There was criticism that more than half of the projects under the future response fund pushed by the Lee Jae-myung administration do not fit its purpose because it is being rushed. Observers also noted that the Ministry of Planning and Budget's performance management of the projects is structurally hard to carry out properly.
People Power Party lawmaker Park Su-young held a forum titled "Future response fund? Future pawned fund!" at the National Assembly on the 10th. The event closely examined the project structure of the future response fund that the Lee Jae-myung administration plans to create using excess semiconductor tax revenue, with Kim Woo-cheol, a Seoul City University professor and president of the Korean Association of Public Finance, presenting.
An analysis was also conducted of all 140 detailed projects to be carried out with 45 trillion won allocated from the future response fund. According to the analysis by Park's office and President Kim Woo-cheol, only 42% of the 140-project budget aligns with the fund's purpose, such as capital formation and human capital investment. Current transfers, cash-like support, and general local resources account for 40%, and 61 projects (18.3 trillion won) were merely transfers of existing projects.
Many of the 140 detailed projects also reportedly do not match the purpose of the future response fund. These include support for the transfer of affairs to Gwangju, South Jeolla (650 billion won), a basic income program for rural communities (1.1658 trillion won), a KEPCO equity injection (500 billion won), and administrative integration incentives (2.85 trillion won).
Park said, "It is full of budgets that do not need to be separately allocated to the future response fund, such as cash-like support, transfer of existing budgets, financial market support, and public corporation financial support," and warned, "The Lee Jae-myung administration is trying to waste taxpayers' money while evading National Assembly oversight as if using a private slush fund."
Concerns were also raised that execution and oversight of the future response fund would be lax. The government plans to allow 30% of expenditures in key items of the future response fund to be changed without National Assembly approval. In addition, according to the Ministry of Planning and Budget's performance plan, zero out of the 140 projects were designated for performance management.
Park pointed out, "If the budget office shifts the projects to other ministries and fails to carry out performance management properly, there is no reason to classify the projects separately under the future response fund and allocate a budget."
Experts who attended the forum voiced concerns about the future response fund. Song Heon-jae, a Seoul City University professor, said, "The government must answer whether shifting the priority of tax revenue earned during boom times from liability repayment to stocking a new coffer is truly a choice for future generations."
Hwang Sang-hyun, a Sangmyung University professor, also noted, "There are many risk factors in terms of fiscal democracy, local autonomy over finances, and macroprudential soundness."