Candidates for President — Photo: Photos: Reproduction
Whoever assumes the Presidency of the Republic in 2027 will have little space in the Budget to make new promises on paper next year.
Of the R$2.826 trillion foreseen in primary expenses, 90% is committed to pensions, salaries, social benefits and other mandatory expenses.
The numbers appear in the X-Ray of the 2027 Annual Budget Bill (PLOA). The survey was prepared by the Budget and Financial Inspection Consultancy of the Chamber of Deputies (CONOF), based on the proposal sent by the government to Congress.
📌 The R$ 2.826 trillion correspond to primary expenses. This value includes mandatory spending and those over which the government has some margin to define priorities. The total Budget is R$7.4491 trillion and covers financial expenses, such as interest, payment of installments and debt renewal. As the project is still under analysis, values may change until final approval, scheduled for December 2026.
The remaining 10%, equivalent to R$283.2 billion, correspond to so-called discretionary expenses. In this portion, the government has some scope to define priorities.
Despite this flexibility, the amount does not represent "free money" to finance the entire government program that won at the polls.
In practice, the next president will not be able to simply cut or redirect mandatory spending to finance new policies. To change part of these expenses, it will be necessary to change laws or the Constitution, which depends on Congress's approval.
Only part of the R$283.2 billion is in the hands of the Executive
Of the R$ 283.2 billion in discretionary expenses, R$ 61.2 billion are allocated to individual and bench parliamentary amendments, and to the expenses of the other Powers, the Federal Public Ministry (MPU) and the Federal Public Defender's Office (DPU).
Therefore, R$222.1 billion remains programmed by the Executive. Still, not all of this value is available for new proposals.
🧩 These resources finance ongoing programs, investments and expenses necessary for the functioning of ministries and public services.
Economist Haroldo da Silva, president of the São Paulo Regional Economic Council (Corecon-SP), highlights that the expenses on which the government can define priorities are not necessarily dispensable.
“This portion contains investments, maintenance of universities, infrastructure, supervision, science and technology and the funding of numerous public services”, he states.
How much of the 2027 Budget is in the hands of the Executive? — Photo: Arte/g1
Not every promise goes into the same account
Still, electoral proposals can put pressure on the Budget in different ways. Works, purchase of equipment, subsidies and expansion of services may compete for the portion over which the government has some decision-making room.
Permanent benefits, adjustments and new personnel expenses can increase mandatory expenses. Reducing taxes can reduce revenue and, consequently, the money available.
Part of the candidates' promises involve policies that already receive federal resources and have values set out in the PLOA. This does not mean, however, that there is money reserved to finance the promised expansions.
The PT's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's program, for example, proposes consolidating or expanding policies such as Bolsa Família, Pé-de-Meia and Minha Casa, Minha Vida, in addition to strengthening universities, federal institutes and the Unified Health System (SUS).
The document also foresees investments through the New Growth Acceleration Program, the strengthening of the New Industry Brazil and the Ecological Transformation Plan and the continuity of the policy of increasing the minimum wage.
As part of these policies already exists, the 2027 Budget must provide resources for their maintenance. Increasing the number of beneficiaries, expanding services or increasing investments, however, may require additional money.
⚠️ Without goals, deadlines and cost estimates for each of the main expansions, it is not possible to know how much could be financed with the resources already foreseen, how much would require the transfer of money between areas and how much would depend on new revenue or an increase in mandatory spending.
The increase in investments also appears in the program of Ronaldo Caiado, from the PSD. Among the proposals are the creation of a national infrastructure plan for the next 30 years, the resumption of suspended works, the Northeast Pact 2030 and the reinforcement of security, health and professional training policies.
The program sets the goal of increasing the economy's total investment to close to 25% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This percentage includes public and private resources. Therefore, it does not mean that the federal government alone would spend the equivalent of 25% of GDP.
Caiado also proposes reviewing subsidies and tax benefits considered inefficient, combating fraud in social programs and limiting the growth of mandatory expenses and administration maintenance expenses to a rate lower than GDP in current values.
⚠️ The government plan does not indicate what portion of the total investment would fall to the federal government or how much would be saved by reviewing current spending.
Augusto Cury's program, from Avante, includes five strategic export corridors, the expansion of technical education and an increase in subsidies for rural insurance. It also foresees Brasil Proteína 10,000, which aims to attract or install 10 thousand agribusinesses in eight years.
The document also proposes the creation of a bank to finance small entrepreneurs, micro-enterprises and start-up companies, in addition to 10,000 Entrepreneurship Schools and forms of payment for environmental services.
The plan combines concessions and partnerships between public authorities and private companies with proposals to control expenses. Among the measures are seeking a result close to the balance between revenues and expenses, carrying out an administrative reform, studying the reduction in the number of ministries and using artificial intelligence to identify fraud and inefficiencies.
💰 Measures may require resources for infrastructure, financial incentives, professional education and public credit. The program, however, does not inform the total cost of the proposals nor the amount that would be spent in 2027.
The program by Romeu Zema, from Novo, brings together examples of different forms of impact on the Budget. Among the proposals are the expansion of partnerships between public authorities and private companies in the areas of health and education, the implementation of a national health registry and the expansion of social rent and housing policies for the low-income population.
The government plan also proposes paying R$5,000 to families who leave Bolsa Família after exceeding the program's income limit. Another initiative, called Sócios do Brasil, provides for the deposit of R$1,000 for each person when they are born, with the possibility of withdrawal at age 18.
⚠️ These are among the few cases in which the amount to be paid to each beneficiary is informed. The document, however, does not present the total number of people served nor the annual cost of the measures.
Zema's program also proposes a pension reform, the privatization of state-owned companies, the sale of Union assets and shares, an administrative reform, the cutting of ministries and positions and the gradual reduction of financing destined for specific sectors or offered under favorable conditions.
The document also defends the reduction of taxes on companies and the end of charges charged on the value of a minimum wage when hiring workers who leave the informal sector.
Other candidacies condition increased investments on prior changes in mandatory spending. The program by Renan Santos, from Missão, presents as its main proposal for public accounts the "PEC do Equilíbrio Fiscal", which attributes savings of R$1.1 trillion by 2031.
Among the measures are removing the linking of Social Security and Continuous Payment Benefits (BPC) benefits to the minimum wage, eliminating the minimum values for health and education linked by the Constitution, reviewing the salary bonus, limiting super salaries and uniting municipalities considered incapable of supporting their own accounts.
The program also proposes replacing Bolsa Família with "Frentes Cidadãs" and increasing investments in infrastructure only after these reforms are approved.
💰 The savings of R$1.1 trillion is a projection for the period up to 2031. This does not mean that the entire amount would be available in 2027. In the material analyzed, the program does not detail how much would be saved in the first year nor the cost of raising investments to the promised levels.
There are also candidacies that intend to combine cuts in public administration, tax reductions and infrastructure projects. Flávio Bolsonaro's program, from PL, proposes the so-called "Treasury", which envisages the elimination of at least ten ministries, the reduction of freely appointed positions and administrative expenses and the fight against super salaries and "perks".
At the same time, the program announces R$900 billion over four years for highways, railways, ports and airports. The strategy includes concessions, partnerships between public authorities and private companies and the anticipation of resources based on assets, properties and future revenues of the Union.
The plan also provides for the reduction of taxes on consumption, electricity and fuel. Furthermore, it proposes using the National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES) to support the operations of small and medium-sized companies abroad.
💰 The effect on public accounts would be mixed: the program promises to save money by reducing the administrative structure, but also foresees new investments and measures that could reduce revenue. The plan does not say how much of the R$900 billion announced for infrastructure would come from public resources, private investments or anticipated revenues based on Union assets and rights. It also does not present an estimate of the total that would be saved with the "Treasury".
➡️ For the experts interviewed by g1, campaigns should explain not only what they intend to do, but also where the money would come from to finance their proposals.
This would make it possible to identify which expenses could be reduced or transferred to other areas, which promises would require new sources of revenue and which would depend on Congressional approval.
According to Silva, to allocate more money to a new policy, it will be necessary to indicate which expenses can be reduced, postponed or transferred to other areas, or point out where the additional resources will come from.
"The correct debate is not to be for or against amendments in the abstract, but to know whether the allocation politically determined by Parliament produces more social return than what will need to be compressed to accommodate it."
Some of the changes proposed by the candidates do not depend solely on the president's decision. Mandatory spending, rule amendments, taxes, and permanent benefits may require congressional approval.
What do the presidential candidates propose? — Photo: Arte/g1
Amendments reduce the space of ministries and expand the power of Congress
The portion of the Budget over which there is greater decision-making room finances ongoing policies and services and includes R$44.8 billion in parliamentary amendments.
📊 Of this amount, R$28.5 billion is reserved for individual amendments and R$16.3 billion for the 27 state benches. The project does not allocate a specific amount to committee amendments.
This money can also finance works, investments and public policies.
The main difference is who decides where the money goes. In resources programmed by ministries, the decision rests mainly with the Executive. In the amendments, deputies, senators and benches indicate where the values will be applied.
As there is a limit to the total expenditure subject to fiscal rules, increasing resources in one area reduces the space available for the others. Individual and bench amendments are also mandatory, as long as they comply with the Budget rules and there are no technical impediments.
This change increased Congress's power over the allocation of the Budget.
In the research “Parliamentary amendments and budgetary process in coalition presidentialism”, Rodrigo Oliveira de Faria, PhD in Financial Law from the University of São Paulo (USP), points out that, as of 2013, part of the decisions previously concentrated in the Executive were transferred to the Legislative.
With the mandatory execution of individual and bench amendments, the president lost part of his ability to negotiate the release of this money in exchange for support in Congress. At the same time, parliamentarians increased their influence over the destination of resources.
According to him, the amendments are no longer just a “bargaining chip” released by the government to obtain support in Congress. When they became mandatory, they began to represent true “crown jewels”, that is, valuable resources whose allocation is increasingly under the influence of the Legislature.
“With the difference that, if previously the letters were given by the Executive, they are now distributed by the Legislative, signaling greater dependence on the President of the Republic in relation to the general rapporteur of the PLOA."
🧩 The majority of spending remains linked to obligations set out in laws and the Constitution, while the Executive prepares the Budget proposal and implements the policies under its administration. The advancement of amendments, however, reduced the portion whose destination can be defined directly by the government.
The mandatory execution of the amendments deprived the president of part of a traditional instrument of political negotiation. As the release of these resources no longer depended on the Executive's decision, Palácio do Planalto began to look for other ways of negotiating with Congress.
Political scientist and economist Fabio Andrade, professor at the Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing (ESPM), explains that, since the creation of the so-called “secret budget”, Congress has gained more autonomy to indicate the destination of resources.
“The federal government has lost a significant part of its negotiating capacity via budget allocation”, he states.
According to Andrade, part of this articulation can occur through the distribution of positions in the federal administration.
“The Executive is often left with coordination based on the occupation of positions considered important and which provide more strategic access to resources.”
What do the campaigns say?
g1 asked the campaigns what the estimated cost or savings of the proposals for 2027 would be, what the sources of financing would be and what measures would depend on Congress.
Renan Santos’ campaign stated that the “PEC of Fiscal Balance”
