Like all the years and past the festivities, our country begins a process of “budget discussion”. In this process (technical – political) 2 circumstances are encased which, in the opinion of any technician, requires at least a more complete discussion.
The first, which relates to the need for a serious budgetary process as a “baseline” of information, the evaluation of the budgetary and financial implementation of the current year. This single variable is not entirely easy and poses challenges of improvement in the financial reporting process of the state. In the same vein, the financial performance of some regional governments which, to date, have implemented less than 40% of the allocated resources (Arica, O’Higgins and Euble) is of concern. Under that scenario of laziness in budget execution; What will DIPRES propose? The parliamentarians of those regions, who will say? What’s the technical reason for that? What is the political responsibility of the authorities? The answer to all these questions most likely does not exist and budgets of “deaf nature and blind destiny” continue to be approved.
A second circumstance is given by the Risky maneuver of the Treasury to consider as income certain items that are considered in a draft legislation that is still under discussion. However, the tax modernization project will eventually bring net resources of US$917 million; risk is the result that such revenue is based on items that parliament rejected in the first legislative instance (such as the repatriation of capital and/or registration of assets abroad) and which the Government is now seeking to replenish before the Senate. Not only experts, but common sense, tell us that budgets are designed on the basis of certain and available resources. On the contrary, it necessarily causes a budgetary imbalance between income and expenditure and a financial mismatch between approved revenue and revenue received. As a result, an overwhelming and permanent cash problem.
The content poured into this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.
