Chaco's 2027 budget has entered legislative debate under two opposing interpretations. Leandro Zdero's government presents 5.95 trillion pesos in revenue, 5.90 trillion in spending and an estimated 56.08-billion surplus. The opposition argues that this balance coexists with heavy debt, broad financial authorizations and insufficient funding for urgent problems.
The executive branch concentrates about 84% of expenditure. Current spending represents 83.7% and capital spending 16.3%, leaving nearly 963.427 billion pesos for investment. The key question is how much capital expenditure can actually be executed and according to what territorial priorities.
The financial chapter draws the strongest criticism. The bill authorizes up to 300 billion pesos in Treasury bills, potentially maturing through 2028, and allocates 650.183 billion for debt amortization. Even if bills cover seasonal cash gaps, their scale requires disclosure of rates, terms, guarantees and use of revenue-sharing resources.
Sebastián Benítez Molas also argues that provincial debt has doubled and that previous borrowing lacks sufficient detail. His bloc submitted an alternative report and says it will not support the official text unchanged. The comparison between earlier 8-billion issues and the requested 300 billion highlights the scale shift.
Opponents also demand changes in health, education and water infrastructure. They cite health-system problems, teacher wage claims and reduced resources for the water agency. The government can point to 1.34 trillion pesos identified for education, but must show that funding covers pay, supplies, buildings and emergencies.
The bill includes 48 billion pesos for Chaco Subsidia and 74,294 public positions plus 282,623 teaching hours. These figures reveal the law's social and labor dimension. Program targets, beneficiary counts and unit costs are needed to understand the real impact of any adjustment.
Benítez Molas linked the budget to a constitutional amendment aligning provincial and national elections. That proposal may reduce costs, but electoral rules deserve a separate democratic debate rather than being absorbed by the spending law.
The next step is comparing the official and alternative texts and opening data on debt, bills, the water agency, health and education. A surplus below 1% of spending leaves little room for shocks. Credibility depends on sustaining essential services without turning financial authorization into opaque, growing debt.
