STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Did Brazil’s Dilma Deserve Her Impeachment?
By Daily Bell Staff - September 03, 2016

Dilma Rousseff Learns Fiscal Crime Doesn’t Pay … At her impeachment trial this week, Brazil’s suspended president Dilma Rousseff warned of the “death of democracy,” comparing the senators trying her to the military tribunal she faced as a young woman fighting dictatorship.  The actual charges against Rousseff — which she has denied, and for which she was impeached on Wednesday — are more mundane: that she manipulated the federal budget to hide Brazil’s true economic condition, and spent money without congressional approval. Yet they point to one of Brazil’s biggest problems: the persistent abuse of state resources to advance partisan or personal fortunes, with huge costs for the country at large. – Bloomberg

Brazil’s former president, Dilma Rousseff, doubtless did manipulate the Brazilian government and economy but the there is no “lesson” to be drawn from her fate as this editorial suggests. Nor are Dilma’s “crimes” in any sense unusual in bureaucratic terms.

The editorial wants to differentiate them, though.

Future Brazilian leaders should consider Rousseff’s fate a salutary warning against too-rosy scenarios and the fiscal fiddling that accompanies them.

Does the editorial staff really believe that Brazil’s corrupt political system will take any lesson from this except to choose their friends more carefully than Rousseff did?

The editorial seems to imply that the same sorts of activities do not occur in Russia, China, India and … of course, the US. Political corruption is endemic around the world.

Any federal government anywhere, especially of a largish state, is bound up in endless fraud, misery and ongoing corruption. It cannot be otherwise. Those in government inevitably seek to enrich themselves in almost any manner they can.

In fact, there are only two reasons, in fact, to go into government that we can see. The first is power. And the second is money.

The third one often mentioned is to “serve the people.” But we would argue those who are “served” are those inside of government, not outside of it.

More:

The fiscal responsibility law that Rousseff was accused of violating is intended to prevent unauthorized spending, balance government accounts and save future administrations from having to pay for their predecessors’ populist sprees. By delaying repayments to state-owned banks for social programs,

Rousseff’s administration was able to bust its own budget while seeming to stay within legal bounds. In fact, this strategy enabled the government to “overspend” by tens of billions of dollars from 2012 through 2015, in part to pay for Rousseff’s expansive re-election promises.

Rousseff’s defenders argue that her behavior was no different from her predecessors’ and that her accusers face their own serious ethical challenges. The latter assertion is certainly true. But neither is an excuse.

The article goes on in this fashion, acting as if Rousseff did something that was especially egregious. Meanwhile Brazil’s new president, Michel Temer is presented as someone bringing Brazil back to a more normal state of affairs. “He has already won legislative concessions to make Brazil’s budgeting more flexible and introduce a temporary spending cap.”

In fact, Temer is Washington’s man. As we pointed out long ago, when the Brazilian scandal was beginning to percolate, Washington and the CIA have surely been behind Rousseff’s overthrow. Her dealings with China, especially as regards state oil giant Petrobras demanded that DC remove Dilma as Brazil was in DC’s “back yard.” In fact, DC trained Brazilian policemen that were reportedly influential in ensuring her removal.

Here are some DB articles on the subject:

West vs. BRICS: The New Cold War

Covert US Operations Undermine Brazil Olympics As Predicted

As Predicted, Brazil and its Olympics Embroiled in CIA Fallout

This editorial reads more like government propaganda than a considered opinion. It simply reinforces the elite thematic that government can be “good” if it is placed in the proper hands. Government can never be good however, as human beings are fallible and the more power they have, the more fallible they become.

Conclusion: Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment was a message to Brazil’s industrial and political class. But it had nothing to do with a “salutary warning” regarding overt government manipulations. It was a stern warning that the US and its interests had a primacy of place in South America and especially in Brazil. If she had been properly submissive to US – and City – interests, she would likely still be president.

 

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • 1) – if they offend Washington, or don’t pay enough attention to its interests, they too can end up losing their positions – or worse.

    Nice to be part of a Criminal Conspiracy –

    before and after the fact –

    The is that very famous “Road to Nowhere” but ofcourse although Americans spend the entire miserable lives on the “Road to Nowhere” they have never heard of it..

    You can safely conclude that “If you are so desperate to be loved – instead of Guns and Bullets – maybe a kind word now and again may work the miracle – you seek .

    And always remember that the mot important thing that you can do for your life – is not to screw-up the lives of others – I do realize – it has become a psychotic habit.

    Regards and I wish you well – hope history will be kind to you
    B

    • Lifestyler

      I have had to read numerous foreign newspapers and listen to foreign news sources (you should try it as well) to get a handle on the Brazilian problems that Roussef has, at the moment but, if I had to make an educated guess as to why she is in the midst of these troubles, I would point directly to the U.S.

      Brazil was building a very impressive industrial base (and a blossoming GDP), doing an enormous trade with China (shipbuilding, etc. and not Nike sneakers), was also part of the BRICS group (Brazil Russia India China and Singapore) who were in the midst of forming a completely separate banking group that did not interface with the IMF which is, at present, controlled by the U.S., Britain and Germany. The U.S. did not like that another group was trying to create a new banking entity that would compete with the IMF and they had to bring that group to heel. So, they went after one of the cogs in the plan in the person of Roussef. (The U.S. is already giving Russia a black eye at every turn). All of the Brazilian media was bought and paid for by the U.S. (with rich U.S. dollars) to go against Roussef and, they succeeded.

      I dare say that Roussef is no more guilty of anything remotely like what the Brazilian authorities are claiming. If the U.S. wants to prosecute someone, how about Cheney, Wolfowicz, Rumsfeld, Bush, Kissinger and the rest of the war criminals running free and living large? But no, they can’t do that. But they can illegally interfere in the operations of a democratically elected government elsewhere. Roussef is a pawn who is about to get a very bloody nose.

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.