To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
The fiscal 2025 budget just managed to be enacted within fiscal 2024, but all that stood out was the political maneuvering between the ruling and opposition parties with this summer’s House of Councillors election in mind.
It can hardly be said that the effects of the budget’s policies and the measures to secure fiscal resources were sufficiently discussed, and the first half of the current Diet session was far from “deliberative.”
The budget for the new fiscal year, with the general account totaling a record high ¥115 trillion, took an extraordinary path to its establishment.
During discussions at the House of Representatives, opposition party demands were reflected in the budget, including a review of the “annual income barrier,” the income threshold for the imposition of income tax, and the introduction of free high school tuition. This was the first time in 29 years that a budget had been revised in the House of Representatives.
In the House of Councillors, the government decided to postpone raising the ceiling for patients’ out-of-pocket payments in the high-cost medical expense benefit program — the increase had been opposed by patient groups and others — and the budget was revised again. It was the first time ever under the current Constitution that a budget revised in the upper house was sent to the House of Representatives and enacted.
It is fine for the government and the ruling and opposition parties to debate and to make revisions to the budget if any insufficient elements are found. However, in the latest case, the decision was made without examining the rationale for changing the policy or the impact it would have.
The introduction of tuition-free high school education, which the Japan Innovation Party has called for, was decided on during a short period of discussions in exchange for cooperation from the JIP to vote for the budget. There is growing criticism of the fact that the education system, which will affect the future of the country, was changed based on decisions connected to the political situation.
One adverse effect that has been emphasized is that making even private high schools tuition-free will exacerbate the problem of public high schools failing to reach their enrollment capacity.
Regarding students at correspondence high schools who attend certain facilities to receive support for their learning, East Japan Railway Co. temporarily decided to exclude such students from the student rail pass program, causing confusion among the people involved. Ultimately, the student pass program was allowed to continue for the new school year, but it is undecided for fiscal 2026 and beyond.
If there was several hundred billion yen in annual funding for tuition-free high school education, it would be possible to support students at correspondence high schools.
If keeping the administration in power becomes a goal in itself and the Cabinet repeatedly makes concessions on taxes and social security, which are the foundation of the country, it will only pass on the cost to the future.
The opposition parties are competing with each other to come up with measures to reduce the burden on the people in the short term, in order to gain an advantage in the upper house election. It is hard to believe they have the ability to run the government.
There are many issues both at home and abroad. For example, there is a serious decline in the birth rate. It is necessary to reexamine countermeasures to fight against the declining birth rate, which excessively rely on cash handouts.
Japan must approach negotiations with a strategy meticulously drawn up in response to the U.S. administration of President Donald Trump, who uses tariffs as a weapon to put pressure even on U.S. allies.
In the second half of the current Diet session, it is essential that both the government and the ruling and opposition parties work to have constructive discussions on how to deal with such pressing issues.
