Mr. President, I will try to be thoughtful in terms that can and fix the position of our block in front of all these things are being said. Obviously try not to fall into the trap of not to discuss the budget. So I will try to use some of my time arguing in favor of the budget. (Applause.)
preopinante A deputy spoke of the debate on Resolution 125. I want
say something, because that was a debate that marked us all, perhaps most uniquely me. In that debate was, if I remember correctly, about 18 members of our block who voted against the government's position.
must have been 18 and many of them are here today. Never happened to me or any of the members of our block, or any of the members of our government, putting a pall of suspicion on the vote of each of these deputies and the deputies know who voted against.
Many of them were gathered the next day in our block. We have not taken any penalty and could have attempted, so to justify themselves, saying that "it was because they offered", "gave", "got the green Banelco" ... We said nothing.
None of the members of our bloc said in that regard. Of course we grieved his attitude, but from a political standpoint. Never put a blanket of suspicion.
say something more, something that I noted in one of the other sessions: if some of those members who joined our list were now sitting in the block of the Front for Victory, the situation of majority in this House would be quite different.
Then, when they talk about the legitimacy of the victory of June 28 or June 28 elections, does not correspond with the reality of popular legitimacy because half of us here have the legitimacy of the October 28, 2007 and half the legitimacy of the elections on June 28, 2009.
It seems to me a very bad political practice, and I say with respect that when you are about to lose a vote they seek explanations on issues that have nothing to do with politics.
When we passed the 125 but what we all say we are not thoughtful political space, we have no tendency to self-criticism, self-criticism did. So none of the deputies who later left the block at different times received any kind of discrimination or sanction of the block. They left when they wanted, for the reasons they wanted. Yes we did the self of why there were 18 members of our block who voted against the majority position of the block in this bill.
Now is that because there are members who are not, there are suspicions. We, too, missing three members of their own: one that was sitting, he killed the father and had to return to missions. I refer the Member Llera.
There are two that are on the road. Two weeks ago, before the death of Nestor Kirchner, at a meeting of block ask all our members not to travel. We said, used a vulgar word, saying they are all in quarantine, by the end of November to ensure that we lack a deputy. There were two deputies who were personal travel are not authorized by the House.
But I'm not going to go out and make a public prosecution on the two deputies nor I will say that there was someone who paid for the trip so they are not in this session.
So I do not think politics is the best way to start hiding behind the outcome of a vote that the opposition thought won, why did quorum.
We do not deceive anyone. Each block president called me, were several who did so to ask how many votes had I said the same thing: "We have 114 votes, 115 with the president." Since the start of the session did not get one more vote.
I think that we should not victimize when one does not leave things as well as they expected. The answers must be sought elsewhere, we must think differently.
other hand, I say with absolute sincerity are all political leaders and come to this House with our history and our track record speaks to anyone who believes that will give as strong a negative response. If you talk to someone it is because the cross in a hallway could have said: "I'm not agree," "could relax" or "We could have a different view."
This situation may arise because you have a friendship, because they forged closer relationships between members of different blocs or because you have more confidence to talk about certain things with certain people. But putting a pall of suspicion on what happened at this meeting is a farce. I say this with absolute confidence and honesty.
Another comment I want to make is about the chief of staff. One can not say that it is the absolute truth, but almost ensure that he has not spoken to any Member of this House. Lie, in fact spoke with one. It was a week ago, I was there and it was to ask what was your opinion on the budget. That was the tone of the conversation.
In my opinion it is quite logical that the commander of Staff phone call to a congressman to ask what he thinks the budget. Personally I did most of the blocks. Why did not I do if I come here to try to win a vote? Why did not I will ask Members to be to return and were not to stay? This is the logic of the task block any president.
So I think we have a great ploy to avoid what I said they wanted to avoid when applying for the adjournment, ie that discuss the general budget of the Nation. We want to discuss the budget and therefore have been present throughout this session that takes more than a considerable time and hope that a vote on the day of the date.
Entering the analysis of the project I must say that since the restoration of democracy this is the first time that we are in a similar institutional situation, and that parliamentarians have been periods in which the ruling was a minority. For example, in the 1987/1989 parliamentary session Radical Civic Union lost the majority had held since 1983, in the 1987 elections had Peronism won in most Argentine provinces, starting with the province of Buenos Aires and had a majority in this chamber, the UCR had lost its majority.
In mid 1988, Dr. Alfonsin sent the budget for this year, at the time budgets were not sent earlier, and could have the votes necessary to approve this budget.
In the period 1997-1999, Dr. Menem had lost the 1997 elections, which had won the Alliance, and the Peronist Party had no majority in this chamber. The opposition consisted of two political forces: the Radical Civic Union and Frepaso. The last budget management doctor Menem was approved in 1998, and the Radical Civic Union and Frepaso signed the release with partial dissent to enable their treatment and Dr. Menem government had budget.
In times of a government with weak institutions, De la Rua also had its budget. Dr. Duhalde also had its budget.
always voted the budgets submitted by the Executive. Pattern never changed a budget submitted by the Executive. Always favored the fact that the role of Congress in front of the general budget of the Nation is in control and not a government role. Budgeting, this law of laws, this plan of government is a responsibility of the Executive. May be rejected or not but you can not do is try to put the executive branch a separate budget he sent. You can not try the president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, steer the budget for the opposition. Is irrational. (Applause.) It is institutionally illegitimate. It is constitutionally wrong and I come to say no as stated in this Congress for many times, which have generated scenarios to coerce opposing forces.
not come to say that if we approve the budget of Argentina will go into the abyss. We come not to try to discuss the budget within a framework of government weakness or instability institutional. In contrast, among the many ironies when you look at the different opinions of the budget, the group "A" and the deputy Lozano, these provide a stage for Argentina's own most optimistic that we propose, with economic indicators of changing much more favorable economic trends.
not come to tell you that Argentina is on the brink of the precipice and that if Argentina's vote on the budget will fall or institutional weakness. We come not to say anything about that, but we come to ask them to let us govern. (Applause.) All I say is "Give us a budgetary tool you need any president, that the gave Alfonsin to Menem, de la Rua and Duhalde, give it to Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. " Why
not want to give the budget to the President of the Nation? That's all we came to ask. We come not to request the inclusion of a special clause in the Constitution or anything strange. We come to ask you to join us, we will facilitate the adoption of the budget, the tool of the government plan of the president.
We know our numbers, we know that we do not have numbers to pass it by ourselves, but we know that there are ways, there are ways to facilitate the ruling party have a budget. If not want to commit to a general vote, abstain, but allow the president governs with its own budget, which she designed. How are we going to have to govern us, we won the elections and have the responsibility to govern, which is to manage public money to the budget that designed the opposition, which is better? We must govern with ours! That's why we voted! They gave it to all the presidents of democracy and does not want to give it to Cristina!
indeed what we were looking at this session was to find an alternative parliament that would allow us to give the president the possibility of ending on the last year of his first term management with a budgetary rule absolutely genuine and transparent.
This budget does not have anything else other than the budgets of previous years and so wrong has gone to Argentina. I do not intend to recognize that Argentina has done well, but too bad it has not been in seven years.
In January, February and March this year, we criticized a lot for the issuance of the decrees of necessity and urgency for the use of reserves. There is included in the budget bill the request for authorization to use the reserves to pay debt service! That is the number of public works that have been made and are designing the length and breadth of the country!
It is truly incomprehensible attitude today. It is incomprehensible attitude of the Radical Civic Union, a party that has governed, which has had responsibilities in difficult times, and never ran out of budget. It is incomprehensible attitude of some colleagues of mine former governors, who know how important it is to have a budget and what it means now you are denying the budget to the President of the Nation. My block
provincial deputies in the province of Santa Fe has always voted the budget of Dr. Binner, and so we've been criticized in his own party. I have been accused of binnerista for the government had a budget! And we come here
engaged and involved in the discourse of collaboration, we want help, do not want to put a spoke in the wheel, and so on. How can we believe you do not want to put a spoke in the wheel if there is nothing easier than the budget vote for someone who is governing? There is nothing easier, do not come to vote on a work, a law or anything like it. The easiest thing is to vote on a budget! This is being discussed today in Argentina! This is being discussed today in the House of Representatives, our legislators! There is another discussion! The other arguments are quibbles. May win the vote passing the motion adjourned, but next week we will be discussing this again.
I mean absolutely clear that Cristina is the first president of the democracy that governs without delegated authority. On 24 August, fell all delegations of authority. Everyone said that if he fell the delegation of powers in Argentina was entering a crisis. The president told me: "Do not worry, somehow we will govern." I also just say that a while ago: "Do not worry, if you leave the budget or the budget does not come out any way we will govern." (Applause.)
I am convinced that this is a very bad sign institutional This Congress will not give your budget to the President of the Nation. I will say something to ask you not take it amiss. What was the difference or overlap between the opposition from 1987 to 1989, the opposition from 1997 to 1999 and the present? Peronist opposition in 1987 thought it could be a government in 1989, the Alliance in 1997 thought it could be a government in 1999, but I think you do not believe government can be next year. (Applause.) So, care little about the idea of \u200b\u200bmaintaining macroeconomic institutional minimum guidelines for the development the nation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment