The presentation of the 2027 Budget Bill should make clear how much the government intends to spend and what its priorities will be. However, part of the discussion has had to be devoted to deciphering the bases of comparison used in the announcements, something that is exhausting because it prevents focusing on the substantive issues. This is a bad start to the processing of the main law that Congress must approve annually, and it is unclear why the Ministry of Finance has not sought a way to close this controversy.
The bill contemplates spending of $91.18 trillion, which admits at least three comparisons. The real growth of 1.5% announced by the President of the Republic in a national address is calculated with respect to the projected 2026 closing figure, that is, what is expected to be actually spent this year. Meanwhile, the increase reaches 2.7% compared to the law initially approved for 2026 — which is the way public spending expansion has traditionally been reported — and with respect to the so-called adjusted base, which incorporates the public sector pay adjustment, special laws, and fiscal adjustments to the initial law, the increase reaches 3.5%. Each reference answers a different question and must be identified when presenting the results.
To communicate the moderation of spending growth of 1.5%, the Executive uses the expected 2026 closing figure, which in aggregate exceeds the other two bases of comparison, since it is the one that shows the lowest spending expansion and best fits the narrative that the 2027 budget would be austere given the severe tightness of the public coffers. To explain the ministerial variations, however, the Executive uses the adjusted base, which grows 3.5% overall. The public could conclude that the sectoral increases represent additional resources compared to what will be spent this year, something that the information released does not allow to be established.
To see this, it is enough to look at what happens in the case of four ministries. The increases announced for Health (4.7%), Public Works (8.9%), Housing (5.8%), and Security (7%) add up to about $1.7 trillion with respect to the adjusted base. The total 2027 budget, on the other hand, has about $1.4 trillion additional compared to what is expected to be spent in 2026. This indicates that the increase of these four ministries with respect to expected spending is lower than what the detail of the budget bill shows, but it is not known by how much.
Public investment spending, on the other hand, shows the clarity that should extend to the rest of the budget. The recently published Public Finance Report (IFP) states that it would grow 7.3% with respect to expected spending for 2026, but only 1.6% compared to the law approved for that year. Both figures allow sizing the announcement: the expansion with respect to what was originally budgeted is modest, and much of the rebound responds to recovering ground from an execution lower than planned and from cuts made. Presenting it solely as a 7.3% increase would overstate the impetus to investment for 2027, and it is precisely that same standard that should be applied to each ministry.
Asked by this outlet about the ministerial comparison of the budget with expected spending, the Ministry of Finance argued that part of the resources remain provisioned in the Public Treasury and that their distribution could modify the sectoral figures. The warning is reasonable: a provision pending allocation does not necessarily equate to a spending cut in the ministry. But that difficulty obliges transparency about the amounts and their possible destinations, as well as the transfers of functions and resources between ministries. If a direct comparison can be misleading, the information that allows it to be correctly interpreted should be provided. The technical difficulty reinforces the obligation to inform, not to omit it.
For the purposes of sustaining an informed discussion, Congress needs to know which items are actually increasing and which are receding with respect to expected spending for 2026. To this end, the Executive should provide a table that connects the approved law, the adjusted base, the projected closing figure, and the proposal for 2027, identifying the unallocated provisions. The IFP already allows examination of aggregate spending; therefore, an equivalent explanation should be demanded of the ministry and program figures used in the announcements.
The government is preparing to meet the fiscal balance target in 2026, after three years of noncompliance. But this effort cannot be undermined by a disappointing staging of the 2027 budget, which leaves Congress and the public with the task of discovering the scope of the adjustment by ministry and program, and by how much each one increases its budget. It would be questionable if this technical complexity were ultimately being used as a device to satisfy both those who advocate an austere budget and, at the same time, to show that certain key ministries significantly increase their budgets, when this could be doubtful.
It should not be forgotten that one of the biggest criticisms the current governing coalition made of the previous government concerned the reliability of the figures contained in the budget items, so the Executive, if it wants to be consistent, should seek to dispel as soon as possible the doubts that have arisen and thus avoid any suspicion regarding the way the figures have been presented. Technical complexity cannot serve as an excuse to evade a basic duty of accountability.