Yesterday it was the turn of the Minister of Economy, Giancarlo Giorgetti, at the Ambrosetti forum in Cernobbio. An intervention, yours, which comes at a very complex time of the year, when the maneuver yard is set in motion. Nowadays, in fact, the argument monopolizes both the public confrontation and the positioning of the majority forces, given a multiplicity of variables: the non-extensive “deck” of resources to be implemented, the perspectives of European constraints, the exceptionality of some economic elements , such as inflation and the war in Ukraine. In addition to complicated legacies from the past in terms of the impact of some measures on public finances. This is the range of topics that the head of the Via XX Settembre ministry addressed to the public in Cernobbio. And he announces: “We will make a prudent budget law, which takes into account the fundamental rules of public finance”. But then he draws attention to an instrument whose impact we will underline again today, the superbonus. «Of the hundred billion we are talking about – underlines Giorgetti – the government has paid 20 billion, but the other 80 remain to be paid. So, during dinner everyone has eaten and left and we are asked to pay the bill. That escapes the stability and growth pact of 2024, 2025 and 2026». Again in this regard, he sinks: «It makes the economic policy persist, leaving little room for other interventions. Thinking about it makes my stomach ache.” And then he cites a practical example: “How many tenders launched for decisive public works were abandoned due to lack of companies available to carry out the works and engaged in the most lucrative and profitable superbonus?”. About the Pnrr then , Giorgetti argues: “I remind you that in its entirety, 150 billion, not covered by subsidies and covered by debt, also constitute public expenditure and will burden the accounts for 2024, 2025, 2026, hopefully for 2027 and 2028″. And he adds: «In some respects we intend to reasonably respect the objectives, but reasonableness in their interpretation is also necessary». This also opens up another relevant aspect, the confrontation with Europe in the scope of the great community objectives. The Brussels Executive, explains Giorgetti, «asks us for a certain type of policy with regard to the energy transition and, therefore, we consider it reasonable to ask that expenditure on salaries or public pensions be considered differently in relation to expenditure on this type”. The heart of the matter is, in fact, the separation of some financial commitments from the calculation according to the parameters of the stability pact. A request that the Italian government also claims with regard to the aid provided to Ukraine. “We helped them and we continue to help them – guarantees the Minister of Economy – but if we have to cut Italians’ pensions, it becomes more complicated”. This “is the Italian position, we are not isolated, we think it is reasonable and therefore I am convinced that the meaning of history will be understood”. On the other hand, the war had multiple repercussions: “it caused some inflation problems, some different conduct of monetary policy by the European central bank and some inevitable recession in the European continent”. The reference is to the ECB’s initiative on raising interest rates and the consequent repercussions on the real economies. Giorgetti also spoke about the Executive’s overall economic policy, with the initiatives already achieved, those in progress and the objectives outlined. The government, he stresses, “has been courageous in the superbonus, in the basic income and in the issue of capital investments, we resolved and dissolved the case of Alitalia, TLC and Network”. Referring then to the disposal of the Treasury’s stake in Monte dei Paschi, he said: “We are going to resolve this peacefully, but without letting anyone dictate the timing, much less the rush.” This is because in this respect there is a different sensitivity within the majority. As it exists on another topic: the tax on extra bank profits: “Certainly it can be improved and there was a lack of communication”, but “it is a fair tax, because the State gives and the State asks”. In fact, “the state has given a lot to the banking system in recent years, covering the risks that must have been typical of the credit system”. However, this tax “in its final version will be something that everyone can appreciate”.
Source: IL Tempo

Emma Fitzgerald is an accomplished political journalist and author at The Nation View. With a background in political science and international relations, she has a deep understanding of the political landscape and the forces that shape it.