Impeachment Dilma because of tax pedaling?
TCU: report points distortion 281 billion in government brazilians Dilma accounts and 'tax pedaling' by BB, CEF and BNDES
Posted by Fatima Burégio -
In a report carried by the newspaper Estado de São Paulo, the story points qu the EU Court of Auditors in its tax audits found several tax pedaling (deliberate delays by the National Treasury in release of public funds to banks and local authorities, in their eagerness to improve performance of public spending).
The banks that made cycling were the Bank of Brazil, Caixa Econômica Federal and BNDES, ie they paid with funds government accounts themselves, such as family allowance, unemployment insurance and pensions.
This practice is rejected by the President of TCU, Pernambuco José Monteiro Múcio. Múcio is not alone on this journey, but their rejection is followed by all other ministers of the TCU.
In the report the Estadão, matter states that the TCU report estimates that the federal government failed about 37 billion in 2014 debts, but the report goes well beyond and noting that there is a distortion of 281 billion, and for this reason when analyzing the overall balance of the Union, ministers may disapprove the bills next week.
TCU: relatório aponta distorção de 281 bilhões nas contas do Governo brasileiro Dilma e 'pedaladas fiscais' pelo BB, CEF e BNDES
Publicado por Fátima Burégio -
3
Em reportagem veiculada pelo Jornal Estado de São Paulo, a matéria aponta que o Tribunal de Contas de União em suas auditorias fiscais encontrou várias pedaladas fiscais (atrasos propositais do Tesouro Nacional em liberação de recursos públicos para instituições bancárias e autarquias, no afã de melhorar a performance dos gastos públicos).
Os bancos que fizeram pedaladas foram o Banco do Brasil, a Caixa Econômica Federal e o BNDES, ou seja, eles pagaram com recursos próprios contas do governo, tais como: bolsa família, seguro desemprego e aposentadorias.
Tal prática é reprovada pelo presidente do TCU, o pernambucano José Múcio Monteiro. Múcio não está só nessa jornada, mas seu repúdio é seguido por todos os demais ministros do TCU.
Na reportagem do Estadão, a matéria assevera que o relatório do TCU avalia que o governo federal omitiu cerca de 37 bilhões em dívidas de 2014, mas o relatório vai bem mais além e destacando que há uma distorção de 281 bilhões, e, por este motivo, ao analisar o balanço geral do União, os ministros podem reprovar as contas na semana que vem.
Understand why Dilma committed the crime of "tax pedaling" - and FHC and Lula, not Blog explains step by step and interview the prosecutor who pointed out the irregularities
By: Felipe Moura Brazil 04.04.2016 at 18:50
1) Imagine that you take 2,000 reais per month to a maid to do their grocery shopping.
With prices high, the last purchase of the month gives 250 reais, but she notes that only left over 50 real money you had given.
As she knows no more food in your refrigerator, it takes 200 actual out of pocket to help you pay the bill.
The next day, she shows him the notes of purchases, informs that spent 200 actual own money and you reset the value.
In other words, you pay 200 reais to used to pay off your debt with it - and lunch happy.
If you do not have the money at the time, he says he paid the next day or later, but soon paid.
And she accepts without problems, because you already have an old relationship of trust.
This is one thing.
2) Now imagine that your employee spend 2,000 reais of monthly shopping and you do not replace a penny value.
The following month, once again she spends 2,000 reais, while you buy gifts to friends, promising them more gifts for the year.
In another month, again. Another month like. And another. And several others as well, without replacement.
For over a year the employee pays all your grocery shopping while you promise heaven and earth to the other, literally.
Unintentionally, she goes to finance a portion of their expenses while you use in new spending money that should cover that part.
This is quite distinct thing in case 1.
In real life, of course, the maid would have resigned and maybe filed a lawsuit.
3) The CEF is the "maid" of the government.
The public bank is hired to make the benefit payments of part of the population, such as salary bonuses, unemployment insurance and Bolsa Família. Obviously you need to be paid for services rendered.
As you give the maid 2,000 reais for the month of purchases, the government gives, through the National Treasury, 500 million reais in cash to make the benefit payments. The value, as well as the supermarket, is an estimate of the costs.
If the day of the final payment, people appear to draw a total of 505 million reais, Caixa will not close the window at 15:40 and say you have no money. It pays 5 million missing real the next day reports to the Treasury, and the Treasury resets the value.
At the time of FHC and Lula, this happened a few times and the values were soon replaced, as you replaced the expense of her maid.
This is part of the contractual relationship between the government and the Caixa.
4) Already Dilma Rousseff left the "employed" bearing virtually all such government spending from the second half of 2013 and throughout the election year 2014, while spending billions of reais due to Cash in electoral programs, promising worlds and funds to the people for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
This is not only very different cases of Lula and FHC. This was unprecedented in the history of Brazil.
Box was forced to finance the government because of the procedure that became known as "tax pedaling."
The hole produced in 2014 was so great that Dilma continued failing to pay off its debt ( "cycling" so) with the "employed" in 2015.
Result 1: Caixa filed a lawsuit against the government last year to recover at least 274 million.
Result 2: The impeachment of Rousseff opened, including the denunciation of "cycling".
Result 3: Dilma government decreed secrecy about the exact size of the debt and who are the rates borrowers intended for cash because of the fund management and social programs.
In other words, the government threatened to impeach still trying to cover up the crimes he committed.
5) The site "To the Facts" published on Monday the headline:
"Dilma 'pedaled' 35 times more than Lula and FHC together."
The article includes tables that show when there was a delay in payments made by the FHC government, Lula and Dilma Caixa Econômica Federal and how much each of them owed at the time the "employed" (to use the metaphor of this blog).
Ie equaled the nature of the delays in the three cases and added debt values of each.
FHC delayed four times - one in September 1996 and three in 2002 (January, April and June) - to R $ 433.2 million.
Lula delayed three times - in September and November 2003 and November 2006 - to R $ 500 million.
Rousseff "was the one who had, triggered the most negative balance in cash: R $ 33 billion, with 19" rides "in every year of his government, most notably in 2014 (eight times), the year of his re-election. The data cover until October 2015. "
The fact-checking site ranks then as "exaggerated" the statement Dilma (which is also the basis of defense made by José Eduardo Cardozo, Advocate General of the Union, in particular the impeachment committee):
"My impeachment based on that, it would mean that all previous governments to me would have been impeached because they all, without exception, engaged in acts like the one I practiced, and always with legal support."
This blog, however, ranks as simple lie this statement Dilma and how inaccurate the title of the subject site "To the facts" (although meritorious in their information).
The difference of Dilma maneuvers for the Lula and FHC is not (only) of degree but of nature.
6) Interview
So, this blog made the following interview with Attorney Julio Marcelo de Oliveira, the Ministry of Public Accounts, responsible for the report on the tax irregularities Dilma which led to the failure of the 2014 accounts of the government by the Court (TCU ):
Felipe Moura Brazil: he had denied in an interview to the BBC in September 2015 that fiscal cycling had already been used before in smaller volumes because, in fact, the Treasury basically replaced it the amount owed by the government to Caixa. Ie say Dilma pedaled 35 times more than FHC and Lula, in fact, is a force of expression because the very nature of the maneuvers is different, right?
Julio Marcelo: Exactly. Small balances debtors, two to three days in duration, is not pedaling because it has the purpose of obtaining a forced loan from the federal public bank is only the regular contractual relationship between Treasury and bank provider of the service.
What President Dilma did and that his predecessors did not was systematically and deliberately stop sending billion reais to these banks and require them to support government bonds with their own resources, using them as overdraft.
With this device, unheard, she directed those billions for other expenses with strong electoral impact, as the FIES, which was expanded allocation of 5 billion in 2013 to over 12 billion in 2014, an election year, returning to fall to less than half in 2015. the 2015 cycling resulted from the huge hole produced in 2014, entitled to some aggravation.
Felipe Moura Brazil: Secrecy decreed by the government on data of "cycling" can hide something more that has not been observed by the Accounts MP and the TCU?
Julio Marcelo: Government owes fees to cash for services. This value should be increasing. Secrecy is improper and absurd.
Felipe Moura Brazil: What parliamentarians should consider in the analysis of "pedaling"?
Julio Marcelo: One thing worth mentioning is that there is no need for the TCU examine the 2015 cycling so that they are considered by parliament to impeach. Because the Constitution does not require. No law requires. What matters are the facts. TCU had spoken 2014 only reinforces. Imagine her (Rousseff) commits a liability crime today, so only when the TCU examine in 2017 someone will be able to point the crime? The 2015 accounts were not yet provided to the TCU, but the acts have consequences regardless.
Exact.
Dilma has been fired already.
7) liability Crime
This blog adds excerpts of impeachment signed by Hélio Bicudo, Janaina Paschoal and Miguel Reale Jr. (full here ):
"Loans signed with the Federal Savings Bank and the Bank of Brazil not only were not allowed, as they were expressly prohibited by Article 36, 'caput', the Fiscal Responsibility Law, in verbis:
Art. 36. It is forbidden to Credit operations between a state financial institution and the member of the Federation that control the quality of the borrower.
(...) Also, Article 38 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act expressly prohibits the realization of credit in advance, as there is operation of the same nature unredeemed, given that shy away from this type of operation in the last year of office of the President, Governor or mayor. Check-up:
'Art. 38. Credit operations based on anticipated revenues intended to meet cash shortfalls during the financial year and fulfill the requirements mentioned in art. 32, plus the following:
IV - will be prohibited:
a) as long as there previous operation of the same nature not fully redeemed;
b) in the last year of office of the President, Governor or Mayor. '
Although the Federal Government was authorized to conduct credit operations with public banks (and is not), could never modify them, successively, ie no rescue earlier and frize is, in any event, I could have accepted the revenue anticipation in the last year in office of President of the Republic, as occurred in the present case. the prohibition is therefore threefold!
As reflected in the complaint, and to characterize common crimes, the so-called tax pedaling characterized impeachable offenses, since Article 85 of the Constitution provides that:
Art. 85. There are impeachable offenses the acts of the President of the Republic which attempt on the Federal Constitution and especially against:
(...) V - probity in the administration;
VI - the budget law;
(...) Law 1,079 / 50, in turn, that gives concreteness formal and material to this constitutional provision, stipulates in its Article 4 .:
Art. 4 are impeachable offenses the acts of the President which offends against the Constitution, and especially against:
(...) V - probity in the administration;
VI - The budget law;
Note that both the Federal Constitution and Article 4. of Law 1,079 / 50, say they give rise to the impediment of the President the fact that undermining probity in administration and against the budget law.
However, because of changes brought about by Law 10,028 / 00, the clarity of the occurrence of a crime committed remains even higher, since Article 10 entered into force with the following wording:
Art. 10. They are crimes of liability against the budget law:
(...) 6) order or authorize the opening of credit at odds with the limits established by the Senate without foundation in the budget law or the additional credit or non-compliance with legal rules;
7) fail to promote or to order according to the law, the cancellation, redemption or reserve for cancel the credit transaction effects performed with failure limit, condition or amount prescribed by law;
8) fail to promote or to order the full settlement of credit operations in anticipation of budget revenue, including related interest and other charges, until the end of the financial year;
9) order or authorize, in violation of the law, carrying out a credit transaction with any of the other entities of the Federation, including its indirect administration entities, although in the form of novation, refinancing or postponement of previously contracted debt;
(...) Art. 11. They are crimes of liability against the guard and the legal use of public money:
(...) 3) contract loan, issue currency or policies, or make credit transaction without legal authorization;
Since so it is important to establish that the mere fact that the President breached the commands of Articles 36 and 38 of the Fiscal Responsibility Law and by this practice, incurred in capitulated crimes in Articles 359-A and 359-C of the Penal Code, as it would be sufficient to characterize the crime of responsibility. However, the practices found by the EU Court of Auditors perform perfectly, the crimes defined in Law 1,079 / 50. "
Felipe Moura Brazil ⎯ http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/felipe-moura-brasil
Dilma decides to travel to New York to denounce the "coup" in the UN
By Andrea Jube | Value
BRASILIA - President Dilma Rousseff decided to travel to New York to attend the signing ceremony of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the United Nations (UN), which will take place on Friday, 22.
Until yesterday, Dilma hesitated to confirm the trip, because they do not like to leave the chair position for the Vice President Michel Temer, who has been accused, in speeches and interviews, a "traitor", "con man" and "conspiratorial" assumed the presidency. She did not want to leave the country amid the impeachment process now underway in the Senate.
Yesterday, however, Dilma gave the closest aides of advice to seize the agenda in the United States to denounce what is called the UN International Tribune blow, and through interviews with foreign media.
The advanced level with security guards and diplomats preparing the visit of Dilma must embark today for New York. The idea is that Dilma take off tomorrow, Thursday, to the United States and return Saturday to Brazil.
Since the impeachment forward in the House, the Presidential Palace decided to invest in overexposure of Dilma. So next week, she will resume the solemnities to ensure media space and maintain contact with a portion of his constituency that still supports.
On Monday or on Tuesday, will participate in ceremony for the residential units of the Minha Casa, Minha Vida program in Salvador, Bahia, where he still has strong popular support. Fourth largest electoral college, Bahia was one of the states where the deputies secured more votes to impeach the president.
This week, Dilma gave two press conferences to enhance the speech that would be the victim of a coup.
Recalling that the Party of President Rousseff and former President from 1990 to 2002, submitted 50 requests for impeachment between 1990 and 2002
Senadora Ana Amélia lembra que PT apresentou 50 pedidos de impeachment entre 1990 e 2002
Party of President Rousseff and former President (PT) from 1990 to 2002, submitted 50 requests for impeachment between 1990 and 2002
Senator Ana Amélia (PP-RS) reaffirmed in plenary on Tuesday (29), the legality of the impeachment of the president, Dilma Rousseff. Ana Amelia pointed out that several ministers of the Supreme Court have appeared towards the legality of the impeachment. And he recalled that the Workers' Party presented 50 petitions impeachment of all the presidents of the Republic between 1990 and 2002.
She criticized the pro-government senators that, as noted, do not tire of repeating that there is an ongoing coup in Brazil, when referring to impeachment under consideration in the House of Representatives.
Ana Amelia mentioned, especially the impeachment request made by PT against then-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso in 1999, early in his second term. The charge, remember, it was that the then president had committed crime of responsibility for the execution of Proer, the stimulus program the restructuring of the financial system.
The PT, noted Senator also argued that then-President Fernando Henrique had committed what he called the electoral larceny, having promised during the campaign of re-election, the country's growth and job creation. The representatives of the PT accused the government of having done according to the International Monetary Fund and have created a recession policy.
- Nothing as one day after another. Nothing like documents, nothing like the story. In 2014, the campaign showed beautiful scenery of a growing Brazil, a country of infinite and unlimited Pronatec. More housing MCMV, now called 'my house, my debt.' Now there are no more resources, increased the home interest. Inflation reached this scary level of a scary unemployment - criticized.
Da Redação e Da Rádio Senado | 29/03/2016, 16h18 - ATUALIZADO EM 30/03/2016, 07h33
Comentários