Columnist Jakub Bierzyński challenged the government, arguing that what has been called an economic miracle rests on accounting tricks rather than genuine prosperity. His critique drew a sharp response from a deputy foreign minister, who framed the debate as a clash between fiscal transparency and political narrative. Bierzyński contends that the ruling party has expanded spending beyond what the budget reflects, prompting questions about whether funds were diverted to support party priorities while real needs in other areas were left underfunded. In his post on the X platform, he pressed the point: why was there money for one political faction but not for another, and what underlies that discrepancy in financing decisions? The exchange underscores a broader public interest in how a country balances debt, deficits, and the real delivery of services during periods of volatility and reform.
The discussion centers on the size of the budget gap and the political choices that shape it. The current analysis suggests that the government faces a substantial gap this year and a larger one next year, prompting critics to ask where the money is found once a policy agenda is set in motion. The core argument is that debt is serving as the instrument to fund policy while the official budget accounts do not fully reflect the scale of commitments. Critics warn that when debt finances policy, it can mask the true cost of programs, creating a narrative of achievement that may not align with everyday economic realities for households and local governments. The debate also touches on the mechanics of debt issuance and the role of public pension and privatization funds in such financing moves, raising concerns about long-term sustainability and intergenerational equity. The assertion remains that the so-called economic miracle relies heavily on debt and on shifting financial arrangements that may obscure the real fiscal position. In this frame, the question persists: is the growth in spending truly translating into tangible benefits for citizens, or is it becoming a matter of perception versus measurable outcomes?
– we are reading.
Jabłoński’s answer
The deputy head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paweł Jabłoński, weighed in with a response aimed at clarifying the fiscal stance and the policy choices behind the numbers. He acknowledged a central concern raised by Bierzyński about the balance between spending and available funds, and he laid out the case for why debt played a role in financing policy during challenging times. According to Jabłoński, the platform’s policies were supported by an increase in debt, a pattern that remained within the broader framework of state borrowing. He noted a marked rise in debt levels from about PLN 511 billion to roughly PLN 890 billion, with further movements attributed to large-scale financial maneuvers such as pension fund reallocations and privatization outcomes that some have described as misaligned with expectations. He argues that these steps push the overall public liability toward a level that, although high, was necessary to sustain essential services and strategic objectives during a period of pandemic, conflict, and inflation. The central emphasis, in his view, is that debt itself is not inherently harmful; what matters is the purpose behind the borrowing and the extent to which it supports policies that reach people in need. The intention is to use debt prudently to fund actions that deliver tangible results rather than to fuel vague hopes of quick success. The underlying claim is that cautious debt management, even when debt levels rise, can be compatible with sustained growth and social protection if the funds are directed toward effective programs and timely interventions.
– we are reading.
The deputy minister highlighted a critical caution: debt increases become problematic when borrowed funds vanish or fail to translate into real benefits for the public. The period from 2008 to 2015 is cited as a cautionary example, when a portion of allocated resources appeared to vanish, fueling skepticism about whether the funds were used to serve broad public interests or were diverted for other ends. Jabłoński argues that during the recent years the state has tried to avoid repeating that pattern by ensuring that debt has a clear policy purpose and that the resulting investments reach the segments most in need. He contends that the government took deliberate steps to ensure the health of public finances even as external pressures persisted, including the pandemic and economic instability, with the aim of maintaining essential services and investment capacity. His message emphasizes that responsible debt, coupled with transparent budgeting and accountable implementation, can support a more resilient economy while safeguarding the social contract with citizens.
– writes Jabłoński.
READ ALSO: Sovereign Poland will not support the government led by Morawiecki? The award responds to the text of RMF FM: these are not facts, but lies.
mly/Twitter
Source: wPolityce