Election 7: My Candidates for Senators

My main criteria for supporting or voting candidates is who among them will be the least populist and welfarist, least interventionist and tax hungry, compared to other candidates. Almost all politicians have shades of populism and welfarism and hence, for expanding government. They just vary in the degree of populism. Thus, choosing who among them will go against the populism tide seems a difficult task.

Nonetheless, here is my short list, the Senatorial candidates that I will vote tomorrow.

1. Ramon Magsaysay, Jr. Clear and explicit in calling for reducing the size of the bureaucracy, in simplifying business procedures and regulations, in liking minimal government.

2. Koko Pimentel. Favors the privatization of PAGCOR, rather independent minded.

3. Dick Gordon. Strong presence in civil society via the Philippine National Red Cross. The Red Cross is one clear example that civil society participation in public health promotion is very potent, that it's not all government in healthcare.

4. Greco Belgica. Advocates flat income tax of 10% for both individuals and corporations. His chance of winning of course is zero, but will vote for him nonetheless.

5. Eddie Villanueva. Never sought any appointed political position after he lost in the last two Presidential elections that he joined. He stayed with his church-based and civil society organizations. 

Ouch, only five. Will think of the other seven tonight. 

A friend commented that my criteria above is like “voting for those who won’t do anything.” I replied that it is not the case. Rather, it is voting for those who will attempt to leave us to do what we think is good for ourselves, our family and our community, and not regulate and nanny us how you should conduct our own lives, while getting more money from us so the government can regulate our lives more. 

"The election this Monday will determine our future as a nation and as individuals." -- from a radio commentator. If many people will believe this statement, then we are a bunch of hopeless idiots. We cannot determine our own life and future and that of our households and communities. Everything will depend on the politicians that we will elect and the army of bureaucrats who will implement the politicians' will. If the elected politicians are angels, then our future is good. If they are devils, then our future is hellish. That is a lousy life.

Meanwhile,  I have heard Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes in two or three election-related fora in the past, usually at Traders Hotel. He looked cool and frank to me. But recently, he's got the habit of typical government  "prohibit and ban" thinking. Like the recent moves to ban alcohol for 5 days instead of 2, ban bank withrawals beyond P100k, ban "excessive" pol ads, etc. 

LENTE forum, November 2011. Chairman Brillanes 3rd from left.

It is good that the current Supreme Court majority realize that prohibitionist/banning thinking is so central planning and dictatorial leaning. 

In a free society, ALL actions are allowed except for a few, expressly prohibited acts like killing, stealing, rape, abduction, etc.

In an unfree society, ALL actions are not allowed except with permit from government.

We are not there yet, of a totally unfree society, but as more and more permits are required in our ordinary lives, we are moving towards a less free society. Magtayo ka lang ng barber shop or bread shop, kaliwa-kanang permits, taxes and fees kailangan mo. May penalties pa for "late registration" daw.

As government expands, stupidity expands. So it is really important to limit the power of coercion of government. Including its power to forcibly collectivize endless subsidies and their endless financing.

More nice quotes:

A government that's BIG and populist enough to give everything you want is also BIG and dictatorial enough to take everything you've got. 

Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.

"If it moves, tax it. If it moves further, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -- R.Reagan

--------

See also:
Election Watch 3: Defining Celebrities, Politicians and the State, August 30, 2012
Election Watch 4: Senatoriables on Healthcare, March 08, 2013 
Election Watch 5: Sin Tax Law, Hospital Over-regulation and Senatoriables, May 07, 2013 
Election Watch 6: On Political Dynasty, May 11, 2013

Election Watch 5: Sin Tax Law, Hospital Over-regulation and Senatoriables

The Senatorial and local elections are just six days away. Yesterday and today, two groups in the health sector released their own separate statements endorsing certain Senatorial candidates with their respective reasons.

I got this today from the President of the Private Hospitals Association of the Philippines, Inc. (PHAPI) and a friend, Dr. Rustico "Rusty"Jimenez. This is a joint statement of PHAPI and the mostly government hospitals association, the PHA.

They also endorsed four party list (PL) groups, but am skipping those. Am not interested in any of those groups, I am boycotting the PL system. Here now are the reasons why the two hospital associations have endorsed the nine Senatorial candidates above. Note the last item -- overregulation of private hospitals by various government bureaucracies, local and national.

The ugly habit and corrupt nature of many government bureaucrats would show up just anywhere.

Meanwhile, here's another statement from another group of health groups. The main coordinator, Dr. Tony Leachon, is another friend of mine. They endorsed only four candidates, but mentioned eight candidates that voters should never support, based on the criteria they laid out.

Only Koko Pimentel and Sonny Trillanes are the common candidates of the two groups.
----------

Doctors Prescribe: Go Out and Vote for Health

Manila, Philippines (6 May 2013).  Trust your doctor. Doctors and health advocates called on their patients and colleagues to go out and vote for health on May 13. “Exercising your right to vote is good for your health,” said Dr. Tony Leachon, Secretary of Philippine College of Physicians, “This is a powerful opportunity for us to flex our muscles to put true health champions in Senate, who will fight for health.”

“Six out of 10 Filipinos die without ever seeing a doctor,” added Dr. Tony Dans, President of Philippine Society of General Internal Medicine (PSGIM), “The high cost of health care in the country prevents people from accessing life-saving services, and drowns families further into poverty.”

In 2010, Filipino families spent more than half of the country’s annual health expenditure according to the National Statistical Coordination Board. “Mahal magkasakit. Mabuti kung may bulsa na puwede paghugutan, kung wala mamatay ka na lang?” added May-i Fabros from WomanHealth Philippines, “Enshrined in our Constitution is our right to health, which is why we need to ensure that those who we elect into power will push for health reform policies that will make access to health services equitable for all, regardless if you have money or not.”

Sin Tax Law as Criteria in Voting for Health

“Although health is just one of the considerations when choosing candidates, its impact in our lives resonate, we need a health criteria to help us vote for true champions for health,” said Jo-Ann Latuja, Senior Economist of policy think tank, Action for Economic Reforms. “We can use their position on the Sin Tax Law as a proxy measure for health and societal reform since it addresses the issues on health financing, universal health care, governance, corruption, economic reform, and vested interests, among others.”

The Sin Tax Law or Republic Act 10351 was one of the critical and highly controversial health reform measures that passed into law before the end of 2012, amidst the strong tobacco industry lobby. "Words are cheap, what we need are true champions for health who will battle it out with vested interests in the halls of congress," said Dr. Maricar Limpin, Executive Director of Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Alliance Philippines (FCAP), one of the first tobacco control groups who fought against the anti-health Sin Tax Law of 2004, or Republic Act 9334, which maintained the status quo and kept tax rates pegged at 1996 prices. "We will vote for legislators who will fight for health, and reject those who will most likely fight against health."

"What we are presenting are Pro-Health and Anti-Health candidates based on our critical appraisal of their health position particularly on Sin Tax," continued Latuja, "With health as our criterion, we encourage the public to assess the track record of the candidates for local and national positions, particularly those who have the obligation to pass national policies that will health our health system.

The doctors, economists and health advocates presented their review process of the 33 senatorial candidates. First, they identified the incumbent candidates who had the chance to vote for what they referred to as the effective and pro-health Sin Tax Law of 2012 or the defective and anti-health Sin Tax Law of 2004. After which they assessed the most recent statements on RA 10351 of the candidates, whether they are for or against it. 

Combining these two they identified only four (4) Pro-Health candidates - Risa Hontiveros, Jamby Madrigal, Koko Pimentel, and Sonny Trillanes, but were able to identify eight (8) Anti-Health candidates - Gringo Honasan, Chiz Escudero, Jack Enrile, Migz Zubiri, Ernie Maceda, Mitos Magsaysay, Teddy Casiño, and Christian Señeres. 

The group led by the Philippine College of Physicians, Philippine Society for General Internal Medicine, Philippine College of Chest Physicians, and civil society sin tax advocates, Action for Economic Reforms, WomanHealth Philippines, and FCAP held the press conference during the 60th Anniversary of PCP and its 43rd Annual Convention to inform the public of the pro-health and anti-health stance of the 33 Senatorial Candidates.

Tony Leachon,MD

Consultant of the Department of Health on Noncommunicable Diseases

Director,University of the Philippines Manila,Information,Publications & Public Affairs

----------

See also:
Election Watch 1: Anti Epal Photos, June 29, 2012
Election Watch 2: On Celebrities as Politicians, August 19, 2012
Election Watch 3: Defining Celebrities, Politicians and the State, August 30, 2012 
Election Watch 4: Senatoriables on Healthcare, March 08, 2013

Fat-Free Econ 12: Privatizing PAGCOR

I went to the Senate yesterday as one of the invited resource speakers on SB 3178, privatizing the state-owned gambling firm PAGCOR, and creating a new regulatory body (no proprietory function) PAGCOM. Sen. Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III chaired the hearing, while the bill's author, Sen. Ralph Recto, explained the proposed measure. Sen. Antonio Trillanes also came and asked a few questions.

I spoke for just about a minute, very brief, summarizing the arguments below. I talked to Sen. Pimentel twice, before and after the hearing. He looks as an intelligent and approachable senator.

Below is my article today (and 12th total) in TV5's news portal,
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/34177/fat-free-economics-pagcor-privatization-and-reducing-public-debt

(Editor’s note: This is the position paper Mr. Oplas presented during the joint hearing of the Senate Committees on Games and Amusement, on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, and on Finance held on June 7, 2012)

There is no market failure in operating casinos, black jack, roulette and other gambling facilities. The existence of a government corporation, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. or Pagcor to provide this service for many years is a historical mistake that should be corrected soon.

A Senate bill privatizing Pagcor, while creating a regulatory body, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Commission or Pagcom, has been filed by Sen. Ralph Recto, and is undergoing committee hearing chaired by Sen. Koko Pimentel.

Senate Bill 3178 is advantageous to the public for four reasons:

- Government can raise new revenues without raising existing taxes or creating new ones;

- Government can focus on more social and economic programs as there is no “market failure” in operating gambling facilities, and doing such function is far out as a government responsibility;

- Raise more revenues through tourism as private international operators mobilize their international network in bringing in foreign players and gamblers; and

- Reduce corruption in government as that corporation is known to be a major milking cow by previous administrations.

With the on-going financial, economic and political turmoil happening in a number of European countries, particularly the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain), initiatives to reduce huge public debt by governments should be prioritized.

Governments should be able to raise additional revenues somewhere aside from increasing existing taxes and fees, or creating new ones, limit new borrowings, and drastically reduce the public debt to:

Reduce the heavy interest payment that on average, constitutes one-fifth of the annual budget;

Avoid future economic and financial turmoil that is currently happening in many European economies because of their huge public debt burden; and

Finance some government social and economic programs out of savings from interest payment, not from additional taxation or borrowings.

From 2010 to 2012, the government’s interest payment on its gross debt would be P328 billion per year on average, or 20 percent of the total annual budget. This is a big amount that must be reduced as quickly as possible, to give justice to the over-taxed sectors of Philippine society.

The lower box implies that if government can reduce the debt stock by P100 billion, say from Pagcor privatization, at an average interest rate of 6.5 percent per year, the government will be able to save P6.5 billion per year. This can be considered as perennial or sustainable revenues that otherwise would just go to the pockets of the rich lenders, but will be used for certain economic programs and services yearly.

Huge government debt, not private sector and household debt, is the main reason for the on-going economic and financial turmoil in a number of European economies now. Their governments have been over-spending and borrowing irresponsibly over the past years and decades.

The huge debt and other economic problems of the PIIGS have combined to make their GDP growth dive to negative territory, while their unemployment rate has significantly shot up.

This deadly combination is something that we do not wish to happen to the Philippine economy someday. That is why we have to start somewhere in raising additional revenues while limiting new borrowings.

Only a few Asian economies have public debt of more than 50 percent of their GDP as of this year. One good news for the Philippines and the current administration is that the public debt-to-GDP ratio would decline from nearly 60 percent just seven years ago to the projected 40 percent this year.

Still, this is not a valid excuse why we should not aspire to further bring down that ratio to 25 percent or lower. And the proceeds from privatizing Pagcor is a good candidate to use for this objective.

Ultimately, more government corporations and financial institutions should be privatized. There is no market failure in operating banks, and it is not wise, it is not fair, that government is a regulator and a player at the same time.
--------

See also:
Privatization 6: Camps Aguinaldo and Crame, January 08, 2011

Privatization 7: Debts -- Cut Borrowings, February 23, 2011

Privatization 8: Government Debts: Military Camps and Spratly Issue, June 20, 2011

Privatization 9: PAGCOR and Casino Operations, May 16, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 11: GDP Growth and Private Sector Role, June 02, 2012