It seemed that the people would rise when a decision was made to reform the existing benefits of certain categories of vulnerable groups. Let's remember how it was and what it has led to today.
The law on monetization: the main reasons for its adoption
Last year, he celebrated his tenth anniversary, probably one of the noisiest laws adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation. Monetization is something that only the lazy did not talk about. The benefits were abolished for many segments of the population, and it seemed that the well-being of pensioners would suddenly fall several times in their numbers.
The law on the monetization of benefits was adopted in 2004 and predicted dramatic changes in the system of providing assistance to socially vulnerable groups of the population. The concept was this:
- minimal intervention of officials in the processes of providing assistance to those who need it;
- to increase the well-being of the population by canceling “empty promises” and compensating for this reform in the form of cash notes;
- monetization ratio should increase significantly, and the financial potential of the country will become more stable;
- utility tariffs will become more accessible to all segments of the population;
- and most importantly, regional authorities will have their own powers, which the federal management sector does not intervene.
Real government proposals
According to the results of the adopted Law on Monetization, citizens belonging to socially unprotected layers of the population were divided into two categories: those who are taken care of by the regional authorities and those who are taken care of by the federals.
At the expense of the latter, the expenses of the heroes of Socialist Labor, the USSR, holders of the orders of Labor Glory, Chernobyl victims, as well as relatives and direct participants in the Great Patriotic War began to be financed. The regional authorities took care of the others.
These citizens were deprived of privileges for free travel, medical support and others. However, in return they received compensation (which ranges from 150–1500 Russian rubles), subsidies for utilities and other surcharges.
What were the difficulties in implementing the bill
First of all, the monetization coefficient in the early years did not increase as much as expected. This happened because the regional budget did not receive proper funding from the state. Since monetization is a comprehensive program, it was necessary to work on this issue several years before the introduction of the bill. Therefore, the implementation of the planned reform was not so smooth and cloudless, and in some regions those who still have privileges remained.
Waves of protest swept across the country. And the reason for this is only an insufficiently comprehensive approach to the implementation of the bill. Moreover, the information base was so weak that the vast majority of beneficiaries had no idea about the amount of their own compensation.
Monetization of the economy: negative aspects
Undoubtedly, if you evaluate the project from the point of view of the state, then it is completely economically justified - why not? For the financial stability of the country only for the benefit of reinforcing the money supply.
However, who will think about the main objects of the bill - directly beneficiaries? For them, monetization is the deprivation of that very confidence in tomorrow. The protests were not just because of the harmfulness of pensioners and other representatives of unprotected layers of the population. The size of the compensation is really so miserable that it is even impossible to cover travel expenses, let alone medical self-sufficiency.
In the first year of the law, a social survey was conducted. Only a third of the respondents were convinced that the reforms could indeed lead to positive results.
Positive sides
In the initial period of the introduction of the bill, it was difficult to believe that among the unprotected layers of the population there is such a category of citizens for whom monetization is completely positive changes that have brought improvements to their well-being. Let us recall those beneficiaries who live in rural areas.
These people do not use public transport, so they do not need free travel. Yes, and they do not need privileges to install a landline telephone, since they do not have the opportunity to draw a line to their home. This category of citizens received at least some increase in their pension, even if it is insignificant. Therefore, for them, the monetization of benefits is not such a pernicious phenomenon.
As for city beneficiaries, they also did not get lost and suffer from innovations in the legislation. They began to claim their own disability, as this category has the highest compensation ratio.
