The Truth Behind Kast’s Budget Cuts: Carter Acknowledges Impact on Sensitive Social Programs

«Basically, the $6 billion is divided into three parts, approximately $2 billion in budget cuts that we obviously will not disclose because it would paralyze the country the next day. You understand, if you say ‘I will terminate program X,’ that program is immediately halted. We will have the streets on fire,» Carter stated.

This statement serves as an explicit admission: while cuts are planned, they will not be announced prematurely to avoid immediate social backlash.

The Structure of the «6 Billion»

According to Carter, one of the thirds corresponds to $2 billion in direct budget cuts. This implies not just operational efficiency or bureaucratic reduction, but the outright elimination or downgrading of current programs. However, the campaign has yet to present a public list of programs to be eliminated or a breakdown by sectors such as health, education, housing, or social security.

What Carter’s Confession Reveals

The confession clarifies a central point: the issue is not technical, but political.

If they acknowledge that revealing the cuts would «ignite the streets,» they also recognize that they already know what they want to cut, yet consider its content so unpopular that they prefer to keep it hidden. In practical terms, they are asking for a blank mandate: the figure is set as a symbol of fiscal order, while discussions about which benefits, programs, or services would be affected are reserved for after the election.

A Figure Without Details in a Sensitive Context

In a country where debates about pensions, health, and social rights are central, a cut of this magnitude is not neutral. Depending on its impact, it could mean fewer subsidies, reduced territorial investments, or less funding for primary health care or public education. The lack of detail does not eliminate these effects; it merely conceals them.

What Type of Government is Projected?

The interview signals a clear intent: a project committed to deep cuts but acknowledges it cannot explain them before governing due to the immediate backlash. Transparency is subjected to electoral convenience.

In summary, Carter’s confession does not specify what will be cut, but it does clarify why they prefer not to disclose it: because the impact on sensitive social programs would be so profound that, in their own words, it could «paralyze the country the next day.»