The House of Representatives unanimously approved the urgency for assessing the Complementary Bill (PLP) that excludes, from the calculation of the limits of primary expenses, temporary expenses with public education and health provided for in the legislation dealing with the social background of the pre-salt. The project also excludes these expenses from the tax targets.
With the approval of the urgency, the project can be voted directly in plenary, without going through the commissions of the house.
The law that disciplines the use of the Social Pre-Salt Fund determines the destination, in the Annual Budget Law of the Union, equivalent to 5% of the amount of the fund each year for public education and health.
According to the author, Deputy Isnaldo Bulhões (MDB-AL), the annual contributions in the social fund are around R $ 30 billion and, If the PLP 163/2025 is approved, it will be possible to add around R $ 1.5 billion per year for education and health over the next five years.
“These are areas where there is a notorious lack of resources, so that these additional resources will certainly be welcome! It happens that if these expenses are computed within the spending limits provided for the new tax framework, the availability of resources for discretionary spending will be even more limited,” he said.
The deputy pointed out that the proposal aims to adapt the fiscal framework approved in 2023 to subsequent legislative amendments and to situations that were not observed at the time of approval.
“The dorsal spine of this framework is to ensure that primary expenses grow at a slower pace than revenues, generating fiscal space to pay public debt,” he said. “On the other hand, the norm recognizes the importance of government spending on strategic activities, and therefore excludes some expense limit spending,” he added.
The proposal also excludes, from the calculation of primary expenses, the expenses funded with international loans and their respective counterparts.
“Regarding resources from international loans, it makes no sense to be subjected to the spending limit, as they are the subject of contracts signed, with the obligation to be used in certain purposes,” he argued.
