measures of the current fiscal situation stem from differences in their accounting for medicare and social security. it is no secret to the public or to members of the congress that these programs face long - term imbalances. this information has been widely known and studied in depth for many years. and yet, despite that fact, we still find ourselves on a fiscal trajectory that is probably unsustainable. better information alone does not seem to be the answer to our fiscal difficulties. typically, these are the types of assumptions used to provide long - term projections of the budget deficit or to calculate the long - term solvency of the social security system. to illustrate the uncertainty inherent in long - term projections, the cbos most recent long - term outlook report focused on six possible scenarios based on different assumptions about future revenues and spending. determining future policy for tax rates is not clear - cut either. under current law, tax revenues as a share of gdp will reach levels well above historical norms as real bracket creep pushes more and more income into the highest tax brackets. yet, most calculations of generational accounts assume that the tax law will be adjusted so that average tax rates remain constant over time. overall deficit targets a second approach to controlling budget deficits is for the congress to establish budget targets. this approach was the centerpiece of the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985 commonly known as the gramm - rudman - hollings ( grh ) act. that act aimed to wipe out the deficit in five years. it did so by establishing annual targets - declining to zero - for the budget deficit. the process worked as follows : if projected deficits in the next fiscal year exceeded the targets by $ 10 billion or more, the legislation mandated that unprotected programs be cut, across - the - board, and by enough to reach the legislated targets. this process of across - the - board cuts was known as “ sequestration ”. the law did not specify how the targets were to be reached ; instead, the assumption was that the existence of those targets and the threat of sequestration would be enough to get the congress and the administration to agree on a package of spending cuts and tax increases. grh did not allow changes in external circumstances to affect the budget deficit targets. spending cuts were to be enforced regardless of whether the deficit picture had deteriorated because of worsening economic circumstances or because of congressional action. the result of this legislation was quite different than originally envisioned.

, we have to admit that this development has been a very slow one. during the last five years, the lek liabilities of the banking system have increased by 135 billion lek, which makes the increase in the trading volume of interbank market by a daily average of 1. 9 billion lek, only a peanut in a big cake. on the other hand, besides an increase in the volume of one - week maturity transactions, longer term transactions are very sporadic. in addition, this low development of the interbank money market is also reflected to the wide spreads of the quotations for trading, published by commercial banks. nevertheless, the development of the interbank money market is made difficult also because of other reasons, some of which are of objective nature. it can not be developed as an isolated market. it progress is highly correlated to the economic development in general and the development of other financial markets in particular. the financial market is still characterized by the domination of the banking system, while its other segments continue to be in a minor state of their development. there are interesting developments in the insurance companies market, while the segment of pension funds is still underdeveloped. furthermore, other specialized intermediaries are completely missing, including here even the capital market. all the above and other reasons such as the high degree of informality in the economy, credit demand dominated in foreign currency, are factors which directly or indirectly impede the enhancement of money market efficiency. however, rightly comprehending that many of the reasons are of objective nature, we believe that within the limitations imposed by the abovementioned factors, still there are gaps, about which i encourage you, to jointly fill as soon as possible. in the latest survey conducted by the bank of albania on “ money market issues ”, 7 out of 14 respondents ( commercial banks ), ( which possess 59 per cent of the market share ), outlined “ the excess structural liquidity ” as the main barrier to the development of the interbank money market, while 4 out of 14 banks ( which have a market share of 30 per cent ) highlighted “ the credit risk ” as the second most important barrier. the tendency to keep excess structural liquidity as a bank policy was pinpointed by 13 out of the 14 interviewed banks, otherwise meaning that banks that share 92 per cent of the market do have a tendency to keep excess structural liquidity. we notice that the reasons and obstacles brought up by banks are mostly subjective, and their prevention