It is interesting to see how the parties move in their electoral programs around the everlasting issue of financing the Generalitat. Some avoiding the adjective autonomous; others referring to the singular; others, looking for the plural… and, even, some are no longer talking about fiscal deficit, but about what has to be returned to the State for common services from the assumption that Catalonia collects all taxes.
The PSC candidate is moving in the most difficult waters, since he has to continue talking about a solidarity that is difficult to specify and a joint agreement that has to satisfy a zero-sum game. But the other day he committed to something significant enough: to respect the ordinality between what you contribute and what you receive. That would mean that the budget in Catalonia would have to increase, with the figures available, an additional 3.4 billion each year. This calculation of mine is the result of assessing the ordered per capita differential of the current receiving communities with respect to the order of the fiscal capacity of Catalonia, multiplied by the Catalan population. And that in nominal terms, since in terms of purchasing power it would be even more. It’s not bad if this promise is not a spark of the moment.
In reality, all candidates aspire to better financing for Catalonia. Another thing is where it can come from. Those of us who like to always look at both sides of the budget tend to highlight questions such as the “why” and “how” of this new expense. Of course, spending resources efficiently, without wasting a single euro, is a requirement and not an option. But I also think it would be good for the candidates to commit, whatever the gain from additional funding, to channeling this gain towards a destination that generates maximum consensus.
This, unfortunately, cannot be either the health sector or the education sector, since ideological positions on the role of the private sector prevent it here. That is why I think it would be good to commit the candidates running for election in a very neglected area of ??social protection, to dedicate a fixed parameter of the new resources to the field of mental health. An area very much left, today, by the hand of God, where “private” means “families that suffer,” and there is no status quo on the part that defends this provision as a business. Other areas of social services, which today spoil the well-being of families, could also be considered. But let’s avoid, again, that promises are sparks that fall from the sky and are carried away by the wind of the moment.
