Planning Minister Simone Tebet says that after Congress passes new rule there is no reason for Selic not to fall
05/02/2023
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_37554604729d4b2f9f3eb9ad8a691345/internal_photos/bs/2023/O/Y/eAZiGfR76xNr9r6bzfpA/02pri-200-tebet-a1-img01.jpg)
Simone Tebet — Foto: Ton Molina/ZUMAPRESS.com/Newscom
Planning Minister Simone Tebet is working based on the approval of the fiscal framework by the Chamber of Deputies in May and the Senate in June. With this, the Central Bank (BC) will have no alternative, she says: “There will be no more excuses not to lower the key interest rate Selic at Monetary Policy Committee (Copom), even by 25 basis points. For every condition that the Central Bank sets and that we solve, they will set others. What else will they do? After this week’s meeting, Copom will meet on June 20 and 21 and then on August 1 and 2.”
The minister’s experience in the Covid investigative parliamentary committee (CPI) gives her confidence to say that the mixed investigative parliamentary committee (CPMI) on January 8 will not mobilize the population in the same way, and therefore will not affect the processing of the tax reform. “In this CPMI people were scared and wanted vaccines, now they have turned the page and want jobs.”
The following are key excerpts from the interview Mr. Tebet gave to Valor:
Valor: The fiscal framework can only be sustained with new revenues. What makes you sure that the government will have them?
Simone Tebet: The framework aims to control public spending and stabilize the debt in the medium term. The debt would reach 90% of GDP in ten years. Only the framework guarantees that it will be around 85%. With a tax reform starting in 2025, the GDP could grow by 20% in 15 years. The concern with the target is within this perspective. Just as the inflation target is important, the primary target is fundamental because no one can spend more than they take in. Besides, we will only spend 70% of the real increase in revenue. I need R$150 billion, but if we get R$125 billion I will stay within the band with a deficit in the first year. If I don’t get the revenue I want, I will achieve the main goal of the framework, which is to contain spending. I will have to do it anyway. There is the Budgetary Guidelines Law (LDO), the Federal Audit Court (TCU), and Congress, which can call the economic team at any time to evaluate compliance with the framework. The ruling against the use of the sales tax ICMS rebates on taxable income already guarantees half of this revenue.
Valor: But this was in the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), and it still needs to go through the Federal Supreme Court (STF).
Ms. Tebet: But with a score like this, 9 to zero, the action comes with force in the STF. The court has already shown that it has a broader vision of its role today. It is the role of guardian of the Constitution but with a more systemic interpretation. And from this point of view, to understand that if the federal government cannot approve projects that affect states and municipalities without compensating them, the reciprocal is also true. The legal argument is strong. The states can give incentives but cannot jeopardize federal revenues. From a legal point of view, we are well founded, but in addition to this, the STF is aware that if we want to have fiscal responsibility, and this is fundamental to influencing the fall of interest rates, we need to increase revenues.
Valor: Doesn’t the fact that it is a decision that puts the federal government on one side and the Brazilian Agribusiness Association (Abag) on the other, make the relationship with the sector even more conflicted?
Ms. Tebet: The agribusiness environment is conflicted for other reasons. I come from agribusiness. It has much more to do with the invasion of productive lands, and the demarcation of Indigenous lands without adequate compensation in cash. Because it is not a problem to demarcate areas for the productive sector, as long as it is paid in cash, because the Constitution gave a deadline of five years and they have not demarcated, they have not done their homework. It is necessary to change the Constitution so that it is paid in cash and not in agrarian bonds. The agribusiness issue is much more the land issue than anything else. Agribusiness is willing to discuss tax reform. I met last Thursday the president of the Agribusiness Parliamentary Front, Pedro Lupion, and he is willing to discuss the reform, where you lose and where you win.
Valor: An important part of the tax expenditure is on agribusiness. Is the sector ready for the end of the tax cuts?
Ms. Tebet: There are two packages. In the first, on January 12, there was the spontaneous denunciation in Carf [Administrative Council of Tax Appeals] and the review of contracts of the past administration which could reach R$20 billion. Some of these revenues are permanent, others are temporary. R$150 billion has been announced and is 30% of the total. The second package includes the judicial risks, where the Federal Attorney General’s Office (AGU), the Ministry of Planning, and the Ministry of Finance have been working and are going through this victory in the STJ and could generate R$70 billion, and the taxation of electronic gambling, which nobody knows exactly, but could generate R$10 billion. And a third package, if these measures are not enough, will be the tax expenditure.
Valor: The framework was well received, but the party leaders have already warned that they will not accept the decriminalization of the Fiscal Responsibility Law (LRF). Was it a mistake to include this in the framework?
Ms. Tebet: No. It was a misinterpretation. The LRF never prevented the government from not complying. A target is a target. If I have external factors that prevent me from meeting the target, like a pandemic, we send a bill, and the Congress changes the target. The problem with [former president] Dilma [Rousseff] is that no law allowed her to change the target. If Congress wants to adjust, there is no problem, as long as it is in the institutional aspect. We have to satisfy the Congress; we have the TCU on our back.
Valor: When is the final approval of the framework expected?
Ms. Tebet: We know that when the Speaker of the Chamber gives his word, he keeps it. We have a good channel with the rapporteur, lawmaker Claudio Cajado and we were in the Senate this week and I didn’t see an angry opposition. The fiscal agenda is the right-wing agenda.
Valor: Do you think the president of the Central Bank was convinced in that Senate hearing?
Ms. Tebet: At that hearing, I was clear when I said that there is no contradiction in the Central Bank defending the inflation target and arguing that the interest rate controls inflation because inflation is a harmful tax on the poorest people. But there is also no contradiction when the government asks whether the 13.75% interest rates are correct. Are they justified? And what is this inflation? What are these factors? Are they the same as in the past? The war in Ukraine continues, and the pandemic has impoverished the world, as we know, and inflation has increased because of this. A review of inflation is needed. And the kind of inflation is temporary, it is seasonal. This analysis has to be done. I have seen Arminio Fraga [former president of the Central Bank] talking more about social issues than Roberto Campos [Neto]. The country doesn’t just have fiscal risk. It has fiscal and social risks. We see the liberals talking about this. Within this process, I believe that by the middle of the year, the framework will be voted on, and the Central Bank will have no choice but to lower interest rates. I have seen Marcos Lisboa [former Secretary of Economic Policy at the Finance Ministry] and Arminio Fraga clearly say the following: interest rates are related to fiscal policy. We are authorized to end the year with a deficit of 2% of GDP, but we are showing that we are going to end with half of that, or less than half.
Valor: But Arminio Fraga also said that the math does not add up…
Ms. Tebet: He says that the math does not add up because the increase in revenue has not yet been officially presented to him. That’s why this STF decision is important for us to plan our future steps. The discourse of the Central Bank in the last Copom meeting is that the Central Bank doesn’t work with expectations. It works with interest rate expectations, but not with expectations of approval in Congress. But everything is moving towards approval in May in the House and in the first week of June at the latest in the Senate. Once approved, what will be Copom’s excuse for not lowering interest rates, even by 0.25 percentage points? Every condition that the Central Bank sets and that we solve, they will set others. What will they do now?
Valor: Won’t the CPMI on January 8 interfere with the package approval?
Ms. Tebet: The commission will not interfere with the work in Congress. It is different from the CPI of the Pandemic. In the latter, society was indoors, terrified, and people wanted to know about the vaccine. Now people want to eat and want jobs. They haven’t experienced January 8th up close. The population has already turned the key, in this aspect: I am still right-wing, I am against Lula, but I don’t want Bolsonaro. The radical bubbles represent 7% to 8% of social media. It will not get in the way of the package approval. If Arthur Lira wants, he will put it in the plenary.
Valor: Taxes too?
Ms. Tebet: It will pass in the first half in the Chamber and at the end of the second half in the Senate. We have to make concessions in education, health, and services, and then it will pass.
Valor: And then it goes back to the Chamber?
Ms. Tebet: They can pass what is concurrent and leave what is not concurrent for a second pass.
Valor: During the Senate hearing, they asked for an administrative reform that would inevitably affect the judiciary. Given the dependency of the executive on the judiciary in the fiscal agenda today, is it appropriate to pursue it?
Ms. Tebet: This is not reform for the immediate future. It may be that in the second semester after the Chamber has passed the tax reform, Mr. Lira may want to take up the proposal to amend the Constitution, the PEC 32 (the so-called Transition PEC) again, but I wouldn’t worry about it now. It is a mistake to say that this reform will disturb stability, it is enough to regulate Fernando Henrique [Cardoso]’s reform. The big reform is to reduce the cost of the state apparatus, from the single medical record in Brazil’s public healthcare system (SUS) to the digitalization of the whole state apparatus. This brings quality to public spending and reduces the number of public servants.
Valor: Four months later, how do you rate the government?
Ms. Tebet: I was surprised by the quality and the political will to serve of the new ministers who, with small structures, are committed to showing Brazil ways out, in the Ministries of Racial Equality [Anielle Franco], Human Rights [Silvio Almeida], Women [Cida Gonçalves]. And also in the Environment, which is being organized over time. There is an involvement, a commitment to Brazil, and a loyalty to the country. Everyone is fighting for funds and social issues, for what matters, for the collective good. A lot of determination to get results. It is not because I am a liberal that my role is to cut spending. It is to find space for the social. I am interested in the quality of spending, in ridding the state of what is superfluous, what goes down the drain.
*Por Maria Cristina Fernandes — São Paulo
Source: Valor International