[Lee Jung-jae Column] What Is the Name of the Yoon Seok-yeol Government's Budget Proposal?

[Asia Economy Lee Jeong-jae, Director of the Economic Media School and Editorial Advisor] The budget bill is a 'conversion of national governance philosophy into numbers (money).' For any government, the first budget bill drafted after its inauguration is especially significant because it fully reflects the new administration's governance philosophy. So, how was the budget bill released by the government last month? There was neither a 'powerful impact' nor a 'clear philosophy.' It listed a lot of numbers meticulously under four major tasks: sound fiscal management, structural reform, welfare for the vulnerable, and preparation for future growth, but it was just 'same old, same old.' How can one read any philosophy from that?

So, I asked a few officials at the Presidential Office. What is the governance philosophy of the Yoon Seok-yeol administration? They hesitated and then trailed off with "Well..." "Freedom? Accompanying the vulnerable? Maybe something like that."

If it is freedom, what kind of freedom is it? The domestic and international economic and security environment is worsening, and the vulnerable are collapsing first, requiring a more active government role. This is out of sync with President Yoon Seok-yeol's promise of a small government and his will for freedom. How can the president's freedom and a big government harmonize?

What about accompanying the vulnerable? Welfare for the vulnerable requires money. This is at odds with the president's 'market economy' that aims to enhance national competitiveness through tax cuts. Even if the tax cut effects return as big fruits later, that is a matter for the future, and for the vulnerable collapsing under high inflation, high interest rates, and high exchange rates right now, there is no remedy. How will the president's market economy coexist with welfare for the vulnerable? The Presidential Office must engage in intense deliberation on this. The results must be reflected in the budget.

Then, what kind of budget bill embodies the governance philosophy? First, it must have a name. President Joe Biden named his campaign budget the 'Build Back Better Act.' This budget bill, known as the BBB Act, centers on 'human infrastructure' that significantly strengthens the social safety net, such as free childcare and expanded care for the elderly and disabled. It also includes industrial policies like climate change response and expanded eco-friendly investments. The content is nothing special, but by giving it a 'name,' the budget bill breathes life and philosophy. Governance philosophy must be embodied in a name to function as a powerful national agenda.

Of course, naming alone is not enough. There must be execution power. Money must be spent on time and in the right places. But what is the reality? The budget bill's original passage is uncertain due to opposition party obstruction. However, it is urgent to not just blame the opposition. In such times, the only option is to appeal directly to the people. Public sympathy must be drawn out. For that, messaging is important.

First, door-stopping Q&A sessions on the way to work should be suspended for a while, and even if resumed, the frequency should be greatly reduced. Contrary to the original intent, these often turned into black holes of political strife rather than communication. Everyone only watches the president's mouth, so ministers and policies are completely overlooked. Instead, increasing regular press conferences should be considered. The 11 emergency economic meetings held were the same. They did not look very 'emergency,' and the 'measures' were unimpressive. Under these circumstances, public sympathy is out of the question.

Is there an alternative? The previous administration used committees. When income-led growth faltered, they created the Special Committee on Income-led Growth to deflect blame, and when the nuclear phase-out faced public backlash, they created the Shin-Kori Units 5 and 6 Public Deliberation Committee to mislead public opinion. The rapid minimum wage increase was passed off as a 'decision of the Minimum Wage Commission.' The committees were 'pre-decided' bodies executing left-wing wish-list policies.

But the old ways cannot be repeated. The government has already significantly streamlined the mushrooming committees of the Moon Jae-in administration. Instead, it has chosen to strengthen and focus on the National Unity Committee, Regulatory Reform Committee, and Carbon Neutral Green Growth Committee. Utilizing these committees could be an alternative.

It is worth referring to the words of former Finance Minister Sa Gong-il, who served as Chairman of the National Competitiveness Enhancement Committee during the Lee Myung-bak administration: "The president must personally preside over meetings at least once a month. The first 15 minutes of the meeting should be used for review. Why were decisions from the last meeting not implemented? What should be done? Such meetings must be held continuously for five years. If they fizzle out midway, nothing will be accomplished."

The budget bill name that the president should focus on for five years could be the 'Middle-Class Restoration Act.'