The third time is the charm and after six months of back and forth, of failed sessions and hundreds of modified articles, of presidential missiles against the “rat’s nest” of Congress and a dialogueist opposition that begged the government to help them, The Chamber of Deputies voted for Javier Milei’s first law and is preparing to sanction the second. After one in the morning, the Base Law – which includes a regressive labor reform, extraordinary powers to eliminate public organizations, the privatization of eight public companies and an investment regime with exorbitant benefits for multinational companies – was sanctioned, with the modifications introduced by the Senate, with the support of the PRO, radicalism, We Make the Federal Coalition and a large part of the provincial forces with 147 votes in favor and 107 against with 2 abstentions.
The fiscal package, with its reversal of the income tax and the reform of personal property, also received majority support. The return of the income tax for workers received 136 votes in favor and 116 against, with 3 abstentions. The reduction in personal property taxes for the richest received 134 votes in favor against 118 against and also 3 abstentions. The judicial process is now open, especially of the income tax, due to the irregularity of the procedure followed.
From early on, the Chamber of Deputies was dominated by fatigue and the feeling that, after six months of debate, a stage of Milei’s government was finally coming to an end. The radicals and Pichettistas, who would later support the sanction of the two laws, puffed out their chests and assured that “now the president has run out of excuses.” The ruling party, meanwhile, was exultant: it had managed to gather a quorum after midday without any problem and moved calmly with the certainty that, at dawn, it would finally be able to offer the president the first two laws of his administration. No one had wanted to miss the event and, from early on, Karina Milei and Victoria Villarruel were seen passing by – who arrived at the same time but did not exchange a word – as well as Guillermo Francos.
The only source of official unrest revolved around the poroteo for the restitution of Profits for all people who earn more than 1.8 million pesos. The vote on the fiscal package would consist of four votes: first article 111 referring to tax expenditure, then Profits, Personal Assets and, finally, the rest of the project with the modifications of the Senate. And the rebellion of homeless radicals, such as Karina Banfi, Fabio Quetglas or Roxana Reyes, had the government nervous: the UCR deputies had been complaining about having to bear the political cost of an unpopular measure when the president, who had voted against Ganancias when he was a deputy, later came out to accuse him of “fiscal degenerates.” So much nervousness ended up proving unfounded.
None of the radicals wanted to be marked as the person responsible for the tax being rejected, so the majority was willing to negotiate. The majority demanded funds to finance works in radical municipalities. Others, meanwhile, demanded a smoother dialogue with the national government. The majority agreed that, at the end of the day, the tax would be approved, but the number was finite, and the Mendoza native Pamela Verasay, as well as other radical Mileístas, could be seen running through the corridors, working to organize the block.
The case was different for Personal Assets, a chapter that in April had accompanied the entire block and that, now, the UCR would suffer at least seven losses from the Manes and Evolución line. The ruling party, however, still had the number to approve it.
The Peronist dilemma
Faced with the uncertainty over Profits, the ruling party aimed its guns at Peronism. Specifically to the four people from Catamarca who respond to Raúl Jalil who, in the April vote, had abstained (except one, Sebastian Nóblega, who had voted in favor). “The governors are breathing down the necks of some deputies. They will accompany them, they will whore them, but the important thing is not to break,” analyzed, already resigned, a UxP union leader. The bloc had just held two long meetings in which the legislators’ explanations that had accompanied some points of the Base Law and the fiscal package had been heard and, despite some internal recriminations, it had been agreed that the important thing was to maintain unity. of the bloc as the only “true” opposition. The objective was to reject the ruling party’s laws, admitting that there would be some inevitable leaks, and prepare for the second stage.
The biggest dilemma, however, was the RIGI. Due to the format of the vote, which put for consideration the majority opinion that accepted the modifications made by the Senate, there was no possibility of a particular vote. Therefore, to accompany the RIGI, the people of San Juan and Catamarca (who had already voted for it) would now have to vote in favor of the Base Law in general. The atmosphere was thick, however, since the experience of the Senate – where several Peronists had accompanied the RIGI – had ended with a festival of threats of expulsion of the PJ. The people of San Juan, like Walberto Allende or Ana Aubone, had come to demand the effect that the RIGI would have on the mining exploitation of their province and some speculated that they could end up supporting the law. At the close, however, Allende contributed one of the two things: he claimed mining activity, but rejected the entire provisions of the Base Law.
Judicialization and the end of the cycle: the final debate in the House of Representatives
“What there is today is a great agreement from different political sectors confirming the course that the Argentine people voted for. We hope that today this law is the beginning of a change,” celebrated Santiago Santurio, who, like the libertarian majority, would highlight the six months of debate – in which the government had had to resign itself to negotiating with the political caste – as a kindness that had made it possible to obtain the best possible law. As the hours passed, however, much of the debate would end up revolving around a possible judicialization of the fiscal package, specifically the chapter on Profits and Personal Assets, which had been rejected by the Senate.
“The judges are going to receive hundreds of thousands of lawsuits, but not from Kirchnerism, but from at least 800,000 workers whose tax situation has been changed three times in the last 9 months,” warned Vanesa Siley (UxP), who denounced that insisting on the approval of Profits and BBPP went against article 81 of the Constitution: “The two titles of the fiscal package have regulatory autonomy and are structured as their own laws, so if they are completely discarded they cannot be treated again.”
“It is up to the Chamber of Deputies to decide whether to insist or not. It is regrettable that those who see themselves defeated in the parliamentary sphere try to judicialize politics,” said libertarian Nicolás Mayoraz. It was Silvia Losppenato, however, who took the lead in defending the government’s constitutional interpretation: “There is no impediment in the Constitution to deal with various matters in a law. What they could not achieve at the polls, they intend to achieve in the judicial courts. But you know what? They are going to suffer the same fate that they suffered until now. Gentlemen, members of the helicopter club, you failed again because today there will be a law,” said the former larretista who represents, today, the largest technical team of the ruling party.
The PRO, despite the internal war between Mauricio Macri and Patricia Bullrich, would come out to defend the two laws as if they were their own. “Only those who live as a caste could not understand that in December there was a crisis that could not wait,” said the former pigeon, María Eugenia Vidal.
Patagonia on the warpath
The Chubut oil unionist who answers to Governor Ignacio “Nacho” Torres, Jorge Ávila, however, would ignore the constitutional discussions and warn that, if Ganancias were approved, it would be all of Patagonia that would go up in arms. “Do you think we are going to give you the Income Tax? As soon as we have the first discount we are going to stop all the country’s activity,” he warned.
The radicals, meanwhile, exposed their internal differences. While Francisco Monti (Catamarca) defended, by means of a blow to the bench, the restoration of the income tax and called on his fellow Peronists to do the same –“I don’t care about partisan factions, I’m going to vote for a progressive tax”–, others, like Fernando Carbajal (Formosa) warned that the issue would be brought to court.
The HCF deputies, meanwhile, took the opportunity to point out that the government, after much fuss, had ended up negotiating with the “political caste.” “The government learned to negotiate,” quipped Oscar Agost Carreño, one of the deputies responsible, along with Miguel Ángel Pichetto, for the government having to remove Aerolíneas Argentinas, Correo Argentino and Radio y Televisión Argentina from the list of privatizations. “The excuses and the smokescreen are over,” said Nicolás Massot.
It would be the left and UxP, as well as the Santa Fe socialists, who would lead the criticism of the law. “It puts the benefits in the business sector and takes away workers’ rights. It puts them in a situation of dismissal when there is a strike. And it continues to allow labor fraud,” denounced Sergio Palazzo. Máximo Kirchner would also take the floor, already close to midnight, who would particularly emphasize the consequences of the RIGI: “It is true that this law contains a curtailment of labor rights, so the opposition will have to think about how to build a 2027 to restore those rights. But the RIGI exceeds the mandate of the current president,” warned the leader of La Cámpora and recalled, as an example, the case of Petronas: “Petronas signed an agreement with YPF that has half approval from the Deputies and, however, now wants the new RIGI. What does it mean? That the conditions favor Malaysia and Petronas and not YPF and the Argentine people.”
“Are we going to commit the injustice of restoring the income tax to workers? Less than a year ago, Milei himself said that it was ‘a colossal madness to treat wages as profits’. Do you think that there will be legal security in the world with a president going back on his word in this way?” Eduardo Valdés (UxP) quipped, on the other hand.
The Civic Coalition would have its own banner: the reinstatement of Article 111, which calls on the Executive to submit a bill to reduce tax expenditure by 20 percent. Two-thirds were needed to pass it, since that was the majority with which the Senate had rejected it, and it was a lost battle: it would only serve as input for the dialogue-oriented opposition to criticize the government.
