The government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (PT) was able to postpone the vote of the presidential veto 46/2024, which amends rules for granting the continued benefit (BPC) and the Bolsa Familia program. There is no new date yet to analyze the veto in Congress.
The decision was articulated by the president of the Senate and the National Congress, David Alcolumbre (União Brasil-AP), who has kept alignment with the Planalto Palace since resumed the command of the house in February. The maneuver gives the government breath to avoid wear on sensitive social themes, especially in a pre-election year.
Vetoes involve eligibility and legal certainty criteria
The bill that deals with the theme was approved on December 20, 2024 and sanctioned by Lula a week later, as part of the fiscal adjustment package led by Finance Minister Fernando Haddad. The approved text included measures that would restrict access to BPC and Bolsa Familia.
Among the points vetoed by Lula is the requirement to prove moderate or severe deficiency for access to the BPC, a care benefit for the elderly and people with low -income disabilities. In justification, the president argued that the new rule “would bring legal insecurity” and contradict the public interest.
Another barred section revoked a device of the Bolsa Familia Law that deals with the conditions for the reign of beneficiaries disconnected from the program. The Planalto also considered that the change could cause confusion in the rules of eligibility, weakening the predictability of the system.
Government tries to avoid political setback and social impact
Behind the scenes, the Planalto evaluates that a possible overthrow of the vetoes by Congress would represent a political and social setback, as well as making room for judicial questions.
Continues after advertising
The ruling base fears the impact of change in the poorest layers of the population, precisely the segment in which Lula has greater support – but where he also faces increasing wear because of the economic crisis.
In addition, government interlocutors fear that changes to income transfer programs rules legal and operational instability, which could compromise social restructuring efforts and affect state reconstruction discourse.
