TRAIN, DOF and AER

The DOF/Dutertenomics and what I think is its front-NGO, Action for Economic Reforms (AER). Very vocal and noisy in tax-tax-tax (oil, lpg, cars, coal, sugar, cigarettes, etc; expanded VAT), saying that TRAIN will not be inflationary and any inflationary impact is just bogeyman (panakot lang) and not real. Now vocal in supporting TRAIN 2 and defending TRAIN 1.

If you guys are noisy at raising oil taxes, you should be equally noisy at making fare hike adjustments because you know that high oil prices will result 100% in the need for higher fares. But you are silent. You know that fare hikes will result in even higher inflation rate. And January 2019 oil and coal tax hike Part 2 is near. Sometimes Govt and "non-govt" like AER can be similar or one and the same?

See this news story:

  

The burden of TRAIN law on Filipino mothers

Eloisa Lopez

Published 11:37 PM, May 13, 2018  Updated 11:38 PM, May 13, 2018

https://www.rappler.com/nation/202404-train-law-mothers-protest-government-appeal?

"Sobrang laki ng pinagbago," Nancy said. "Ibang-iba talaga. Halos lahat ng bilihin nagtaas." (It has changed a lot... It's really different. Almost all items became more expensive.)

One crate of 12-ounce Coca Cola products now retails for P132, from P108. A tank of gas is now sold from P600-650, as opposed to the former P450."

I believe that instead of calling for suspension of TRAIN 1, TRAIN 2 should reverse some of the ugly provisions of TRAIN 1 like oil-lpg-coal tax hikes. But AER has none of it, they argue to retain those tax hikes and blame something else like high world oil prices, etc.

Keep the TRAIN on track

May 13, 2018 | 8:26 pm

Yellow Pad By Zak Yuson

http://bworldonline.com/keep-the-train-on-track/

Many of the AER officials are anti-Du30 drugs war, anti-China a__licking, good. But they really believe that Du30's additional tax money via TRAIN won't be used to bribe legislators and SC people to remove the CJ, Ombudsman? That TRAIN money won't be used to contract big loans and favors from the China communist dictatorial government?

Anti-Du30 but pro-Du30? Nahihilo siguro.

AER has a weekly column in BWorld, "Yellow Pad." I think 95% of their column is about singing rah-rah-rah, tax-tax-pah.

If Dutertenomics simply cut the personal income tax, they simply corrected the historical injustice of CTRP of 1997, they would have won the hearts and minds of many people including the anti-Du30 groups, me included. But they were tax-hungry with all sorts of bleeding heart arguments why they want more transfer of money from private pockets to government pockets.

In the earlier debate bet IBON/Bayaan Mo Na ("TRAIN is pro-rich, anti-poor") and AER ("TRAIN is pro-poor, anti-rich"), both are wrong. TRAIN is anti-rich, anti-poor, only pro-government.

TRAIN is also pro-China communist government. Big integrated PPP projects were reversed by Duterte to become hybrid PPP so that the construction phase can be given to China contractors, O&M to be given to Filipino contractors. TRAIN money will make sure that new big loans with China will be paid in the future.

Even my haircut cost in a public market barber shop, the P40 (non-aircon, open air with electric fan) has become P50. The air-con haircut rose from P50 to P70. People raise their own prices because their cost of living has increased anywhere.

From IEA and WHO data, as of 2015 estimates showed that some 61 M Filipinos or 60% of total households were still using firewood/charcoal for cooking, lighting, ironing, other energy needs. Cheaper oil and LPG allowed many poor households to use LPG for cooking, this saved perhaps millions of trees from being butchered, the price of charcoal or uling declined. With recent world oil price hikes + tax-tax-tax of TRAIN, LPG prices rose, many poor people are going back to using charcoal and firewood, indicated by the rising prices of charcoal -- about P100-120/sack in 2017, now P130-150/sack. This means millions of trees will be stolen and butchered in the public forest lands.

And the "raise oil taxes to save the planet" bleeding hearts now implicitly argue for killing many trees "to save the planet"? Lousy hypo___s.

Source: IEA, SE Asia Energy Outlook 2017, p. 41.

Inquirer business reporter and a friend Ben de Vera twitted his story,

DOF: No collateral for China loans

By: Ben O. de Vera - Reporter / @bendeveraINQ Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM May 15, 2018

http://business.inquirer.net/250842/dof-no-collateral-china-loans

Ben posted it on twitter, I replied:

@Noysky  Replying to @bendeveraINQ @DOF_PH @SecSonnySays

Come on DOF, #TRAIN tax-tax-tax is the collateral. Our oil, lpg, cars, coal power, electricity transmission, sugary drinks, etc are rising bec of current spending and future spending to pay more China loans. Why is the #DOF evasive about this?

From the above Inquirer report,

"We borrowed $200 million, there was no collateral,” Dominguez said, referring to the Philippines’ first-ever panda bond issuance.

In March, 1.46 billion renminbi or about P12 billion in three-year panda bonds were issued by the government in China at a “tight” yield of 5 percent."

At 5% interest rates -- DOF will need more tax-tax-tax so that present and future generations of Filipino taxpayers will be able to pay those expensive China loans. Because Du30 told the DOF and Dutertenomists to get more loans from China? And some NGOs like AER would justify all tax-tax-tax by Duterte? Magaleeeng.

BWorld 136, Income tax and the politics of envy

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Thursday.

“The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.”

-- Barry Goldwater (US businessman and five-term senator)

“The difference between death and taxes is death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.”

-- Will Rogers (US actor, humorist, columnist)

The tax reform plan of Dutertenomics known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) is composed of (a) overall personal income tax (PIT) cut, (b) hike in excise tax for cars and oil products, (c) hike tax for sugar-sweetened beverages, and (d) hike in number of sectors covered by the value-added tax (VAT).

This paper will focus on the income tax reform: Minimum-wage earners and those earning P250,000/year and below will pay zero income tax. The 13th month pay and other bonuses not exceeding P100,000 are also exempted from income tax. The number of tax brackets has been reduced from seven to six. And the top PIT rate of 32% for taxable income of P500,000/year or higher has been increased to 35% for taxable income of P5 million/year or higher.

To better appreciate the current PIT and proposed changes in the policy in the Philippines, let us compare the rates with our neighbors in the ASEAN.

The proposed PHL-TRAIN indeed deserves compliment because current PIT policy is highly confiscatory and makes Barry Goldwater’s statement so accurate. Imagine earning an annual income (net of some deductions) of only $10,000 and the Philippine government automatically confiscates one-third of that.

But what the Department of Finance (DoF) and Congress did is to adopt the “increase tax rates elsewhere to compensate for lower PIT rate” philosophy. This is wrong and there are four reasons why.

First, it is possible to abolish income tax, zero, and yet government will still survive and prosper via other revenue sources. Currently there are 10 countries in the world which have zero income tax policy: Bahamas, Bahrain, Bermuda, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Their governments rely and thrive on selling petroleum, natural gas, lands, and/or earning from consumption-based taxes and financial transaction taxes.

Second, lower PIT rate can expand the tax base and can potentially increase overall tax revenues. More entrepreneurs and professionals from abroad as well as Filipinos working abroad will be encouraged to do business here to take advantage of lower income tax rate and hence, bigger take home pay.

Stated in a simple equation: Tax revenue (T) is a product of tax rate (t) multiplied by the number of taxpayers (N). Or (T = t x N). A decline in t can encourage the increase in N so that overall T can potentially increase, not decrease.

The DoF and Congress leaders have taken the linear and simplistic argument that lower tax rate means automatic lower revenues. They did not consider potential increase in N and T when income tax rate is significantly reduced.

Currently, Asian economies with low, flat income tax rates are Mongolia with only 10%, Macau with 12%, and Hong Kong with 15%.

Third, lower PIT even for high-income people means more take home pay, more domestic consumption which are captured by other consumption-based taxes like VAT, excise tax, property tax, motor vehicle tax, entertainment tax, travel tax and so on.

And fourth, the politics of envy is wrong. The philosophy of “demonize and overtax the rich, subsidize the poor forever” creates moral hazards problem. The implicit message is: Be careful when you become rich because the government will silently demonize you and explicitly overtax you. Aspire to remain poor, poor forever if possible because (a) your minimum wage income plus bonuses will be tax-free, (b) you get lots of freebies and subsidies, and (c) these are no timetable, forever subsidies and transfers.

When there are plenty of poor people, the government is silently saying two things: “Congratulations” and “Thank you.” Here’s how:

a. “Congratulations -- you are entitled to many subsidies and freebies: free cash transfer, free health care, free education until university, free or highly subsidized housing, free or highly subsidized e-tricycle, tractor, etc. No timetable, for life, can extend to your children and grandchildren, so long as they continue to be poor.”

b. “Thank you -- we have more justifications and alibi to harass and confiscate more from the income, wealth, properties and inheritance of the rich and super-rich (especially if they are not friends of the administration).”

Therefore, instead of raising the top PIT rate to 35%, Congress should bring it down to 25% to be more comparable with Malaysia; better if it is only 20% to be more comparable with Singapore rate.

Society should reward people who become rich and wealthy via entrepreneurship and efficient professional work, not demonize and overtax them. We should have more millionaires and billionaires, not less; we should have more super rich people, not less.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET and Stratbase-ADRi.

---------------

See also: 

BWorld 133, Dissecting Dutertenomics' overspending plan, June 01, 2017 

BWorld 134, PPP vs ODA, June 08, 2017 
BWorld 135, On reducing the distribution system loss, June 9, 2017

Tax cut 26, Excise tax on petrol products should be reduced/abolished, not increased

"People try to live within their income so they can afford to pay taxes to a government that can't live within its income." - Robert Half

This bad tax measure has been proposed by the DOF and some legislators many years ago but never succeeded. This time, it looks different as the new Duterte government is hell-bent on having this become a law within the year or next year.

"The excise tax adjustment will entail, in the case of regular fuel, raising the levy from P4.35 a liter at present to P10 a liter next year, P10.40 a liter in 2018 and further to P12.17 a liter by 2022.

For diesel, from zero at present, an excise tax of P6 a liter would be slapped next year, P6.24 a liter in 2018, until it goes up to P7.30 a liter by 2022."

Bad. Very bad. But can be acceptable if personal income tax rates will be slashed to 20% max, better if 15% max. Otherwise, bad. Very bad.

This government can be bad if such huge tax hike in petroleum products is not compensated by huge income tax cut. 

Last July 12, 2016 during the first BusinessWorld Economic Forum, among Sec. Dominguez's proposals was a zero income tax for those earning P1 M/year or less, which is very good. Things have changed in just two months.

It is misleading for the DOF to say that only the top 10% of the population are the biggest consumers of gasoline. The most affected will be the small and micro entrepreneurs who can not easily raise prices because of the competitive environment.

The only mitigating or compensating measure here would be a huge income tax cut, so that people will have more money in their pockets that they must shell out back to government in the form of higher consumption taxes like excise tax for gasoline and diesel. Imagine, from zero to P6/liter. Very parasitic thinking by government. And obviously inspired or pushed by the WB, IMF, ADB, other foreign aid.

Now, the DOF proposed income tax cut is small.

Those earning zero to P250,000 a year, P2,500 in income tax in the first year;

more than P250,000 to P400,000, P2,500 plus 20 percent of the excess over P250,000;

more than P400,000 to P800,000, P32,500 plus 25 percent of the excess over P400,000;

more than P800,000 to P2 million, P132,500 plus 30 percent of the excess over P800,000;

more than P2 million to P5 million, P492,500 plus 32 percent of the excess over P2 million, and

more than P5 million, P1.45 million plus 35 percent of the excess over P5 million.

From 7 to 6 tiers. What Sec. Dominguez did here is to retain the 32% for those earning P2M to P5M, then 35% above P5M. Pakonswelo for those earning below P2M a year, they will pay only P132,500 + 30% of the excess over P0.8M.

It is very parasitic to claim that petroleum products are "public bads" that must be taxed as high as possible to have a "clean environment". NO. Petrol products are public goods, without them, there will be massive poverty, massive underdevelopment, massive hunger in this country.

People want to walk or ride bicycles or horses/cows over long distance because cars, buses, trucks, jeeps that use petrol products will be limited or curtailed? Huge volume of animal manure on the roads alone will make our environment dirty, foul and ugly.

If fisherfolks will use manual paddle of their fishing boats, if farmers will use carabaos or cows instead of faster and stronger tractors in tilling their farms, or harvesting and threshing their harvest, see the negative impact of very low agri and fishery productivity.

A friend, Peter A. commented,

"I'm all for this, our petroleum taxes are among the lowest among importing countries. I'd split the tax so that you can incentivize certain behavior. Higher taxes for fuel but a lower category similar to the current jeepney diesel subsidy to public transport (commercial passenger and trucks) , for private vehicles keep the higher tax category. In the long run you want to disincentivize individual car use as this makes livable cities difficult. This goes hand in hand with many other urban planning tools, like zoning, parking subsidies etc. Besides even with a Php 7 and Php12 tax, this is still lower than a few years ago so the economy can take it."

The low oil prices were important contributor for very low inflation rates in the PH in the last 2-3 years. Bringing back gas prices to near P50 or near P60 a liter, and diesel to near P40 a liter, will automatically push overall inflation rate to higher levels. And more poor people will complain. Then govt will say, "we need to raise further oil taxes to finance more subsidies to the poor." Vicious cycle.

If petrol taxes will rise at high levels, more people will buy motorcycles, or small cars with low oil consumption per kilometer, and the same traffic congestion we will experience. Meanwhile, the cost of transpo of rice, vegetable and fruit dealers, fish and meat dealers, both in trucks and boats, will rise. Which means they will pass the additional cost to the consumers. Petroleum is a public good, not public bad.

Peter added, "actually all we've learned from centuries of urban planning and learning how cities work show that this blunt initiative is effective in curtailing car use. It would work even better if, as I mentioned in my comment to Butch , we add more taxes on cars , parking ( add taxes and take out the inherent subsidies) and do congestion pricing. On a world wide level where cities have done this,it works. As for the inflationary aspect, take note that I'm for expanding the current subsidy on public transport, that includes any sort of regulated transportation that has a certificate of public convenience. We already have this with the jeeps, so expand this to buses, cargo trucks, taxis etc. So that the public good aspect is not affected. 80% of vehicles on the road is taken by 20% of the private vehicle owning public, we need to reverse this . If we take a look at the most succesfull capital cities private car use is but maybe 10%. This at least give the car owner a choice, to use public transport however ineffcient or pay a bit more. Add in all the other measures we'll surely have a more livable city."

Another reason why I want the PH to disintegrate into many countries. A central government will always impose a one size fits all policy. Whether a province or island has efficient mass public transport or not, the policy applies uniformly. The Manila-based government thinks that taking out more cars, motorcycles, buses from the roads to be replaced by trains (even if the infra in many areas are not there yet) will also apply to island-provinces like Masbate, Catanduanes, Bohol, Romblon, Camiguin, Biliran, Guimaras, Basilan, etc. For these islands, reliance on petroleum is very high, they cannot bike or run or ride a bus from their province to the next. They must ride a boat, then take a tricycle or jeep or bus to their destination. A rise in petrol prices by at least P6/liter will significantly affect their mobility, the cost of their goods and services traded across islands.

Instead of raising the excise tax for gasoline and imposing the tax on diesel, the government should do the opposite -- remove or drastically reduce the tax for gas, retain the zero excise tax for diesel. This will help reduce inflationary pressures. Government should learn to cut its spending, not the people's take home pay.

------------

See also:

Tax Cut 23: Tax Competition in Asia, Hikes in Europe, May 10, 2015 

Tax Cut 24, Tax reform forum in Ateneo, March 26, 2016 

Tax Cut 25, Presentation at Ateneo Ignite's Tax Exchange, June 04, 2016

Fat Free Econ 47: Pork Scam vs. Public Debt Scam

* This is my article yesterday in interaksyon.com.

----------

MANILA - The government is setting aside P330-plus billion a year in interest payment alone for our public debt, and many people are not angry with that huge transfer of money from average taxpayers to rich lenders. The people are angry (and rightly so) of the alleged P10 billion pork barrel scam.

Let us compare the numbers and see why public anger is disproportionate to the money that is siphoned off from their pockets.

At the heart of public anger and discontent over the Napoles pork barrel scam is the huge lump-sum money allocated to legislators in both the Senate and House every year. This is a separate item in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) and beyond the amount allotted to various national agencies, government owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) and local government units (LGUs).

Table 1. Priority  Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), in billion pesos

Source: DBM, NEP 2012 and 2014

Note the big jump of legislators’ pork barrel from the Arroyo to the PNoy administrations, 2010 vs. 2011 PDAF fund. 

The alleged P10 billion pork barrel fund that was coursed through Janet Lim-Napoles (JLN) over many years does not seem to be itemized. Below is an itemized table covering 2006-2011 but totaling only P3.13 billion.

Table 2. Amount dispensed to some legislators in the Napoles pork barrel scam

Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 30, 2013

The public is angry because almost none of this amount went to clear projects that benefitted the poor, but were simply divided among the legislators (they allegedly got 70 percent), JLN and bogus NGOs, and some implementing agencies and COA auditors that allowed such irregular distribution of funds without publicizing it. It was the internal whistleblowers who divulged the scam and the legislators involved.

While the public fund siphoned to corrupt legislators and the JLN camp was indeed big, the amount is loose change -- in short, barya -- compared to the amount of money that leaves the public coffers yearly just to pay the interest on our public debt. Most people are not aware of the magnitude of such payment: around P332 billion a year on average from 2012 to 2014: P312.8 billion in 2012, P332.2 billion this year; and P352.6 billion next year.

Table 3. Principal and interest payment of Philippine public debt, 2012-2014

Source: DBM, Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF) 2014,Table B.20

Interest payments in 2010 and 2011 were also huge, P294.2 billion and P321.6 billion, respectively. So annual interest payment is about 14 times the size of the annual lump-sum pork barrel of legislators, and 32 times the share of the Napoles camp.

Table 4. Principal and interest payment of Philippine public debt, 2010-2011

 

Source: DBM, BESF 2012, Table 18

Another way of looking at it is that from 2010 to 2014, for every P100 in various taxes that we pay -- personal income tax, corporate income tax, excise tax and value-added tax (VAT) passed on to us consumers, documentary stamp tax, import tax, travel tax, vehicle registration tax, etc. -- about P23 of it is used to settle the interest alone on the country's debts. And only P77 will be used for salaries, offices, subsidies and projects of various government agencies -- local and national -- assuming that such services and subsidies are indeed necessary or are efficiently provided at the least cost possible.

Table 5. Interest payment as percent of tax revenues, 2010-2014

Sources: Interest payment, Tables 3 and 4 above; Tax Revenues 2010-2012, DOF, Fiscal Update Tax Revenues 2013-2014, DBM, BESF 2014, Table C.1

Mining 23: On the Proposed 10 Percent Gross Revenue Tax

As the new Congress will officially convene in late July this year, various sectors and government agencies are preparing their respective “legislative agenda”, the things they want Congress to enact for their sector. And among the sectors seeking a new law is the mining sector, about the proposed new mining tax regime.

The move now is to replace the (a) corporate income tax, 30 percent of net revenues, (b) excise tax, two percent of minerals value, (c) royalty tax to indigenous people, five percent, plus several others, with a 10 percent gross revenue tax. 

It is not clear though what to do with these taxes imposed on companies, most likely they will be retained: capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax, value added tax, tax on interest income and payment, vehicle registration tax, real property tax, community tax. And the various regulatory fees -- occupational fee, business permit fees, registration fee, etc.

This 10 percent tax seems big as there are many other costs to consider, like (a) labor wages, benefits and social insurance, (b) mandatory community projects/CSR, (c) capex and machinery, trucks depreciation, (d) insurance against natural accidents (heavy flooding, landslides) and man-made terror (NPA attacks, other armed groups), (e) various maintenance and operating expenses (fuel for trucks, electricity and equipment for offices, etc.), (f) mining rehabilitation and reforestation of mined out areas, (g) other taxes and regulatory fees by local and national government units.

However, if this looks big for government, then it will have few reasons to further bureaucratize and delay the entry of new investors and continued operation of existing investors. Thus, in cases where a municipal or provincial government will order the cessation of operation of a big mining company for whatever reason, the national government through the DENR-MGB and DOF-BIR will overrule the LGUs so that the national government can continue collecting high taxes.

The advantage here is that things should be made simpler and more transparent. It is up to the metallic mining companies to cut costs somewhere, like getting more fuel-efficient trucks and bulldozers, so that a reasonable or attractive profit can be realized for the various investors and shareholders of the companies.

Real debates will occur in Congress, in various Committee hearings, as the hardline "No mining whatsoever" and "Allow mining but over-tax and over-bureaucratize it" groups will mix with the more realistic groups.

There were several news reports recently on the proposed new mining taxation policy in the country. I saw these four stories from the Philippine Star, BusinessWorld, Philippine Daily Inquirer, and Mining.Com.

(1) From the Philippine Star, May 3, 2013,

Mining council seeks 10% gov’t share from miningrevenues

Environment Secretary Ramon Paje, who co-chairs the MICC, told reporters yesterday that the draft bill prepared by MICC stipulates a government share of seven to 10 percent to be obtained from gross earnings and windfall earnings of mining firms.

The enlarged government share from mining revenues would replace the two percent excise tax as well as other taxes imposed on mining firms such as corporate income tax, customs duties and fees on imported capital equipment among others.

Paje said that of the proposed range of government share from mining revenues, the bulk should ideally come from gross revenues so that the government would have a guaranteed income should the company not have windfall earnings.

“If we use the 10 percent sharing scheme, for instance, we can get seven percent from the gross and we have already achieved our objective. The three percent can come from windfall income. Whatever percentage we use we are more inclined on the gross,” he said.

He said that using this revenue sharing scheme, the government could reap P10 billion annually from the current average of P800 million annually.

If Sagittarius Mine Inc.’s $5.9 billion copper-gold project in South Cotabato commences operations, annual revenues from the mining industry could reach P18 billion.

(2) From BusinessWorld, May 27, 2013

Proposed mininglaw readied

Mr. Paje said the MICC wanted a single, simplified regime applicable to all types of mining agreements, adding that whether or not this will be retroactive depends on Congress.

Privatization 6: Camps Aguinaldo and Crame

Rationality and practicality is sinking in the minds of the Aquino administration. Faced with endless borrowings every year to finance huge annual budget deficit and an ever-rising stock of public debt, more taxation can never be a wise solution. The better solution is for government to raise revenues out of its existing assets, via privatization.

Department of Finance (DOF) Secretary Cesar Purisima has explicitly mentioned Camp Aguinaldo, the home of the DND main office and AFP general headquarters, that will be privatized soon. Also Camp Crame, the home of the Philippine National Police (PNP). See the news report today, Camps Crame, Aguinaldo for sale–Purisima

By Norman Bordadora
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:16:00 01/08/2011

The best use may not be having government right there,” he said, adding that the properties could be privatized and the proceeds used “to develop the property for best use, so we have a win-win scenario.”

Citing examples, Purisima mentioned a 40-hectare property of the Department of Health in Cebu, the New Bilibid Prisons compound (“343 or so hectares”) in Muntinlupa City, and the penal colonies in Davao and in Iwahig, Palawan.

And then there are Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame, which sit across from each other on Edsa.

“We have military camps in the city. Do we need these camps in the city? I’ve had discussions with Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin [and he and others are] all very supportive of the fact that Aguinaldo and Crame should probably not be there,” Purisima said.

In addition, Camp Aguinaldo is also known for its huge golf course, right beside EDSA, the busiest road in the country. Taxpayers have to pay also for the maintenance of this golf course via the AFP annual budget. These 2 pictures are taken from golfcoursesmanila.blogspot.com.

So it's not true that the AFP guys are neglected and "kawawa". To have a big, non-revenue-earning for taxpayers golf course right in the middle of a highly commercial part of Metro Manila and still getting billions of taxpayers money annually, is luxury.

Horrayy to this new development and improved sanity in government. Endless borrowings and fiscal irresponsibility is fatal -- look at Greece and Ireland now. Privatization of certain government assets is the win-win solution for both the taxpayers and the various government bureaucracies.
------

See also:

Privatization 3: UP, NDCP, other SUCs, March 27, 2010

Privatization 4: Utilizing Proceeds and Revenues, August 06, 2010

Privatization 5: Regulate Exec. Pay or Privatize Govt. Corporations? August 31, 2010