Showing posts with label DAP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DAP. Show all posts

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Emotionalism, Violence and Stupidity: the Attack by UP Student Activists on Sec. Abad

I am not exactly a fan of DBM Secretary Butch Abad. If I have the chance to question him face to face, I will come prepared with lots of numbers and data, but will never do or plan any physical harm. Unfortunately, emotionalism, violence and stupidity has ruled the minds of some idiot activists in UP. Shame on you, mga bobo. If you dislike a person or his/her ideas, hit hard on data and logic, never do physical attacks. The use of physical attacks is among the indicators of mentally sick people.

Reposting this. The photos I added myself and not part of the original statement.
--------------

Statement from Faculty Members
of the University of the Philippines
School of Economics

We deplore in the strongest terms the violence perpetrated last Wednesday, September 17, by a group of protesters against Secretary Florencio B. Abad outside the U.P. School of Economics auditorium.
Secretary Abad was leaving a just-concluded forum organized by the University Student Council. His way to a waiting vehicle, however, was blocked several times by protesters, who not only shouted slogans and invectives—par for the course at U.P.—but actually assaulted him by throwing placards and metal coins and physically laying hold of him, grabbing his clothing to prevent him from leaving.

What is worse, some student “leaders” thought nothing of gloating about the incident and celebrating their hooliganism in mainstream and social media, as if it were some kind of victory. This incident is not a victory but a blow to UP’s honor.

By participating in these events the protesters have declared themselves enemies, not of Secretary Abad, but of the University itself. As an invited guest, Secretary Abad was covered by the same blanket of academic freedom and safe passage that the University guarantees to all who set foot on campus. The purpose of that high privilege is to guarantee a free traffic in diverse ideas—and of the diverse people who espouse them—which is the lifeblood of a liberal academic institution. Those who violate that security and privilege by resorting to physical threats and violence sow apprehension and fear among bearers of contrary and unfashionable ideas, who would henceforth shy away from participating in the University, resulting in an impoverishment of intellectual life and a reduction of debate to a monologue among the already-converted.

The acts of Wednesday’s protesters, therefore, not only violated decency and courtesy, they were an assault on the University itself.

To remove this blot on the University’s reputation:

We enjoin those who participated in the dishonorable events of last Wednesday—but who were possibly misled or sincerely unaware of the gravity of their acts—to come forward, own up to their participation, and proffer a public apology to Secretary Abad and to the University.

We call upon the University Student Council and other student organizations responsible for organizing the event to publicly dissociate themselves from the actions of Wednesday’s hooligans;

We enjoin the University authorities to begin an inquiry to identify those ultimately responsible for the violence, and who cynically staged the incident, applying penalties, wherever necessary;

We call on the University authorities henceforth to enhance the security provided to invited visitors of the University to prevent a repeat of the said incident.

Finally, we call for a renewed discussion and clarification among faculty, staff and students, of the University’s unwritten rules of free speech and safe passage, to ensure that the University remains a free and fearless field for ideas, where debates are won not by assault but by argument, not by shouting down but by speaking up.

SIGNED

Prof. Rosa M. Alonso i Terme
Prof. Maria Joy V. Abrenica
Prof. Ruperto P. Alonzo
Prof. Agustin L. Arcenas
Prof. Romeo Matthew T. Balanquit
Prof. Joseph J. Capuno
Prof. Fidelina N. Carlos
Prof. Ramon L. Clarete
Prof. Rolando A. Danao
Prof. Sarah Lynne S. Daway
Prof. Emmanuel S. de Dios
Prof. Emmanuel F. Esguerra
Prof. Raul V. Fabella
Prof. Aleli D. Kraft
Prof. Cielo D. Magno
Prof. Maria Nimfa F. Mendoza
Prof. Solita Collas-Monsod
Prof. Toby Melissa C. Monsod
Prof. Marjorie C. Pajaron
Prof. Stella Luz A. Quimbo
Prof. Majah-Leah V. Ravago
Prof. Renato E. Reside
Prof. Gerardo P. Sicat

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Pork Barrel 12: Why DAP is Wrong

These are my notes about the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) last week, posted in my fb wall.
---------

DAP is wrong. Not for constitutional issues (I leave that to my lawyer friends) but for fiscal and economic issues. Those "idle"  funds were not there in the first place; they were borrowed money. If DAP is P100 B and government borrows P300 B a year, then if DBM/Malacanang left those "idle" funds unused and unspent, then govt borrowing should be only P200 B or less.

DBM Sec. Abad said at the Senate hearing last week that  "DAP is made on the principle, 'use it or lose it.'" DBM and Malacanang used it. Wrong. They should have "lost" it, by not spending it; in the process, remove the need for borrowing the same amount.

Sorry Sec. Butch but your arguments are faulty. If you "use" it for bleeding heart programs like giving free medicines to the sick and dying, drainage and bridges against flooding, then cutting borrowings, reducing the public debt stock and sparing the pockets of future taxpayers, and reducing current annual interest payment of about P330 B a year, is an even better bleeding heart goal.

Even if 100 percent of the programs funded by DAP are good, not a single centavo of it was stolen, it is still wrong. All the good and excellent programs that DAP funded could be funded by the regular budget, unless DBM will call the latter as “not good”. To cut borrowings is an even better, more bleeding heart goal, than continued fiscal irresponsibility. Of living beyond one's means. Of endless borrowings, with or without a crisis.

I argued in the past that the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) is wrong in their campaigns. We can never have freedom from debt unless we have freedom from borrowings mentality and policy. Never.

Government should stop borrowings whenever possible. If projected revenue is P2 trillion, then spending should be P2 trillion and not P2.3 trillion because government will borrow P300 B. Better yet, spend only P1.8 trillion, use the P200 B surplus to pay back the debt. In times of crisis, borrow. In times of no crisis, pay.

The public debt can never be repaid by taxes alone. It is P5.6 trillion now. It is rising by around P350 B a year, with or without a crisis. The debt can be paid or at least drastically shrank by large-scale privatization + pay back via fiscal surplus. The P330 B a year interest payment alone is already huge and scandalous.

Fiscal irresponsibility works this way: All administrations say, "We are paying for debts and loans enjoyed by our predecessors. Might as well do it too. Spend-spend-spend now, let the future administrations and taxpayers worry where to get the money."

Pag sa households and micro level yan, someone who earns P50,000 a month and spends P55,000 a month, consistently, ang tawag dyan "gastador" or "maluho/magarbo”, “mayabang/hambugero", "iresponsable", "living beyond his means", etc. Pero pag gobyerno ang utang ng utang, "ok lang yan; it's for good projects naman eh" or "it's to fight poverty naman eh". People can demonize personal irresponsibility but not fiscal/government irresponsibility.

Also in the households, do not incur new spending if your resources are tied to old or recurring spending. Thus, do not buy a 2nd car yet if the 1st car can still service various household needs. This is not the case in government. They create new welfare program/s and subsidy/spending even if some old and existing welfare programs do not work as designed. Like the CCT, a huge multi-billion pesos subsidy program for the poor, without shrinking or terminating some existing subsidy programs that do not work. Basta lang gastos ng gastos, utang ng utang.

"Incurring debt is necessary to expand economic activity" is true if done on limited period. If done endlessly, wrong. In periods of no crisis, we should aspire not only for balanced budget, but budget surplus, pay some debt. In periods of crisis or emergencies (like the big earthquake of 1990, the Pinatubo eruption in 1991), borrow. Again, people can demonize personal irresponsibility but not fiscal/government irresponsibility.

The DAP controversy has also showed that political patronage has expanded from the traditional local and national politicians, to some NGOs and people's orgs (POs). Not the Napoles-type NGOs but old, grassroots, well-meaning NGOs. DAP has funded party or entirely, their programs for fisherfolks, poor patients, urban poor, indigenous people, women workers, the oldies, etc. Thus, DAP is good even if it may be unconstitutional or has violated existing laws and RAs. So long as it is our sector and NGOs that benefited, it is good.

Notice also that almost all governments around the world are fiscally irresponsible. Heavy and endless borrowing is in their DNA. Wastes and irresponsibility seems to be "built in" their system. Every year is a "crisis" or "emergency" year and thus, over-spending via borrowings is the default mode. The "idle" funds used for DAP presented a good opportunity for the President to think and act Liberal -- Liberate the taxpayers from endless burden of heavy and multiple taxation to finance government wastes and huge debt stock. But the President acted like any populist leaders where "each year is crisis year" with zero exception.
-------------.

See also: