野: “We need to cancel it”·與: “Afterwards, we ask for an increase”... Future Fund Workshop

The ruling and opposition parties continued their battle over the appropriateness of the Future Response Fund on the 14th, ahead of the budget subcommittee of the National Assembly's Budget and Accounts Special Committee, where practical 'cutting' of next year's budget and fund plans takes place.

Lee Yong-woo, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Korea, pointed out in a written briefing that day, “The People Power Party insisted on a full reduction of the Future Response Fund, saying that the national debt must first be repaid, while actually demanding an increase in the amount for projects allocated to the fund.”

Spokesperson Lee said, “The fund should be eliminated, but does it mean that the budget of one’s own district should be increased?” and pointed out, “The People Power Party’s different budget calculation methods are eye-opening.”

He continued, “Rep. Jin-sook Lee requested an 800 million won increase in the research and operation expenses of the Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology, which was allocated to the Future Response Fund, and Rep. Cho Seung-hwan requested an increase of 38.4 billion won for the offshore fishing boat modernization support project in the same fund.” He asked, “How can it be possible to acknowledge a necessary project but use the entire fund as a target for political attack?”

At the same time, he said, “The People Power Party should stop the contradictory budget offensive and focus the energy it devotes on outdoor rallies to reviewing the budget of the National Assembly,” adding, “The people’s livelihood next year is not a matter of negotiation to implement the party’s slogan.”

In response, Choi Eun-seok, senior floor spokesperson for the People Power Party, criticized the Future Response Fund for loosening the National Assembly's budget control in a commentary.

Spokesperson Choi criticized, "If more taxes have been collected than expected, it is right to reduce the national debt, which has snowballed," adding, "However, rather than paying off the debt, the government is hoarding excess tax revenue in a separate fund and is trying to increase the authority to put in and take out money while minimizing the National Assembly's prior control."

He emphasized, "Even within the ruling party, there are voices saying that the government's discretionary power is too great and that the government plan should be revised. We cannot allow a structure in which the government can arbitrarily control the use and size of citizens' taxes while setting up the National Assembly as a sidekick."

Furthermore, he said, “Just because it is named the Future Response Fund does not mean that people’s taxes become money for the government,” and added, “If the necessity cannot be proven, the establishment of a new fund should be completely canceled.”