Emiliano García‑Page, president of the Junta de Castilla‑La Mancha, took advantage of his intervention this Friday during the opening of the Regional Water Council in Toledo, to warn about the impact of the Government's decisions central on the autonomous communities.
“I have to say that the autonomous communities have not been consulted under any concept in this preparation. No, whether it is mandatory or not, but I have to say something that matters a lot to me: when we are talking about taking measures in relation to income, that is, with taxes, we are not just any Administration,” Page affirmed, pointing out that decisions adopted without consultation could have significant economic consequences.
Loss of income
The regional president -explain sources from the Junta de Castilla-La Mancha to this medium- recalled previous experiences, such as the Ukraine crisis, which caused this region to "suffer a loss of income exceeding 400 million euros due to centralized measures that did not consider the autonomous situation".
Page stressed that any future measure, especially those included in the Royal Decree recently approved by the Government, must take into account regional finances. “If they are passed on, the decisions can clearly affect the financing of healthcare, education, and the welfare state,” he warned, calling for dialogue and coordination before implementing new fiscal policies.
His intervention in Toledo, captured in images by El Debate, reflects the growing tension between the central Government and the autonomous communities on how economic decisions are made that directly affect essential public services. Page's voice resonates this Friday as a reminder that coordination and prior consultation are key to avoiding regional financial crises.
Energy populism?
Economists like José María Rotellar, director of the Francisco de Vitoria Observatory, maintains for his part exclusively to Demócrata that, "the Government's measures from the anti-crisis decrees are only appropriate in the part of tax cuts, which copies the Popular Party. The rest are nonsense, such as limiting the business margin of companies in the energy sector, as well as the proposed housing measures."
"From the grotesque delay in the start of the Council of Ministers, due to the refusal of the ministers of sumar to enter, if their proposals were not included -Rotellar points out- until the elaboration of the same in two decrees to include them. But in the first decree, in the one about tax cuts -he indicates-, there is an outrage, which is being able to limit the business margin and the profit of companies, in a mere interventionism detrimental to the economy".
On the other hand, the economist and professor of the Hespérides University, Santiago Calvo López, argues that the Government is right in the philosophy of the social shield: Social Bonus, aid for thermal. But the prohibition of supply cuts to vulnerable people has a catch -he explains-, because "if there is no explicit public compensation to distributors, the cost is socialized via tariffs and the rest of the consumers pay for it. It is not a free measure, it is a measure that hides who finances it".
Calvo López adds that, "what is neither efficient nor fair is the generalized reduction of fuel VAT: it subsidizes all drivers regardless of their income, as it inflates distributors' margins (as already happened in 2022) and destroys the price signal that the Government itself says it needs to accelerate the energy transition. It is energy populism", he concludes.
The reaction of CEOE
The employers' association CEOE and Cepyme have reacted harshly to the package of measures approved this Friday by the Government in an extraordinary Council of Ministers to face the economic impact of the conflict in the Middle East. Both organizations have expressed their “deep concern” over the inclusion, in the second royal decree-law, of initiatives regarding housing which they consider unrelated to the crisis context and attribute to “an incomprehensible political pressure” within the Executive itself.
Specifically, they flatly reject the measures that introduce new limitations to the rental market, understanding that they represent an “unjustified interference” in the right to private property and generate legal uncertainty. In their opinion, this type of intervention, incorporated into an extraordinary package linked to the energy and economic crisis, can have counterproductive effects: discourage supply, curb investment and worsen housing access problems.
Business organizations have indicated that they will analyze in detail the content of the decree once it is published in the Official State Gazette, with the aim of evaluating its scope and its implications, both economic and legal. In this regard, they have reiterated the need for public policies to strengthen legal certainty and focus on responding to the emergency situation, avoiding -as they warn- interventionist approaches which, they maintain, have already demonstrated their ineffectiveness.