Pork Barrel 13: Executive-Legislative Honeymoon and Presidential-Parliamentary Forms

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.

-----------

See also:

Pork Barrel 9: Are PH Government Institutions Ready for Cleansing?, April 09, 2014

Pork Barrel 10: Bloated Budget, Wasteful Government, June 02, 2014

Pork Barrel 11: Impending Arrest of Sens. Enrile, Estrada and Revilla, June 19, 2014

Pork Barrel 12: Why DAP is Wrong, July 29, 2014

Inequality 16: Inclusive Growth and Central Planning

Two months ago, a friend and fellow UPSE alumni asked me to respond to his ideas, below.

Indeed, the economic  buzzwords  these  days is  how  to  achieve  "inclusive  growth". I'm just  wondering why  we  always  get  fixated  with the decades-old mantra towards “FREER  MARKET"  or   the need to break  down further  "Institutions" to achieve  freer  markets.

While it  is  true  that  there  are  still  institutional  bottlenecks  and  bureaucratic  inefficiencies (i.e., red tapes,  corruption, etc.)  that  need  to  be  scrapped,  I  think  we  are losing sight of what true economics should  mainly  be  all  about----Production and not  fixation with  freer  markets  and consumption.

If  I  am  not  mistaken,  almost  80 percent  of  the  total  economy   is  consumption driven. In short, we are producing much  less  through the years  as  a  percentage  of  total GDP.

If less  and less people  are  creating  physical wealth, there is indeed  some basis  to the analysis  that the economy is  mainly being bailed out  by the OFW  money  that is  circulating around and helping boost consumer and service  industries  like  the malls  and food chains.

-----------

Many people indeed have that "uncontrolled itch to control others".

Consider here: A taxi driver or jeepney driver would wish to have the freedom, the choice, where he can eat lunch cheaply and with parking at the same time. But those with "uncontrolled itch to control" would wish that such freedom should be curtailed. If some of those carinderias that give cheap lunch do not pay taxes and city hall business permit, sanitation permit, etc., then they better be closed down. Control people's freedom of choice. Attack free market, onwards with the command and control thinking.

His fixation with "Economics = Production" is lousy. Remember Econ 11 again, Economics is about WHAT to produce, WHEN and WHERE to produce, HOW to produce it and for WHOM. Economics is about production and consumption and non-consumption (savings, investments). What's so hard to understand here?

It is impossible for micro units (individuals, households, micro and big firms) to answer all the "what, when, where, how and for whom" if there is no free market. Can central planners, whether products of UPSE or Ateneo or Harvard or Timbuktu University,  foresee how many rubber shoes, what color, design and sizes, would be needed in village or municipality A, and in other areas and cities? What if there was an over-production of color blue, size small rubber shoes but under production of color pink, size medium and large rubber shoes? How fast can central planners respond to such consumer demand who will be in shoe stores today or tomorrow?

Only the free market -- producers who are free to produce what/when/where/how/for whom, consumers who are free to buy what/when/where/how/from whom -- can have the flexibility and foresight to see those things.

About "inclusive growth", new terminologies, and perhaps new rackets. Notice that it has already evolved into "inclusive development", "inclusive democracy", "inclusive business", "inclusive politics", what else.

The framers and inventors of such "inclusive _____" are careful that the people will not see them as ultimately gunning for "inclusive pockets" and "inclusive savings". That is, your money in your pocket or savings account is not yours and yours alone. It belongs to the collective, other people have a "claim" and "entitlement" to it already. These "other people" include the poor (regardless of the causes of their poverty), the politicians, the bureaucrats and the various poverty fighters.

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

See also::
Inequality 12: Billionaires and the UN Politics of Envy, July 11, 2012

Inequality 13: Nomad Billionaire, Burger King and Pretty Women, July 17, 2012

Inequality 14: 99 Percent to Support the 1 Percent, October 20, 2012 

Inequality 15: SM, Henry Sy and Class Envy, October 20, 2013  

Socialized Healthcare 13: On Inequality and Inclusive Business in HC, March 19, 2013

From Pork Barrel to Parliamentary Dumdum

The tirade and personal attacks of the Orion Dumdum camp continues. See, PNoy Government, Pork Barrel and Parliamentarism.  I let them open their mouth more, because the more they do, the more they expose their true personality. They are among the “saviours” of this country against the corrupt and hypocrite politicians, right?

Some are asking why I am posting an exchange in a private fb group in my blog. Simple, it concerns me. They are directly attacking me, and I have two choices. One is rebut them point by point, or simply publicize their “assessment” of me. 

Option one is not practical because it’s a gang up and they use foul language and I do not want to stoop to their style. I remember this warning from Mark Twain: 

Notice that they have shifted the topic from pork barrel to Pnoy administration, to me directly. So again, see their language, see their attitudes, in their own words.

Have to jump now for the dinner at the hotel, sponsored by LRI.

-----------

Vincent Blas So suddenly, Nonoy Oplas supports the impeachment of the President, and doesn’t care if the Philippines is Presidential or becomes Parliamentary

Orion Pérez D. Fair enough, Nonoy Oplas --- in those posts, sure, you didn't criticize us and attacked Noynoy's statement...

You see, Oplas, the problem is that you are a fanatic extremist.

CoRRECT and FEF are composed of rational NORMAL people who know that we have to work within a system and need to do things gradually if we are to work within a democratic framework.

You have made the wrong and unfair complaint that both CoRRECT and FEF are not aggressively pushing for your Minimal Government advocacy, but you totally miss the point that we are aggressively pushing for ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION starting with the removal of the anti-FDI restrictions and the 60/40...

You see, Oplas, the problem is that you want us to do things 100% the same way you want them to be done. You are an absolutist, and you want things done instantaneously.

We -- CoRRECT and FEF -- however, know that if we are to work within a democratic framework, we need to do things STEP-BY-STEP.

Step number 1 is to first bring in Foreign Direct Investments in order to create jobs for our people so that we can solve the problem of too much unemployment, idleness and despair that leads to high crime rates and the OFW problem which in turn creates more social problems.,,,

It has been proven that Presidential Systems CANNOT induce major reforms unlike Parliamentary Systems.

Remember Singapore? They went from Third World to First.

Look at Malaysia. They're not First World yet, but they are getting there. And they're way way way better than the Philippines is economically because Mahathir reformed their society.

Both Singapore and Malaysia have very low income-tax rates. And they're PARLIAMENTARY.

In fact, when CHILE needed to reform itself, it didn't do its reforms through DEMOCRATIC MEANS.

It had to do through a military dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet with advice from the Chicago Boys.,,,

Parliamentary Systems have a structure that allows for fundamental reforms to be done in society to happen WITHOUT RESORTING TO MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.

Look at Lee Kuan Yew. Did he need to resort to dictatorship? No. In the parliamentary system that Singapore uses, Lee Kuan Yew was able to LIBERALIZE THEIR ECONOMY and make themselves open to FDI as well as create safeguards against corruption and crime that made them even more attractive to INVESTORS - both local and foreign.

* * *

Part of the problem, Oplas, is that you and your acolyte Froi act like those Tea Party fanatics...

Instead of supporting the right-of-center Republican Party, the Tea Party HIJACKED IT by bullying the Republicans into getting the extremists into their line-ups.

Worse, the Tea Party extremists even went to the point of BULLYING Republicans who were looking to do compromise deals with the Democrats.

It's so very Froi-and-Oplas, honestly...

Because the OPLAS-and-FROI style is that you guys don't actively attack the Communists like Bayan Muna and the CPP-NDF-NPA...

Instead, you reserve your vitriol against other Free Market advocacy groups like FEF and CoRRECT who are more normal and "moderate" in our approach just because we are not as EXTREMIST as you are.

Instead of fighting the Communists, you (Oplas) and Froi prefer to attack CoRRECT and call us "STATISTS" and "WELFARISTS" even if we have NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING SUPPORTING Statism or Welfare!

The problem you have with us is that that we are moderates who are looking to promote the cause within a democratic framework....

Here's the thing I don't get with you, Oplas...

Whenever you get cornered and you lose in a debate (EVEN ONE THAT IS PRIVATE like this one --- no one outside this group can see you getting clobbered), you get pikon and then you suddenly go out of your way to create a defamatory blogpost out to destroy other people in the open Internet.

Were you the guy who taught Froi to resort to cyberbullying?

Or did you learn it from Froi?

Because honestly, Oplas, you really are looking like a spoiled brat.

You started a lot of fights with CoRRECT and then when we step in to defend ourselves and in the process WHACK the hell out of you (because we have the facts on our side and you don't), you can't take responsibility for the conflict that YOU started.

What is wrong with you, Oplas?

Nonoy Oplas here it is, enjoy,http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.hk/...

Orion Pérez D. Good...

So... Will you admit too that you were wrong in attacking me and CoRRECT just because pushing for the Parliamentary System is part of our Constitutional Reform agenda?

Will you admit that you were wrong in maliciously misrepresenting me and CoRRECT as being "statist?"

Will you admit that your demand that CoRRECT and I push for an aggressive "minimal government" agenda is actually OUT OF SCOPE for our movement because CoRRECT is STRICTLY a Constitutional Reform advocacy and unfortunately, many of the stuff you want us to add into our push are NOT included in the Constitution and are instead dealt with more in LEGISLATION and judicial reform?...

Nigel Pope Noynoy, why would publicly post on your blog that you're a noytard?

Do you really want everyone to know you are an Aquino supporter?

Or is this your way of making sure your new political party gets included on the pork lists...?

Vincent Blas Is it dead? *pokes with a stick*

Trevor Llewellyn Evans I think that Noynog Epal is actually a journalist that learned his craft at Fox. What he does is have conversations and debates with people in private, then when the story angle isn't going his way or they way he assumed it would, he broadcasts the "its off the record" debates on the Fox News Channel, but carefully edits the story to fit his predetermined conclusion, by trying to defame or discredit the people he spoke to who contradict or shoot holes in his hypotheses. What he basically does is spin the truth to his "believers" to try and sooth his fragile ego and to gain sympathy for his poorly thought out story line. Just Pathetic. If you can't beat them in a logical debate, destroy their credibility...maybe he should have been a car chasing lawyer.

Orion Pérez D. But honestly, the biggest problem of Nonoy Oplasis that he spends more time picking fights with fellow Free Market and Economic Liberalization advocates, hateblogging against them, calling them names like "statist" or what-not, INSTEAD OF forming a formidable alliance with them to fight Pinoy Commies like the CPP-NPA-NDF or Bayan Muna or other Leftard groups like NEPA (National Economic Protectionism Association) who are out to keep JOBS out.

Oplas... Honestly... What drives you to pick fights with people whom you are supposed to be on the same side with regarding Free Markets and Capitalism? Why do you prefer to waste time fighting against us fellow pro-Economic Liberalization advocates over irrelevant minutiae when better time would be spent fighting against the Commies?

What's with you? Are you actually a Closet Commie yourself that you actually want to SABOTAGE us as we advocate for economic liberalization and other important reforms that could help make the Philippines zoom up to First World status?

PNoy Government, Pork Barrel and Parliamentarism

Chilling here in my hotel in Hong Kong, arrived today to attend a full day round table discussion tomorrow on “Democracy – Past, Present and Future”, sponsored by the Lion Rock Institute, HK’s first and only free market think tank. Then on Sunday, some of us participants here will fly to Bangkok  to attend the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia 2013 Conference on “Asia, Middle Income Trap and Economic Freedom”, Monday-Tuesday. I will post articles about these two events in the coming days.

Then checking my facebook, my article, Pork Barrel 8: Forum at DLSU Manila has attracted the attention of some guys hurting over my non-singing “halleluiah” to parliamentary form of government, in the “Kilos Pinoy” fb group. Some guys there dislike it too much, even if I am not singing “halleluiah” to a presidential form of government either. 

See the exchanges below, made only this afternoon. Copy-pasting everything, zero alteration, not even comma or period. Judge for yourself re attitude, arrogance, civility or lack of it. Notice for instance Nigel’s calling me Noynoy repeatedly. Implying something and in the process, showing his mental state.

This is 2,200+ words, 6 pages, enjoy.

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

Nigel Pope I love how Noynoy Oplas voted for and campaigned for Aquino but now, suddenly, is lecturing everyone else on corruption in government being wrong.

Seriously, Noynoy, why did you vote for  noy?

Nonoy Oplas Nanggigigil si Pope, hehehe, bakit ba. Anyway, yes I voted for PNoy, the only liberal candidate in the 2010 elections though he's far out from being a classic liberal. The other candidates were more statist, more dangerous than him. But I did not go out campaigning hard for him.

Nigel Pope More statist? More dangerous?

He's an Aquino! That family - and the Cojuangcos - have been big state, pro-oligarch, pro-protectionist for GENERATIONS.

Seriously, mate, you really need to learn a bit more about the free market and small state movement if you think voting for  noy was the best option. Did you honestly think he would be any different that his execrable mother?

Vincent Blas https://www.facebook.com/photo.php...

Timeline Photos

By: Saint Cory Aquino of Hacienda Luisita

Nonoy Oplas My vote in 2010, none of your business. You crucify PNoy, fine, I'm not his spokesman, not an LP member, not a govt bureaucrat.

Nigel Pope It's not really my business... other than the fact that you sit there lecturing me and damning CoRRECT for not being free market enough for your tastes but...

YOU
ARE
AN
AQUINO
SUPPORTER.

That's hypocrisy. That's intellectual dishonesty. That's not coming to an argument with clean hands. That's the sort of cognitive dissonance with taints every argument you make.

You're a joke, Noynoy, just like your namesake whom you frittered away your vote to.

Also, Noynoy, now that you are revealed as a big state supporter, I am interested in knowing more about your new political party.

Is this a pork barrel thing?
Does your support for Aquino mean you are hopeful of attracting more pork?

Nonoy Oplas Commenting without reading. My blog post was actually an attack on the administration without naming it. Pork as bribe by the Exec to the Legislative so that wasteful and corrupt spending by the former will be tolerated by the latter. The current PNoy admin, past Gloria, Erap, FVR, Cory admins were all guilty of such pork bribery. Hence, I did not single out any admin as all of them were guilty of such wasteful, big govt spending.

Some guys are just groggy or hurting that some people are not convinced by their pol advocacies.

Vincent Blas ^You realize that they’re all guilty, and still you want to keep the Presidency?

Nonoy Oplas If you want to put Binay as successor to Pnoy now, fine, do it, should make you happy. 

Parliamentary Dumdum Emotionalism

* This is my guest post in antipinoy today.

-----------

Some people have the habit or disease of attaching their particular advocacies to their personalities. They have intertwined the issue or message to their personal identity. Thus, "Advocacy X = Person X". An attack on issue or an advocacy is seen as an attack on that person. This is a pathetic if not psychotic attitude because other people normally criticize an idea, not the person or group of people. There is a distinction between the message and the messenger.

At the facebook group "Kilos Pinoy", owned and administered by a friend, James Mangun, Warlito Vicente posted this poster sometime last week.

I commented on it by way of posting quotes from some free market thinkers.

Another free marketer friend, Carlos Tapang, also commented and we have a brief issue-based exchange.

Then the convenor of CORRECT Movement, Orion Dumdum Perez came in full of personal attacks. This is a type of guy who thinks that his advocacy for Parliamentary form of government is similar to his person. So an attack on the Parliamentary form of government, even being simply unconvinced of it, is considered as an attack on himself.

I am envious of his CORRECT Movement? Why, am I a politician competing with another politician for a particular political office? Am I competing for funding with his CORRECT donors? None of it. It is an illusory statement from an insecure mind.

I am an ingrate? True that Dumdum introduced me to the host of one GNN tv public affairs program host, and true that I was a guest in one of his programs. I must have failed to thank Dumdum 50x or 100x, I think I thanked him only once or twice, too bad. But I don't think I attacked him or his life and soul advocacy of Parliamentarism. I have been an agnostic on the form of government ever since, until now. I do not attack the Parliamentary of Presidential form of government per se, rather, I attack BIG and intrusive government, whether Parliamentary of Presidential. Dumdum posted long, trying to convince me and everyone who bothers to read his long postings fine. But here's the disease: If those long postings do not work and you remain unconvinced, woe upon you. Personal attacks and emotionalism will be launched upon you.

Then called me "evil as his apprentice and protege Froilan Bersamina... lunatic Talibannic extremist... Insane." This man must be suffering from some mental disorder. My critic above is against BIG and intrusive government, both parliamentary and presidential, never against Parliamentary form or Presidential form per se.  I criticize people though, who fashion themselves as "free marketers" but cannot explicitly criticize BIG and ever-expanding government, but I avoid mentioning names as much as possible.

See the repeated personal attacks. Too much angst, too much insecurity publicly advertised.

I remember the RH bill debate. Some "free marketers" supported further expansion of government, allowing the State to impose sex education in the elementary and high school curriculum, impose mandatory and obligatory pro-bono (ie, free) RH services by OB Gyne and other RH practitioners for several hours a year, and so on. I did not support that bill not for any religious reason but for the simple reason that it further expands and already intrusive government.

This is one instance where the proponent of that RH law, parliamentary or presidential government, does not matter. What matters is further expansion of that government and it must not be supported, if one advocates for free market and limited government.

-----------

See also: 

Pol. Ideology 28: Parliamentarism Hard Sell and Free Market Deception, April 30, 2012 

Fiscal Irresponsibility 23: High Debt and Unemployment and Parliamentarism Hard Sell, May 02, 2012 

Probing a Megalomaniac Mind, May 02, 2012

The Curious Case of a Pathological Lying Pro-Parliamentary Dum-Dum: His "Ceteris Paribus", "Probabilistic Causality" Gibberish, October 07, 2013 

Fiscal Irresponsibility 23: High Debt and Unemployment and Parliamentarism Hard Sell

The leader and chief ideologue of CORRECT Movement, Orion Perez, keeps pushing and glorifying the Parliamentary form of government, even to skeptics of any form of government like me. Among the reasons he gave are that parliamentary governments outperform the presidential and other forms of governments, in (a) Economic Freedom Index ranking and in (b) Least Corrupt Countries around the world. Here are their tables.

source: http://correctphilippines.org/parliamentary_info/

Ergo, to move from the current Presidential form to Parliamentary form of government for the Philippines will help make the country more politically stable, more economically free, and more accountable or less corrupt. Cute formulations, but I don't buy it.

See three tables below, just among other reasons why I do not want to endorse any form of government -- which Orion believes is wrong, that one MUST believe and endorse their parliamentarism hard sell, otherwise, one knows nothing, one is "myopic" (repeated several times) because they "have done extremely intensive and extensive research and we've found - based on the hundreds of pages of international PhD-authored dissertations we've gathered - what are the "best of breed" solutions for the 3 main aspects of the Philippines".


According to his warp logic, if one is still not convinced of the beauty and desirability of parliamentarism despite the voluminous arguments and tables that he has presented, one is "defeated". So his inflated ego declared that he has "defeated" me.

Really? And they have done intensive and extensive research leading to glorification of parliamentarism?

Among the most indebted, the most fiscally irresponsible, the most debt-addict and tax-hungry economies and governments around the world are the parliamentary ones.  Why can't these governments learn to live within their means, to stop glorifying forced equality and very costly welfarism, that resulted in such heavy indebtedness?

Ok, being indebted is not wrong per se, especially if one's debt is within "manageable levels", say below 30 percent or even below 50 percent of GDP. Assuming that we accept this argument, just look at those countries with gross debt 50 percent or higher of GDP, from Denmark upwards. Are these desirable figures or a glorifiable situation? I say No.

Some parliamentary fanatics can argue, so what if it's 100 percent or higher, so long as the people are satisfied or are being taken cared of by the government? I hope that no self-respecting free marketers will argue that way because that is clearly an apologetic position in favor of BIG governments.

High public debt correlates, though not perfectly, with rising economic instability, such as high or rising unemployment rates.

To have double-digit unemployment rate is bad. The unemployment rate among the younger people who just enter the labor force is even worse, sometimes twice the national average.

Fiscal irresponsibility, along with personal irresponsibility, is wrong. The economies that lead in the on-going global debt uncertainty, the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) are all under parliamentary governments . The form of government, parliamentary or presidential or what have you, are less important than pushing the philosophy of more individual freedom and more personal responsibility, more voluntary exchange and more civil society involvement in running people's own lives. It is not just pushing for small or minimal government per se that parliamentary fanatics like Orion Perez think, is the main consideration for my agnosticism and non-admiration of parliamentarism hard sell, or even its opposite, presidentialism hard sell.

Here's another table, who are the most tax-hungry countries among the developed world plus a few South East Asian economies. High taxes is an indirect statement of the government officials and bureaucrats, whether presidential or parliamentary or communist or monarchy or what have you, that they can spend the people's money better and "more wisely" than the people themselves. This is from the annual study, WB-IFC's "Doing Business 2012 Report".

source: http://doingbusiness.org/custom-query#hReprtpreview

Parliamentary fanatics like Orion Perez would possibly be hiding this type of data to their followers. They only show tables where the parliamentary governments lead in the "Economic Freedom" and "Least Corrupt" ranking. True, but the same governments also lead in the most fiscally irresponsible, the most debt-addict, the most number of jobless people relative to their total labor force, the most tax-hungry. And soon, the most unstable economically due to these and many other social and economic factors.

Again, by criticizing this negative aspect of those parliamentary governments, this is not to glorify the non-parliamentary type of governments like those under the Presidential form. I have argued repeatedly in the past in this blog that the main role of the government is to promulgate the rule of law and protect private property rights, not expanding welfarism, indebtedness, tax-hungriness and personal irresponsibility.

For fanatics like Mr. Perez, one MUST say halleluiah to parliamentarism otherwise one is a "myopic one trick pony". One SHOULD support parliamentarism otherwise one is like a "grade-schooler". Even an "I don't care" attitude to choosing parliamentary of presidential type is not acceptable to him, one MUST choose parliamentarism.

This is an indicator of an intolerant mind and small-scale dictator and cultist, possibly aspiring to become a large-scale dictator someday in a parliamentary government that they push so heavily.

-------------
See also:
Pol. Ideology 28: Parliamentarism Hard Sell and Free Market Deception, April 30, 2012.
That's where my recent debate with Orion started, although we have debated several times in the past. That paper also gives links to my previous articles on Political Ideology.

Fiscal irresponsibility 16: On government bail outs, September 11, 2011
Fiscal irresponsibility 17: Cut Spending and Borrowing, September 19, 2011
Fiscal Irresponsibility 18: Greece Bailout, October 29, 2011
Fiscal Irresponsibility 19: Rich Countries' Debts, November 24, 2011
Fiscal Irresponsibility 20: Trade and Budget Balances, January 06, 2012
Fiscal Irresponsibility 21: Eurozone Debt, GDP and Unemployment, March 06, 2012
Fiscal Irresponsibility 22: China Borrows, China Lends. April 16, 2012