[ad_1]
The relationships between the pro-government parliamentarians and the Government, tension that was evident in the vote of the 10% second withdrawal in the Chamber of Deputies. So much so that some deputies who had rejected the first withdrawal of pension funds, now gave their support.
Beyond the overwhelming vote – with 130 votes in favor – what happened yesterday in Congress shows something that the ruling party has been perceiving for days.
It is about the annoyance with the Government, and also some fatigue, for having to continually go out to defend the decisions of La Moneda that many admit openly disconnected from reality, or directly the lack of measures in some cases.
In simpler terms, the opposition is tired of bearing political costs for the “Lack of street” That – according to what they say in the intern – evidenced in the Government Palace.
The most obvious proof was the fiery speech of the head of the UDI bench, María José Hoffmann, where he accused the government’s weakness and warned that from now on relations were going to change.
Although at one point the cabinet change sought to contain the “friendly fire” with the entry of Mario Desbordes, Andrés Allamand and Jaime Bellolio, the formula is no longer working.
Added to that is criticism of the Minister Secretary General of the Presidency, Nicolás Monckeberg, who they accuse of not doing what is necessary to prevent the fall of Víctor Pérez due to the Constitutional Indictment.
The UDI “rebellion”
Thus, in the UDI bench they decided to let their deputies free to act to vote for the second 10% withdrawal. Finally, 15 voted in favor of the initiative.
Of them, several even changed their vote in relation to the first withdrawal of pension funds, where they were against.
Such was the case with deputies Osvaldo Urrutia, Gastón Von Mühlenbrock and Juan Antonio Coloma, the latter, deputy head of the bank. They were joined by RN Catalina del Real, Camila Flores and Diego Schalper.
However, the majority were not willing to explain their decision, such as Del Real and Schalper (who apologized for family issues), while in the case of Coloma and Flores, they submitted statements from both respectively.
Only Von Mühlenbrock came out to defend their change of position, recognizing that it is not a measure with which they totally agree.
But faced with the need, there was no other alternative. As the saying goes “in the absence of bread, the cakes are good”, although in this case it should be “in the absence of measures, good is the withdrawal of 10%”.
The “message” to the Government
About, Gaston Von Mühlenbrock He pointed out to BioBioChile that “although I believe that it is a bad public policy, because it damages future pensions, on the other hand the lack of work, the debts that affect individuals and families, have convinced me that a withdrawal of pension funds it becomes a necessary aid to cope with the economic crisis that is hitting thousands and thousands of compatriots because of the pandemic ”.
“That is why I have voted in favor of this initiative, but I hope that it does not become a constant, since we will mortgage citizens in the future when the moment of retirement arrives,” he concluded.
In that line, the deputy Juan Antonio Coloma He assured that “from the first moment we asked the Government for more resources, greater proactivity in the delivery of them, and we must be honest, although progress was made in the IFE, progress was made in the bond, not all the resources reached all people”.
“This is also a message to the Government, we need the Government to act more proactively in the reform of the pension system. We cannot continue delaying the probably most important reform of all ”, he lamented.
At the same time, deputy Camila Flores He asserted that “we, the deputies of Chile Vamos, strongly requested the Government to provide an alternative that was as universal as possible, that there be an alternative without fine print that reaches especially middle-class families, and unfortunately that did not happen. ”.
In his opinion, the Executive has not listened to its parliamentarians, despite having “been insistent when it comes to asking for audacity in the economic support of Chilean families and that did not happen. From my point of view, their time is up. If the government had listened to us in time, we probably wouldn’t even be discussing this project. “
[ad_2]
