On December 10, or whenever the date His Excellency President of the Government decides to hold general elections, one cycle will end and it may, it just may, start another. The problems, however, will remain the same. High debt, high unemployment, excess spending and unproductive spending, elephantine administration and in many cases ineffective… To these must be added others of a more political nature, such as territorial tensions -Today only asleep-the deterioration of the credibility of basic institutions of our coexistence system or the growing unpopularity of a political class apparently unable to reconnect with society.
it’s all of them worrisome matters whose prognosis has worsened over time as a consequence of a greater evil: the prominence of the interest of the parties in the face of the general interest; the foolish predisposition of these to confront instead of agreeing; the consolidation of a culture of collision to the detriment of transversal agreement. Undoubtedly, one of the biggest obstacles that stands in the way of the country’s recovery and progress is the manifest inability exhibited by political leaders when it comes to finding common areas of understanding. I say exhibit because on many occasions they ostentatiously show the disagreement, as if it were a medal, while systematically ruling out any hypothesis of a specific alliance with the adversary.
This is not a reform of pensions, but of the taxation of the labor market; a reform in which key factors to guarantee its viability, such as the population pyramid, are left in the background
This has happened with the broad lines of economic policy, with unemployment, with European funds, with international politics, with education… and now with pensions. The agreement reached by Jose Luis Escriva with Podemos and the unions, and with the approval of a European Commission that does not quite trust itself and has demanded extraordinary surveillance mechanisms, is the result of a double need: to comply with Brussels to continue receiving funds and have an electoral asset in the face of the municipal and regional elections in May that compensates, at least in part, for the recent tears in the government coalition. There is evident satisfaction on the left for this agreement, because, in addition to being a breath of fresh air, it feeds the discourse of lack of solidarity on the part of the political and business right-wing. But, Is this the pact on pensions that Spain can afford and needs?
A pact that the businessmen flatly reject, does not convince the experts and does not subscribe to the first party of the Opposition. No matter how much the signatories proclaim that it is a historic agreement, and one that has a long history, the most probable thing is that the lack of consensus will cause its future reform. Why has Minister Escrivá not made the slightest effort to reach an understanding with the PP on such a crucial issue? What is the compelling reason on which the resignation to carry out a project that should -and could- have had the support of more than 220 deputies in Congress is based? Simple: pensioners make up the main deposit of votes for a party in power, a deposit that on election eve should not be shared, except with whom you have no choice but to share it.
A significant deviation from the expected income, any doubt that settles in the markets about the solvency of our economy, can push us into the abyss
It is about reaching May with the road clear, hence, to avoid cumbersome delays and inconvenient comments, neither the AIREF nor the Council of State nor the Toledo Pact have been previously consulted. And it is that we are not facing a reform of pensions, but of contributions. We are facing a reform of labor market taxation that considers as secondary factors that are key to guaranteeing its viability: population pyramid, life expectancy… We are facing a kick to follow that parks the underlying problem again and that, if the income forecasts are not met, it can jeopardize the social spending of several generations; in the face of a political decision that places the responsibility for success on the resistance capacity of companies and workers.
In a context ofand economic volatility, in which a bank goes bankrupt one week and a war breaks out the next, with a considerable increase in financial expenses generated by the growing debt – more than 31,000 million in 2023, a figure higher than the sum of the so-called basic public services: Justice, Defense , citizen security and foreign policy-; In this disturbing scenario, the Government assumes a very high risk. A significant deviation from the expected income, any doubt that settles in the markets about the viability of our economy, can lead us to the abyss. Because in two or three years, all bald, let the European Union put the brakes on. That the future no longer depends on us, nor on whoever is in charge of the Government at that moment. To the Greek abyss. Let’s remember: cut pensions up to 40%, general tax increase, drastic thinning of the Public Administration… Catastrophist? It can, but just in case we pray.
