Kirchner believed not to convince his deputies

To keep sliding-scale export tariff rise shielded

Rural wit: farmers placed a blow-up bull in the square opposite to Congress.

Government's arm wrestle with farm, now fought in Congress, is a match changing every day.

Yesterday was a bad day for Kirchnerism: a plucking of names in the Kirchnerist caucus showed a moving outcome.

At least 36 lawmakers would not back the official plan to legalize export tariffs just in the way president Cristina de Kirchner sent it to Congress.

The piece of information spread as fast as a tide and reached the presidential residence in Olivos.

Former Argentine president Nestor Kirchner listened to a group of addicts that convinced him of summoning the caucus to call the roll and discipline those reluctant. He was forced to suspend such motion when he was explained that he would be playing his last card, when it might be necessary in another round of this fight. He insisted, but in the end he cancelled the second date.

In view of this outlook, the ruling party changes its strategy after understanding that Kirchenrist commotions in front of Congress had made it lose more supporters.

A classic of this Peronism of believing that street and violent demonstrations will make it win supporters, when in fact they end up opposing it.

The same happens with the tactics of prolonging committees' open meetings in the House of Deputies, a tableau that also makes farm leaders win sympathies.

The opposition, which up to now had resigned itself to being beaten by an avalanche of votes, started to speculate with this division in the ruling party, which could only end in a change in the bill sent by president Cristina de Kirchner. Pro-government caucus' authorities admit so when they say to farmers that there's no more closed book, that everything will be discussed now.

A new scene starts to be accepted: a bill putting fixed export tariffs with a percentage of 39.5 per cent plus a 5-per cent return against income tax paid by farmers.

There's voluntarism in the idea, as it happens when legislating under pressure: Is it the right moment to put a percentage by act and forever? Besides, small farmers cannot make it to pay income tax and would be left outside this bonus.