Javier Milei told to ‘grow up' by his vice-president
Victoria Villarruel immediately responded on Instagram, telling her boss to 'behave like an adult' and accusing him of being out of touch because he lived in a 'palace'.
The public spat was triggered by the senate approving motions aimed at raising pensions and allowances to compensate for inflation that still runs at 36 per cent – a reform vehemently opposed by Mr Milei.
The president immediately vowed to veto the pension rise after the Bill was approved by 52 votes to four in a big setback for his radical austerity agenda. Mr Milei blamed Ms Villarruel, who presides over the senate, for failing to block the vote.
'And if, by some chance, which I don't expect will happen, but if the veto is overturned, we'll take it to court,' Mr Milei added. He then reposted the comment on X from a supporter, calling Ms Villarruel a 'traitor, demagogue and stupid in economic terms'.
In her response, she said the president had already achieved a fiscal surplus for the first time in years, adding: 'Helping the most vulnerable shouldn't be so terrible. The issue is that a pensioner can't wait and a disabled female, even less.'
She also called on her boss to spend less on foreign travel. In his 18 months in power, Mr Milei has gone on 24 international trips, an issue that his opponents repeatedly contrast with ordinary Argentines' drastic belt-tightening under his reforms.
Relations have long been strained between the president and vice-president. Although they share a fierce antipathy to all things 'woke', the pair do not see eye to eye on most other issues.
Even allies regard Mr Milei as having a one-track mind, obsessed with all things economic. But Ms Villarruel, who comes from an army family, has long been focused on justifying and minimising the serious human rights abuses that took place under the military dictatorship of the 1970s and 1980s.
She is said to have been hoping to become defence minister as well as vice-president, but was instead frozen out of the president's inner circle.
In May, he publicly refused to greet her during a ceremony at Buenos Aires' cathedral, something Ms Villarruel also highlighted over the weekend on Instagram, saying 'one never loses good manners'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
What does rising inflation mean for interest rates – and Rachel Reeves' Budget?
Inflation is up again – prices are 3.6 per cent higher than a year ago, worse than the forecast 3.4 per cent – while the economy shrunk by 0.1per cent in May. This news isn't helping the government build a reputation for economic competence, and it adds to a rather depressing backdrop to the next Budget in late October, widely expected to be another with substantial tax rises. As we all know, elections tend to be won or lost on the economy. Why is inflation up? Partly for technical reasons related to how the consumer price index works: fuel and energy prices fell substantially around this time last year, pushing inflation down to the 2 per cent official target; and while they're not rising much now, there is that arithmetic effect. More substantially, and worryingly for ministers and the Bank of England, the figures suggest that core (or underlying) inflation – much of it attached to growth in wages – remains too strong for the Bank to be confident about trend inflation coming down markedly. That means an even slower downward path for interest rates. For the chancellor, it seems some but not all of the increase in employers' national insurance that came into force in April is being passed on in price rises, the rest being met by lower wage settlements and pruning of profit margins. The minimum wage increase has also increased labour costs. These have certainly given the opposition some ammunition. As the governor, Andrew Bailey, sometimes remarks, the last yards of this marathon race to get inflation down are the hardest. What will happen to interest rates? It's nuanced. The consensus seems to be that the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee will cut rates at its meeting next month by another 0.25 percentage points, to 4 per cent – which the government would greet with enormous relief. Inflation trends aren't bad enough to warrant postponing such a cut, which would in any case surprise and disappoint the City. However inflation is still 'sticky' and stubborn enough to mean that future cuts will be glacially slow in arriving. So mortgage holders and businesses won't be as better off as they might be or as previously hoped. Are these figures politically significant? One month's data rarely is, but Kemi Badenoch made the most of the mildly bad news at prime ministers' questions, telling the prime minister that Britain now has the fastest rising prices among the G7 major economies. Aside from the prospective cut in interest rates in a few weeks, the short-term outlook is gloomy and that feeds through to the opinion polls. The cost of living crisis is still on, and the next Budget will probably make things tougher for the middle classes. Labour's rhetoric about 'working people' and the chancellor's boasts about putting more money in people's pockets carry a little less credibility when inflation is poised to exceed four per cent later in the year and she seems so keen in cutting social security. More than that, there seems little short-term prospect of an improvement in the public finances or the wider economy. Heavy losses for Labour in next year's local government, Scottish and Welsh elections look certain. Are we in stagflation? Arguable. It's true that a variety of long-term factors, including Brexit and labour shortages, have conspired to reduce the ability of the UK economy to grow strongly without triggering inflationary pressures, especially in the labour market (which is why forthcoming jobs data will be closely examined by the Bank). However, inflation should gradually trend lower over the medium term, even if the prospects for growth will remain mixed – Trump's tariffs being a major risk factor, notwithstanding the recent US-UK deal. Reeves' programme of structural reforms – planning, financial deregulation, air and rail projects, housing – will take years to make much impression on growth. By then some other party might well be in power to reap the dividends of her investments; but who ever thought politics was fair?
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What are rescissions – and why does Trump want Congress to approve them?
Congressional Republicans are pushing for passage of a rescissions package, legislation requested by Donald Trump that will claw back $9bn in funding intended for foreign aid programs and public broadcasting. The bill, which is part of the president's campaign to slash government spending, passed the House last month, and is now being debated in the Senate. Congress controls the power of the purse by approving a budget and then appropriating money. But under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the president may request the rescission of previously authorized funds, and Congress has 45 days to approve it, otherwise the money must be spent. The 45 days on Trump's package of rescissions requests expires on Friday, hence the reason why the GOP is moving to quickly pass the bill. It also explains why the House speaker, Mike Johnson, on Tuesday pleaded with the Senate to 'pass it as is' – meaning the version of the bill that passed his chamber last month. The White House has proposed cancelling a total of $9bn in authorized funding, including $1.1bn budgeted for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS, and about $8bn meant for foreign assistance programs. On the chopping block is money meant for organizations affiliated with the United Nations and other international organizations, including the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council, as well as for refugee assistance and some USAID programs. No. It initially proposed a rescissions package totaling $9.4bn, but the Senate decided to preserve $400m in funding for Pepfar, a program credited with saving millions of people from infection or death from HIV that was created in 2003, under the Republican president George W Bush. Fairly controversial. Four Republicans voted against it in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate, three Republicans opposed it, requiring the vice-president, JD Vance, to show up and break the 50-50 tie vote that resulted. The Republican senators who opposed it were Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, along with Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party's former Senate leader who will retire after next year. All three complained that the White House did not provide enough details of exactly what funding would be canceled, while Collins and Murkowski, both moderates, also oppose slashing funding for public broadcasters. It returns to the House for a final vote, due to the changes made in the upper chamber's version. No. Further cuts to government departments and initiatives are expected in the forthcoming budget for the 2026 fiscal year, which begins on 1 October.
BreakingNews.ie
an hour ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Firing of Fed Reserve chief ‘highly unlikely', says Trump
President Donald Trump has said it is 'highly unlikely' he will fire Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell 'unless he has to leave for fraud'. The statement came less than 24 hours after Mr Trump indicated in a private meeting that he is leaning in favour of dismissing the head of the US central bank. Advertisement Mr Trump confirmed that he discussed the 'concept' of dismissing Mr Powell in a meeting with about a dozen Republicans, who had gathered at the White House on Tuesday to discuss crypto legislation in the House of Representatives. Jerome Powell leads the US central bank (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP) 'Almost every one of them said I should,' Mr Trump said on Wednesday during an Oval Office meeting. US stocks were shaky after the news broke, as such a move could help Wall Street get the lower interest rates that it loves but would also risk a weakened Fed unable to make the unpopular moves needed to keep inflation under control. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson stopped short of calling for Mr Powell to be fired, saying he was not certain about the 'executive authority' involved. Advertisement But he did say 'new leadership would be helpful at the Fed'. 'I've been unhappy with the leadership there personally,' Mr Johnson told reporters on Wednesday.
