In recent months we have witnessed a passionate debate that, unfortunately, has not been transferred to the rest of society. Spain is in a unique situation in economic history: a budget surplus achieved not without effort and thanks to the longest phase of expansion in recent history the same time, announces the next fiscal reform government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Since the government announced a major effort to consolidate public finances and a reduction in taxes through the lowering of income tax. These measures are not too different from those undertaken by successive governments of Spain since the mid 90's.
Through commitments mediante la firma del tratado de Maastricht, el sector público español vio estancarse su peso en la economía, al tiempo que se reducía el déficit público y el gasto social en relación al PIB. Ha sido la mayor recaudación de impuestos, la congelación del gasto y la reducción de los tipos de interés en Europa los que han generado el superávit actual. Esta situación se ha presentado por el gobierno como un aspecto positivo de nuestra economía, pero se trata de un motivo de reflexión y propuesta por parte de los y las progresistas.
En nuestra opinión, el superávit presupuestario de la economía española debe utilizarse, fundamentalmente, para mejorar nuestro Estado de Bienestar, and provide adequate resources to the new law of dependence, the fourth pillar of the welfare state. And we justify two types of arguments: economic and political.
Let's start with the economic arguments: convergence with Europe must not be merely nominal, but based primarily on those most reliable indicator of the degree of satisfaction of the needs of society. During the years of government People's Party suffered a stagnation of social spending policies, resulted in a decline in the quality and quantity of public services in relation to other surrounding countries. Education was a prime example, with a progressive decline in quality during the entire decade of the 90. The new challenges such as the education of hundreds of thousands of immigrant children or the implementation of new educational plans through LOGSE not receive the necessary resources. As a result, the educational levels of English schoolchildren are among the worst in the OECD. And that's because in Spain there is a wide acceptance of private education and concerted as a means to escape this vicious and schooling for our children, even at great sacrifices by families. Those who can not afford, simply continue taking their children to public schools. Pensions and health no such cut, but a freeze of their weight in total GDP. In the PP's electoral program in the year 93 there was talk of privatizing but analysts working Popular Party politicians understand that this proposal seriously harmed their aspirations to rule and pledged not to reduce services (but not improve).
Behind the scenes, controlling inflation has been a frequent argument used to convince society of the need to tighten their belts. It has led to the subsequent fiscal adjustment. In a context of open economies, is the interest rate adjustment mechanism more relevant. Alongside this and in the long term, improving productivity of the economy that will ensure non-inflationary growth. And for that, public expenditure items such as R & D are essential. The English economy has historically low price increases if we consider the long phase of expansion and the context of rising energy prices. The big exception is the price of housing, whose increase is related more to speculation and little protection of the right to adequate housing.
If we focus on the political arguments, the first thing to say is that citizens who returned to left did so thinking that this would improve social and welfare spending, not that would lower taxes. The reason is clear: if so, would have voted on the right. And they did. The left has traditionally been strongest where their policies have been most recognizable by the voters. For a majority acceptance of public services is essential to their quality standards are at the height of the middle classes, usually more demanding and able to seek alternatives in the private sector. Is the widespread acceptance of quality services which enable the maintenance of the left in power and enable it to carry out programs of social transformation. In other words, we must be brave.
If we equip our law resources, their implementation is poor. Classes are popular, most in need of a network of support that will enable the full deployment of its potential. The left, which earns the trust of society with the promise of improving these services, must not disappoint those who have given us their vote. It is right that disdains the public sphere. And it can convince the majority of society if it does not fail to realize that their taxes support just policies or offer poor services.
Another demonstration of the above is summarized in the following example: out on the street and ask anyone: vd preferred., better care in hospitals or a tax? In fact, there is in Spain a social outcry against taxes. Even the Popular Party these days dare to present their proposals as a star. In the 97 years, Tony Blair won the election with a program that called for, not the tax cut, but the improvement of public services. To put it more bluntly, society is demanding more and better services, not surplus. It is unethical to present as positive surplus when English families report having trouble making ends meet or debt levels. And if the left is sensitive to that has everything to gain.
The surplus, by itself, does not imply any improvement in welfare. It is, in short, a scenario in which governments must choose: either maintaining the status quo, conservative governments own or take a leap forward. In addition, and against public opinion, an improvement of the welfare state is easily defensible. Its programs, where powerful and reach the majority of the population, enjoy wide social acceptance, create jobs and significantly improve quality of life of the population. It was the construction of the welfare state during the 80 (among other things), which created a loan from English citizens who maintained the socialist government in power for over a decade. No left-wing government would risk losing that claim to achieve budget surpluses boasting. To do so would fail to millions of cities and the citizens. Do not allow it.
and Paco Serrano Marcos Vidal
0 comments:
Post a Comment