BWorld 179, Federalism dream vs centralized government

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last January 5.

Repeated calls for federalism by the Duterte administration actually point to more centralization of the national government — the complete opposite of what they’re advocating.

Here are some examples.

1. National taxes have been rising, instead of declining, which could have helped prepare federal states to have their own income and value-added taxes, etc. Instead of lowering the top marginal income tax rate of 32%, it was even raised to 35%. Instead of reducing the VAT to 10% or 8% with few exemptions, the 12% was retained but many sectors were also exempted.

2. Expanding the number of departments and bureaus instead of reducing them. The Department of Transportation and Communication (DoTC) has become two departments — the Department of Transportation (DoTr) and the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT). Then there are proposals to create a Department of Housing, Department of Fisheries. A good federal set up is to abolish many existing departments (like NEDA, DA, DENR, DoH, DoT, etc.) and allow the state governments to create their own departments as they see fit, create, or expand local or state revenues to finance these state departments.

3. Forcing national legislative franchising like buses and taxi, instead of decentralized regional or provincial franchising. Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and other House leaders are behind the proposal.

4. Reversing integrated public private partnerships (PPP) where government fiscal exposure is very limited to hybrid PPP where national government budget and foreign borrowings (especially China ODA) is much bigger. A meaningful federal set up will empower the state governments to deal with local infrastructure like airports, seaports, provincial tollways and inter-city MRT/LRT.

5. Centralized declaration of class suspensions. During the anti-martial law rallies in Sept. 21, 2017, Malacañang declared a Luzon-wide or nationwide class suspensions even if many provinces and cities did not even have scheduled rallies. Then during the PISTON jeepney strike in Oct. 16-17, 2017, Malacañang declared nationwide class suspensions, even if many provinces and cities did not even have planned jeep strike. President Duterte should have allowed the mayors and governors to decide, saying something like “the national government will step back from these decisions and it is up to the local governments to decide what’s best for their people.”

Beyond federalism plans contradicted by more centralization of powers and taxation, a long-term alternative would be for the Philippines to split into many new countries and allow these new countries to compete with one another in the field of taxation, governance, infrastructure, trade, and tourism to attract more investors and visitors from around the world. Peace and diplomacy will be retained as fellow ASEAN member-states as well as various multilateral formations and the United Nations.

Many existing Philippine island-provinces are actually comparable in size to existing countries and/or big territories (see table).

This is a far out view and may not be considered in the current decade but would appear more viable through time. Singapore will not be as dynamic and developed as it is now if it was just one of many states of Malaysia.

Under the current activities of the Duterte administration, there lies a danger that when federalism is finally enacted, local entrepreneurs and job creators will be walloped with both high national and high local taxes, fees, royalties and various mandatory spending. This will be a good formula to encourage more corruption and black market business operation, or get out of the country and do business elsewhere.

For the federalism plan to be more attractive to the people, the national government should learn to step back, to tax less, regulate less, bureaucratize less, build confidence among the people and investors in the provinces that indeed they will be given more leeway, more opportunities to craft their own political and economic identity.

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

See also:
BWorld 115, Centralization and federalism, March 23, 2017
BWorld 171, Global vs national tax reforms, December 29, 2017 

BWorld 176, Road trips and PPP projects, January 06, 2018 

BWorld 177, On MMDA car towing and impounding, January 07, 2018 
BWorld 178, Top 8 energy news of 2017, January 14, 2018

Federalism or Disintegration of big countries: Catalonia, HK, Taiwan, other independence movements

A good model of citizen empowerment is that the size, taxes and regulations of the national/ central/ federal government should be as small as possible and allow the states or provinces to have their own set of taxes, agencies and regulations. If this is not possible as national or central planners think they are so bright, an alternative model is for a big country to disintegrate into many new, smaller countries. Long live independence movements in Catalonia -- and Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, Macau, etc.

http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=what-if-the-philippines-splits-up-into-smaller-island-nation-states&id=120905

http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Should-we-go-federal-or-not&id=139983

The rest of the country should be spared of madmen masquerading as statesmen, like the President from Davao. Federalism as currently designed by Du30 people will mean both huge federal/national and state governments. Very lousy and authoritarian combination.

BWorld 115, Centralization and federalism

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last February 27, 2017.

As the world modernizes and people’s productivity keeps rising with technology, the opportunity to escape poverty increases.

But many developing countries fail to take advantage of this modernization because of politics.

It’s like being under an autocratic rule, a democratic but very bureaucratic and tax-hungry government, or an on-going conflict with armed communist rebels.

The federalism campaign by the Duterte administration and his PDP-Laban Party is humming along far and wide across the country. In their analysis, federalism is the answer to a highly centralized unitary Philippine government centered in Manila.

There are merits to this argument. The degree of bureaucratism and corruption in the country has not significantly improved since the downfall of the Marcos administration more than three decades ago. Hence the desire of many people in the provinces to have more power in charting their own future.

A more meaningful federalism would require the following:

1. Very low national taxes, only around 5% income tax and 5% VAT and to encourage tax competition among states. Some will impose a 35% income tax (or total of 40% income tax) and no more VAT, others will impose 15% income tax and 7% VAT (or total of 20% income tax and 12% VAT), others will have zero income tax and 10% VAT, and so on.

2. Abolish several national regulatory agencies or drastically reduce their powers and allow the states to have regulatory and infrastructure competition. Some will require power plants to secure six-year permits while others will require only 6 months, and so on.

3. Abolish some departments and allow the states to put up their own with their own budget and staff and have governance or social services competition. Candidate departments that can be abolished are NEDA, DAR, DA, DoH, DepEd, DENR, DoE, and so on.

These proposals will be unpalatable to many central planners in the government. They are bright, have MAs and PhDs, have long work experience with global central planning agencies like the UN and World Bank. The national politicians will also dislike these moves because they are bright and experienced in national politics and government, so why deprive them the privilege to direct huge agencies and departments?

In the absence of meaningful federalism, island-provinces and regions over the long term should be allowed to chart their own future by disengaging from the Philippines and turning themselves into new countries.

There are many countries and territories that are much smaller than the Philippines both in land area and population but are doing well and the most visible examples are Hong Kong and Singapore. Below is a list of big islands in the Philippines and their comparable countries and territories in land area around the world (see table).

These new countries will treat each other like we currently treat our neighbors in the ASEAN with free trade in goods and freer mobility of people without any need for visa for visits of 30 days or less, and so on.

It is hardly possible for a country with an expanding population to become less bureaucratic and less tax-hungry because less bureaucracy would mean more innovation and more wealth for the citizens while other regions remain poor and many agencies and planners dislike more inequality.

This is a long shot view and may not get public support for now.

But as the world progresses quickly, more people will become more impatient for faster change and improvement in their lives. Governments and regulators should learn to step back and respect more individual innovations.

(To read a related piece by Mr. Oplas entitled “What if the Philippines splits up into smaller island nation states?” please visit the link <http://bit.ly/smallerislands>.) 

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

See also:

BWorld 112, Asia Liberty Forum 2017 in Mumbai, March 01, 2017 
BWorld 113, Peace talks with CPP-NDF for another 30 years? March 04, 2017 

BWorld 114, Brownouts, ancillary services and transmission charge, March 23, 2017

BWorld 110, Should we go federal or not?

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last February 02, 2017.

Whether to move from devolved unitary to a formal federal state, this is among the big political questions in the Philippines today. There are two related questions here: (1) If federalism is the answer, what is the question? (2) if federalism is not the answer, is a reformed devolution the solution?

The first question I borrowed from a big forum several months ago from my alma mater, the UP School of Economics. The second question is my reformulation of the arguments by the anti-federalists.

By definition, federal states are those whose national governments share power with semi-independent or semi-autonomous regional or provincial governments.

To further contextualize the national debate, let us view some global data about federal states compared to non-federal states.

Other federal states and economies that are too small (GDP size less than $1B) and not included in the list are Saint Kitts and Nevis, Comoros, and Micronesia.

The above numbers tell us that while there are huge and rich federal economies like the US, Germany, and Canada, there are also huge and rich non-federal economies like Japan, United Kingdom, and France. And there are many poor federal economies like South Sudan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Venezuela.

So the promise of “more development if we go federal” is highly questionable. There are more important factors that are directly related to the economic wealth and prosperity of countries other than the forms of government like federalism vs. unitary, presidential vs. parliamentary, centralized/socialist vs. decentralized. And those factors always include the rule of law, the sanctity and respect for laws, laws that apply to both rulers and ruled, to both governors and governed.

A debate on federalism will take place on Feb. 2 at Vivere Hotel, Alabang. It is organized by the Rotary Club of Muntinlupa North, PCCI-Muntinlupa, both presided by Ms. Elvie Sanchez-Quiazon, and the Muntinlupa City government.

The generally pro-federalism speakers will be Dean Pacifico Agabin of UP Law Center and Jonathan Malaya of PDP. The generally anti-federalism speakers will be Ambassador Hermenegildo Cruz, Prof. Gene Pilapil of UP Political Science Dept., and Solicitor General Florin Hilbay. Dean Ronald Mendoza of the Ateneo School of Government will also speak but he considers himself as more on the listening mode than being identified as pro- or anti-federalism.

I will be there as one of two reactors. This role is cut out for me because I am agnostic about the issue, so I can listen more to the two camps with no personal bias.

My bias is towards disintegration of huge countries -- huge population, huge land area -- into newer countries, to accommodate competing cultures and political and religious beliefs.

Consider Brunei with only 0.4M people, Maldives with only 0.5M, and Bhutan with only 0.8M people. They are fine as countries, they have their own currencies, tax system, national governments, international airports, etc.

Contrast with huge countries like China, India, Russia, USA, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and the Philippines. The US in particular and its 320M people remain heavily divided for many months now over the Trump candidacy and presidency. The idea of initiating a secession of their states from the US like the California exit (“Calexit”) was revived again by some quarters.

If I were to answer the two questions above they will go like these: (1) If federalism is the answer, then the question is who are the better central planners, the national or regional/provincial planners? (2) If federalism is not the answer, then having rule of law and limited government is the more appropriate solution regardless of the form of government.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of EFN Asia.

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

See also:

BWorld 107, Top 10 myths for oil tax hike, January 28, 2017 

BWorld 108, Rising feed in tariff (FIT) due to more wind-solar power, February 06, 2017 

BWorld 109, Asians' march to liberty and progress, February 16, 2017

Lion Rock 9: Federalism, Decentralization and George Clinton

The Reading Club Salon 2013 of the Lion Rock Institute is fast approaching, this coming October 19, 2013 to be held in Hong Kong. I will be there. Among the readings of the participants to this theoretical roundtable discussion are the Anti-Federalist Papers. 

A paper I checked today is Paper 14: Extent of Territory Under Consol-idated Government  Too Large to  Preserve Liberty or Protect Property written by George Clinton (1739-1812), Vice President of the US (1805-1812) and NY Governor (1801-1804), aka Cato. This was published October 25, 1787.

Among the arguments made by G. Clinton or “Cato” was this.

You must risk much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind you. Where, from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too mysterious for you to understand and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic; the latter, Mr. Locke remarks, is a government derived from neither nature nor compact.

Political liberty, the great Montesquieu again observes, consists in security, or at least in the opinion we have of security; and this security, therefore, or the opinion, is best obtained in moderate governments, where the mildness of the laws, and the equality of the manners, beget a confidence in the people, which produces this security, or the opinion. This moderation in governments depends in a great measure on their limits, connected with their political distribution.

Top of Form

In short, NEVER trust big and expansive government and the persons administering it. They will make rules and laws that are too complicated for us but will provide loopholes for their friends. Moderate or limited government can provide us security because its coercive power is limited, limited to equal application of laws to all.

He also wrote,

The strongest principle of union resides within our domestic walls. The ties of the parent exceed that of any other. As we depart from home, the next general principle of union is amongst citizens of the same state, where acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, nourish affection, and attachment. Enlarge the circle still further, and, as citizens of different states, though we acknowledge the same national denomination, we lose in the ties of acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, and thus by degrees we lessen in our attachments, till, at length, we no more than acknowledge a sameness of species.

Cool. That is why forced collectivism by a central or national government often begets suspicion, disapproval and discontent . The sentiment by people in the provinces who dislike "Imperial Manila" collecting lots of taxes and fees from them, telling them what are prohibited and which ones are not.

Centralism -- economic central planning and centralized politics and government -- disrespects individual diversity and spontaneity.

Interesting to note that John Locke has influenced both the Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, et al) and the Anti-Federalists (George Clinton, et al). Clinton aka Cato, has mentioned Locke several times in that paper.

Pol. Ideology 30: Federalism, Debt and Civil Society

This is my article yesterday in the online magazine,
http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/1312-federalism-government-debt-civil-society-and-the-private-sectors.

The photos here are not part of the original article.
---------

Putting high emphasis on one form of government tend to blind people into glorifying one form over another, hoping that such change in political structure will deliver the necessary development to the economy and the rest of society. This is wrong.

The form of government – presidential vs. parliamentary, federalism vs. unitary, centralization vs. decentralization, and so on – only gives different flesh and structures to the type of coercion that the state has over the individuals. This is because government, by nature, is coercion. And coercion takes various forms – regulations, restrictions, prohibitions, taxation, mandatory fees and contributions. There is a reverse side – subsidies, welfare, expansion of government size and bureaucracy. But the latter is made possible only by the taxation and mandatory fees and contribution that the government imposes on the people, especially the industrious and productive sectors of society.

I attended a round table discussion last Friday “Federalism and Autonomy: Exploring Political Structural Solutions to the Mindanao Conflict” at the UP Third World Studies Center, Diliman campus. The main speaker was Dr. George Anderson of the UN Mediation Support Unit and a former Deputy Minister for Intergovernmental (1996-2002) and of Natural Resources Canada (2002-06). He also wrote several books on federalism.

The panel of reactors were distinguished academics, like former UP President, Dr. Jose Abueva, Prof. Emeritus of Political Science and Public Administration at the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG), and Dr. Alex Brillantes, Prof. and former Dean of UP NCPAG. The moderator was Prof. Herman Kraft of the UP Political Science Department.

I came late to the seminar and was not able to see Dr. Anderson’s presentation, but I was able to catch the main arguments during the reactors’ time and the open forum.

During the open forum, I argued my skepticism or indifference on one form of government over another as I think that governments, in most cases, are institutions of waste. The high public debt of many governments now, both poor and industrialized, is one clear example of such wastefulness. Because public debt is nothing but an accumulation of wastes and inefficiencies by governments. If projects and various welfare programs were indeed spent productively, then the subsidized public and bureaucracies would have become productive enough to pay those past debts, but this did not happen.

See table below. I did not mention these data as I only created this table while writing this article, and it should help illustrate my points above.

Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook (WEO) Database, April 2012, www.imf.org.

Of the 23 countries listed above, 17 have public debt 40 percent of GDP or higher. Take note too that these are debts only of the federal government. The states and local governments under the federal government also have their own set of public debts. So when these are added to the federal debt, the numbers would significantly rise.

I also mentioned in my comment during the open forum that what many ordinary people would refer to as decentralization does not necessarily mean assignment of functions from the central or national government to the local and state governments. Rather, they mean transfer of functions to non-government bodies like civil society organizations and the business sectors.

For instance, maintenance of peace and order now in the shops, malls, banks, residential/office buildings, universities, etc is done more by the private security agencies, not by the police and other government forces. The body that builds more cost-effective housing for the poor is not the National Housing Authority or other government agencies but Gawad Kalinga, an NGO.

So instead of expanding government at the national or local level, it would help if government should step back in certain sectors, and give more space for civil society and the private sector to do development work in society.

Dr. Anderson and Dr. Abueva obviously did not favor my suggestion as they said that there is a big role for government to develop society, we only need to make it more efficient and more accountable to the people. Dr. Anderson added that at Philippine government spending of about 14 percent of GDP is definitely not “big” compared to many developed governments like Canada and continental Europe where public spending is 40 percent of GDP or higher. He has a point there because in those governments, even buses are owned by the government, here buses are entirely private and they compete with each other a lot. But we should not forget that the 14 or 17 percent of GDP Philippine government spending applies only to the national government. The local governments (provinces, cities and municipalities, barangays) have their own extra spending as they have extra sources of revenues, especially the rich city governments in Metro Manila and other highly urbanized cities in the provinces.

I believe that as citizens are becoming more empowered with more information, they become more educated and more innovative in finding private solutions to private problems, or civil society solutions to ordinary community issues and problems. The worsening debt turmoil in Europe, especially the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) that incidentally are all parliamentary governments, and the economic uncertainty they bring to the regional and global economy, is additional proof that free individuals should take more responsibility in running their own lives and that of their households and communities. Relying more on governments, federal or unitary or other forms, will only prolong the economic agony for all.
--------

See also:
Pol. Ideology 25: On Governance and Rule of Law, February 20, 2012
Pol. Ideology 26: Socialists in a Liberal Government, February 21, 2012 
Pol. Ideology 27: Why do Many Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?, March 01, 2012
Pol. Ideology 29: Raison d 'Etre of Government, May 20, 2012

Decentralization 10: Devolution, Federalism and Subsidiarity

I posted my paper, Decentralization 9: Ben Diokno Says Recentralize, in the CORRECT Movement (Constitutional Reform & Rectification for Economic Competitiveness & Transformation Movement) group in facebook because that group is advocating "evolving federalism" plus two other issues, economic liberalization and Parliamentary form of government. The exchange has expanded into a long discourse.

Below are the exchanges -- with explicit permission from Carlos Tapang and implicitly from Paul Alli (Paul is a friend way back in the 80s in UP, Carlos I have met 2 years ago) -- minus the comments from Orion Perez, the main convenor of CORRECT Movement. He does not want his comments to be publicized.

• 
  

  Nonoy Oplas 
  
  

  The subsidiarity principle is very radical, it says that if the smallest social unit can do a task, no need to give it to the higher social or political unit. The smallest social unit in society is the individual, then the household. If an individual can do a task by himself, like taking care of his/her body and health, then there will be no or little need for govt healthcare program, especially for non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

  
  

  22 hours ago · 
• 
  

  
  
• 
  

  Paul Alli There is a much more cogent reason why decentralization is necessary- the unequal development of regions.
  

  21 hours ago ·  ·  1
• 
  

  Nonoy Oplas But that is why Ben Diokno shot down in his presentation, he said that decentralization is a failure in reducing inequity bet and among regions and LGU localities, that is why he is arguing that the natl govt should do that job, not the LGUs themselves.
  

  20 hours ago · 
• 
  

  Paul Alli Because of corruption among LGU officials. There should be a check and balance bet natl govt and local govt. One sad case is Samar.
  

  20 hours ago · 
• 
  

  Nonoy Oplas 
  
  

  Yes, corruption is endemic in both national and local governments. That is why I argued in my paper that we need less and small government, both at the national and local levels. Government should focus on stamping out criminality, protect private property rights and the citizens from killers and other criminals. But government, both national and local, veered into so many sectors and areas, because that's where corruption and extortion can be maximized, like controlling "illegal gambling", "Illegal drugs", "Illegal prostitution", etc.

  
  

  19 hours ago ·  ·  2
• 
  

  Carlos C Tapang 
  
  

  This is very good discussion. I think we should think of government power in terms of points being allocated instead of "areas of responsibility". The problem with thinking in terms of area of responsibility is that those in the national government can claim that because the whole country is their responsibility, it is OK for them to meddle in local affairs. This is the part of centralization that is bad, in my opinion. If we think in terms of power points to be allocated, there should be not so many points allocated to the central government, because otherwise there would be no points left to each of the regions or provinces. Allocate only 10% of the power points to the central government, and give 90% to the LGUs. What this means in practice, with regards to taxation, for example, is that the central government should collect only as much as 10% of the total tax revenue. For each taxpayer, the local government can tax say 9% max, and the national government only 1%.

  
  

  15 hours ago ·  ·  1
• 
  

  Carlos C Tapang 
  
  

  Our situation in Pinas is the opposite of what is desirable: 90% of the power points is concentrated in the central government, 9% to local governments, and 1% to each individual.
  
  We experience this power on a daily basis. Observe how even the lowest government official behave towards citizens. Go to the local SSS office and see how many people line up for service at any one time. When you finally reach the end of the long line and are finally able to talk to a clerk, observe how the clerk feels more important than you are. Compare that to the behavior of a bank teller in a well-run bank. The government clerk feels no compunction to demand a requirement that you forgot to do, like filling up another form, or getting the signature of somebody else. It does not matter how minor the missing paper is, it must be with you; if not, you either go fill that silly piece of paper and go back to the other end of the line, or worse, come back some other time.
  
  We have to deal with the central government in most that we do. If we want to buy land, the title gets registered all the way to Manila. If we want to start a business, our corporation papers gets filed with the central government and not the local government. The central government is like a bad CEO who doesn't know how to delegate, who can't trust anybody else to do something well, so he does everything himself, to the detriment of the whole company.

  
  

  14 hours ago · 
• 
  

  Nonoy Oplas 
  
  

  I think local govts are more notorious in imposing stupidity than the central or national govt. Take makati city. So many NOs, Donts, Prohibitions. Buendia and its long blocks is now "No Jaywalking". They say they want people to commute and walk, to leave their cars at home to reduce traffic, but they make crossing streets hard and bureaucratic, penalty is P200 and you have to get your ID at a far out office. Ayala ave is "No loading here, walk to the next block" and "No unloading here, walk to the next block" (about 250 meters away).
  
  These may seem trivial but if you are subjected to these types of inanities and stupidity every day, you won't be happy. I don't think a central govt would think of this type of stupidity, but a local govt can. That's why I'm never a fan of decentralization or devolution or even federalism/autonomy if such will mean worse bureaucracies at the local levels.

  
  

  12 hours ago · 
• 
  

  Carlos C Tapang 
  
  

  Let's look at this more closely. At some point, yes, we can say that some traffic rules are just silly. The question is whether you prefer such silly traffic rules to come from the central government (in which case all traffic rules in Pinas would be uniformly silly), or from the local government (in which case there is no uniformity and one locality can have silly rules and people disobey them all the time and get a away with it, while another locality has simple rules and people seem tame enough).
  
  Here's one reason why you want it local and non-uniform: the word is competition. As Orion has just written about, competitition is what will slowly drive local laws and ordinances to parity. I took a taxi once from Pasay to Cubao, and the driver asked permission, before we got started, to avoid Makati roads. I asked why, and the answer was because of the silly traffic rules that you mentioned. People will avoid localities with silly rules and very high local taxes. Businesses, when locating their branches, certainly look at how rational local governments are, among other things.
  
  The funny thing about local autonomy and uniformity is that, the more local autonomy we have, the more the LGUs tend towards uniformity, because of competition. Here in the US there is variety in certain local ordinances: there are subtle differences among cities, and glaring differences among states. But there are certain things like how easy it is to set up a corporation that trends towards uniformity: there is clearly competition on which state it is easiest to setup a corporation. It used to be that Delaware was the easiest state to setup a corp. Now most states have changed their laws to make it even easier to setup shop. Here in Washington I can setup a corp in less than a day, and less than $200, without ever going to a state government office (I just visit the secretary of state website).
  
  Of course, there are certain things that will always be different among localities, and this then is what would give them their own character. Our ideal should be not one color for all of Pinas, but rather an array of bold colors to start with, which would gradually dissolve naturally into pastel colors, with each locality having its own natural color.

  
  

  11 hours ago ·  ·  2
• 
  

  Carlos C Tapang 
  
  

  Instead of micro-managing the different localities, the central government should be limited in what it can do. The central government should be limited, as much as possible, to only enforcing simple rules on local government, rules that should be written in the constitution. For example, the Bill of Rights should be uniformly applicable everywhere, and there can be no local ordinance or rule that can contradict any section of the Bill of Rights. Another example of a simple rule that the central government can and should enforce on all localities is a lmit on taxation: the constitution should limit local income taxes to a maximum of, say, 10% or less. Of course, the same constitution should also limit what the central government can collect, which should even be less (as a percentage of individual income, but not necessarily as a percentage of total govt revenues) than what the LGUs are allowed to collect.

  
  

  11 hours ago ·  ·  3
• 
  

  Paul Alli 
  
  

  Decentralization, federalism and local autonomy are concepts meant to free up the potential of local regions to develop itself without much assistance from the national govt. In fact, by virtue of local autonomy parts now of Mindanao, esp ARRM, is moving on its own. But despite this, there is still glaring poverty in the area because of warlordism. We have to recognize the fact that Philippines have unequal development brought forth by colonialism and feudalism. The structures of feudalism still prevails in some areas, and some has been masked by corporatism- or stock distribution e.g hacienda luisita- in order to circumvent modernization of regions. If we really need to get Free Market principles going, federalism shouldl be implemented on a nation-wide scale making regions or LGUs compete among themselves by enticing investors, tourists, transient class, and businessmen to locate or relocate or even travel to better places, be it under a Parliamentary form or Presidential form. I am reminded of my 7 year stay in America. I can always choose to locate in different states offering the best opportunities in life. I moved around from coast to coast searching for the American dream. I ended up now working out here in Samar to develop the coconut industry.

  
  

  4 hours ago ·  ·  1
• 
  

  Nonoy Oplas It's unfortunate that Orion equates disagreement or agnosticism with federalism aka region-based decentralization as "extremist and knee-jerkishly dogmatic and narrow-minded interpretation...".
  
  My concept of subsidiarity is that if things can be done by the individual and households, them as the smallest social and political unit in society, then don't give it to higher political units -- barangay, city, province or federal governments. Take healthcare, do we need any local or national govt to remind people that over-drinking, over-smoking, over-eating is bad for one's health? Preventive healthcare in this case won't need govt, local or national, autonomous or federal, it purely falls on the level of the individual, the household and civil society. Even healthcare financing can be done at the personal and household or enterprise level too, people getting their private health insurance. To insist that we still need govt even in simple cases like preventive healthcare, local or national, for me is wrong. Privatization of certain functions, not just decentralization or devolution, is more economical as this will enhance more personal and parental/guardian responsibility.
  

I left the CORRECT Movement fb group today. Below is my last comment to the group before I clicked "Leave Group". Nonetheless, I thank Orion for the opportunity to exchange notes with him and many of his followers in the said movement.

Orion, a few months ago, I already asked you if you will accommodate people here who only believe in free market, and is/are indifferent on the 2 others -- federalism and parliamentarism. You said fine, so I stayed. Until now, I remain indifferent and agnostic -- someone who neither believes or disbelieves on something, simply indifferent -- about those federalism and parliamentarism. I don't agree with your defiinition of agnosticism of "does not know". For me, neither believe nor disbelieve. Sa tagalog, wala akong paki, ang paki ko lang ay economic liberalization and less government.

From your points above, there is clear message of your intolerance to agnosticism to the 2 other programs of CORRECT, like repeated use of "knee jerkish dogmatism".  Fine. If being in this movement means obedience to all 3 advocacies so as not to be labelled as knee-jerk dogmatism, then this group is not for me. Thank you.
--------

See also:

Decentralization 1: It's Still More Government, July 25, 2007

Decentralization 2: From Local Government to Civil Society, August 30, 2008

Decentralization 3: Challenges to Local Government, November 18, 2008