TO days of the vote on the Bases Law and the fiscal package in the Senate, the head of the UCR, Martín Lousteau, presented two ambitious minority opinions with fundamental changes and has decided not to accompany the ruling partyin a decision that clashes head-on with the vote in favor of the rest of his bloc and causes an earthquake in radicalism.
During the last two weeks, Lousteau dedicated himself to practically drafting a new law. His opinion on the “base law”, which he signed alone, has 243 articles, five more than the proposal that La Libertad Avanza signed in commissions along with the rest of the UCR, the PRO and provincial blocks.
The president of radicalism is convinced that the changes accepted by the ruling party are “cosmetic” and will fight on the premises to force more modifications in numerous articlessomething that could be dangerous for La Libertad Avanza, which comes to the session with very close votes.
Since his meeting alone with the then Minister of the Interior, Guillermo Francos, and a subsequent one with Vice President Victoria Villarruel, The senator did not maintain further dialogue with the Government and, furthermore, the relationship with his co-religionists in the Senate seems to be broken.
To begin, Lousteau proposes to include in the Base Law itself the 8% retirement recomposition that has just been approved by Deputies, something that may have support from Unión por la Patria. The legislator has already publicly asked his group to support the half-sanction.
In his opinion, It also promotes the bimonthly update of the budget for the operation of national universities (an issue that remained on “stand by” in the Lower House) and the continuity of public works with a 75% degree of progress.
Besides, The head of the UCR did not contemplate in his opinion any delegation of powers to President Javier Milei, which puts that chapter (one of the main ones for the Government) at risk because it is also rejected by Unión por la Patria and another radical, Pablo Blanco from Fuegian. There is uncertainty around this issue.
What the Lousteau opinion of the RIGI says, Profits and money laundering
In it economic planethe main objections and changes money laundering and the Personal Assets Tax are in place, while in the RIGI (Large Investment Incentive Regime), which he described as “excessive”, he proposes two alternatives.
In the latter case, what it seeks is, on the one hand, to maintain the LNG regime that was approved by Deputies (“with projected investments of more than 30,000 million dollars”). And, on the other hand, complement the Mining Law “that works wellwith those things that potential investors, with projects ranging from 350 million dollars to billions of dollars, do consider essential to make the investment effective.”
In it laundering, proposes that a person who has entered in the last ten years cannot do so now or in the future. The ruling party, on the other hand, only prohibits entry in the future (until 2038) but a later law could modify it. In addition, Lousteau wants to expand the universe of excluded subjects to companies of officials and administrators and beneficiaries of social plans, among others.
He ruling applies zero rate for those who launder up to $50,000, 5% between $50,000 and $200,000, and 10% of that figure onwards. It also seeks to have 100% of the proceeds shared between the provinces.
In Personal Assets, Lousteau believes that the half-sanction project “benefits the richest of the richest.” In her proposal, she aims to “maintain the progressivity of the tax” and “benefit more and faster those with lower assets” instead of higher ones.
In another order, promotes an increase in the income tax floor and an update of values and scales every three months instead of every six, as the Government tries. Likewise, he is against the 22% differential for Patagonian workers, an offer that the Government made in exchange for getting votes from senators from that region.
As for the privatizations, Lousteau’s demand is that the Government present a plan for each company. In the case of Aerolíneas Argentinas, Correo Argentino and Radio y Televisión Nacional (RTA), he considers that “they have problems, but they all provide a service that must be preserved.” Due to the number of objections that occurred in the debate, that chapter is hanging in the balance.
