According to Frederic Emam-Zade, an economist for Leonel Fernandez?s Foundation for Global Development and Democracy, the new ?giant package? comes at a bad time and does not respond to national interests. Emam-Zade told Carmen Carvajal from Hoy that the PLD party technicians fell into ?a trap? set by PRD officials. In his opinion, the PLD economic planners worked too quickly and did not consult with other political and economic parties.
According to the jovial economist, the people voted for the PLD in the past election to lower taxes, apply an austerity policy and get rid of the many ?do nothing? jobs on the public payroll. As the economist sees things, if we are to accept the idea that was stated by the President Elect many times over the past few years, that the ?big (tax) package? of 2001 was ?untimely,? then we must conclude that the current ?giant (tax) package? is even more untimely because we are in a period of ?stagflation,? in which we have a recession and inflation at the same time.
Emam-Zade says that the legislative proposal can and should be modified to meet the three top demands of the populace: in the first place, a reduction of taxes; secondly, a strong austerity program ?a la Balaguer? (referring to the former caudillo, famous for his tight-fistedness); and, thirdly, the elimination of all the excess patronage jobs created during the PRD administration. Pointing out a popular sentiment, Emam-Zade said that neither the consumer, the producers, the workers, nor the industrialists can shoulder any more taxes, and they all want the government to cut its expenditures. Neither the local market, nor the international financial organizations are willing to continue to finance the government?s spending deficits.
As for his own recommendations, the economist said that the only solution would be to drastically cut taxes and reduce government spending, including the eradication of 175,000 superfluous jobs. Not only would the government save the salaries paid to the sinecures, it would also save on all of the expenses associated with these ?jobs.? In addition, the government would have to reduce the generalized subsidies on things like propane and electricity, and relaunch them in a more focused manner. Finally, the government might have to close a few offices and ministries that represent, today, ?a greater part of the problem than the solution.?