The draft State Budget Law for 2011 includes more or less, what can be done given the state of the economy and political and social forces that play in the country. Tax increases to higher rents and timid tinkering with variable capital companies are attempts to show some social concern. If the economy deteriorates and accounts out of balance, it will reduce the spending and raise taxes. Just over applies.
Most of the comments made reflect ideological positions rather than technical, because nobody knows how they operate today, fiscal policies, and past experiences are not valid in an economy dislocated by the crisis. What can be cut in public spending that is meaningful, how to meet the bills without raising taxes, is it ethical to remove subsidies that only allow the recipients to survive? What we should do today to improve the future is inconsistent with what is essential to make, but compromises the future. Wasteful expenditure of the State Administration should be eliminated but this will not settle accounts public, but if we do the same with the autonomous regions and municipalities perhaps the effect is important.
The severity of the crisis is such and such large imbalances that gave rise to it, that the budgetary measures have no impact on basic problems such as stagnation of the construction, lack of credit to SMEs, or the liquidity of municipalities. Some policies are wrong, such as those taken by the Government at the beginning of the crisis to stimulate consumption, but not the cause of the crisis or have been worse.
In America there is a debate similar to ours. Imbalances there are more serious: that of construction, financial system, or debt. But it is an economy with more resources and public and private capacity to succeed, although, as happens to us, no industry to generate sufficient employment. The president is beset by conflicting demands on the one hand, require policies and people in the government favoring non-financial companies, cutting taxes and spending, and other secular critics of lacking in infrastructure and health, keep asking military apparatus, and advocate increased consumption, while they are terrified of the huge external deficit. Three members of the economic team are gone, and although figures are so important as Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, and Paul Volcker, who worked well with Republicans, there is no political will to create a common front against the problems of the state.
could make a list of economic sins, ranging from financial folly and private debt, the nonsense about the land and housing, to the waste for many years in public administration, that some desirable. Who feels free now to throw stones at budgets that can not do more than confirm the current instability in our economy? Gumersindo
Most of the comments made reflect ideological positions rather than technical, because nobody knows how they operate today, fiscal policies, and past experiences are not valid in an economy dislocated by the crisis. What can be cut in public spending that is meaningful, how to meet the bills without raising taxes, is it ethical to remove subsidies that only allow the recipients to survive? What we should do today to improve the future is inconsistent with what is essential to make, but compromises the future. Wasteful expenditure of the State Administration should be eliminated but this will not settle accounts public, but if we do the same with the autonomous regions and municipalities perhaps the effect is important.
The severity of the crisis is such and such large imbalances that gave rise to it, that the budgetary measures have no impact on basic problems such as stagnation of the construction, lack of credit to SMEs, or the liquidity of municipalities. Some policies are wrong, such as those taken by the Government at the beginning of the crisis to stimulate consumption, but not the cause of the crisis or have been worse.
In America there is a debate similar to ours. Imbalances there are more serious: that of construction, financial system, or debt. But it is an economy with more resources and public and private capacity to succeed, although, as happens to us, no industry to generate sufficient employment. The president is beset by conflicting demands on the one hand, require policies and people in the government favoring non-financial companies, cutting taxes and spending, and other secular critics of lacking in infrastructure and health, keep asking military apparatus, and advocate increased consumption, while they are terrified of the huge external deficit. Three members of the economic team are gone, and although figures are so important as Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, and Paul Volcker, who worked well with Republicans, there is no political will to create a common front against the problems of the state.
could make a list of economic sins, ranging from financial folly and private debt, the nonsense about the land and housing, to the waste for many years in public administration, that some desirable. Who feels free now to throw stones at budgets that can not do more than confirm the current instability in our economy? Gumersindo
Ruiz.
(Grupo Joly 28/09/2010)
