deficit-covering bond on the other hand though he criticizes the national debt on the other hand. And, only to tell to issue more a large amounts of deficit-covering bond more freely, the snap someone's head off to the construction national debt.
The mass communication (for instance, Japan economic newspaper) which has represented such sophistry insists.
"The policy that the construction national debt is good and the deficit-covering bond is badness, was related to the politics of the profit inducement type, the economy which depended on a public business in excess was made, and the resource distribution was misinterpreted."(March 4 )
"It is likely to move backward to a financial, structural reformation only by 'Big government's in suppressing the tax reduction and expanding a public business to which non-efficiency is pointed out."(March 3)
There is not truth like the poppy seed in saying the deficit-covering bond no matter how it is true that a public business is said either.
The deficit-covering bond is also the same because the construction national debt becomes "Big government" and the crisis of national finance was brought in case of being. The deficit-covering bond does not decide in no national debt it. Oppositely, you the bourgeois entirely emphasized that the deficit-covering bond is only consumed as expense of the nation, because what is not left for the following generation, it is necessary to distinguish it from the debt for a public business. And, has not your governments devoted one's energies to the restriction of the deficit-covering bond?
Is the reason for the deficit-covering bond to have believed that there was a problem more than the construction national debt in expressing your reduction of the deficit-covering bond only a few days ago by a financial method severely to the beginning of the twentieth century and the aim of being make it to 0 before long?
Now, you the bourgeois are rapid to criticize the construction national debt in defence of the deficit-covering bond yet and are the ways whether to know other standpoints. What might you the bourgeois be people who are negligent and lack theoretical consistence and belief?
Oneself is still pretending them by criticizing the construction national debt in thought and the financial rebuilding route of "Small government" to be faithful. However, only they are roaring for actually when they should issue the deficit-covering bond more freely and aggressively and no do matter of rebuilding finance already.
They think that he does not do every income tax reduction for the business recovery. If it is former stern of the election, the tax reduction might be exactly policy of appeal full power. Because it is a policy for the worker and contributes to the business recovery, it is provoked for the policy means in which this is popular to be bound and to be limited for the politician of the Liberal-Democratic Party. Then, they ask actively to the deficit-covering bond issue for the tax reduction. They are wickedly concealing the policy it where it moves backward to a financial rebuilding just like the construction national debt.
If they recover business, the effect of a public business -- at least, superior to the tax reduction is not inferior -- is clear. After all, both a tax reduction and a public business settle down the Liberal-Democratic Party. And, I can do nothing but settle down there them.
Thus, remaining as a result is an opening of the deficit-covering bond which can be restricted not the limitation of the construction national debt of leaving loose but in some measure and leaving loose.