Here are the real people responsible for the Superbonus hole
What is not convincing about Foglio's thesis on the responsibilities of the gap from the Superbonus for construction to be placed on the State General Accounting Office. Gianfranco Polillo's analysis
Who was wrong about the construction bonus, which is bleeding the state coffers dry? Il Foglio has no doubts: the fault lies with the State Accountant General. His resignation is desirable. If only it were all so simple and straightforward. Striking one to educate a hundred: wasn't this one of Chairman Mao's many thoughts? Sometimes radicalism can also be of the center and not just right or left. But the pernicious effects are not so dissimilar.
What is not convincing in Foglio 's theses is its accounting simplification. With each passing month, the perception of the disaster linked to the renovations of residential homes, villas, condominiums and castles expands dramatically. Figures worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of euros appear on the tableaux of financial analysts. While the various Public Prosecutor's Offices are mobilized in the search for tax fraud involving significant amounts. This would be enough to crucify those who did not grasp, with the necessary advance, what was boiling in the pot.
It is therefore difficult to defend the main accused that Il Foglio , without hesitation, points to public opinion. However, many other protagonists must be included in the general and indisputable condemnation. Let's not forget who the "father" of that reform was (article from Il Foglio – 11 May 2023). Born Riccardo Fraccaro: two entire legislatures (2013 – 2022) spent on the command deck of the Movement. Former employee of an energy company, which says a lot about his interests. First secretary of the Chamber of Deputies, then Quaestor of the same, with Roberto Fico as president, then minister of relations with Parliament and finally undersecretary of the Presidency of the Council, as well as secretary of the Council of Ministers with responsibility for the CIPE and aerospace. A power, in the phase in which Giuseppe Conte, having abandoned the role of simple mediator between Di Maio and Salvini, became the head of the yellow-red alliance.
The law on the 110 percent bonus was constructed by attributing to the Italian taxpayer his "subjective right". That of being able to renovate your home, in the name of the supreme interests of the ecosystem, placing the related costs entirely at the expense of the Treasury. As if the latter were an abstract entity and not the result of that balance between income and expenditure, therefore between rights and duties, which represents the salt of modern democracies. However, the categorical imperative of environmental protection meant that no constraints were placed on the exercise of that power. Which explains why that financing was not reserved only for the less well-off classes, but extended to everyone: houses, condominiums, villas and even castles.
Anyone who would have objected, placing constraints, would have been asphalted by that political majority destined to put into practice the magnificent progressive fortunes of the entire country. It goes without saying that, in similar circumstances, any prior quantification of the expense would have been impossible. In fact, what was the audience of possible beneficiaries? Infinity. What are the constraints? Nobody. The Minister of Economy should have objected. But Roberto Gualtieri sat in Via XX Settembre and I think this in itself is enough. Could the State Accountant refuse an impossible quantification? Certainly, unless he presents his resignation at the same time. And be charged with sedition. Not even Guido Carli, as governor of the Bank of Italy, as he said in a famous meeting of the Bank, would have dared so much. Respectful, as he always had been, of the primacy of representative institutions.
The truth is that the technician, faced with the arrogance of political power, has no real tools to counteract it. Furthermore, the Accounting Office could count on other institutional filters. The Budget Service of the House and Senate could have objected. However, the political responsibility for the final decision, unless the Budget Commission voted against it, fell within the prerogatives of the newly delegated Undersecretary of State. So road blocked. And then all that remained was to hypothesize an intervention by the President of the Republic, who is responsible for checking the constitutionality of the laws. And the lack of financial coverage of a provision contrasts with the spirit and letter of article 81.
On other occasions this prerogative had been exercised, sending the law back to Parliament with a reasoned message. In the case of the bonus it was decided differently. We do not know the related reasons. The fact is that the responsibilities in this real attack on the country's public finances are widespread. First of all, of the Government and its parliamentary majority. And it is not right to look for saving scapegoats to absolve the real protagonists of the whole affair.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/buco-bilancio-superbonus-responsabili/ on Mon, 04 Mar 2024 06:54:33 +0000.