A chainsaw, yes, but not just anywhere. This could be the message left for Javier Milei by a new national survey that asked about the President's vetoes of four laws related to pensions, disability, universities, and the Garrahan Hospital.

The study that Clarín is releasing this Wednesday is from Synopsis, a firm created 10 years ago and directed by political scientist Lucas Romero. It was born as the political arm of Ecolatina, the economic consultancy founded by former minister Roberto Lavagna.

Between August 11 and 16, Synopsis conducted a national survey of 1,190 cases and presented the results with a +/- 2.9% margin of error. The study comes at a sensitive time in the government's relationship with the opposition.

President Milei when he spoke on national television and accused the opposition of wanting to break the country.

Milei accuses the non-government blocs of wanting to impose a parallel agenda from Congress and pass laws that undermine the central axis of the economic program: zero deficit. The fight reached its climax a couple of Fridays ago, when the President spoke on national television to raise the dispute.

The opposition, meanwhile, responds that, since there is no approved budget, there is discretion in the management of fundsand that the Government should prioritize these expenses over others.

The truth is that public opinion, according to this survey, seems to agree with each of them to some extent. On the one hand, as Romero points out,"the majority of the population values Milei's fiscal discipline. But they also tell her to cut elsewhere, not here."

Disability, the most questioned veto

The first two vetoes analyzed in the survey relate to retirement and disability. The results of the survey are, a priori, consistent with what could happen this Wednesday in the Chamber of Deputies.

Because the veto that people question the most is the one that would have the votes guaranteed to be rejected by two-thirds of the body.

The bill declaring a national disability emergency does so for two years, until December 31, 2027. It proposes regularizing payments and updating fees for service providers.

It also proposes a reform to the non-contributory pension system, strengthens the role of the National Disability Agency (ANDIS) and establishes the obligation to meet the employment quota for people with disabilities.

In response to the Synopsis survey, 74.5% said they would not veto the law. With one nuance: 43.4% responded,"They would not veto it and would consider further cuts." While 31.1%"would not veto it and would increase spending."

On the outside, 21.3% say they would"veto her to avoid increasing spending." This is a lower number than the hard core of libertarian supporters, closer to the 30% who voted for Milei in both the PASO and the first round.

The head of the K bloc in the House of Representatives, Germán Martínez, with the head of the body, Martín Menem.

What does this mean? That there are die-hard voters for the President who also reject the veto of the disability law. They are most likely among the 43.4% who are calling for a veto but cutting other spending. This group could also include voters who supported Milei in the runoff.

As for pensions, the rejection of the veto is also high: 68%, between 44.4% who would not veto it by cutting other expenses and 23.6% who would not veto it and would increase spending.

This law, challenged by Milei, mandates, among other things, a 7.2% increase in all pensions—except for special pensions. This increase seeks to compensate for the losses suffered by retirees in January of last year, when inflation was 20.6% and the increase granted by the Executive Branch at the time was 12.5%.

Universities, the least questioned veto

The other two vetoes analyzed in the survey are linked to the universities and the so-calledGarrahan law, which is actually the declaration of an emergency in pediatrics, which would also bring more funds to the prestigious hospital dedicated to children.

Survey on Milei's vetoes of universities and Garrahan

Based on a national survey of 1,190 cases. In %.

Source: Synopsis Infographic: Clarín

The veto of the university funding law is the one with the most even results: 33% would support the veto, 31.2% would not veto it but would cut spending in other areas, and 30.9% would not veto it but would increase spending.

Regarding the so-called Garrahan law, 25.9% agree with Milei to support the chainsaw, 33.5% would not veto it but would make other cuts 34.8% would not veto it by increasing spending.