understand that the officer attempted to focus the election debate "model." What I do not quite understand is why the opposition comes, sometimes, in that discussion.
The memory of the scars left by the decade of the '90s and, in turn, its contrast with the successful economic performance in 2003-2008, is by far the best campaign speech posed by the ruling. There is a long list of information to shore up the ballot K: economic growth, fiscal surplus, payment to the IMF, exports, increases to retirees, wage increases, improved purchasing power ... One could go
The opposition also comes into this fight with a long list of data: the cosmetically improved income distribution, poverty increases for inflation, the economy stopped, the flight of capital is greater than the fall of convertibility, debt grows despite fiscal surpluses, put hand to the silver of the administrators .... One could go
But this discussion leaves out many others that the ruling did not agree, and hence the opposition could capitalize. Topics that do not necessarily make the ideological debate Deaf in the fall often Argentines, but, plain and simple, common sense: transparency of public information division of powers, independence of the judiciary, improving the fiscal federalism, and, above all, elimination of corruption . That is, clean the INDEC, the Council of the Magistracy, the control of state agencies, develop a new Federal Revenue Sharing Act, improve and transparent mechanisms for allocation of public spending. That is, have a neat government.
The mention of these topics is tangential. Someone mentioned ... one question ... and there just when it seems to be come an interesting proposal, it begins to discuss the model of the 90, the candidates witnesses, the role of judges in the campaign ... One could go
0 comments:
Post a Comment