In another example of how unusual the negotiation of the Omnibus law promoted by Javier Milei is, Miguel Ángel Pichetto
, head of the We Make Federal Coalition bench
that brings together 23 deputies and which is key to the aspirations of the ruling party
, says he was surprised
by the decision of the Executive Branch to withdraw the fiscal chapter of the initiative because there was consensus to advance on some issues, such as money laundering and moratorium.
Interviewed by
Clarín
this Sunday, Pichetto spoke of Milei
's "coercive schemes"
, described the omnibus law as "excess" due to the number of matters it contains and questioned the Minister of Economy,
Luis Caputo
, and the presidential advisor
Federico Sturzenegger.
, whom he calls "failure."
The following is a summary of the interview.
How did you take the government's announcement that it was withdrawing the fiscal chapter of the Omnibus law?
A bit with surprise.
There were issues on which we had made progress.
Today I see some articles that mention that we did not agree with money laundering, moratorium, emergencies and delegations and that whole chapter was advanced.
There was support, as well as personal assets, but it is a decision that the Government made and undoubtedly the fiscal chapter is outside the debate of the law.
On Tuesday our desire is to meet and work on the premises to incorporate some modifications, but in general terms we endorse the ruling of the law.
And regarding the fiscal issue we had a dissidence based on a vision of the country.
Taxing export sectors is not the way.
The conditions must be created so that it can export strongly.
But we were open to discussing it on the premises.
But then why did the Executive withdraw it?
It is a decision that you should ask the Government.
The Government sensed that it could lose the chapter on agricultural withholdings, which was probably the most critical axis.
And perhaps he considered that he did not have to discuss the entire fiscal and tax issue.
And he withdraws it, along with the Income Tax Law.
To be clear, Argentina needs dialogue, a nation-province dialogue, where balance and fiscal order are taken into account, the issues that the national government needs to stabilize the economy and the provinces also need fiscal and economic predictability. that the national government must guarantee so that the provinces can function.
That dialogue seems to me to be still pending.
From what he says, there was room to move forward with the law, except with retentions...
We had a difference in withholdings in order to the percentages that were applied to the cereal sectors.
But beyond retentions, do you understand it was possible to move forward with the rest?
There was also a view regarding privatizations.
There are companies that we consider fundamental for Argentina, such as satellite and nuclear issues.
No country gives away these types of companies.
And we think the same about Banco Nación.
The Government had taken out YPF.
Not everything is the same.
We agreed on a privatization framework law, with these exclusions but also with the understanding that Congress should participate in the privatization process that was on the list.
We were not denied.
It was a matter of reaching a point of agreement.
The truth is I don't know why he brought out the moratorium, why he brought out the money laundering, issues that were supported.
We must try to help the government in consolidating this stage of fiscal goals but without harming the federal interior that has companies, that has productions, people that live and work and that need some certainties.
Miguel Ángel Pichetto.
Photo: Emmanuel Fernández.
You questioned the absence of Economy Minister Luis Caputo in the debate.
The Minister of Economy has to explain, try to give certainty, to show the way, like the president, but the one who has the economic reins must give a message.
The mechanism is not coercion.
It is not good that Milei's leadership characteristic is through coercive schemes.
As Kissinger says, the good leader awakens in the people the desire to walk alongside him.
You have to build this scheme.
Leadership requires a framework of dialogue, of construction, of breaking with intemperance and the discourse that the other is the devil.
But what does it say about Caputo's absence.
It would have been important, and I am not saying this to mortify the minister, but he does assume the commitment to send an economic emergency law and reforms, what can be expected is that the minister goes to Congress.
Nobody would have attacked him, his word asking for collaboration would have been good.
He didn't come and no one knows why he didn't come.
Is incredible.
He said it was busy.
He was busy one afternoon with the subject of the Fund.
He could have come, he cannot answer that he had to do something else.
And that meeting with the Fund was held via Zoom.
But I have nothing personal with the minister.
What I have is that the minister once again executes a classic adjustment, there is no type of generation of new resources.
He eliminates all differential systems and leaves Tierra del Fuego in force.
Good good good.
They underestimate, they underestimate intelligence.
"The instrument is wrong"
Do you interpret this decision by the Government to adjust the funds it sends to the provinces as coercion?
That message doesn't help.
The message to build is to sit down with the governors, guarantee them certain mechanisms in the rules of the game and in co-participation, in what concerns education, in what the relationship between the Government and the provinces will be like.
It requires certainty.
He spoke before in surprise. Hadn't they told you that they were withdrawing the tax chapter?
No, we were talking.
There were issues that we had almost considered overcome in the debate.
Today I see some articles that say that we did not agree with the money laundering and the moratorium.
Any government needs the emergency and these instruments.
And this Government was going to have it.
Then there was discussion about withholdings and the privatization model.
And in the content of the law there was a set of issues that implied a profound change in tools and regulations that are also in the DNU.
It doesn't seem bad to me, but I would have defined it as the President's agenda for March 1.
I wouldn't have put it in this law.
And what would have been included in this law?
The elements conducive to fiscal balance, an agreement with the provinces, would have gone through this stage with much less institutional stress.
Was there incompetence on the part of the ruling party?
I'm not going to do ratings.
I understand that the President wants to raise his agenda with the mega law.
But the instrument is wrong. The mega law has no precedent in Argentine parliamentary life, wanting with one law to cover a multiplicity of matters, reforms of the civil code, the criminal code, justice, security, profitability, profitability, modify the fishing law, popular libraries, cinemas, you mess with artists.
When you analyze the economic issue you realize the insignificance of these issues.
With which you open a multiplicity of resistances in sectors that the government did not really need for this stage. But that is my view.
The president could have held all these ideas in his March 1 opening speech and projected them into autonomous laws.
The law did not detail what was important, what was essential, and what was secondary.
This is the product of its editor, a man who can really be a good economic technician, he is a trained man, but from the point of view of politics, of the nature of political decisions, that world is inaccessible to him, not he understands it.
And that is why he has always failed in public management.
Talk about Federico Sturzenegger.
Yes, I am referring to Mr. Sturzenegger, who still does not have any position in the Government.
Frederick Sturzenegger.
Photo: Bloomberg.
It is said that you insulted him at a meeting last week...
No, in no way is that true.
The thing is that I was not aware of that meeting, which was set up after the signing of the opinion to make the agreements that had been given in the opinion.
(Córdoba deputy Oscar) Agost Carreño went there.
When I found out by phone that Sturzenegger was going to be there or was there, I told them that they were leaving immediately.
This confirms my position that the meetings should be held in Congress, facing public opinion. I never hide the meetings.
It was a mistake to have gone there.
They were supposedly because Congress was blocked (due to the CGT act).
There is no doubt that Sturzenegger could not have been in that place.
Because?
-Because he is not a deputy, he is not a Government official.
From sectors of Kirchnerism they accuse them of collaborating with those who mistreat them.
That collaborationist, ally speech does not worry me, it does not keep me up at night.
I think you have to be responsible.
The responsibility is not with the Government, it is with Argentina.
It is important that the Government that took office had the necessary instruments to begin to govern.
Wanting to draw up this mega law seemed excessive to me.
If he had come within the framework of the economic emergency with powers that are practically the same as those that other democratic presidents have had, the government would have had its law immediately in the month of December.
The President did not have to renounce his ideas and vision for the country, he could have raised them on March 1.
I think there is a relationship framework that is not its own.
If you have a minority in the chambers, you have to try to build a parliamentary majority that will help you govern.
It is similar to what Napoleon said in the Battle of Borodino: “another triumph like this left me without the Army.”
The Government has to govern for four years.
And a government to govern for four years has to create conditions for governability, political dialogue and building majorities in the chambers.
All of this is possible if there is the will, but if only demerit, discredit, and attacks on the governors work, that leads nowhere.
The president has to respect the governors and legislators as we respect him.
I am not one of those who believes that the worse, the better.
Was any government negotiator not up to par?
You should evaluate that. But if there had been more flexibility and dialogue with the governors and Congress, a more positive law, perhaps shorter, could have been obtained.
And some topics could be debated in ordinary sessions, such as jury trials with judges in robes.
Will there be a session on Tuesday?
Our will is to meet.
You do not want to hinder or remain in the same position of rejecting Kirchnerism.
The thing is that we are not responsible for the previous government and what it left in terms of inflation, the economy, and retirees.
The Milei Government should explain to the retirees that they were victims of a depredation carried out by Alberto Fernandez, who today is enjoying life in Spain, that he changed the pension formula that had inflation plus salary for a hybrid formula that took more of the 40%.
Can your block grow with splits from other blocks, such as PRO and UxP?
We are not with a membership card in the corner.
But there are many deputies who are not very happy with a position of closure and not everything.
Did the governor of Tucumán Osvaldo Jaldo rush to break the UxP block?
Jaldo defends the interest of the province of Tucuman.
And I see it as totally legitimate.
What he always prioritizes in politics are interests.
Betrayal is a stupid concept.
Are you still in contact with Macri?
We always talk, I have respect for him.