This is my article today in thelobbyist.biz.
---------
Last Monday, before President Aquino
delivered his State of the Nation Address (SONA) 2014, I noted that facebook
was peppered with so many anti-government, anti-PNoy posts and complaints. Was
it good? Maybe yes, maybe no. But one thing is sure: Government is force and
coercion. No matter how much we complain about the government or a particular
administration, we are forced, coerced and arm-twisted to contribute to its
annual funding via taxes, fees, fines and mandatory social contributions.
Next time, people should NOT support new
programs that expand government. Like new tax hikes unless a tax cut somewhere
else is made. Like a new subsidy and welfare program unless some existing
subsidy programs that do not work are shrank or abolished. Or creating a new
agency or bureaucracy unless an existing agency or bureaucracy is drastically
shrank or abolished.
Government has three levels -- local,
national and multilaterals (UN, WB, IMF, ADB, etc.). All of them share the same
characteristics. Generally wasteful, tax-hungry and always saying that
"things are bad, we need more taxes and subsidies to solve them."
They said that 3 or 5 or more decades ago, they say it today, they will say it
2, 4 or more decades tomorrow.
There is also an observation that Filipinos
are “puro angal pero walang aksyon” (all complaints, no action). Right. We
should have less government responsibility, more personal and civil society
responsibility. Yan ang tunay na "aksyon". But for many activists and
"reform-oriented" groups, they want "more/bigger but good
government".
I think they are setting the public for
more deception and disappointment. When government expands, at least 50-60
percent of the total budget and funding goes to salaries alone. Plus offices
and office supplies, electricity and gadgets, vehicles and fuel, travels and trainings,
etc. Very little can be expected to go to the supposed beneficiaries, like
actual roads. And we are not talking about corruption and robbery yet.
People who are advocating similar campaigns
are selling an idea, not individuals or politicians. The idea of less
government, more personal and civil society responsibility. If many people will
buy that idea, the supply of politicians who will articulate that idea will
come in. I doubt though that many people want more personal responsibility. Gusto ng mga tao, painom-inom, pa
tambay-tambay, at hingi lahat sa gobyerno. Pag di nabigay or kulang binigay,
magagalit, susuporta sa oposisyon, at uulitin panghihingi. Many civil
society leaders also support this mentality. That is why they keep lobbying for
"more but good government". More government, we got it. Good
government, I don't know. When Marcos was kicked out in 1986, or even in
several administrations before Marcos was elected in 1965, "good
government" has been the battlecry of almost all groups and political
parties.
Meanwhile, this news report, PARA
DI NA MAULIT DAP | Speaker seeks creation of oversight committee to examine
govt spending, referring to House Speaker Sonny Belmonte is “naku naman.” The
whole legislature is created by the Constitution mainly to be the oversight
body of the Executive branch. Each Committee and special Committee is supposed
to perform oversight function over each Department and bureau in the Executive.
To create a separate committee means the other Committees will not do their
oversight function seriously?
A lawyer friend, Rey Reyes, shared bright
comments. He wrote,
two
ideas i wish to share ... first, the inherent powers of the State. With or
without legislation, these powers are a given to any State otherwise, it will
not function as such. In political theory, they are 3: taxation, police power
and eminent domain. Second. In parliamentary systems, the Cabinet is made up of
legislators (MPs or Member of Parliament) belonging to one party, the ruling
party) The legislative and the executive are merged. In presidential forms,
they are separate. Tripartite, which includes the judiciary. Oversight
committees are de riguer in presidential forms. In parliamentary forms,
government is dissolved and a new one elected. No need for oversight.
Bright contribution, I thanked Rey for it.
And I agree, that is why parliamentary governments tend to expand much faster
than those in presidential form. The Prime Minister can talk and debate with
himself and along with key leaders of the parliament, they can discuss and
quickly implement projects, which almost always are about new and expanded welfare/subsidies,
and high taxes and huge borrowings to finance these endless subsidies. A really
independent Legislative in a Presidential form should result in frequent
gridlock between the Legislative and Executive, and this results in slow
expansion of government. o minimize or even prevent such gridlock, pork barrel
-- hard or soft, explicit or implicit -- is invented by the Executive,
essentially a bribe to the Legislature to prevent gridlock and tolerate the
wastes and fiscal irresponsibility of the Executive.
Rey added,
In
theory, parliamentary forms work well with strong political parties which
unfortunately we do not have. Parties with strong ideological underpinnings. We
imported American democratic institutions hook line and sinker without the
necessary basic fundamentals of party politics. The 1987 Constitution further
bastardized the presidential form with the introduction of the European party
list again without the basic fundamentals in place. Sad but true. That is the
story of our politics in the Philippines over the past decades. Ever wonder why
some are advocating for a constitutional convention to change the charter.
Personally, I like the two-party system in
the Philippines before, after the adoption of the US-style constitution. The
Nacionalista Party means nationalists-protectionists while the Liberal Party means
globalists-free traders. Similar to the Democrat-Republican rivalry in the US.
Thus, it was an ideology-based political system in the Philippines then,
although many Liberals were as populists as the Nacionalistas in getting
voters’ support.
I remain agnostic on the Presidential vs.
Parliamentary debate. I am only interested in small and limited government,
whether it is a Presidential or Parliamentary form.
-----------
Pork Barrel 10: Bloated Budget, Wasteful Government, June 02, 2014
Pork Barrel 12: Why DAP is Wrong, July 29, 2014
