|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: El ajuste no cae del cielo: Siempre alguien lo paga

By Ignacio Toledo Ordóñez (Public Health Physician), Pedro Durán Oliva (Surgeon), and Joaquín Paillamanque Concha (Biochemist)

A recurring political misstep is the assumption that those currently in power act out of naivety, clumsiness, or improvisation.

This interpretation, while convenient, can be dangerous as it fails to recognize that we are dealing with a sector equipped with technical training, economic networks, state management skills, and a strategy far clearer than many would like to admit.

Even in the face of contradictions or disorganized communication, such indications do not necessarily mean a lack of leadership. Sometimes, it can serve as a theatrical maneuver to lower the defenses of adversaries, confuse public debate, and facilitate the advancement of much deeper decisions.

This leadership becomes evident when one shifts focus from mere rhetoric to the hard numbers.

The recent spike in fuel prices is no trivial or isolated event. ENAP reported an increase of $372.2 per liter for 93-octane gasoline, $391.5 per liter for 97-octane gasoline, and $580.3 per liter for diesel. Translated into everyday life, filling a 45-liter tank could cost approximately $16,749 more for 93-octane gasoline, around $17,618 more for 97-octane gasoline, and about $26,114 extra for diesel.

This is not merely an abstract variation on an economic spreadsheet, but a direct hit on family budgets.

The issue extends beyond just car owners. Diesel fuels trucks, both public and private transport, food supply, markets, commerce, construction, materials, services, freight, and distribution. When diesel prices rise, it is not just the cost of filling a tank that increases; the entire price chain influencing daily life begins to ascend.

It may take time to be felt, but eventually, this increase will manifest in the costs of moving goods, production, distribution, transporting people, and supplying territories. Thus, the underlying problem isn’t just gasoline rising; the real question is who bears the burden of this adjustment.

The Mepco has not officially disappeared, and it’s crucial to clarify this to avoid oversimplifying the debate. This mechanism was created to stabilize domestic fuel prices and operates by adjusting specific taxes, adding or reducing a variable component according to price fluctuations.

In simple terms, its purpose isn’t to eliminate the international cost of oil but to cushion sharp increases or decreases so that the financial impact doesn’t hit the final consumer all at once. Therefore, when its capacity to buffer price spikes diminishes, Mepco may still exist on paper, but its social impact becomes weaker.

This gives rise to the first fundamental contradiction. While allowing a significant portion of the fuel shock to affect families more directly, we see proposals recommending the discontinuation or reduction of essential health and education programs.

In health, the recommendations from the Treasury highlight programs related to continuity of care in primary health care, school health control, universal palliative care in primary health care, and more, among which some had significant expenditures planned for 2024.

We are not discussing mere excesses of the state; we are addressing vital services such as medications for chronic illnesses, home care, palliative care, mental health services, dentistry, psychosocial support, care for the elderly, prevention, and continuity of care.

Similar budget cuts are appearing in critical areas like home care for severely dependent individuals, progressive implementation plans for universal primary care, specialist recruitment and retention, and more. Therefore, the discussion transcends fiscal issues; it involves health, social, and territorial implications.

In education, a similar trend is evident. The proposal to discontinue the Public Education Support Fund, along with the School Feeding Program, illustrates this point. Other affected initiatives include various education-related subsidies, scholarship programs, and infrastructure investments.

We aren’t talking about luxuries here. We are discussing children who rely on school meals, students needing support to stay in school, families dependent on preschools, and community resources critical for functioning.

When school feeding programs, public education, and preschool services are threatened, this is not merely budget trimming; it’s an intervention in the protective network that helps thousands of families maintain their day-to-day lives.

As such, the question becomes less about technicalities and more about political integrity: Will the adjustment be paid for by the privileged or by average citizens? While fiscal accountability is pursued, discussions about tax measures favoring the wealthy, like corporate tax reductions and capital repatriation incentives, are on the table.

According to a public document from Nodo XXI, the reported wealth of 63 high-ranking officials analyzed amounts to M$1.148 billion, suggesting that the benefits from proposed tax changes could total M$292 million. This amount alone represents 11.24% of the government’s announced goal to cut public spending by 3%.

In simple terms, while the majority are asked to tighten their belts, the wealthiest are being offered relief, assurances, and favorable conditions. The central contradiction emerges here: rising fuel costs for everyone, escalating diesel prices affecting the entire price chain, weakened social programs, and tax benefits directed upwards. This is not just an economic policy; it reflects an understanding of the nation and a decision about who has the resilience to endure and who is left vulnerable.

What is truly at stake is not just a government or a moment of price adjustments. It is about the power of a sector to establish a long-term institutional, economic, and cultural framework.

When efforts are made to ensure certain rules span years or even decades, we are not merely witnessing isolated actions but a political design attempting to set limits on what a nation can or cannot transform. When such designs are able to masquerade as “common sense,” governance extends beyond the Executive or Congress to cultural narratives, resignation, and the perception that no alternatives exist.

Therefore, the response cannot simply be to chant the word “unity” as if it were a magical mantra. Unity alone is not enough; unity without substance, political clarity, and a shared vision for the nation might create a pleasing image but does not necessarily forge a historical force. It can gather parties, leaders, and diverse sentiments, but this doesn’t guarantee a shared direction or a proposal capable of resonating with real lives.

When a proposal emerges that can genuinely engage, it will require more than mere applause or branding as a slogan. It must be thoughtfully developed, matured, and translated into real social movement, as transformative ideas do not simply arise as slogans; they are built through direct engagement with people’s experiences, pains, needs, and hopes.

The events in San Miguel illustrated this, representing a social energy that urged the nation to unlock new horizons. Likewise, agrarian reform was not born from a mere decree but from an evolving peasant consciousness, historically driven demands propelling change.

This epitomizes the distinction between a hollow slogan and an idea with historical significance. It is not the urgency to appear united that drives processes but the ability to interpret deep-seated needs and give them political form.

Hence, we should not fetishize opposition unity nor presume that all diversity must be forcibly merged. Not all differences need correcting; sometimes, as an ancient Eastern metaphor teaches, a valley is beautified not by having all flowers be the same but by allowing diverse flowers to bloom uniquely while still composing a cohesive landscape.

Political harmony doesn’t always arise from uniformity, but from enabling diversity to find shared meaning without forfeiting its uniqueness. Forcing unity without a common grounding can lead to the opposite of the intended outcome: frustration, contradiction, loss of credibility, and subsequent fragmentation. In politics, not all unions build; some can confuse, especially when driven more by anxiety than by conviction.

This moment demands more than merely underestimating the opponent or falling into empty slogans. It requires constructing a proposal with social depth, national significance, and the potential to engage diverse individuals without stripping them of their identities. It’s not just about uniting for the sake of it; it’s about presenting a vision for the nation that is meaningful, inspiring, and capable of opening future pathways.

It’s also important to reclaim a term often misused: patriotism. Being patriotic is not just about raising flags, singing anthems, or loudly proclaiming national pride. It’s about envisioning a Chile that progresses without leaving anyone behind. It’s recognizing that progress shouldn’t solely be measured through fiscal balances, macroeconomic figures, or assurances for wealthier groups, but also by the tangible lives of families, the children who rely on school meals, the elderly needing care, the patients dependent on primary healthcare, and those striving each day to make ends meet.

A truly patriotic country does not balance its budget at the expense of those most in need of state support. A serious nation can be fiscally responsible, yet that responsibility cannot serve as a pretext for undermining primary health, public education, childcare, school meals, mental health, or supports that sustain millions. Fiscal responsibility is essential, but it cannot masquerade as a sophisticated excuse for offloading costs onto the less fortunate.

Chile can organize its accounts, yes, but not at the expense of primary healthcare, school meals, palliative care, elderly support, childcare, or the financial burdens of working families.

Thus, the question shifts from whether there will be an adjustment to who will bear the burden, who will reap the benefits, and who will make sacrifices. Because when fuel prices rise, social programs diminish, and tax benefits favor the affluent, the message is clear: the burden is not falling on those with the broadest shoulders, but rather on those who were already struggling.

And that is not patriotism. Patriotism is about building a Chile that progresses inclusively.

Ignacio Toledo Ordóñez (Public Health Physician), Pedro Durán Oliva (Surgeon), and Joaquín Paillamanque Concha (Biochemist).

La entrada Economic Adjustments: Who Really Pays the Price? se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.