According to BioBioChile, the Government's proposed 2027 Budget reduces funding for 220 public programs by $793 billion. The Budget Directorate (Dipres) reviewed 590 initiatives before deciding on those adjustments. No other outlet has confirmed the figure so far.
The executive branch says its aim is to put public finances in order and that people who meet the requirements will not lose their benefits. However, the outlet does not detail how benefits will be funded with less money, and that uncertainty has sparked debate in Congress.
To justify the review, the Government pointed to two cases. The first is the State-Guaranteed Loan (CAE), the university financing system, whose fiscal cost it questions because many borrowers do not repay what they owe. The second involves alleged charges for meals that were never delivered under catering contracts with the National Board of School Assistance and Scholarships (Junaeb), currently under investigation. La Moneda uses both examples to defend stricter oversight.
Minister of Economy and Mining Daniel Mas described the proposal as focused on spending restraint. He explained that the spending increase had been around 1% until hours before the announcement. "The president makes the decision to add half a percentage point more, precisely in an effort to achieve growth, to create jobs," Mas said.
Criticism centers on two programs. According to CIPER, cited by BioBioChile, Residential Alternative Care, which serves children and adolescents whose rights have been severely violated, will receive $16,879 million less in 2027. This comes despite Dipres itself having evaluated it favorably.
The Ricarte Soto Law, which funds high-cost treatments for serious illnesses, would face a cut of nearly $28 billion. Health Minister May Chomali said patients with current coverage will continue receiving their medications. How that commitment will be sustained with a smaller budget remains unclear.
Lawmakers have also raised objections. Independent Deputy Marlene Pérez, who is close to the UDI, accepted the need to spend more efficiently but opposed cuts to social assistance. "I do not support eliminating social programs or cutting social programs, because behind those programs there are families," she said.
Zandra Parisi, a deputy from the People's Party (PDG) and a member of the Social Development Committee, demanded guarantees for vulnerable households. "Fiscal responsibility is necessary, but it must never be disconnected from social responsibility," she said.
Who loses? In the immediate term, the affected programs and their users, if the cuts translate into reduced services. The Government is betting that austerity will free up room for growth and job creation.
The debate now moves to the five Budget subcommittees and the Special Joint Committee, where budget allocations will be reviewed and could change. Congress has 60 days to pass the law.
