Milei vetoes pension and disability spending increases, citing fiscal deficit pledge
In publishing the veto decisions, Milei's administration said that Congress last month passed the spending bills — meant to more fully compensate retirees for inflation and offer more financial benefits for people with disabilities — 'without determining the source of the funds.' It said the bills 'contradicted (Milei's) popular mandate' to bring down inflation.
Since coming to power in late 2023, Milei has vetoed all efforts to boost public spending, often wielding the slogan 'there is no money' against people's demands that he restore subsidies. The government projects that the additional expenditures, including a 7.2% pension increase, will amount to about 0.9% of gross domestic product this year and 1.68% next year.
'This president prefers to tell an uncomfortable truth rather than repeat comfortable lies: There is no money,' the government said. Spinning off the slogan of his ally, U.S. President Donald Trump, it added: 'The only way to make Argentina great again is with effort and honesty, not the same old recipes.'
Last year Milei racked up Argentina's first annual fiscal surplus in 14 years by making painful cuts to social spending and public works. The austerity measures helped drive down Argentina's monthly inflation rate to below 2% in June for the first time in five years, compared to more than 25% when Milei entered office in December 2023.
But the fiscal shock program has also deepened economic misery for many Argentines: Unemployment has climbed, wages adjusted for inflation have declined and prices are still up 40% year-on-year.
Congress can still overturn these vetoes with a two-thirds majority in both chambers, a challenge for Milei's libertarian party, which holds only a small minority of seats.
Milei, whose relationship with lawmakers has been tense ever since he took office, last year managed to win enough votes from his party's closest ally, the conservative PRO bloc, to prevent the pension increases.
Milei is looking to Argentina's crucial midterm elections in October to boost his party's representation as he seeks to continue his fiscal balance drive and draw more foreign investment.
The elections are widely seen as a referendum on his two years in office.
Retirees have been at the forefront of protests against Milei's government. Every Wednesday now for months, dozens of older Argentines struggling to scrape by on pensions of just $400 a month have faced off against security forces armed with tear gas and water cannons.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
Don't whine about federal budget cuts, lefties — put your money where your mouths are
Before politics overwhelmed the word, the primary meaning of 'liberal' was 'generous.' President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress have given political liberals a chance to take that meaning back — by opening their wallets to show just how much they value NPR, PBS and other programs defunded by the GOP. There's no shortage of funds on the left. Laurene Powell Jobs, the mega-rich backer of The Atlantic, has a net worth estimated at above $11 billion a year ago and believed to be even higher today. George Soros, at 94, has a fortune in the vicinity of $7 billion, with billions more in his Open Society Foundation. Bill Gates has about $115 billion, his ex-wife Melinda around $30 billion. Any one of these left-leaning billionaires could single-handedly make up the $535 million that NPR, PBS and local stations were getting annually from taxpayers before Congress zeroed out the subsidies. If half a billion a year is too much for one zillionaire, a half-dozen of them — or more — could share the burden without feeling a pinch. But are wealthy liberals willing to put their money where their mouths are? Citing Michal Heiplik, president of the public-media analytics organization Contributor Development Partnership, The New York Times reports PBS and NPR have reaped a windfall from small-dollar donors in recent months, with 120,000 new supporters stepping up to give some $20 million. Overall, donations are running $70 million above last year. And what works for PBS and NPR will work for humanitarian programs formerly funded as part of USAID as well, though the cuts to be made up there are bigger: Congress has eliminated about $8 billion in funding for USAID and other foreign-aid efforts, according to the Cato Institute. That's a lot of money — but not a dime of it has disappeared. After all, where does government get its money in the first place? Washington could only give to foreign aid or nonprofit broadcasting what it took — or borrowed — from the American people in the first place. When government doesn't spend money, society doesn't lose any of its resources: They just stay with the taxpayers, and the middlemen in government don't get their cut. That, for liberals, is a big part of the problem. The Democratic Party depends on shunting everyone's tax (or debt) dollars into the hands of bureaucrats, one of the party's most loyal constituencies. It's not just NPR and PBS that have been publicly financed — it's also liberalism as a movement. Bureaucrats in government, in government-supported nonprofits and other less-than-fully-private parts of the 'private sector' may work for organizations that are officially nonpartisan, but their campaign-giving heavily favors Democrats. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Their employers may be nonpartisan in theory, but the employees have a strong partisan tilt, and personnel is policy: Any organization is only a collection of people. USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were both born in the Kennedy-Johnson years, at mid-century liberalism's zenith. Liberalism had been dominant for so long — starting with the New Deal and Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration — that liberal intellectuals and policymakers came to think of themselves as more than just one side of American politics. They claimed to speak for everyone, as if a single party could define what it meant to be nonpartisan. But even then, the conservative movement was taking off while the Democrats were being dragged to the left by young radicals who wanted 'acid, amnesty and abortion.' Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The agencies and programs the Republican Congress has defunded were never as neutral as they claimed to be. And as liberals, under the influence of the left, adopted a more adversarial attitude toward America's past and present, it only became more obvious that the agencies and public-private partnerships they ran represented only one side of any argument. But this doesn't mean liberals can't continue to fund everything they funded before. Now they just have to do it with their own money. Some centrist liberals rightly see that as an opportunity, not an imposition: When I told a friend at a government-supported think tank I was sorry for the professional upheaval he was going though, he noted that his institution had in fact been coasting by ever since the end of the Cold War. He said it needed a renewed sense of mission, and having to raise private funds would give it the impetus it had been lacking for decades. Republicans aren't worried NPR or PBS will move further left if they court progressive billionaires, considering what little presence conservatives had on those networks already. But if they're smart, the broadcasters will see the loss of government funding as a spur to court a wider spectrum of support — and to put to the test what it means to be nonpartisan. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump says he doesn't trust the jobs data, but Wall Street and economists do
WASHINGTON (AP) — The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were 'RIGGED' to make him and other Republicans 'look bad.' Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large — the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them. 'The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable,' Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. 'We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing,' Boushey said. 'Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market.' Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to 'liven it up', but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says 'it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid.' The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers — when they are good. These are the figures Trump is attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to 'boost' Vice President Kamala Harris's 'chances of Victory,' yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations — including multiple locations for the same business — covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest — outside recessions — since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday and said, 'What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers.' Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: 'When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed.' Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. 'We are at an inflection point,' the report said. 'To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment … In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future.
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Company advised by Trump sons said it hoped to benefit from fed money, then took it back
NEW YORK (AP) — A public document filed by a company that just hired President Donald Trump's two oldest sons as advisers included a sentence early Monday that said it hoped to benefit from grants and other incentives from the federal government, which their father happens to lead. But when The Associated Press asked the Trump family business about the apparent conflict of interest, the document was revised and the line taken out. Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are getting 'founder shares' worth millions of dollars in New America Acquisition 1 Corp., a company with no operating business that hopes to fill that hole by purchasing an American company that can play 'a meaningful role in revitalizing domestic manufacturing,' according to to the filing. The president has geared his trade policy toward boosting manufacturing in the U.S. The original version of the securities filing said the target company should be 'well positioned' to tap federal or state government incentives. That reference was taken out of the revised version of the filing. The Trump Organization didn't reply to a question about whether New America still planned to benefit from government programs or why the line was cut. But the outside law firm Paul Hastings that helped prepare the document sent an email to AP saying it was 'mistake' made by 'scriveners,' an old term for transcribers of legal papers. Kathleen Clark, an expert in government ethics, said any excuses are too late because the Trumps had already tipped their hand. 'They just deleted the language. They haven't committed not to do what they said earlier today they were planning to do,' said the Washington University law professor and Trump critic. 'It's an attempt to exploit public office for private profit.' New America is what's know as a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. It's a publicly traded company that exists solely to use its funds to acquire another company and take the target public. New America plans to raise money by selling stock on the New York Stock Exchange at $10 a share. That will hand the two Trump sons a total of $5 million in paper wealth on the first day of trading. The company hopes to sell enough shares to raise $300 million, which it then plans to use buying a yet unidentified manufacturer. A press release issued by New America saying it was focused on 'American values and priorities.' It made no mention of the aim to get government incentives. The filing to New America's potential new investors to the Securities and Exchange Commission was explicit about what it was looking for in a target company. It said, among other things, it wanted a company that can ride 'public policy tailwinds' by benefiting from federal or state 'grants, tax credits, government contracts or preferential procurement programs.'
