More State to fix what the State itself broke

More State to fix what the State itself broke

The campaign talks about more State. The Prime Minister makes it clear: "When everything breaks, what holds us up is what belongs to all of us." The phrase, turned into a slogan, has landed like a bucket of cold water on those who have spent years paying for the public sector without receiving the service. The official argument is almost insultingly simple: if pensions, trains or housing are falling apart, the solution is to strengthen the State that manages them. The problem, critics point out, is that this same State is the one that has neglected railway infrastructure maintenance, the one that boasted about renewables before a total blackout, and the one that said "if they need help, let them ask for it" after a DANA (a severe flooding event) that left 200 dead.

The official diagnosis and the opposite one

The presidential message rests on a core idea: what is shared is what holds us up when the market fails. Under that logic, the campaign proposes strengthening pensions, railways and public housing. So far, the script. The most common response is that this narrative confuses cause and effect: what is breaking down is precisely what depends on the State. "Everything that breaks down does so because it depends on the State," sums up one of the currents running through the conversation, which adds a radical conclusion: abolish taxes and dismantle the public sector.

Between both extremes lies the argument most uncomfortable for the Government: the State is already at record levels. In tax revenue, in spending and in public employees. If more State were the solution, the country should run like clockwork. And it doesn't. That contrast between the size of the public sector and the quality of the service is the axis of almost all the criticism.

The calculation nobody disputes: how much of the budget goes to staff

One of the most concrete contributions to the exchange puts figures on the table: between 20% and 25% of the State's total spending goes on personnel, and if the remaining 40% of other items is added, it reaches between 60% and 65% of total spending. In Education, 60% of the budget goes to staff; in Healthcare, 45%. These figures don't demolish the more-State narrative, but they reframe it: strengthening the public sector means, in practice, fattening the administration's payroll. The full calculation, broken down item by item, is the kind of material that never appears at campaign rallies.

Cronyism as a recurring criticism

The objection repeated most often is not ideological, it's about management. The promise of more State translates, according to this reading, into more public procurement, more colleagues handed positions and more corruption in contracting. "More state, more whores, more useless cronies and more kickbacks for everything," sums up one of the comments. The criticism is not new, but in the middle of the campaign it takes on another meaning: it is presented as confirmation of what has already been handed out, not as a hypothesis.

The DANA, the trains and the blackout: the track record that contradicts the slogan

The management review is damning in the version circulating. The same State that neglects railway infrastructure maintenance, causing fatal accidents. The same one that boasted about renewables before a total blackout. The same one that said "if they need help, let them ask for it" after a DANA that left 200 dead. The same one that fails to adjust income tax brackets for inflation when it exceeds the eurozone average. The same one that didn't close borders until all of Europe did. The accumulation of examples seeks one effect: if that is the State that holds us up, better to know what to expect.

The alternative gaining ground: privatize and return the money

Against more State, the proposal gaining ground in the conversation is the opposite: fewer taxes, private and nominal pensions, and a State limited to security and defense. The argument is that the State is not a benevolent father, but a parasite that steals resources and manages with incompetence. Pension privatization even comes with its adverse scenario: if you lose in the stock market, you bear the risk yourself. The harshness of the approach does not hide a deeper question: what happens to those who cannot bear that risk?

The uncomfortable fact: tax revenue at historic highs

If this Government has achieved anything, even its critics admit, it is collecting revenue. The State is at historic highs in tax income. That fact, which should be good news, becomes the damning evidence: people pay more than ever and the service is worse. The conclusion drawn is that the problem is not a lack of money, but where it goes. And there, the campaign slogan is left without an answer.

It remains to be seen whether the more-State message mobilizes support or mobilizes opposition. With tax revenue at record highs and services at rock bottom, the most reasonable prediction is that the slogan will work better as a weapon than as a governing promise.