Opinion – Vinicius Torres Freire: How can Lula 3 make a new left-wing government?

We have been dealing with politics and the policy of distributing ministries. It is unavoidable, for major and minor reasons. For an obvious example, the method of sharing the first echelon can make life easier or more difficult for the government in Congress. We now need to know what is going to be done with the government plan, the central issues, the news.

Of the critical issues, the most addressed was government spending and debt. It’s crucial, basic. But a country doesn’t just come out of there.

There are indications of good intentions, good guidelines and capable people to take the thing forward. Marina Silva should go to Environment. She has already been able, among other leaders of PT governments, to reduce deforestation in the Amazon, although the ministry is not limited to that and the barbarians of destruction are loose and audacious after the years of darkness.

In the guidelines of Lula’s program 3, a “green transition” is promised, economic, technological and environmental innovations. It is one of the most encouraging intentions of the new government. Who is in charge of thinking, planning and implementing the program? It is the subject of many ministries, government agencies, etc., it is true. But it needs coordination, priorities, guidelines, a “thinking and managing council”. It is not yet possible to see how this will work.

SUS needs to be bigger and more efficient. It has been undergoing a major renovation for some time. Thus, Brazil runs the risk of going through a privatization of Health by inertia, on the sly.

The idea of ​​getting ahead in life is also associated with having a private health plan, given the shortcomings of the public sector. Little is said about SUS among the dominant voices. The richest and most well off already live in the world of private healthcare (except when their plans and insurance push them towards public healthcare).

During the epidemic, the better-off started to talk a lot about SUS, where they rarely set foot, because that was the only place where there was a vaccine against Covid. Then the buzz died.

The more incentives (such as the IR discount) for private health and the more people paying for care, the less political strength the still incomplete SUS project will have. In social terms, health systems with a private preponderance are more inefficient. That is, society’s total expenditure on health is more effective if public, at least among OECD countries, is the rich world.

Day care and early childhood education are not federal matters. But the Union can coordinate and encourage a national program for what could be a great social change. In other words, poor children better educated and prepared for elementary school, in a safe environment, with health monitoring; conditions for parents to work, etc. But daycare seems like a trifle of matter.

Something similar can be said about urban reform and “mobility”. The inequality of access to land in the cities, the lack of decent housing, the denial of the right to come and go, in practice, and the privatization of public transportation and urban public goods (distant from the poor) are among the great national savages .

There is priority for tax reform, in charge of the competent Bernard Appy. Even a government committed to reform, however, can founder, as the business lobby and the richest can jam everything. Without tax reform, the allocation of capital to more efficient sectors is hindered, which contributes to economic sluggishness. But there’s a plan and a priority, at least.

There’s a lot to do in science and, old and bad talk, in the integration of research and production (companies). It would take money and a general shake-up of the research university system. You hardly hear about it.