Assume I have a great desire to do а “euro-repair” in my house and have wooden furniture. (I say ‘assume’, because I really do not care about such issues, in childhood my parents explained that it is a bourgeoisie). And here I brag about before my wife and children, saying “you know what I’m going to do now”, my family listens to my bonapartist plans with their mouths open. But I know that I have no money to carry out such projects, nor a normal maintenance team. But I have, so to speak, tangled into lies and I can not straight away, as Raffi called, “go into reverse”. And I have to call unsuccessful “euro-repair” team, give the money I have and it will start doing a snippy work of low-quality, and, naturally, it will not end. When the time to somehow restore what was demolished, it will become necessary to call master Gaspar to create the minimum living conditions, I will not even have the money for it.
The policy of our government is almost the same, the plaster is falling from the walls, it is blowing from windows apertures, the taps are not working, it’s time to call Gaspar, but continues to spend money on doubtful and impracticable projects, starting from achievement of the universe and ending with techno-park in Gyumri. Those ridiculous plans that were disclosed at the National Assembly during the debate on budget performance, of course, failed and will fail for the next decades. But in many cases the money has been written off. Where is it gone? Ask NA Control Chamber for it.
I never did understand completely what it means that the budget funds were not spent effectively. Let’s again refer to a household example. If I as a taxpayer give thousand Armenian drams to the entity doing shopping of my house, to the government, and say ‘go and buy four kilos of potatoes’, but it brings me half a kilo of rotten potatoes, what should I think? Is is called an ineffective expenditure of money? Or, it’s the same, it says, instead of potatoes, I decided to buy a Mercedes Benz tire, which, of course, is not buying.
In order to solve the problem, the entity who does the shopping should have a superintendent over its head, the Parliament, which will prohibit unnecessary costs and, moreover, squandering. But if the spender and the superintendent are from the same republican ‘bureau’, the situation will be the one that exists. When it is said a counterbalance, I mean just it.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
