This is not the first time that a statement of containment of federal government expense has ended in a mess. At the end of last year, the announcement of the measures that would be sent to to cut spending, albeit reasonable and defensible ,.
At that time, the Minister of Finance, was forced to give in to the pressures of wings and the government to announce, with the package, a makeshift project of reformulation of the. By meritorious, the occasion was not the most conducive and the details about the new expense were not clear. It became turmoil and food for the posters. It amazes that the misconception of communication had been orchestrated by the current minister of Secom, at the time an advisor.
This time, however, the Finance Minister wrapped himself alone. Articulation errors and poorly planned ad charged their price. The image of disarticulation in the economic area once again jumped to the eye. The idea of moving the IOF to compensate for expenses stirred the market and took badly to Haddad, for seeking to cover holes with more collection. The mismatch with the president of, came to light, and the.
The backdrop for the Barafunda is-the cliché is evident-the government’s attempt to make a fiscal omelet without breaking eggs. This art of difficult achievement is added to parliamentary blackmail and political dependence on congressional forces that defend their and increasingly hesitate to support the reelection of the current government.
The predominant view is that it will not move until the end of the mandate in the spending structure established by, with real increases from the transmitted to social security expenses. The political difficulty of the federal government advances in reducing amendments and billionaire benefits to sectors of the economy is added to resistance to promoting cuts. which favors casuistic, technically debatable and politically negative decisions, such as the IOF increase decree.
From a political point of view, Haddad, who had appeared as a palatable reference for economic stablishment by presenting himself as a kind of guarantor of the search for fiscal balance, loses prestige and becoming a problem for both the left and right.
The minister, previously always remembered as a possible substitute for Lula if the president decided for some reason backing up (or even as a balanced and promising name for economic management in a new term), is becoming weaker.
The scenario favors opposition and helps to foster, in conservative and market sectors, the feeling that a right -wing candidate with basic democratic commitments and privatist program could win in 2026.
It is early to say. Lula, an “electoral animal” that has a strong machine, can still gather favorable economic results – and there is for now a difference between government assessment and voting intentions for the election.
There is still water passing under the bridge. Until then, we’ll see.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
