Well shot, but with reactionary biases

The budget project is well done.

It has procedures to be approved, which must finalize the interim of the accounts since 2018. It is, thus, current, which allows the enormous European aid to be accommodated.

And it is oriented well towards expansionary spending, which corresponds against a strong recession.

Therefore, its defects are comparatively less serious, and therefore can be corrected in Congress.

Except perhaps the optimistic calculation of the recovery of GDP and tax revenues for 2021, when the pandemic continues to rapidly devour economic activity.

Someone as significant as Pablo Iglesias admitted to Pepa Bueno the night before last that "in the process of amendments it could be improved", although he was referring to one of its annexes, the procedures of the Minimum Vital Income.

But if that applies to one element, it will apply to all, right?

There are three measures to rectify, as they are too reactionary.

Although the United-Podemos has proposed them precisely to symbolize a “clearly left-wing” budget, according to its leader.

Among the tax increases that, contrary to what is said, will hardly collect anything from "the rich", the 1% in Heritage stands out.

It depends on the autonomous communities, so the calculation that it will report 339 million is science fiction.

And worse, as long as the total exemption on which Madrid bases its unfair competition is not previously terminated, it will further encourage capital flight to this

tax

.

This is what happens to measurements with a soul, but without a body.

Also the increases to the highest segments of personal income tax - indispensable when the recovery arrives to bring us up to the average of the collection in the EU - are now mere propaganda.

They will barely reap 144 million: mere tickles.

The ridiculous always delegitimizes any sound purpose.

And it further undermines the socialist promise that in times of recession there would be no tax shift.

The other stone of scandal sneaks in like black sheep among the excellent spending measures aimed at productive recovery and social rescue: it is the general salary increase for civil servants, for about 1,500 million.

If it were selective, and of a greater amount, for the sanitary and assimilable, who have earned it with inordinate efforts and at the cost of many lives, there is no objection.

But, why an indiscriminate increase, and already fixed, of 0.9% when inflation is not yet known at the end of the year and it is likely that it will remain at zero at most?

It was -0.4% in September and -1.4% accumulated since January.

Why increase the purchasing power of the public meteorologist, statistician or lighthouse keeper by discriminating against their private colleagues who will have seen their salaries fall or have lost their jobs?

Do those who proclaim it really believe that this is on the left?

Or did they skip class when they explained corporatism, inbreeding and patronage, those gems of the ultra-conservative universe?