Post by account_disabled on Jan 11, 2024 3:18:52 GMT -8
The political forces that are working together to approve the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) 6/2019, presented by the President of the Republic to the Chamber of Deputies on 02/20/2019, intend for it to be approved in the very short term. In the proximity of deliberation by the body of the Chamber of Deputies precisel Telegram Number Data y responsible for analyzing the constitutionality of draft normative acts (the CCJ), this brief study seeks to contribute to the possibility of there being some rational debate on the constitutionality of such a PEC. To this end, it will highlight violations of the Constitution manifested in the phenomenon of haste that inspires its legislative process. For conceptual clarity, the “Reform” will be called PEC 6/2019.
This is for two reasons. The first, by seeking a scientific treatment of the subject, which can be harmed by the use of expressions with inevitable political connotations. The second, because the name “Reform” itself does not correspond to the reality to which it is falsely attributed, given that PEC 6 is not concerned with reforming social security, but rather with transforming it into something else, destroying the current system of social security and assistance rights. The legislative process of the aforementioned PEC is marked by alleged “extreme necessity” and “urgency” in its approval. But in the actuarial projections that its defenders present (like the graph on page 52 of the explanatory memorandum of PEC 6/2019), the social security situation is represented with the current rules until 2060! Why? Because, before 2060, the graphs do not behave so favorably towards the alleged need and urgency of destroying public pensions.
This is for two reasons. The first, by seeking a scientific treatment of the subject, which can be harmed by the use of expressions with inevitable political connotations. The second, because the name “Reform” itself does not correspond to the reality to which it is falsely attributed, given that PEC 6 is not concerned with reforming social security, but rather with transforming it into something else, destroying the current system of social security and assistance rights. The legislative process of the aforementioned PEC is marked by alleged “extreme necessity” and “urgency” in its approval. But in the actuarial projections that its defenders present (like the graph on page 52 of the explanatory memorandum of PEC 6/2019), the social security situation is represented with the current rules until 2060! Why? Because, before 2060, the graphs do not behave so favorably towards the alleged need and urgency of destroying public pensions.