Notes on today's Clarin

Daniel Muchnik writes for Clarin -

"Since the devaluation in the midst of the 2001-2002 collapse, together with the taxes on credits and debts, the "retenciones" initiated in 2002 were a key instrument for the considerable elevation of tax revenue. They were never thought of as an instrument of distribution of revenue but as a collection tool to confront the payment of external debt, a problem that dragged on with persistence and official denial."*

*This change of policy sheds light on the administration's attempt to frame the discourse in fundamental terms. The Pink House (Casa Rosada, the center of executive power in Argentina) defended the export tax on the agricultural sector as a re-distributive intervention of the state, whatever the actual destination of the taxes might be. In framing the discourse as a battle between the state, committed to its duty to share the benefits of growth with the people, and capitalist farmers ,clamoring for a bigger piece of their pie (in Christina's already infamous phrase, "strike of abundance"), they have called into question fundamental issues at play in a capitalist economy together with a populist government. Within these boundaries, the fact that the funds don't go back to the provinces that generated them makes little difference - all must share with all. The ephemeral image of the "small farmer" remains an ambiguous piece of the puzzle. They represent a significant, if lesser, percentage of the producers exporting products, and have played a much larger part in the rhetoric of both groups than a strictly numerical interpretation would merit. Their plight, being hit harder by the export tax than anyone, and the fact that their numbers have been falling sharply in recent years gives them the romantic gloss of a dying breed, and shortly after the strike began, the Kirchner administration announced policy changes favoring producers with less land in an attempt to split the unified base of the protest. In place, these policies recast the principle players in their proper roles - populist government vs. big business. This model doesn't depend on the original intentions of the export taxes; public opinion is a fluid as the changing paradigms of official policy. That was then. However, the generalization inherent in the administration's definition may cost it more than it bargained for:

Alfredu Gutierrez writes for Clarin -

"[Roberto Urquia] is the owner of the 'Aceiteria General Deheza' (AGD), a powerful agricultural holding that supports an entire region of the south of Cordoba. He has investments in other areas and has the franchise of the railroad Central Argentino, the cargo train that moves its produce to the port of Rosario. At first, he took a position almost ambiguous, but all of his friends, neighbors and his constituency are from the area. They made a martyr of him - grafitti, scratches and even a fumigation plane that passed all day in front of his house with a huge sign that flew like a flag: 'Traitor Urkia'. In the end, he leant towards the farmers and asked the suspension of the new export taxes..."*

*Urkia, Senator of Cordoba, is a "kirchnerista". However, the manner with which the administration dealt with the problem puts him in a difficult position - he can stay loyal to his electorate and go against his president (which could have grave consequences for his political future) or he could ignore his responsibility to represent his district and man the party line (which could have grave consequences for his political future). At some point, refusing to deal with the complexities of the issue (not least of which is the presence of kirchnerist officials with strong political and economic ties to the agricultural sector) may not prove worth the rhetorical benefits of a simplistic, two-sided approach to the debate.

**The privilege of being able to frame the debate carries other benefits as well - defining the mainstream positions also defines what radical positions will be effectively excluded from public discourse. One thinks of the almost forgotten disappearing WMD's in Iraq, a cornerstone of the administration's official line. They are irrelevant to the debate on how to move forward with the war. That was then, this is now.