| A handful of young Yabloko supporters, wearing
red wigs in a nod to Chubais and carrying The city budget for
2003, although it was passed in first reading by the
Legislative Assembly on Oct. 2, has become the center of heated
debate in
the corridors of the Mariinsky Palace, following threats from
city Governor
Vladimir Yakovlev that, should the budget be passed as it stands,
he will
not sign it.
In an interview broadcast on the TRK Peterburg television station
on Tuesday
evening, Yakovlev said that he would not sign the 2003 budget
if a financial
reserve fund for Legislative Assembly lawmakers was one of the
items
included.
"The governor has always been against the reserve fund,"
said the governor's
spokesperson, Alexander Afanasyev, in a telephone interview on
Wednesday.
"It is not the place of the legislative branch to spend budget
money."
The lawmakers' reserve fund, which was created in 1995, grants
lawmakers a
certain sum from the city budget to spend in their district at
their own
discretion. Two percent of all budget spending is divided evenly
between the
assembly's 50 members. In 2002, this meant about $1.7 million
for each
deputy.
The reserve fund has been fiercely criticized by a number of
lawmakers,
other politicians in the city and by the City Audit Chamber for
contributing
to levels of corruption and financial mismanagement.
But the assembly lawmakers are by no means unanimous in their
opposition to
the fund.
"Most deputies are in favor of the reserve fund because
it allows them to
buy their electorate, as well as sometimes serve their own financial
interests," Ruslan Linkov, the leader of the Democratic Russia
party's local
branch, said in an interview on Wednesday.
Every budget Yakovlev has signed since coming into office in
1996 has
contained provisions for the reserve fund, so his statements on
Tuesday
provoked angry reactions from a number of lawmakers, regardless
of their own
position on the question.
"It is a lie that Yakovlev has always been against the reserve
fund for the
deputies. He has had opportunities in the past to get rid of it,"
Boris
Vishnyevsky, a leading local Yabloko party member, who is not
himself a
member of the assembly, said on Wednesday. "Besides, Yakovlev
doesn't have
the power to [get rid of the fund] at this point in time."
"Our governor often makes such fine-sounding comments, as
if he were a tsar,
or even God almighty. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't have supreme
power,"
Vishnyevsky added.
Yabloko has consistently voiced its opposition to the fund's
existence, on
the grounds that it creates a strong basis for corruption.
Linkov added that the budget also provides the governor with
a reserve fund
of his own.
"If the governor really wants to get rid of the deputies'
reserve fund, then
why doesn't he offer to get rid of his own as well?" he said.
"At least the
deputies have to discuss in parliament how they will spend their
reserve
fund. The governor's fund is a black hole that enables Yakovlev
to spend two
percent of the budget as he wishes, without having to consult
anyone."
Most political commentators dismiss the governor's comments as
just for
show, especially since a veto of the budget bill would not ultimately
stop
it from passing.
"The budget usually ends up receiving the support of about
40 lawmakers, so
the Legislative Assembly really doesn't need the governor's signature
to
pass the budget into law," said the Legislative Assembly
deputy and Union of
Right Forces (SPS) faction leader Mikhail Brodsky on Thursday.
To override a gubernatorial veto, the assembly would need to
pass the
legislation again by a two-thirds majority - 34 votes - instead
of a simple
majority of only 26 deputies.
Brodsky said that he finds it difficult to believe that Yakovev
would refuse
to sign the budget.
"Yakovlev can't afford to take responsibility for this.
He's the one who
drafted the budget, so he's going to look pretty bad if he doesn't
sign it,"
he said.
Mikhail Amosov, the leader of the Yabloko faction in the assembly,
thinks
that Yakovlev's threat may be aimed directly at undercutting the
deputies,
and is largely an angry reaction to the chamber's recent rejection
of a
draft law that would have allowed the governor to run for a third
term in
office. The draft law was submitted on Oct. 4, but garnered only
18 of the
35 votes it needed simply to make it onto the assembly's agenda.
Legislative Assembly lawmaker Alexander Shchelkanov agreed with
Amosov.
"This was a reaction based more on emotion than reason.
[Yakovlev] just
decided to punish the pro-governor members of the assembly,"
he said in
interview with the newspaper Vedomosti. Shchelkanov was referring
to
pro-governor members who didn't support the motion to put the
draft on the
assembly agenda.
Muddying the waters of what was behind the governor's comments
even further
was a budget report submitted to Yakovlev by the City Prosecutor's
Office
earlier on Tuesday, requesting that he remove a number of elements
in the
draft, including the deputies' reserve fund. But most politicians
were
saying this week that the document from the prosecutor was not
behind
Yakovlev's comments.
"The Prosecutor's Office has sent the governor this kind
of request every
year since 1996 and nothing has been done so far to eliminate
the lawmakers'
reserve fund," Linkov said.
Afanasyev agreed on Wednesday that Yakovlev's statements had
nothing to do
with the request.
The debate over the reserve fund has overshadowed another budget-related
question since the draft's first reading on Oct. 2. The 2003 budget
projects
revenues of 74.9 billion rubles ($2.37 billion) and expenditures
of 76.4
billion rubles ($2.41 billion) - a deficit of $40 million - making
it the
first deficit budget submitted since 1997.
"According to the federal Budget Code, the deficit figure
will allow St.
Petersburg to take out foreign loans of up to $120 million before
the end of
2002. The loan will be taken in October or November of this year,"
said
Vitaly Okulov, an analyst at the St. Petersburg AVK investment
company.
"The deficit is nothing catastrophic," he said. "It
is normal in developed
countries."
A number of lawmakers, however, disagree, and say the question
of the
deficit is political, rather than economic, in nature.
"The deficit is politically convenient for the executive
branch. When there
is a surplus, the Legislative Assembly is responsible for deciding
where
that money will go. A deficit contributes to the level of corruption,"
said
Brodsky. "Personally, and this is the position of the SPS
as well, I think
the budget should be rejected by the assembly and sent back to
the
governor."
Linkov said that the budget deficit allows the budget to be mismanaged
and
manipulated for political purposes.
According to him, the fact that the majority of lawmakers voted
for the
budget doesn't mean that they necessarily agree with all of its
provisions,
as there remains ample opportunity to introduce amendments to
the draft in
subsequent reading.
The budget's second reading is scheduled for October, 23, and
the third and
final reading for October, 30.
See also:
the origianl at www.sptimes.ru
| 