Even if the voting intention polls show that Lula leaves the right to shame in all directions, the government, whose merits are recognized, is far from being a marvel – as I mentioned in the last column when commenting on the problems of the so-called market and the opposition in the scenario for 2026.
Even among progressives, some of Lula 3’s errors attract attention. For example, the reactions to the president’s disregard for diversity are well known, with the paucity of appointments of blacks and women to more senior positions. Environmentalists also have their reasons for criticism, such as the controversial oil exploration in Foz do Amazonas, which is the most controversial.
In addition to this, at least three themes expose Lula particularly in this election year. And they arouse the ill will of certain sectors of the private sector towards the member of the PT. These are: La Poste, INSS and public accounts.
In the case of Correios, it was a mistake to remove the state-owned company from the privatization program. For what? The contractual clauses of the sale of the company could guarantee universal service. In any case, government costs would be significantly reduced or even eliminated without harming the population.
We have a very poorly managed, fossilized company, which will have a loan of a billion dollars to, perhaps, try to get out of the hole, and with a guarantee from the Treasury – that is to say public resources.
The Post Office is a poorly organized mess that serves as a bargaining chip for low-level politicians. This is the reason for protection.
Turning a blind eye to state subdivision also contributed to the INSS scandal. “Ah, but it started with Bolsonaro”… Yes, but it continued and it got worse with Lula. It has become a racket for the PDT and its surroundings, entangled in a billion-dollar fraud.
As for public spending, it is not just about crazy taxation or a lack of respect for the well-being of the most disadvantaged. The directions will need to be corrected. There is no point in proselytizing “let’s not let those at the bottom pay for the adjustment”. Certainly, it is necessary to tax and reduce coverage benefits, but this is not enough. Any reasonable analysis of the current situation – and this is not the case today – highlights an unsustainable trajectory. Resources are limited, it’s not good policy to fight with bills.
It is not a question of giving a “war horse”, but of rebalancing budgetary policy and preventing the public debt from continuing on the path of growth. The government would not be forced to stop spending, but it would control its pace. There is consensus that the social security implications of the rule for indexing real minimum wage increases are a trap – just as adjustments to constitutional minimums in health and education are also problematic.
In theory, a signal that would improve dialogue with part of the market and the pragmatic right would not be so far from the president’s reach, especially with a possible crazy candidacy from the other side. Lula, at worst, is known and more predictable.
No fiscal catastrophe is expected for 2026, nor is the government expected to balance its finances. Changes will be demanded in the context of the conflict, but they should aim for a 2027 horizon with less uncertainty. The answers that come may facilitate or hinder Lula’s trajectory and will be crucial for the new cycle, with or without the PT member.
PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click on the blue F below.
About The Author
