The vote of the "Soros" committee showed that there is a clearly expressed anti-European and anti-democratic majority in parliament. Daniel Smilov on the three large deficits in Bulgaria today:
Bulgaria risks entering the eurozone with three large deficits. One is budgetary and it seems to be the clearest.
The second deficit is of a pro-European majority in parliament: parties that declared themselves pro-European and Euro-Atlantic prove every day that they are not in fact such and introduce measures that are essentially Putinist. The excuse that we are trying to flatter Donald Trump with them does not cancel their anti-European and anti-democratic nature.
The third deficit is in fuels (at normal prices). It can be realized if the situation with "Lukoil" does not receive a reasonable resolution. These three deficits, which were clearly outlined during the week, will determine the country's policy in the coming months. All three can be avoided to a significant extent, but the risks of negative developments are currently high.
Budget deficit
The "Zhelyazkov" government is under heavy fire from the opposition, business and the expert financial community for the proposals in the budget that is about to be submitted to parliament. There are mainly two problems. The budget for 2025 was made on the basis of overly optimistic calculations. And these calculations, especially in the revenue section, simply will not work out. A deficit is accumulating that can only be compensated for with "buffers" under the investment program, although this will also be difficult. In this situation, even more optimistic forecasts are being made for 2026, which calls into question the entire idea of the new budget.
The second problem is that large increases in salaries, pensions and social payments are planned for 2026, as well as money for investments and municipalities, which are distributed at the discretion of the government. In both groups of increases, the idea of feeding the clientele is evident - an idea that gained popularity with the phrase "for the people". The people are mainly from the services, the anti-corruption agency and the circles of companies and municipalities close to the DPS and GERB. The war with the PP-DB mayors is part of this battle, but at the local level. The budget aims to direct funds at the national level to the people, i.e. the right people.
Curiously, despite the many speeches by the ruling party against Assen Vassilev, he actually received a serious rehabilitation for his policy from the government's budget proposals. All of his ideas for raising incomes - especially for pensioners, teachers and doctors - were adopted. But unfortunately, they hypertrophied in certain sectors, with the services, whose salaries are doubled in a year, being the most striking case. In addition, the budget was overgrown with a lush clientelistic weed of the DPS and GERB. And because of these problems, while Assen Vassilev's budgets were calculated to comply with the 3% deficit threshold, now we see wishful budgets that even on paper cannot meet the criteria without raising taxes. Therefore, a noticeable increase in the burden on citizens through social security contributions and the social security threshold is foreseen for 2026. In short, GERB was forced to back down from the promise of stable taxes in order to tie up the bloated budgets "for the people" at least on paper.
It would be reasonable not to raise social security contributions, but to reduce parts of the client payments to municipalities and companies under the capital program and investments. The war on garbage in Sofia shows how the rampant companies double the prices at which they carry out their orders. If only this problem were limited, billions in the budget at the national and local levels would be saved.
However, if the budget remains within the proposed parameters, this will be bad for the country. And it will be another demonstration of Borisov's decreasing weight in government.
Deficit of a pro-European majority
The vote of the parliamentary investigative commission "Soros" showed that there is actually a clearly expressed anti-European and anti-democratic majority in the parliament. All parties except PP-DB and GERB actually lined up under the whistle of Delyan Peevski to adopt an essentially Putinist measure. The point of this commission is to vilify certain people because of their political views. It intimidates civil society and uses state instruments to deal with political opponents.
Most surprising of all was perhaps the position of Rumen Hristov - head of a formation bearing the proud name of the UDF of the 90s. According to him, "Sorosoids" had no place in his party. The curious thing is that the proud UDF of the 90s was a party of the "Sorosoids" to a large extent, and this was for the good of the country. The whole story of the slander of Soros and his role is, of course, ugly and hypocritical, especially since the current government includes people like Tomislav Donchev, Daniel Mitov, Denitsa Sacheva, Grozdan Karadjov.
But in fact, the creation of the "Soros" commission is a vivid demonstration of the possible anti-European majority built by Delyan Peevski. And Borisov seems weak and abandoned by his people on this issue. Prof. Kostadin Angelov, for example, spoke very politically flatteringly about the commission - it aimed to create "transparency", as if the activities of NGOs were not transparent by law. Apparently, the division in GERB between "against" and "abstains" regarding the commission is a reflection of Peevski's influence in this party. Either way, the vote showed that Bulgaria is entering a major political deficit of pro-European majorities.
"Lukoil"
In the long term, the political democratic deficit is definitely the most important, but in the short term, a deficit of fuels may also develop due to the American sanctions against "Lukoil". The government made the right decision to introduce a special (extraordinary) manager on behalf of the state in the refinery. The idea is that the Burgas refinery will be managed by this manager until the sanctions against it are lifted and it returns to normal. The problems that may arise are the following:
First, the American side must give the green light for this decision. The Germans received such a green light, which means that we will also be able to benefit, but everything must be precisely agreed with the Americans. And time is short, especially if President Rumen Radev vetoes the law and sabotages the process.
Second, the law itself has weaknesses. It is not clear whether it provides sufficient legal guarantees to protect the interests of the Russian owners, especially in the event of a possible sale of the refinery. At first reading, the law suggests that the special manager can sell the refinery without consent or consultation from the owner and without requiring a fair market price. This would violate our constitution and international agreements and would make Bulgaria vulnerable to possible international litigation with the Russian owners. It may happen that we supposedly sell the refinery at a low price to someone (even the Bulgarian state), and then pay billions in penalties to "Lukoil" in court proceedings.
Therefore, it is necessary to legally spell out in detail under what conditions we sell the refinery and how the rights of the owners are guaranteed. The lack of the right to appeal the decisions of the special manager does not help the Bulgarian case in future legal disputes with the Russian side. This is a complex matter that must be really worked out and all precautions taken.
Third, giving SANS the right to veto transactions and decisions with key assets in the country is a separate constitutional problem. It has already been explained many times that SANS can give an opinion, but the decision must be made by a politically responsible body such as the government. The king, not the tsar, should make the key strategic decisions - the tsar's role is important, but it is auxiliary. And in our case, the tsar becomes the first and central body making the important decision.
The Eurozone is good news for Bulgaria with or without deficits. But the point is to enter with our heads held high, not with a sloppy budget, Putinist majorities and fuel problems. Such tarred spoons are neither necessary nor will they bring anything good to the country.
This comment expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial office and the State Gazette as a whole.