It was 10:06 pm when, with the plenary empty and without the presence of the press, from 513 to 531. There were 361 votes favorable and 36 opposites, in just 15 minutes. Lightning and dialogue approval is another symptom of a uncommon congress and deepens the crisis of parliamentarism without fiscal responsibility, already alerted by in the early 2000s.
For its unconstitutionality and contrary to the public interest, the President of the Republic followed a similar understanding of the public opinion: 76% of Brazilians are contrary to the increase in the number of deputies, according to.
He passed him on the grounds that he determined the redistribution of the Chamber’s chairs due to demographic changes. In practice, what some states would gain seats, while others would have their benches reduced. Once again unable to vote for something contrary to their own interests, Congress chose to circumvent the decision and simply create 18 new vacancies, without any serious budget impact analysis and maintaining current distortions.
The approved final text tried to contain the negative reaction providing for a freezing of the Chamber Expenses between 2027 and 2030, including limits for cabinet funds, parliamentary quotas and other benefits. Still, as the Public Leadership Center (PLC) warned in a note, “empirical studies on this relationship stand out that the increase in the number of legislators often leads to higher public spending and taxes.” Even more serious would be the cascade effect, with the increase in the number of chairs also in state legislative assemblies, which is always the triple state representation in the House.
It is also necessary to consider the aggravation of the budget capture by Congress. Today, those already consume almost a third of the public budget. For Political Scientist Beatriz Rey, a researcher at the University of Lisbon, in the problematic context of the execution of parliamentary amendments without any transparency or traceability, “with the largest number of deputies, we will have more problems”, because parliamentarians “will continue to want more power without being held responsible” “
Last Wednesday (13), the House approved the appointment of how the parliamentary amendments of committee will be spent on the budget “without any debate, information from where the money or publicity about who the political godparents of the funds are going”, as. Neither did the parliamentarians themselves have access to total values first of all, hurry to rush.
In short, Congress’s unpopular attempt challenges it by maintaining the under-representation of the states historically already impaired, aggravates party fragmentation and fosters more fiscal irresponsibility by the legislature. “It is the duty of civil society to press for the maintenance of the presidential veto, ensuring that this debate occurs to the clear, with social participation, data and transparency and not to perpetuate distortions,” says Arthur Mello, coach coordinator of the Pact for Democracy.
In a moment of severe fiscal imbalance, Congress should give an example and reduce costs, not expand them. Increasing chairs without facing transparency bottlenecks deepens a system in which parliamentarians concentrate more power without accounting for society. The measure is walking in the opposite direction to what Brazil needs now.
It is the responsibility of the House leaders and respecting the clamor of most Brazilians, avoid new setbacks and maintain the presidential veto.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
