Gustavo Olmos is a member of the Budget Commission integrated with the Treasury of the Chamber of Deputies.
In an interview with LA RED21, Olmos said that “the savings that the government celebrates is basically due to the fall in real wages and the fall in liabilities.”
-Why did the FA generally reject the Accountability project?
Accountability does not show a way out of the economic and social consequences of the pandemic and that is worrying us
-We reject the Accountability that was proposed. On the one hand, on what has been done, the government is proud to have saved 140 million dollars and to have exceeded its own goals, not what the FA thought had to be done, but its own evaluation, its own debt ceiling and of the expense that he was willing to make, he did better than what the government itself claimed. The other side of that is that there were situations that could have been addressed and that were not addressed. With those 140 million dollars that the government saved according to its own criteria, it should have spent it in sectors of the economy and it did not. Going forward there is nothing, there are no measures that point to a reactivation of the economy, that point to the post-Pandemic and how we are going to get out of this situation. In the Ministry of Tourism, which is a key area in the country’s economy, almost 7 and 8 points of Gross Product (GDP), 100,000 people who work, a sector of the economy destroyed, one stop from one day to the next, practically total. However, there is a single article that reallocates funds from one project to another, not a single defined policy, and neither was there in the Budget, there was a single article that claimed to create the Gender Unit within the Ministry, nothing that has to do with it. with tourism policies. I put that example as I could put several more. Accountability does not show a way out of the economic and social consequences of the Pandemic and that is worrying us.
-According to the FA, what measures should be taken to face the crisis caused by the pandemic? I know that the left coalition criticized the housing cuts.
The government, by decree, illegally, because a decree cannot change the law, it applied the 85% cap, it is a decree prior to the pandemic that applies throughout the State. That meant $ 120 million less home foreclosure
-Exactly, what are the funds that the National Housing Plan has? It is provided by law and there is an adjustment mechanism. The government, by decree, illegally, because a decree cannot change the law, it applied the 85% cap, it is a decree prior to the Pandemic that applies throughout the State. That implied 120 million dollars less of execution in houses, in the construction. This is a sector that energizes the economy, because it moves associated sectors and works in tune with construction. Neither, for example, was the government willing to carry out public works. You have a five-year planning and you want to have a certain deficit, there are certain works that you want to do, advance them, make roads, bridges, etc., before 2024, 2025, now in 2021, 2022, 2023. At the end of the story the account It is the same, but that helps the economy move in a sector that spills, and it was not willing to do so either. In tourism there is no plan. We proposed, the popular pots were being served with a militant effort from neighbors and social organizations, on the other hand we had stopped hotel infrastructure, stopped kitchens. Let’s do this in better conditions from a nutritional point of view and let that provide the popular pots! None of those proposals were taken into account in the government’s agenda.
-Are there more cuts planned in Accountability? The government has said “there were fewer resources, but the same was invested more efficiently.”
What the government does is cut back, not execute policies, and based on that, say that it has better numbers, and the other thing it does is take things out of the National Budget and “throw” them into trusts, which is a financial mechanism and not is considered when doing the deficit account
-That is the discourse of the coalition and the government, but it is not true. The explanation for saving is basically due to the drop in real wages and the drop in liabilities, that is what explains more than 60% of government savings. The opportunity to be more efficient has been lost, but the needle does not move in the volumes in which the government celebrates having done it from one year to the next only simply with improved management. The management improvement has an increase in savings that are small and that over time are relevant, but the situation does not change drastically from one year to the next. What the government does is cut back, not execute policies, and based on that, say that it has better numbers, and the other thing it does is take things out of the National Budget and “throw” them into trusts, which is a financial mechanism and not it is considered when counting the deficit. With this route he cheats himself, he tells you “look at how savings and on the other hand he is spending on something that he does not consider when he makes the account that gives him an error”.
-Regarding the formula that was found to pour funds into the settlement problem and reverse that situation, using money that was going to go to Colonization. How did you see the formula that was approved?
It was legislated so that the colonist does not have the obligation to live in the rural property and they do not have the obligation to work it, that allows anyone to receive a field under favorable conditions, subsidized by the whole society and sublet for another to work it and make a difference between the price you receive it and the market price when you sell it, without this having an effect on what you want to keep the population in rural areas, and keep it productive
-The government saved in the National Housing Plan. What we are talking about Colonization is much less than what I save in the National Housing Fund. If he had executed the National Housing Fund, he had this problem solved, at least the same budget allocation that he has planned. We are concerned about the dismantling of Colonization policies. In the LUC there are signs in that sense. It was legislated so that the colonist does not have the obligation to live in the rural property and they do not have the obligation to work it, that allows anyone to receive a field under favorable conditions, subsidized by the whole society and sublet for another to work it and make a difference between the price you receive and the market price when you sell, without this having an effect on what you want to keep the population in rural areas, and keep it productive. That which the LUC raises, now has a new chapter that implies weakening. The entire Board of the Colonization Institute said that what was approved is the minimum that is needed for survival but not to make great policies with the funds assigned to it. It is a better resolution than the one that had originally come out of the Deputies, which was more restrictive, but it is still an economic allocation that does not allow Colonization to develop policies to purchase land and support the Colonists who are within the program.
-Is there money to make all these investments, to attend the Housing Fund and face the crisis?
-The government saved more than it stated that it was going to save, it had a margin, in the National Housing Fund it had 120 million dollars that it did not execute and the savings it made was 140 million dollars. The government has the conditions to do so, it received about 585 million dollars of special drawing rights, which is a financial instrument provided by the IMF. It is an issue for the world with the aim of reactivating economies, to address a global problem. Uruguay receives according to the percentage that it has in the IMF which is 0.85%, they touched 585 million dollars. Those funds that are planned to reactivate the economy, the government says “we put this in reserve and we leave it quiet” to improve the country’s reserve. The FA senator (Enrique) Rubio was insisting on this when the news was known, (the government) had the opportunity to do things that help to reactivate the economy and they did not.
