Despite Cristina Kirchner’s criticisms in her letter, Martín Guzmán and the economic team remain unchanged for the moment.

Changes in the practice Alberto Fernandez announced Friday evening were profound and touched important figures in his government. After the election defeat at PASO, its trigger was the vice-president’s public letter Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, in which he openly criticized the management of the economy. More specifically, he spoke of “a bad fiscal adjustment policy which had a negative impact on economic activity ”.

Despite criticisms so harsh that they could not have any other main recipient than the Minister of the Economy, Martín Guzmán, the renewal of the cabinet has so far not included economic officials. The exception was that of Julián Domínguez, new Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, replacement Louis basterra, of whom no news had been given since the discovery of the post-election political crisis.

Sources close to the president revealed Infobae, that at this moment ministers whose replacements have not been announced will remain in office. This implies that in addition to Guzmán, they will remain in office. Matias Kulfas in productive development, Claudio Moroni at work, Gabriel Katopodis in public works and Alexis will fight in the transports. The permanence of all is adjusted to what marks a political crisis that no one considers resolved and the dynamics of the legislative elections which will take place on November 14th.

The renewal did not include two officials who had come to offer their resignation as part of the pressure from Kirchnerism on the first president, like the head of PAMI, Luana Volnovich, and that of Anses, Fernanda Raverta. Both answer directly to Cristina Kirchner and, although they are not ministers, they run two organizations with large budgets and political relevance.

The exception is that of Julián Domínguez, new Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, replacing Luis Basterra, from whom we have not heard from since the discovery of the post-electoral political crisis.

Two other members of the government with key responsibilities in the economy, the head of AFIP, Mercedes Marco del Pont, and the President of the Central Bank, Miguel Pesce, stayed on the sidelines of this week’s disputes and They did not appear in either of the two lists: neither in that of the officials who resigned nor in that of those pointed out by Kirchnerism as responsible for the errors pointed out by the vice-president in her letter.

Pesce has long-standing personal ties with the two protagonists of the race, the president and his vice. Close to the boss of the BCRA, they stress that the two sectors recognize that all the setbacks of this week have not impacted the foreign exchange market, a field of extreme sensitivity during the election period. We know that no one wins elections with the dollar by leaps and bounds.

The core of criticism of hard Kirchnerism has focused on Martín Guzmán and Matías Kulfas. The two ministers resisted the assault and they seek to move forward with the implementation of a series of measures which it is assumed will help the government to twist the electoral fate of PASO, among which is the call to the Council for the minimum wage or the increase the minimum tax-free wage for employees from $ 150,000 to $ 180,000.

But the key question lies in public spending and in the demand that Guzmán “relax the budgetary perspective”, as requested by Axel Kicillof. The Vice President endorsed it in her public letter: “According to the budget forecast, there is still 2.4% of GDP to be executed … more than double of what was executed and with only four months to complete the year … with a pandemic and a very delicate social situation. ” Such a harsh accusation practically held Guzmán responsible for the electoral defeat and that will oblige him to accelerate the generosity of the wallet for the governors and mayors who want to recover votes. The MP’s audios Fernanda Vallejos placeholder image they surely did not help him

As Infobae explained, the budget foresees a deficit of 4% of GDP for this year, so it is expected that the 2.4 points which Cristina “must be executed”, will actually be spent.. It won’t be savings (a sacrilege for the ruling party in the face of an election) but Guzmán was already planning to spend most of that money by November 14. On the other hand, public spending is still concentrated in the last months of the year, much more in election years.

Will Guzmán have room, after all that has happened this week, to talk about “reassuring the economy” and “debt sustainability”, his usual mantras?

How has Guzmán coped with this onslaught so far? In the first place, he has always denied that an “adjustment” has been made in his administration, as CFK said, because “reducing the public deficit is not the same thing as reducing public expenditure”, as it does ” the right”. If you were able to improve the tax situation during the first part of the year, in addition, It’s not because you spent less but because you received additional income, through the rise in soybeans, the IMF capital increase and the increase in revenues due to the rebound in the economy and rising inflation, which inflates income and liquefies real expenditure.

In his next steps after the renovation of the cabinet, the priority will be to put money in the streets. Any impact on debt or inflation will be discussed at another time as time is running out. Will Guzmán have room, after all that has happened this week, to talk about “reassuring the economy” and “debt sustainability”, his usual mantras?

Not wanting to add interns to a government that has just enough, in the BCRA they slip a complaint. They warn that part of the wave of spending to come will have to be financed by the debt and that for that the minister will have to be “less tied” to the rates that he offered until now to the market. With better rates, they say, it could capture the 4 trillion pesos that are now “sterilized” in the countries and Leliq. Why issue more, if there is only liquidity left, that is the question posed by the BCRA. This way you will have to do what the policy asks you to do: putting money in people’s pockets. And the sooner the better.

KEEP READING