The one chosen by the mayor, Hugo Motta, to report the was the Bolsonarist Deputy Colonel Chrisóstomo (PL-RO). The rapporteur himself was surprised by the choice and said to Infomoney I only learned of the mission yesterday morning, hours before the vote in the House Plenary.
Christomo says he did not expect the amount of votes. There were 383 favorable to overthrow the government’s proposal. According to him, parliamentarians are “listening to the clamor of the population.” “We no longer want to pay tax, we can no longer stand, the bread increased, the beans increased, the gas increased and here.”
According to the deputy, the proximity of next year’s election also influenced the decision of his colleagues. “We are on the eve of a campaign. So this also motivated many parliamentarians not to follow a government decision. They don’t want anything from the government to increase taxes. This was the main one,” he says.
See the interview of Deputy Colonel Chrisóstomo, exclusively for the Infomoney.
Infomoney – Has you been caught by surprise with the rapporteur, also learned of the last minute?
Colonel Chrisóstomo – I say I had a wonderful surprise. It was really a decision by President Motta to appoint me rapporteur, but we had not agreed. That was his decision and has yours. I did my job and my work was endorsed and approved.
IM – What time was you communicated that you would be rapporteur of the proposal?
CC – Actually, we treat it at night. Only it was late, around midnight. And I tired of that day, I ended up I didn’t see all his information, so I was aware of the morning the next day, already on Wednesday. That was the truth.
IM – Were you already in Brasilia?
CC – I was already in Brasilia because I already had a meeting with President Hugo Motta. We had already marked, pre-aged, a meeting. But this theme was not on the agenda. This theme only emerged on the agenda in the night, late on Tuesday night.
IM-And what happened for this theme to emerge late on Tuesday night? Do you believe that motivated President Hugo Motta to make this decision?
CC – That’s everyone wants to know, right? Then ask Hugo Mota. I believe he made a bet. I think, seeing the work I had done about the INSS – I started all this movement, this issue of INSS retirees. As a result of my work, the Senate also took action. And I always deal with Hugo Motta, presenting to him the guidelines, asking for his orientation, what is the best way. Something very didactic within parliament. So, I think he liked the didactics I used, always respecting all sides. I never stopped serving the press. And inside the parliament too, still talking to the leaders and always there, side by side with the president. So, I think he liked it and said like this: Wow, if I’m going to bet on this rapporteur.
IM – Did you expect such a significant vote from the plenary?
CC – With all sincerity, no. I imagined that we were going to win yes. But not with 383 votes. I was not counting so much support in this way. Several parliamentarians came to me to say: I’m with you. But it always happens, right? Then at the time of voting is something else. But in this case, the “I’m with you” really was.
IM – What do you think motivated this adhesion so great, including parliamentarians from the government base?
CC “Yes, it was very clear, several PDT parliamentarians, for example, saw me they were with me.” That’s why I was there: But will they vote with me the base? And in fact it happened. No one, no citizen is talking well about the government in the states about tax increases. And that the deputies know. They are listening to the clamor of the population, we no longer want to pay tax, we can not stand it anymore: the bread increased, the beans increased, the gas increased and there. We are on the eve of a campaign. So this also motivated many parliamentarians not to follow a government decision. They want nothing to come from the government in we have to increase taxes. That was the main one.
IM – There is still another government proposal, which is the provisional measure of fiscal adjustment to be voted. Do you think the climate for this MP is different?
CC – It’s no different. No one will want to come in, after voting here, in my report, favorable, how will he vote favorable at MP? Favorable to the government? Won’t vote. The conversation here is the following: I am deciding not to vote anything that increases tribute to the people. This is the speech that is here in the house. It’s not just ours, from the right, no. It’s all of all who voted. Increasingly the government gets smaller.
IM – The provisional measure deals with only taxes. Do you believe there are other points that can be accepted by parliamentarians?
CC “I believe something Congress can be favorable to the government.” But not in the whole. I believe they will have a defeat again.
IM – What do you think could be negotiated so that the MP was accepted by the houses?
CC – Look, there is so much to be studied, that I can’t even score what is really good or not. Everything is in the early stages yet. Undoubtedly, it is possible to have negotiation. Opposition is always willing to argue, but I think the moment, in fact, is not in favor of anything. I suggest the government holds because the time is bad for it.
IM – What do you attribute this bad moment to the government? Is it already an anticipation of the presidential dispute?
CC – I think the bad moment for government is more for himself. But the government that is responsible for the acts themselves. It is a consequence of how it is treating the economy in the country. It’s simple. At home, when I start getting tight, I tell the woman: look, let’s dinner a little out, understand? Cinema, let’s get a decrease, get it? Walk without the right goal, let’s avoid; Travels from time to time, this is how it is done. It is time for the government to do their homework and look at the amount of luggage it has. Baggage I want to say the following: How many ministries does he have to carry? Are so many ministries need? There are several ministries that the people do not even know the name, much less the name of the minister.
IM – At the same time that they are all talking about spending cuts, Congress also approves an increase in the number of deputies. Isn’t it contradictory?
CC “If I just look at the increase in parliamentarians, I would tell you that everyone would be against it.” I went against it and I am against parliamentarians increase here in the House. I voted against, but there are two things to analyze. Who asked to increase, according to IBGE, people are not wrong. They are not wrong. If my population has increased, if my population has increased, do I have more people than that other state? Wow, why does he have more than me? So thinking so, they are not wrong. How there is a breaker below, and how do you do it? It cannot decrease from 8 to 7, because it is law. And then, it ends up increasing the number of parliamentarians. So, thinking this way, I see that whoever asked is not wrong. But I still voted against. Because then it is the homework. The time is to cut spending, to hold the excess. This is true for everyone, including Congress.
