Post by account_disabled on Feb 25, 2024 0:06:06 GMT -5
LRF, the factual observation emerges that the budget execution time is as important as the volume of financial resources allocated to a given item, but such a monthly rhythm will be given by the risk of frustrating the target of zero primary deficit.
Throughout , the risk of exceeding the fiscal target will bring an unquestionable technical impediment that could lead to contingencies of up to R$ billion in parliamentary amendments (as already mentioned, R$ billion in tax amendments and R$ . billion in committee amendments). This scenario tends to facilitate an agreement between the Executive and Legislative branches to review the primary result target, reestablishing – provisionally and as much as possible – coalitions on the pace of budget execution and the federal government's allocative priorities within the scope of mouth-to-mouth control. of the National Treasury.
The relaxation of the fiscal target tends to be a precarious solution B2B Email List to a profoundly more serious problem, the equalization of which involves issuing regulations – through a complementary law – requested by article , §º, item III of the Constitution [] , even so that it is effectively respected the notion of legitimate ordering of priorities that planning imposes on the budget cycle.
After all, it is not up to LDO/ to deal with matters reserved for complementary law, so that the Legislature usurps – directly or indirectly – the exclusive competence of the Executive. Scams of this magnitude must be rejected from now on, in order to prevent them from being constitutionalized in the future in yet another round of intensification of the search for a distorting type of budgetary parliamentarism.
Newspaper Valor , “ Initially, the Executive sent the budget piece to Congress providing no real for commission amendments. Parliament then approved a provision in the Budget Guidelines Law (LDO) that reserved at least % of the Net Current Revenue (RCL) for commission amendments, which would amount to R$ billion.
The final value, however, was increased by decision of parliamentarians, reaching R$ billion. To do this, they reduced the budget for the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC) and discretionary expenses (investment and funding) of the ministries.
Now, the federal government has decided to veto part of the committee's amendments precisely to restore these PAC and other discretionary expenses that were cut by parliamentarians.
When it sanctioned the LDO at the beginning of the month, the government vetoed the device that reserved % of the RCL. Therefore, nothing prevents the government from vetoing, in the Annual Budget Law (LOA), the value of amendments to a lower level.
When sanctioning the LDO, the government vetoed the section that required the commitment of resources for individual and bench amendments within days after the proposals were released. The payment schedule sought to increase Legislative control over the pace of releasing resources and has already been a subject of friction between the Executive and Parliament”.
Expenses that constitute constitutional and legal obligations of the entity will not be subject to limitation, including those intended for the payment of debt service, those related to innovation and scientific and technological development funded by a fund created for this purpose and excepted by the budget guidelines law ”.
Throughout , the risk of exceeding the fiscal target will bring an unquestionable technical impediment that could lead to contingencies of up to R$ billion in parliamentary amendments (as already mentioned, R$ billion in tax amendments and R$ . billion in committee amendments). This scenario tends to facilitate an agreement between the Executive and Legislative branches to review the primary result target, reestablishing – provisionally and as much as possible – coalitions on the pace of budget execution and the federal government's allocative priorities within the scope of mouth-to-mouth control. of the National Treasury.
The relaxation of the fiscal target tends to be a precarious solution B2B Email List to a profoundly more serious problem, the equalization of which involves issuing regulations – through a complementary law – requested by article , §º, item III of the Constitution [] , even so that it is effectively respected the notion of legitimate ordering of priorities that planning imposes on the budget cycle.
After all, it is not up to LDO/ to deal with matters reserved for complementary law, so that the Legislature usurps – directly or indirectly – the exclusive competence of the Executive. Scams of this magnitude must be rejected from now on, in order to prevent them from being constitutionalized in the future in yet another round of intensification of the search for a distorting type of budgetary parliamentarism.
Newspaper Valor , “ Initially, the Executive sent the budget piece to Congress providing no real for commission amendments. Parliament then approved a provision in the Budget Guidelines Law (LDO) that reserved at least % of the Net Current Revenue (RCL) for commission amendments, which would amount to R$ billion.
The final value, however, was increased by decision of parliamentarians, reaching R$ billion. To do this, they reduced the budget for the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC) and discretionary expenses (investment and funding) of the ministries.
Now, the federal government has decided to veto part of the committee's amendments precisely to restore these PAC and other discretionary expenses that were cut by parliamentarians.
When it sanctioned the LDO at the beginning of the month, the government vetoed the device that reserved % of the RCL. Therefore, nothing prevents the government from vetoing, in the Annual Budget Law (LOA), the value of amendments to a lower level.
When sanctioning the LDO, the government vetoed the section that required the commitment of resources for individual and bench amendments within days after the proposals were released. The payment schedule sought to increase Legislative control over the pace of releasing resources and has already been a subject of friction between the Executive and Parliament”.
Expenses that constitute constitutional and legal obligations of the entity will not be subject to limitation, including those intended for the payment of debt service, those related to innovation and scientific and technological development funded by a fund created for this purpose and excepted by the budget guidelines law ”.