|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: Caja fiscal: Quiroz se va por las ramas y deja intactos los US$3.600 millones de DIPRES

The controversy surrounding the «empty box» of state finances has taken a new turn. This time, it was the Minister of Finance, Jorge Quiroz, who responded to criticisms following the release of figures from the Budget Department (DIPRES), indicating the existence of nearly US$3.6 billion in state liquidity.

However, his response does not refute this fact.
Instead, it shifts the discussion to another area.

DIPRES Fiscal Reserve: Two Measurements, Two Different Discussions

In his statements, Quiroz insisted that the accurate way to evaluate resource availability is to look at the complete fiscal year closure, specifically on December 31, 2025. Under this criterion, he claimed that the state’s reserves amounted to just US$46 million, significantly below typical levels.

This point may be significant.
But it does not address the current debate.

Because the controversy that has emerged in recent days does not revolve around last year’s figures but rather around the effective liquidity of the State at present, as expressed in the so-called Other Assets of the Public Treasury (OATP).

This is where the US$3.6 billion comes into play.

US$3.6 Billion

Treasury Liquidity According to DIPRES Figures

The Information Not Addressed in Quiroz’s Response

A technical perspective helps clarify the discussion. Economist Rodrigo Wagner, former macroeconomic coordinator at the Ministry of Finance, noted that there is not necessarily a contradiction between the two figures but rather a difference in the timing of observation and in the source of the resources.

«[…] I don’t believe there is a real controversy with the data. The current minister spoke of USD 40 million at the end of 2025, which is true. And at the end of February, it was USD 3.6 billion, because a significant portion was from issuance, not from surpluses or similar,» he stated.

Aca me citan, pero no creo que haya controversia real con los datos. Ministro actual habló de USD 40 millones al cierre 2025, que es verdad. Y al cierre de febrero era USD 3.6 billion, porque en parte importante hubo emisión, no por superavits o similares. https://t.co/ZQMN85a4QR

— Rodrigo Wagner (@RodrigoWagnerB) April 1, 2026

His observation introduces a crucial nuance: the current liquidity of the State does not necessarily come from surpluses, but also from financial decisions such as debt issuance.

But that does not undermine the main point.

Because, regardless of its origin, those resources exist and are part of the effective cash of the Treasury at a given moment.

The figure that sparked the controversy does not correspond to an annual balance but to a cash movement measurement: liquid or highly liquid resources currently available. This is the information that the minister’s response does not dismiss.

DIPRES Fiscal Reserve: Not Non-Existence, but Usage

Quiroz asserted that one cannot «cover the sun with a finger» and that comparisons must be made on equivalent bases. Nevertheless, his argument opens another dimension to the problem: not just what figures are used, but how they are used.

Because even if it is accepted that the reserve at the end of 2025 was low, that does not invalidate the fact that there is current liquidity in the Treasury.

And this distinction is significant.

It is not a matter of asserting that all these resources are immediately available. It is something more fundamental: the reserves are not non-existent.

The Background: From «There Is No Cash» to the Gas Price Hike

The diagnosis of fiscal tightness has not been neutral. It has served to justify concrete governmental decisions, like the recent increase in fuel prices, known as the «bencinazo», and the 3% cuts to ministries, measures framed as inevitable due to the alleged lack of resources.

In this context, socialist representative Daniel Manouchehri directly challenged the narrative coming from the Finance Ministry.

«They lied with a simple phrase: ‘there is no cash’. Yes, there was cash. And what matters is not the snapshot from a year ago, but the cash that was present when the minister justified the ‘bencinazo’. There lies the trap; they used a false excuse to impact families, and now they want to shift the debate to how the money in the reserves was generated. They are institutionalizing misinformation,» accused the legislator.

«They used a false excuse to impact families»

Manouchehri insisted that «first they stated that there was no cash. DIPRES contradicted them; there were 3.6 billion dollars. Now they say that money was ‘debt’, but that was never the debate.»

«The debate was simple: was there money to avoid raising gas prices for people? Yes, there was. Everything else is excuses to avoid admitting that the ‘bencinazo’ was a political decision to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. The cost is always borne by the people,» concluded the socialist representative.

More Than Just Figures, the Issue Is the Framing

Quiroz’s response does not refute the key data that sparked the controversy. Instead, it redefines the landscape of the discussion: shifting from current liquidity to annual closing accounting.

These are different planes.

One refers to the availability of cash now.
The other discusses last year’s fiscal close.

And in this shift, the debate changes focus. But it remains unresolved.

The discussion is no longer about the snapshot from December 31 but about the political use of the fiscal narrative. Because if there was cash, then the «there is no money» justification used for the «bencinazo» and the cuts shifts from being seen as a diagnosis and starts to be viewed as a pretext.

La entrada Fiscal Reserve Controversy: Quiroz Deflects Criticism While State Liquidity Stands at US$3.6 Billion se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.