VZCZCXRO6383
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ
DE RUEHFR #4549/01 1811605
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 301605Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9186
INFO RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 004549 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
PASS FEDERAL RESERVE 
PASS CEA 
STATE FOR EB and EUR/WE 
TREASURY FOR DO/IM 
TREASURY ALSO FOR DO/IMB AND DO/E WDINKELACKER 
USDOC FOR 4212/MAC/EUR/OEURA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EFIN ECON PGOV FR
SUBJECT:  THE SPIRALING PUBLIC DEBT, Part I 
 
¶1. SUMMARY.  A government-commissioned report has warned that the 
current financial situation could spiral out of control unless a 
freeze is put on government spending over the next five years.  The 
report recommendations are likely to become an issue leading up to 
the 2007 presidential elections.  END SUMMARY 
 
Public Debt Surges 
------------------ 
¶2.  After the June 2005 government cabinet shuffle, Finance Minister 
Thierry Breton commissioned Michel Pebereau, the CEO of BNP Paribas 
Bank, to produce a report meant "to launch a debate on public debt 
and its consequences on France's economic policy."  To avoid having 
his report ignored for presumed bias, like the previous October 2004 
Camdessus report ("Toward a new economic growth for France"), 
Pebereau formed a 20-member non-partisan group of both center-right 
and left politicians, senior civil servants, economists, and 
businessmen, pointing out that "it is just good sense, this report 
will be neither center-right or leftist."  The report was published 
on December 14, 2005, and appears to have avoided the fate of 
previous reports.  It highlights the tripling of the French public 
debt over a 25 year period, from 20 to 66.5 percent of GDP, or from 
roughly 91 million euros in 1980 to 1.1 billion euros in 2005.  The 
growth in French debt over the last decade was faster than in any 
other industrialized country.  Public debt increased significantly 
faster than GDP, making France one of the most indebted European 
countries along with Italy (108.6 percent of GDP), Greece (107.9 
percent), Belgium (94.9 percent), Malta (77.2 percent), Cyprus (70.4 
percent), and Germany (68.6 percent).  More alarming still, when 
French public debt is calculated including other government 
liabilities, such as civil servant pensions, it is closer to 100 
percent of GDP. 
 
Unwillingness to commit to painful reforms 
------------------------------------------ 
¶3.  Debt accumulation in the last twenty years was not due to lower 
economic growth or high interest rates, but to a lack of fiscal 
restraint.  The spectacular debt increase was primarily attributable 
to the ever-expanding ranks of the civil service and their pension 
liabilities.  Pebereau did not mince words, saying that "debt has 
neither spurred economic growth nor reduced unemployment - it has 
slowed economic growth." Debt service (40 billion euros), the area 
of largest government spending after education and before defense, 
considerably reduced government investment opportunities. Government 
spending accounted for 54.0 percent of GDP, compared with 48.6 
percent in the euro zone and 40.8 percent in the OECD.  France also 
had the highest level of taxation in the G7 as a percent of GDP 
(44.1 percent). 
 
¶4.  The report put the blame on a series of administrations "that 
have all taken the easy option of public borrowing," noting that 
France failed to respect its commitment to reduce the budget deficit 
to below the EU limit of 3.0 percent of GDP, this due in large part 
a reluctance to trim the civil service.  The number of civil 
servants actually increased 14 percent from 1982 to 2003 during the 
government's "decentralization" program by which Paris sought to 
transfer certain responsibilities from the central government to 
various local entities. 
 
Report urges government action 
------------------------------ 
¶5.  The report called for immediate initiatives, without which the 
government would "lose control of the financial situation."  Soaring 
debt placed "a serious risk on France's future," and the burden will 
only worsen due to the country's aging population.  Payments of 
retirement pensions by the central and local governments to their 
direct employees alone will account for 0.65 percent of GDP as early 
as 2015, a figure that will rise to 20 billion euros per year in 
¶2020.  Payments of health insurance benefits will amount to 22 
billion euros per year in 2015 as well.  Increased debt service due 
to higher budget deficits will amplify the vicious cycle of budget 
deficits, national debt, interest rate hikes, and debt service.  The 
result in the medium term would be double-digit interest rates, high 
inflation, significant cuts in pensions, and possible emigration to 
countries with better economic situations. 
 
¶6.  Not surprisingly, the commission argued strongly against: 
 
(a) continuing to add to the public debt. 
Raising interest rates indefinitely is not an option; an increase, 
even by as little as 1.5 percent by 2008, for example, would require 
an additional 33 billion euros to stabilize the debt by 2012. 
Public debt would surge to 130 percent of GDP in 2020, 205 percent 
in 2030, and close to 400 percent in 2050, and at some point before 
that happened, "the government would lose the trust of financial 
 
PARIS 00004549  002 OF 002 
 
 
markets."  The Standard and Poor's rating agency said in December 
2005 that it would not rule out downgrading France's debt if nothing 
is done to correct the situation; 
 
(b) falling back on the Pension Reserve Fund ("Fond de Reserve des 
Retraites") or possible surpluses in the Unemployment Insurance Fund 
and Family Allowances Fund, as any possible gains from these 
resources would be insufficient to reduce budget deficits in any 
considerable way; and, 
 
(c) increasing taxes or other "social contributions," the logic 
being that it would harm economic growth and make France less 
competitive. 
 
The Solution: a Freeze on Government Spending? 
--------------------------------------------- 
¶7.  The report recommended "balancing the government budget within a 
period of five years," a gradual move that arguably makes the 
objective achievable without hindering further economic growth.  (It 
should be noted that presidential terms in France are now five 
years). 
 
Recommendations include: 
(a) freezing central government budget spending in euros, equivalent 
to a 2 percent annual cut after inflation.  Over the course of five 
years, this would save 25 billion euros. 
(b) using revenue gained through taxes and the privatization of 
public assets to reduce indebtedness; 
(c) balancing health insurance, retirement pension and unemployment 
welfare accounts.  The 2009 deadline to balance the health insurance 
account has been deemed "imperative."  Regarding retirement 
benefits, the 2003 pension reform plan designated 2008 be set as the 
year by which all conditions for the balancing of pension regimes, 
good until 2020. 
(d) stabilizing central government transfers to local authorities to 
save 6 billion euros in four years. 
(e) cutting inefficient expenditures by merging a number of 
redundant administrative authorities, modernizing administrations' 
human resources policies, and taking advantage of waves of 
retirements to dramatically cut the number of civil servants. 
 
Comment 
------- 
¶8.  Analyses and recommendations of the Pebereau report are both 
accurate and alarming.  It remains to be seen if warnings will be 
heeded or ignored.  Candidates in the 2007 presidential elections 
may look to the report when working out their own electoral 
platforms or when criticizing those of their rivals.  End comment. 
 
STAPLETON