The calls ‘golden salaries‘—those higher than the president’s, which some public officials receive—do not constitute a financial problem, but one of principles. No matter how much the Government tries to position its cuts as a source of savings, their weight in the budget is lower and there are much more efficient alternatives. However, appealing to decorum and coherence, are those salaries in the public sector sustainable?
Following a hierarchical, almost militaristic logic, an attempt is made to establish the salary as a ceiling of the president of the Republic. However, the position of president is temporary and also carries a Life penssion, as well as various sources of subsequent income typical of the inevitable ‘revolving door’. Furthermore, it is one of the lowest salaries in the region and is often exercised by citizens who already have their economic situation resolved. Establishing it as a ceiling for the public service is arbitrary.
On the other hand, the beneficiaries of ‘golden salaries’ usually defend them by appealing to mercadoon behalf of an alleged meritocracy. That is not appropriate either, since the working conditions, stability and demands in the public sector are completely different from those in the private sector. Middle and lower positions in the bureaucracy earn substantially more than their peers in the private sector. If one wanted to apply the market as a yardstick, it should be used primarily in the public sector, both in salaries and responsibilities.
As long as these inconsistencies are not resolved, salaries will continue to leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouths.