The president of the Radical Civic Union defended the retirement mobility law sanctioned by Congress and vetoed by the Executive power, which contemplated an increase of $18 thousand for retirees, and criticized the President for arguing that its application put the fiscal accounts at risk: “He says that it throws all his accounts out of whack, but whether it’s three kilos of minced meat or six dozen eggs, it’s nothing.”
Martin Lousteau to Javier Milei: “He says that retirees earn more with him and it is a lie”
For Lousteau, the veto of the law is one more example of the Government’s hypocrisy “because The president says where the money comes from to increase pensions for retirees, but he never asks where the money comes from to lower taxes for the richest in Argentina”. And he continued: “He doesn’t ask where the money comes from to lower taxes on investments that were already going to take place in Argentina, such as the RIGI, which are also for 30 years. He doesn’t ask where the money comes from to buy airplanes or for his personal trips. I do know where the money comes from: from the adjustment for retirees. He has a phenomenal dose of hypocrisy.”
He also stated that Milei “sees another reality” in which “inflation went from 17,000% at 5% per year and “Neither of them is true.”“Just as he says that retirees earn more with him, it’s a lie,” the senator insisted.
Breaking down the vetoed law, he explained that on the one hand it sought to make up for the 8% difference between the 20% inflation in January and the increase received by retirees. “The second thing it does is make minimum pensions a little higher than the basic basket so as not to have retirees below the poverty line,” he said.
lousteau senate bases law
Reuters
Lousteau: “The majority of retirees are below the poverty line”
According to Lousteau, most retirees “earns less than a basic basket and is below the poverty line”“They had already lost half of their purchasing power since 2017,” he said, and with the inflationary jump this year, it increased, he added. So the objective of the project was to give them back a small portion of what they lost this year.
According to calculations by the radical economist, The government saves “a fortune of money on pensions” for having eliminated the previous formula by decree.” And he explained: “Next year, we will save 1.8 points of GDP, more than double what this project would cost.”
Furthermore, unless there are any changes, with the current system that updates salaries based on inflation, the senator said that they will not recover what they lost. “If retirees have lost 50% of their purchasing power since 2017 and today I only adjust it for inflation, it means that I am freezing their loss forever.”he explained in dialogue with the program “Best country in the world” of Radio with you.
In contrast, the project vetoed by the ruling party aimed to grant small increases as the country’s economy grows. “If Argentina grows and salaries grow above inflation, there would be an increase of half that for retirees, so that they can recover a little if the country does well,” he explained.
Martín Lousteau’s message to radical legislators: “I hope there is a common vision”
After the veto was published last night in the Official Gazette, Congress will have to decide whether to insist on the project or to endorse the President’s rejection. In this regard, Lousteau spoke about the position of the radicals: “I hope there is a common view. This project, which was partially approved in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, was a project that was initiated by the radicals (…) If it was approved by two-thirds in the House of Representatives, and it came to the Senate and was approved by two-thirds, I want to believe that we will defend the ideas we are promoting in both chambers. I hope that the radical bloc will do what it has to do, which is defend the project.”
In this regard, the senator reaffirmed that the UCR must vote against the veto.I have no doubt that it must be defended, that is what is appropriate. “The project was good. It was a minimal recomposition. It was fiscally sustainable. I don’t understand why anyone would say something different now,” he added.
Source: Ambito
