A-Infos (en) Brazil, UNIPA: The current conflict between the Lula/Workers' Party administration and Congress: between truth and lies in the political struggle! (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The coalition republic is experiencing yet another conflict between the 
branches of government, this time between the executive branch, the 
Lula/Workers' Party administration, and the bourgeois Congress. Both 
branches of government are agents of state violence against the people. 
Congress, in particular, represents the interests of various factions of 
the bourgeoisie, diverting the budget to serve the interests of the 
elites. ---- The current conflict between the Lula administration and 
the National Congress actually obscures the main points that workers 
must fight for: the end of the 6-for-1 scale, agrarian reform, the 
repeal of the pension and labor reforms, and the end of the New Spending 
Cap. This conflict between Congress, which we all know is always the 
enemy of the people and composed of crooks who only want a free ride, 
led by Hugo Motta (Republicans), began with the betrayal of an agreement 
made between Haddad and the economic team to increase the IOF (Financial 
Operations Tax) to reduce the primary deficit (to meet the goals of the 
New Fiscal Framework); Pay interest on the public debt (which consumes 
about 5% of GDP annually) and prevent public spending from exceeding the 
limit imposed by the new fiscal rules.

The government was sold on the betrayal of its broad front in Congress 
and took action, breaking the stagnation characterized by three central 
factors: 1) the government's declining popularity with almost a year to 
go before the elections; 2) meeting fiscal targets without, for now, 
attacking the constitutional ceilings, which should be left for a 
possible fourth term; and 3) mobilizing its members at a time of 
internal electoral dispute within the Party.

On the other hand, after a week of the government and its allies 
escalating the agitation and actions by part of the governing base, such 
as the occupation of Itaú's headquarters in São Paulo, almost all 
corporate media and their allies quickly criticized the "division of the 
country" between "rich and poor," expressing the class war existing in 
society. They were quite disturbed by the calls "congress an enemy of 
the people" and "a free ride congress," as well as the advertisements 
that criticized-realistically, it must be said-the Brazilian 
parliamentary world. Once again, the concern was not with the Brazilian 
people, inequality, injustice, or anything of the sort, but rather with 
defending the institutional framework and the battered and decrepit 1988 
Republic that the Workers' Party (PT), Lula, and their allies insist on 
saving.

THE TELECATCH WAR AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE NEW SPENDING CAP

Although the advertisements and movements like the MTST (Workers' 
Movement) and CUT (Workers' Union) that support the government criticize 
the super-rich and the lack of fiscal justice within the framework of 
the Liberal State, the main demand of the government and the PT is an 
increase in the IOF (Tax on Financial Transactions) within the New 
Fiscal Framework. This increase does not necessarily translate into 
higher public spending on health and education because: 1) The New 
Fiscal Framework maintains the logic of Temer/MDB's Spending Cap; 2) The 
government's priority is Fiscal Adjustment, not the expansion of social 
policies; 3) health and education already have constitutional minimums - 
and they do not increase automatically; 4) increasing indirect taxes 
(such as the IOF) is regressive and does not improve public services; 
and 5) the new fiscal framework does not prioritize investment, but 
rather deficit control.

The New Fiscal Framework (or "fiscal framework") does not repeal the 
spending cap rule, but merely partially relaxes it. Even with increased 
revenue (such as via the IOF), primary spending remains limited by the 
real growth rule of up to 70% of revenue variation. In other words: a) 
If the government collects more through the IOF (Tax on Financial 
Transactions), there is no mechanism to guarantee that this increase in 
resources will be directed to essential public services such as health 
and education, for example, since the overall budget is still rigid. b) 
The increased revenue could simply be used to meet fiscal targets 
(primary surplus) or pay interest on public debt to loan sharks, without 
increasing social investments. This is more likely in the current scenario.

The priority of the Ministry of Finance and Planning, led by Haddad and 
Tebet/MDB, is fiscal responsibility above all else. This means that any 
increase in revenue (such as through the IOF) will be used primarily to: 
a) Reduce the deficit and promote a primary surplus (to meet the goals 
of the New Fiscal Framework); b) Pay interest on public debt; c) Prevent 
public spending from exceeding the limit imposed by the new fiscal rule.

The additional resources that would arise from the IOF increase are not 
earmarked for health and education and could be absorbed by other 
mandatory expenses or by fiscal adjustment. According to the 
Constitution, health and education have a minimum spending limit. Health 
care receives 15% of net current revenue (RCL) and Education receives 
18% of tax revenue (in municipalities, 25%).

If the IOF (Tax on Financial Transactions) increases total revenue, the 
absolute value of the constitutional minimum increases, but this does 
not mean an improvement in the quality or expansion of services, because 
the government can meet the minimum without actually investing more 
resources, simply by passing on inflation. Furthermore, the New Fiscal 
Framework does not require that surplus revenue be directed to these areas.

Within the capitalist state's tax structure, the increase in indirect 
taxes (such as the IOF) is regressive, meaning it hits workers in 
general hardest, who need access to credit mechanisms and basic 
financial transactions, since the ruling class has other ways to pass on 
future expenses, or even circumvent them.

Finally, the New Fiscal Framework aims to limit state public spending, 
even if revenue increases. This means that if an IOF increase is 
approved, the government can use this money to meet fiscal targets and 
increase the primary surplus as a way to demonstrate its fiscal 
commitment to the financial market.

The Workers' Party (PT) and Lula Cacareja (Workers' Party) to the Left, 
but Govern with the Market

Whenever they're on the ropes looking for a parliamentary political 
solution, Lula and the PT (Workers' Party) escalate their left-leaning 
rhetoric, trying to mobilize their popular base and some of their 
supporters. This was the case, for example, in the runoff elections for 
Dilma Rousseff's second term. The window of opportunity has now opened 
with Congressional action, which acted in its own interests, and with 
the financial market, which was displeased with the IOF tax.

However, the main issue is that the Workers' Party (PT) itself was the 
architect of the New Fiscal Framework, which is based on a 
liberal-conservative theoretical perspective of the economy and imposed 
artificial restrictions on state-owned public interests such as 
infrastructure, healthcare, and education.

The government, through its Broad Front, decided to adopt a kind of 
permanent austerity, which forces it to cut investments to maintain the 
fiscal framework. On the other hand, it is left with a knife to its 
throat from the clientelist and patronage-based zeal of Congress through 
parliamentary amendments, which have even become central policy for some 
ministries, with state workers merely responsible for verifying the 
legal requirements of the amendments, without any veto power.

Build the General Strike for the End of the 6x1 Shift, Land and Freedom, 
and More Investment in Healthcare, Education, and Public Transportation!

Within the State's own framework, the economic and fiscal policies of 
the new spending cap are an economic setback. Blind fiscal rules only 
tend to worsen people's living conditions, failing to guarantee policies 
for high-quality full employment, reduced inequality, or financing the 
energy transition. Within the framework of a dependent capitalist 
economy, this fiscal policy tends to maintain inequalities and further 
expand the outsourcing and public-private partnership policies so highly 
praised by the current government. The increase in the IOF (Tax on 
Financial Transactions) is linked to the logic of the New Fiscal 
Framework, which aims to prevent public spending from growing 
significantly, even if revenue increases.

If the objective were to improve public health and education, alleviate 
the situation of workers who, with a higher income, seek to send their 
children to private education, and pay for increasingly expensive health 
plans, it would be more efficient to tax large fortunes, profits, and 
dividends. However, the government opted for a tax that doesn't impact 
the ruling class. The fact that this class ties in with the free-for-all 
Congress and is an enemy of the people only demonstrates its character 
as a grumpy, sour, mediocre, and greedy ruling class, heir to 
slave-based colonialism. Therefore, it is necessary to mobilize the 
people for immediate improvements in their daily lives, but also for 
social revolution.

Congress is indeed the enemy of the people. It governs for the ruling 
classes that dominate parliament and is filled with crooks seeking perks 
through parliamentary amendments or government positions. This Congress 
and the ruling class that has been its ally since Independence must be 
destroyed. We call on the entire anarchist, autonomous, revolutionary 
union, and revolutionary communist camp to build a common campaign for 
mobilization and the construction of a general strike! The first step is 
to act based on direct action to guarantee the immediate improvement of 
living conditions for our people:

End the 6-for-1 work shift with a 30-hour work week without wage reduction
Repeal of labor and social security reforms;
Repeal of the New Spending Cap;
Land and Freedom (Agrarian Reform);
End of tax exemptions for agribusiness and large corporations;
Taxation of profits and dividends and large fortunes

https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/2025/08/04/o-atual-conflito-entre-o-governo-lula-pt-e-o-congresso-entre-a-verdade-e-a-mentira-na-luta-politica/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en