In recent months, he has become one of Bercy’s most feared adversaries, as deficit forecasts have been revised upwards. Descent to the Ministry of the Economy to obtain documents, information report on public finances… The general rapporteur of the Senate budget, Jean-François Husson (LR), used all means to obtain answers to his questions .
Today, he does not budge: Emmanuel Macron and Bruno Le Maire have not been honest with the French, who deserve to be told “the truth”. Speaking to L’Express, he said he expects from the new government and the Prime Minister, Michel Barnier, a real exercise in transparency where the reduction of public spending must become a priority, at the risk of seeing France sink and permanently losing the confidence of our fellow citizens. After the general policy speech delivered on Tuesday October 1, where the tenant of Matignon focused on the restoration of the State’s accounts, he now hopes that the next budget will be ambitious and up to the challenges.
L’Express: Michel Barnier began his speech by emphasizing the urgency of restoring our public finances. Is this a good signal?
Jean-François Husson: Yes because it is in line with what Michel Barnier declared: we owe the truth to the French. And the least we can say is that not everything has been said regarding the situation of France’s public accounts. The great and continuous deterioration of the financial data in our accounts in recent months demonstrates that once there is a new government, we must not procrastinate. We have experienced a kind of crazy frenzy in public spending which has never stopped and which, from my point of view, is unreasonable. We must ensure that the French understand the reality of the difficult situation in which we find ourselves.
Does reducing the deficit to 5% in 2025 and 3% in 2029, as Michel Barnier aims for, seem realistic to you?
This is an important effort, but we cannot continue to let our public accounts drift. It is not the government’s money but that of the French. We owe them the truth and better management. We are paying today for having put in place whatever it cost at the start of the health crisis, without ever having turned off the tap. We are losing out since we have the highest level of public spending and taxation in Europe. This should have allowed us to be the country of absolute happiness, which is not the case.
Has trust with the French been broken?
The economy is always about trust. We can clearly see today that it has begun. We have less revenue, because the French have doubts and the economy is slowing down. Taking three months to appoint a government, which was never seen under the Fifth Republic, does not inspire confidence. Seeing deficits worsening, financial ratings deteriorating, interest rates increasing, there is cause for concern. We will have to reverse the trend. To do this, it would be necessary to create a shock of confidence. We must ask the French for efforts, but also provide prospects for recovery in the short and medium term.
How to create this shock of confidence?
The government’s attitude and the messages it sends will be essential. We must stop looking down on the French, being full of certainties and explaining that the results are good, when they are bad. Or that we are at the top of the class, even though we have the dunce cap. The French need to have women and men who embody this strategy of recovery and shared effort. The government must find levers to avoid damaging growth. For example, housing is in a catastrophic situation, but we can clearly see that before taking measures that produce effects, it will perhaps be two years.
We must imagine a major ten-year plan for the rehabilitation or creation of new infrastructure and public facilities. I am thinking in particular of the road network, as well as the railway and river routes, this also fuels the economic activity of building and public works. Visible elements must be provided. Otherwise, the feeling of being downgraded gains public opinion and creates discontent.
Are these investments compatible with the desire to reduce public spending?
We will have to define the priorities that produce an effect immediately and those that require a little more time. All expenses must be capable of being evaluated. Last year, during the finance bill for 2024, the senatorial majority voted for 7 billion in savings, of which the government retained nothing. He locked himself into a kind of solitude of power, certain of having the truth or refusing to take into account what the oppositions might propose.
What types of spending cuts do you have in mind today?
Given the dispersion of political forces, we must act collectively, share the issues and distribute the tasks. Last year, we proposed savings on state operators, on public development aid and even apprenticeships. On this last point, we would like to eliminate the aid of 6,000 euros for the most qualified apprentices in companies with more than 250 employees, which would save 700 million euros.
Regarding state operators, is a major review of their spending necessary?
Initially, these operators were a good idea. But the State must be able to regain its place by having more influence on decisions.
You are talking about this Assembly which is politically fragmented, is this not going to be a problem for voting on a slightly ambitious budget?
That’s for sure. But at some point you will have to choose. Do we want France to drop out for good? If we are attached to the success of our country, we have a duty and a moral and political requirement. Do we enter politics solely to be well seen by voters or do we, when the situation requires it, in times of war or crisis, have to meet the best interests of the country? It is our duty. Let us have the courage to make decisions, sometimes difficult ones, to improve the fate of our fellow citizens.
Michel Barnier spoke of temporary tax increases targeting large businesses and the wealthiest French people. Does this track seem right to you?
We must give pledges of goodwill, we cannot only be in a balance of power. I don’t set a red line. We must prioritize reducing public spending. We have identified 133 possible actions. We will look at what seems achievable to us. If there is not enough – and this is not my first choice – I cannot rule out tax increases altogether.
.