Anyone who reads my editorials knows that I have always supported a revision of the financial subsidy scheme. This is because the Government should allocate part of that amount to social and economic structures that would generate greater returns for the population as a whole, but especially because the existing distribution model completely ignored the vast economic inequality in society.
A truly redistributive public policy must be capable of distinguishing and prioritizing. It’s not about giving less — it’s about giving better to those who truly need it. The new requirement of a minimum 183 days of residency — with a few exceptions — is legitimate. The intention is for the support to go to those who live here, contribute, and actively participate in the community. But many stories fall through the cracks of this fine mesh, which comes with sudden and immediate effect. A change of this magnitude, given everything it represents, demands preparation time, awareness campaigns, budget projections, and — above all — respect for the implicit commitments a State makes to its citizens.
The shortcomings of this revision don’t stop there. It is troubling that the Government has publicly admitted it still does not know what the budgetary impact of the measure will be. First, because the main goal of the revision was precisely to determine how much could be saved on the checks in order to reallocate funds to other areas of the budget; second, because it has already informed all residents who is eligible; third, because if it doesn’t know how much it will save, then it also doesn’t know how much it’s cutting…
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire: without knowing how much is being saved, no one can scrutinize how (or if) those funds are being reallocated. The Government has only mentioned increases to certain subsidies for the elderly and people with disabilities, as well as pensions, but what they are able to reallocate today will be insufficient tomorrow — the rate at which the local population is aging will increasingly strain public finances.
There was a lack of vision and an excess of technocracy. If the goal was to rationalize spending, why not adopt the most obvious criterion: social justice based on income? A progressive model would have allowed for greater savings. If the goal was to stimulate the economy, why not convert part — or even all — of the subsidy into a consumption card? And I don’t mean the pandemic consumption cards. I mean one without a daily spending limit, usable for both dining out and paying everyday bills. It would help families, as well as small businesses, restaurants, and local services… It would keep wealth circulating within the Region.
They could have used this revision to kick-start the long-promised solution for the local economy, but as nothing was presented in that regard, we remain waiting on studies with no set date for implementation — studies that will likely require extraordinary funding.
In short, what was chosen was a last-minute administrative decision — poorly communicated and socially short-sighted. What the Government gains with this measure — in political capital, economic efficiency, or budgetary sustainability — is, at best, doubtful. What it loses, however, is certain: the predictability of its actions, and the chance to turn this revision into a real instrument of public policy.
*Executive Director of Plataforma.
