Opinion – Vinicius Torres Freire: Understand how much the backcountry show is worth and how much cities spend on culture

A sertanejo show can cost R$ 1.2 million for a small town hall, we know these days. In some extreme cases, spending on a night of singing reaches almost R$100 per inhabitant of the small town. In others, the per capita fee is more modest, between R$20 and R$60.

Is it a lot of money? Of the approximately 4,900 municipalities that declared spending on the “culture function” in 2021, only 510 spent more than BRL 1.2 million last year. In only 159 of them the annual per capita expenditure on “culture” was greater than R$ 100. These are data taken from the Accounting and Tax Information System of the Brazilian Public Sector.

The show looks expensive then. To make one of these random comparisons of public administration statistics, a “new” ultrasound device costs about R$300,000. An overpriced tractor of the centão parliamentary amendment costs BRL 500,000 (but is worth BRL 200,000).

I remembered the ultrasound because it is a common complaint in the interior and in the periphery. The people need an urgent exam and the ultrasound is broken or non-existent. But there’s a show.

These accidental but sadly true examples fuel demagogic conversations about public spending, such as that nonsense of saying that “if you took away the privileges of politicians, the government would have money” (no, it wouldn’t even if Congress evaporate, despite need to take away privileges). This bullshit from the sertanejos or Rouanet has its demagoguery. It is necessary to have a minimal idea of ​​the whole problem.

Last year, city halls spent at least R$ 4.2 billion on the “culture function”. State governments, R$ 3.5 billion. The federal government, R$ 1.25 billion. These accounts do not include tax discounts. Under the Rouanet Law, the incentive was R$ 1.9 billion. With these numbers it is already easy to understand the salafra stupidity of the Bolsonarista campaign.

It is in the cities, therefore, that the largest expenditure on the “culture function” is. Who knows what kind of expense is entered under this heading—researchers in the field are just beginning to study the subject. It is known that many municipalities spend badly, even for the mere fact of existing: they do not have their own income to pay for government, bureaucracy, councilor, prebends, even less to provide public service.

According to the IBGE’s Profile of Brazilian Municipalities (the most recent is from 2018), the most common case of municipal financial support for culture was then “festivals, celebrations and traditional and popular manifestations” (happens in 85.5% of the prefectures). Support for “events” came in second (75.7% of cities). “Musical performance” in third (62.8%). In fourth place, tied with 30%, came “carnival parade”, “assembly of plays” and “seminar, symposium, meeting, congress, lecture”.

Tourism or other activities called “cultural”, festivals or historical heritage, are important for the finances and jobs of many cities. Spending on the “culture function” can be a local economic policy. If it’s efficient, it’s another five hundred. An expensive concert summer night shouldn’t multiply business, intelligence or education much.

This Gusttavo Lima was taken for Judas, although the singer and his Bolsonarista friends from Sertanejistão must know why they are being beaten. Explicitly or not, they supported the campaign of avacalhação of Rouanet and of the artists who would live off this mammoth, who would be communists, drug addicts, profligates and practitioners of gender ideology.

But Chicos and Franciscos, take a stick from the left or from the right, receive these monies. Whether the expense makes sense, we don’t care, from the singing to the gasoline subsidy.