Although polls of voting intentions show that it is leaving the right to shame in every way, the government, with its merits to be recognized, is far from being a marvel — as I mentioned when commenting on the problems of the so-called market and the opposition in the scenario for 2026.
Even among progressives, some of Lula 3’s mistakes draw attention. For example, the reactions to the president’s disregard for diversity are well known, with a shortage of more prominent roles. Environmentalists also have their reasons for criticism, such as the controversial exploitation of , to be the most clamorous.
In addition to these, at least three themes leave Lula especially exposed for the election year. And they give rise to the ill will of sectors of the private sector towards the PT member. They are: , and public accounts.
In , it was a mistake to remove the state-owned company from the privatization program. Why? Contractual clauses in the sale of the company could ensure universal service. In any case, government costs would be significantly reduced or eliminated, without harming the population.
We have a very poorly managed, fossilized company, which will have a billion-dollar loan to, perhaps, try to get out of the hole, and with a guarantee from the Treasury – that is, public resources.
The Post Office is a poorly organized mess that serves as a bargaining chip for low-level politics. This is the reason for protection.
Turning a blind eye to the State’s subdivision also helped. “Ah, but it started with Bolsonaro”… Yes, but it continued and got worse with Lula. It became a racket for the PDT and its surroundings, entangled in billion-dollar fraud.
As for , it’s not just about delusional taxation or little regard for the well-being of the disadvantaged. It will be necessary to correct directions. There’s no point in proselytizing “let’s not let the downstairs pay for the adjustment”. Yes, it is necessary to tax and cut coverage benefits, but it is not enough. Any reasonable analysis of the current situation — and it is not today — highlights an unsustainable trajectory. Resources are limited, it is not good policy to fight with bills.
It is not about giving a “hobby horse”, but about rebalancing fiscal policy and preventing public debt from continuing on a growth path. The government would not have to stop spending, but it would control the pace. There is a consensus that the impact on Social Security of the rule is a trap — just as the adjustments to the constitutional minimums for health and education are also problematic.
In theory, a signal that would improve the conversation with part of the market and the pragmatic right would not be so far from the president’s reach, even more so with a possible crazy candidacy on the other side. Lula, at worst, is known and more predictable.
No fiscal catastrophe is expected for 2026, nor is it expected that the government will balance its finances. Changes will be demanded in the dispute, but should aim for a 2027 with less uncertainty. The answers that will come can facilitate or hinder Lula’s trajectory and will be crucial for the new cycle, with or without the PT member.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
