I saw much better Santiago Taboada that to Clara Brugada in it debate last Sunday between applicants to govern the Mexico City. The polls come and go but the trends seem to indicate that both candidates are very close and the choice be closed.
I think that Sunday's debate (which was finally not a sum of shared monologues but a real debate) confirmed that trend. Both Santiago and Clara know that the coin is in the air and that any of them can keep the city, as disputed as its 16 mayoralties and its deputies and senators.
I saw Taboada more articulate, with better arguments and attacking well the results of 27 years of governments of the 4Twith all its variables, in the capital, including the nine of Clara's government in Iztapalapa.
That argument is as unappealable as the one that led to the end of the PRI governments in 2000. Proposals for the future are of little use if these objectives were not met during long years of government. She listened to Clara explaining what she would do, what programs she would implement and the least one can wonder is why they didn't do it in almost three decades or at least in Clara's nine years in Iztapalapa.
That the contest is competitive was demonstrated by the fact that Clara used the theme of the alleged real estate cartel against Taboada, no matter what. It was an all-purpose workhorse. But a useless horse because as Taboada told him, if using all the power of the prosecutor's office and the government for years they had not been able to involve him in anything, that insistence made no sense. And when Brugada insisted on corruption and the permits that were given to build a tower in the south of the city, he was left without arguments when Taboada answered that the mayor's office did not give those permits but the city government when it was headed by Marcelo Ebrard.
I saw Brugada nervous, reading too much (in the first debate she did much less) and with strange body language, as if she never felt at ease (something similar to what happened to Xochitl Galvez in the first presidential debate). When Taboada brought up the topic of her relationship with Bejarano, even she was surprised, she did not respond.
Ultimately the proposals also reflected that vision that Taboada was better. I was amazed by the generality with which Brugada treated the central topic of the debate, water. He showed some maps, saying that the water that would serve to feed the city would be generated from the south of the city and he even said that the “ancestral” lakes would be filled again, and he insisted that the work that Claudia did in that area would continue. .
Nothing that would imply a true renewal, the search for fundamental alternative solutions in an issue that will be increasingly pressing and that in almost three decades the governments derived from the 4T have not been able to resolve or address. Taboada made a series of interesting proposals on water use, on financing for the reconversion of the entire system using even funds from international organizations, he put a figure on the annual investment in that area of 17 billion pesos (much higher than what is invested today) and hinted, and he is right, that without public-private investment, without national and international financing, we will have no solution to a central problem for the city. His body language was much looser than in the first debate and he seemed attentive, without resorting to reading his notes and evidently on the offensive. It's the body language of someone who knows he can achieve and win.
Pensions
The expropriation of some 40 billion pesos from individual accounts of the IMSS and the ISSSTE was approved, which will serve, in other words, to finance the Welfare Fund, from which the funds are supposed to come from to pay a universal pension so that every person You can end your working life with your last income, which must not be greater than 16,800 pesos.
It is a kind of theft because these accounts have a first and last name, it is money that workers contributed throughout their lives and the government does not have the right to expropriate it for its purposes. But, furthermore, he does it only as a propaganda measure, so that the president can say on May 1st that this universal pension was created.
With these resources it is impossible to finance this measure. It takes at least ten times more. The other contributions to the Fund will come, it is said, from the profits of the Mayan Train, the AIFA, Mexicana, which are light years away from being amortized and which, in addition, it was previously said that they were destined to finance the pensions of the military. If there is any benefit, which there isn't, will it be for the Fund or for military pensioners?
It is a mockery but it is also a signal: with a political decision you can expropriate whatever the presidential will decides. Of course, in the end this decision will collide with the obvious unconstitutionality, but it will take weeks or months for that to happen. The president will make the announcement on May 1st and it will serve for the campaign. Almost like the inaugurations of great works, all already inaugurated and none unfinished.
More from the same author:
#Taboada #shortens #distances
