No one wants to quit

What are we willing to give up? That question has not yet been raised in the reactions to the Budget Bill that entered Congress this week, particularly regarding the Education budget line. The initiative, in turn, was placed within a pre-existing government agenda that seeks to push cuts in the face of the economic hardship the State is suffering. This debate has been marked by controversy since President Kast arrived at La Moneda, due to the recurring errors of the Executive in its management and political communication, but also because of the disposition of its adversaries, who interpret that effort in the worst possible terms. Presenting the cuts as social regressions sounds very much in line with the "far-right" accusation. And everything indicates that controversy will continue to be the dominant tone. It is evident that in the Budget Bill the first one called to account is the government. It is the authorities who must answer for their proposals, especially if they include the end or modification of long-standing and far-reaching social policies, or significant reductions in resources. In that sense, there is surely much to review. However, at least in education, the Executive has shown weighty arguments to justify its priorities, as well as a willingness to talk with all actors. This has been made clear in the statements made so far by Minister Arzola, who affirmed that nothing is written in stone, but that they do want to defend a substantive change of focus: that the center of resources be oriented toward early childhood, where the main gaps in education reside. And it is that argument of justice that has not received the attention it deserves. Letters such as that of the rector of the Catholic University, with pertinent considerations regarding the effect the adjustments could have on the university system, do not even touch on this dimension. It is as if in the government's positions it had only been stated that funds (which are, moreover, limited) to higher education institutions are being reduced just because; as if they were simply driven by the desire to weaken them. Pointing this out is relevant, because having an honest debate depends on it: the picture changes a great deal when it is recognized that the reduction of resources for universities is explained by the decision to redirect them to an area that has not only deteriorated, but has been directly harmed by the priorities of the last decade, centered on free tuition. It is true that the institutions covered by that law suffer from the difficult financing of the system, but that does not negate the legitimacy of asking whether it is perhaps time to redirect the scarce resources available. Something similar happens with the scandal surrounding the end of the "Yo elijo mi PC" program. The value of such an initiative does not grant it automatic justification, least of all in a context of economic crisis. Moreover, the recipients of that policy do not seem to be different from those of the policy the government seeks to push with the compensation of the public education deficit. Perhaps some student will not now receive a computer, but their school may finally be rebuilt, or equipped with adequate conditions for learning. But of course, it is more effective to denounce here yet another "anti-people" measure. None of this is easy. In politics, every decision has a face; every program touches concrete lives, and that must always be a relevant consideration in the actions of our representatives. However, it is also true that every alternative has costs, and what matters is to make them explicit rigorously. Otherwise, it will be difficult to see the full picture, where the question is not only how we maintain what works well, but what we choose when resources are not enough to sustain everything. If that is the dilemma—if we have more and more children who do not understand what they read—will anyone be willing to make some sacrifice? By Josefina Araos, researcher at the IES. NEWSLETTEROpiniónSaturday, AMTense ideas, opposing views, and clear analysis: elements to reveal the issues that divide opinions and will set the agenda. By subscribing you are accepting the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policies of La Tercera.