The Prime Minister based his strategy on clarifying France's economic situation. He is seeking, through a vote of confidence in the National Assembly, the approval of his analysis before formalizing and adopting in the framework of the next budget the measures he intends to take to remedy the country's difficulties, first and foremost its excessive debt. So far, this method has not garnered sufficient support from political organizations and it is highly likely that it will be denied confidence. France will enter a new period of political instability.

The situation of public finances is a major issue but the Prime Minister's remarks, marred by factual errors and risky comparisons, have not helped to clarify it. Talk of reducing debt or over-indebtedness is absurd when we are preparing to present a budget with a deficit of more than 150 billion, which will increase the debt by the same amount. In fact, what is being proposed is simply to slow down the growth of public debt. Its increase has been spectacular since 2012 if we compare it to GDP: it has gone from 82% to 105%. But is this indicator relevant?

GDP is a flow: it is the production achieved year after year. But public debt is a stock: it is the accumulation of deficits from past years. When we want to judge the financial soundness of a bank or a company, we compare its debt not to its turnover but to the assets on the balance sheet, the stability of their valuation and their liquidity. If we were to compare public debt, for example, with household financial assets, we would arrive at a completely different result. The ratio was 39.5% in 2012 and 43.6% in 2024. Households have accumulated financial savings almost at the same rate as the State and public authorities have become indebted.

This analysis, ignored by the public authorities, has not gone unnoticed by the rating agencies, which continue to give France a good rating, and by the financial markets, which still massively subscribe to the Treasury's issues and at perfectly bearable rates. Finally, France has adopted the euro and benefits from a current account balance with only a slight imbalance, the heavy foreign trade deficit being largely offset by the surpluses in services. It should also not be forgotten that France's main creditor is none other than the European Central Bank.

The last dubious factor in the analysis of the French debt is international comparisons. How can we both welcome the financial recovery of countries such as Italy and Spain with debt levels close to that of France and claim that our country is on the verge of bankruptcy? Why limit ourselves to comparisons within the euro zone? The United States, and the United Kingdom to a lesser extent, have domestic and trade deficits much higher than ours and bear higher interest rates, without their financial situation being presented as alarming and subject to IMF intervention. And what about Japan, which has a public debt of more than 200% of its GDP?

The presentation of the facts by the Prime Minister is therefore very questionable and the main criticism that must be made of its clarification is that at no time does it take an interest in the causes of the deterioration of public finances and the risk of over-indebtedness. However, between 2012 and 2017, the current President of the Republic already held positions at the Elysée Palace before becoming Minister of Finance. It is therefore surprising that the economic policy followed for the past 13 years is never cited as one of the causes of the current situation. The Prime Minister's presentation therefore does not contribute to the clarification of the issues. This is why he should not be surprised, given the weakness of his analyses, by the answer that the deputies will give to the question of confidence that he has asked them.

However, the question of restoring public finances must be addressed, not because debt is a threat but because it is a requirement for the future of France. The measures devised by the government are inspired by current policy. Being at the origin of the present difficulties, it is very doubtful that they will meet with the support of the deputies and in the event of dissolution, any party that proposes to continue on the past path has no chance of winning enough votes to govern.

The supply-side policy based on reducing corporate burdens and reducing taxes on the highest earners has failed, as evidenced by the widening trade deficit. It has widened inequalities, which has generated deep popular discontent which has resulted in an increase in voting intentions in favour of extremist or populist parties. It is therefore paradoxical, to say the least, to take the risk of new elections while maintaining a programme that would lead to defeat.

Several measures are likely to overcome these contradictions while contributing significantly to the reduction of public deficits. First, there is the general pension scheme for employees, whose deficit is artificial, since it is the consequence of a contribution base that is too low, allowing the supplementary schemes to accumulate unjustifiable surpluses. Ircantec and ARGIC-ARRCO thus have €104.2 billion at their disposal. Raising the ceiling would make it possible, without affecting the reserves, to abandon the highly unpopular measure of raising the retirement age to 64 and to restore the balance of the general schemes by thus increasing its resources.

The reform of tax reductions, also raising the ceilings, would make it possible to benefit more qualified jobs, which are an essential factor in the competitiveness of industry. This would be offset by a reduction in the general rate of relief. This reduction could even be a little stronger to help restore public finances.

In order to gradually redress the public accounts and fight against this feeling of injustice in the face of inequality, the government should propose to increase the rate of the flat-rate withholding tax, which is a major attack on the democratic principle of progressivity of income tax. Given the evolution of household financial wealth, which has reached €7000 billion in 2025, it could derive substantial revenues.

The introduction of a "floating" tax on fuels would prevent the foreseeable fall in fossil fuel prices from encouraging economic agents to limit their consumption, to the detriment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The abolition of two public holidays, which leads employees to work two more days without being raised, should be replaced by an adjustment of the calendar that reduces the number of "bridges" that affect the organisation of work and productivity.

We would thus reopen the political debate on a credible basis because we would recognize that the past policy of increasing corporate margins and reducing taxes on the highest incomes has not produced the expected results with little growth and a debt that has risen sharply to the point that the reduction of public deficits should become the priority of future governments. And even if this change were not unanimous, it is certain that it would gain much greater political support than proposing to persist in past mistakes.