The Minister of Social Security, José Luis Escrivá, presents this Thursday before the Congress of Deputies the final phase of his pension reform that aims to guarantee the sustainability of the system until 2050. He already has the support of Parliament tied to its processing by adding more than 180 votes thanks to practically all of the Government partners; However, the minister’s credibility is undermined after the criticism received not only from the opposition, but also from independent public organizations such as the Bank of Spain and Airef, which question the numbers that Escrivá puts on the table.
The PP will oppose it, accuses the Government of hiding data on the economic impact of the measures and warns that with this reform the Executive “clearly opens the door to lowering pensions”, according to sources from the main opposition party. The minister defends himself, assures that he has already sent to the popular and the rest of the parliamentary groups “all the available information” (“even the databases and spreadsheets” of the reform, he specifies) and claims that he has played ” “the greatest exercise of transparency that has ever been done.” “No ministry in history has disseminated such a level of detail,” he proclaimed this Wednesday in Congress.
Precisely this Wednesday, the Foundation for Applied Economics Studies (Fedea) once again attacked a pension reform that “condemns” Social Security to a “significant and rapidly growing deficit that will have to be covered with general income, leaving little room for other priorities”, as warned in a new report.
“Hurry” to close it
The document – prepared by the economist Ángel de la Fuente – maintains that “the reform will very notably increase the expected expenditure, but will only modestly increase the system’s income, which will result in the basic deficit of Social Security increasing very significantly in the coming decades.” , until approaching 5 points of GDP around 2050.
Fedea also criticized the “haste” with which the details of the final part of a rule “with important implications for our public pension system and therefore for our public accounts” have been closed. “The text, which has attracted practically unanimous criticism from academic specialists and has generated doubts in Airef and the Bank of Spain, would have deserved a more detailed, informed and serene discussion than it has had,” denounces the author, who He advocates processing the text as a bill and taking advantage of the opportunity to “give it another thought” and seek a broader consensus.