Eric Ciotti, Member of Parliament, chaired the departmental assembly during which, notably, the budgetary orientations for 2014 were debated. In a difficult national economic context, the Department will continue to support a fundamental strategy of tax control and rigorous management of public finances. The guiding principle for 2014 is to pursue major equipment programs and maintain human and territorial solidarity.
This direction was strongly contested by the communist opposition, for whom a high level of local investment is the best response to the crisis, whereas, in total contradiction, investment is the most affected.
Counselor Jacques Victor was the “voice” of this protest (see his intervention)
“In 2013, for the 4th consecutive year, investment is still decreasing, landing below 200 million euros, a reduction of more than 50% and 215 million euros in 5 years.”
This collapse in investment also has an impact on departmental revenues when the VAT Compensation Fund went from 35.7 million euros in 2008 to 20.3 million euros in 2012, a decrease of 15.4 million euros in four years, representing -43.14%!”
In terms of revenue, the situation remains highly concerning:
Indeed, regarding the differential between actual coverage of costs and compensations related to individual solidarity allocations provided by the departments for APA, PCH, and RMI-RSA, the acknowledgment of an estimated undercompensation between 4.8 and 6.2 billion euros since their establishment in 2002 clearly proves that this deficit does not date back to 2012. Thus, we were justified in denouncing this widening deficit contrary to what you have defended for years. Moreover, for the Alpes-Maritimes department alone, this differential exceeded 920 million euros for the period 2004/2013 (124 million euros in 2012).
Especially when, simultaneously, not only are revenues decreasing, but the fiscal autonomy of departments is melting away like snow in the sun. What role can the department still play when more than 80% of its budget is used to fund policies constrained by the State, without being able to control the evolution of expenses or revenues, and the remaining less than 20% are supposed to support proactive policies within a general competence clause emptied of its substance?
