“There are still problematic measures”, believes Jérôme Guedj, Socialist Party deputy for Essonne

This text corresponds to the transcription of part of the interview above. Click on the video to watch the interview in full.

Alix Bouilhaguet: Today, Tuesday November 4, the National Assembly should have voted on the revenue side of the budget, but this was postponed because there were too many amendments. However, this already seems to be a very bad start for the deputies to be able to vote on the EC budget ?

Jérôme Guedj: Indeed, there have been long discussions on this important aspect which is that of state budget revenues. The discussion will resume afterwards. What is starting just now in the National Assembly is the examination of another budget, just as important, perhaps even more important, which is the Social Security budget. Why is it more important? Because in volume, it is more important, the Social Security budget. This is almost 665 billion euros more than the state budget. Above all, it is in this budget that the measures that concern the daily lives of our fellow citizens are crystallized. Will my pensions be frozen next year? Will there be a doubling of deductibles? Will the pension reform be suspended? So many things which, positively for the suspension or negatively for the freezing of benefits, appear in the initial version. So, the debate on the Social Security budget is crucial for the French and also for this government.

Many are already saying that all this will end with orders issued by the government, which would be a first. Would this really be a tragedy for the socialists, when we know that the government must take back the initial copy for these ordinances and that in this initial copy, there is the suspension of the pension reform?

Prescriptions are unthinkable. I’ll explain why. From the moment the government of Sébastien Lecornu indicated that it would not be there to impose a budget since it does not have a majority, and therefore that it was renouncing 49.3, we adhered to this proposal which was also ours. I really like that parliamentarians are being allowed, for the first time in a certain way under the Fifth Republic, to be able to draw up the budget.

But do you think the French understand what is happening at the moment? We have the impression that taxes are being rained down, that what is done in committee is then undone in debate?

I’ll give you a comparison that’s worth what it’s worth. If you enter the kitchen of a great chef or your grandmother, when she is preparing the meal, you do not necessarily understand what is being prepared, because it is work in progress. The budget vote is the same thing. We debate revenues, then we debate expenses. There are amendments which are retained, others which are not. In short, it’s a collective effort whose final result we understand at the end. I want us to be able to get to the end of the discussion, because our desire is to protect the French from the bad blows that are envisaged in the initial text. Being able to debate it in a calm manner, without the threat of 49.3, should allow us to protect the middle and working classes. I was talking earlier about social benefits which could be frozen. I heard the Prime Minister last Friday say “I am renouncing this freeze”. For what ? Because we put pressure on this subject.

You still obtained a lot of concessions from Sébastien Lecornu. You were talking about the abandonment of 49.3, the suspension of the pension reform, the renunciation of the freezing of retirement pensions, as well as that of social minimums. So we’re getting to the heart of the matter today with the Social Security finance bill. Have you obtained everything you want and so you say to Sébastien Lecornu this morning: “it’s good, no censorship, the account is good” or “the account is not yet good”?

So, thank you for recognizing that the method, which we have adopted from the beginning, allows us to make progress. Sometimes we are criticized for negotiating and compromising. I accept that. Realize, three months ago, we were talking about two public holidays which would be eliminated, about a reform of unemployment insurance… This was abandoned when Sébastien Lecornu arrived. Then he put this freeze on social benefits and retirement pensions on the table. He gave up last Friday.

So you say: “it’s good now”?

He accepted the suspension of the pension reform. This is proof that entering into negotiations, creating a balance of power, as we socialists have done, bears fruit. But for all that, the text is not complete. There are still problematic measures. I’m thinking of medical deductibles, for example.

Doubling medical deductibles for medications and consultations.

It is a kind of tax on illness, fundamentally unfair and above all, which calls into question a beautiful principle which is at the heart of Social Security, the 80th anniversary of which we are celebrating at the moment, it is the principle of universality of Social Security. You are not reimbursed based on your income level.

So, you want to exclude these measures?

You know that there are several parliamentarians from all sides who are opposed to this measure. So, I hope we have this debate sincerely. For this, to be able to spare the French from these unfair measures, we must, to ensure the future of Social Security, generate revenues that are fair.

Where?

The Court of Auditors itself, yesterday, in an opinion, said that the level of revenue proposed was too moderate with regard to Social Security. We have put several avenues on the table. There is a level of exemption from social security contributions for companies. I want to preserve SMEs, artisans, traders. But there are large companies which benefit from exemption from social security contributions whose effectiveness on employment is no longer justified. There are salary supplements which are not subject to social security contributions, we call them social niches. There is also the proposal that the socialists have put on the table for greater justice, to increase the CSG rate on property income and investment income.

Click on the video to watch the interview in full.