the debate is heated on debt management
There long council marathon comes alive with the examination of the articulated. The the heart of the budget it is the acquisition of resources, and hearts heat up. Taking into account the reimbursement within the year of bridging loan to Cargill, in the event of a need for liquidity also following the health emergency, the Government will be able issue up to 150 million public debt securities to be placed on the national or international market, by 31 December 2022.
RF asks to remove the passage where yes talk about resorting to debt liquidity to raise. Question – explains Andrea Zafferani – of political vision: “That money must be used for it economical progress, not for current spending “. “It is a fundamental article, without debt we would be in default. Let’s ask concrete and real investments – he adds Nicola Renzi – because if we do not deal with the deficit we will find ourselves in a devastating situation ”. To share Luca Boschi: “This debt is not sustainable”, “it continues to put the dust under the carpet”, He echoes Giuseppe Morganti, “Debts must be invested, it is dangerous to use them to plug the leaks.”
With a Free amendment proposes ordinary San Marino vouchers. Raising resources through internal debt is also shared by the Government. “The most realistic way to reduce the cost – he says Giovanni Zonzini – is to address citizens rather than international markets. The road to foreign debt also remains open, so as not to precludeExecutive an alternative way. The majority, however, want it to be clear: this is not a new debt. “With these 150 million – he clarifies Stefano Giulianelli – the bridging loan is replaced by addressing the internal market, the same direction suggested by Libera “.
I hard the attack of Gian Nicola Berti against “the lies told to citizens by false prophets”. Pasquale Valentini appeals to the House to give a clear and unambiguous message to citizens. Recourse to the debt of 150 million is a possibility, given that we are at the end of the year with one liquid assets back to levels that the Monetary Fund tells us too low. Extreme clarity is also needed – he says – what happened to the 340 million and what we will do to create a new scenario when we have to return them. Without clarity on this – he warns – mistrust reigns supreme. Michela Pelliccioni agrees: we must dare to give clear information to citizens.
In reply Cats explains that you are talking about debt management, not doing it again. The first issue – confirmation – must be internal and will be in late January, early February. About the accusation of use in current expense, “Health, school and safety are investments for a state”. The characteristics of the Security such as denomination, rate and duration will be discussed in the Finance Committee. the amendments by Libera and Rf are rejected.
At the opening of the works it had been approved, but with the Network opposition, the subsidized credit proposal for the purchase of buses and minibuses from private businesses. Adele Tonnini recalls the state support to the sector in full pandemic, the subsequent contracts for the transport San Marino / Riccione and for a Christmas train that given the emergency “I think – he says – will jump”. He raises doubts about a retroactive rule, the amount of the investment for the state is not known. For Nicola Renzi the eternal disagreement returns on what we want AASS to do and what, instead, private individuals. An article that has a first and last name – comment Vladimiro Selva – and that must be explained, because it is difficult to understand “. For Iro Belluzzi it made more sense to support the purchase of eco-friendly vehicles. In reply the secretary Gatti Gatti Talks about political choice in the guarantee of a quality service in student transport, exclusive and with means no older than 15 years.
We proceed with the articulated. Among other novelties a tax with proportional rate of 0.2% on sums of money or financial products over 10,000 euros held abroad. There is talk of capital for an amount of 800 million. For the opposition it is a correct intervention but fears that with such a low rate it will not obtain the desired results, and that it does not incentivize those with great availability to return. For Ciacci and Zonzini it would be more useful, for social justice and equity, to provide for it progressivity. Maria Luisa Berti, with a view to economic development, he warns against “witch-hunt approaches”: “If our goal is to attract investors from abroad, we risk, by raising the rate, not to attract big entrepreneurs anymore”. Iro Belluzzi is also a critic, “he is not respectful of our long liberal tradition. For a few pennies we crack this image “. Nicola Renzi he says astonished: “When we proposed an amendment for the return of capital, some professional associations and Anis were raised and today, evidently convinced of the goodness of this intervention, they did not say a word”.