E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
It is still pork
Sunday, 09 26, 2004
The claim that the “pork barrel” will be done away with by the adoption of line-item budgeting is much ado about nothing. Nothing has changed, except the window-dressing: The pork will still be there, only that it shall no longer be hidden inside a barrel crafted by Congress, but inside a package to be opened at the bidding of the Executive.
The term - and the practice thereof - is, originally, an Americanism which Filipino politicians have been quick to adapt as an integral part of their perks. It is derived from the notion of a member of the U.S. federal congress giving his constituents a barrel of pork. (Smoked pork products were, at one time in the United States, shipped in barrels.) In its current context, to pork barrel means to secure votes by getting expenditure steered or allocated to one’s own constituency. It is an elaborate scheme imbedded in the national budget and other spending laws designed to enrich constituents of national politicians and provide pickings for their local counterparts. Seemingly innocent and well-intentioned enough, it involves funding for government programs where economic or service benefits are concentrated but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. The country’s military spending, public works projects and agricultural subsidies symbolize an ancient discipline which lies at the heart of Philippine politics: pork barreling.
Public money that has the smell of that coming out of a pork barrel have funded a variety of projects, mostly those involving infrastructure. Most popular have been projects dealing with this road, or that bridge, or that public building over there - and the recurring rehabilitation or upgrading that suspiciously go with them following a short time after their completion. Other projects funded by pork have included livelihood projects, health subsidies and LGU capability building.
Sadly, pork barrel benefits are not distributed based on a national formula taking into consideration actual needs. Pork barrel funding is obtained through adroit political maneuvers and advantageous committee assignments awarded to senior members of Congress who have already mastered the art of insertion (no pun intended). Or, if you are a congressional newcomer, you should have previously demonstrated that you are capable of pulling in votes more than that of the President’s home province.
Pork barrel projects, if at all they are implemented and not go to someone else’s pocket, generate jobs, help the local economy, and simultaneously bring political credit to the legislator who works on getting the project funded. These, and the certainty of a commission to this or that foundation or contractor, are enough powerful incentives for our legislators, making elimination of all pork barrel spending highly unlikely.
Which make us believe that our honorable members of Congress will still slip budgets for their favored projects into the General Appropriations Act (GAA), only that this time around, under the proposed line-item budgeting, they will have to indicate what and where these projects are, and for how much, unlike before when the pork was hidden in a lump-sum appropriation. The claim that line-item budgeting resulting in the elimination of the pork barrel will become a reality only on that happy, blessed day in 2005 when the GAA reflects a figure less the mind-boggling billions earmarked for the legislators. Computed at P200 million each for 24 senators and P60 million each for 220 congressmen, the total fails to appear at the digital display screen of my fake Sharp calculator!
The lump sum appropriation for the pork barrel of members of Congress, subsumed under the Priority Development Assistance Fund, makes it impossible for the Executive to exercise its line-veto power, for then it would unnecessarily make its favorites suffer similarly as those whom it hates. It therefore comes as a big surprise why Congress would want to adapt line-item budgeting, and allow the retention in the GAA and the subsequent release of its pork to be at the complete mercy of the Executive.
The line-veto power (also called item-veto power) is a powerful sword of the Executive, as had been demonstrated in Gonzales vs. Macaraig, Jr., 191 SCRA 452, where the Supreme Court upheld the exercise by the President of this power over the 1990 GAA enacted by Congress. In the guise of prioritization of projects, or the scrapping of unnecessary or redundant ones, the President could very well dictate which projects may move forward and those which may stand frozen for all eternity. With the Executive’s power to delete specific projects in the GAA, an out-of-grace congressman or senator who slipped in his favorite project into the GAA will soon find himself at the not-so-tender mercies of the hand that wields the veto. This, plus the pork of the Executive hidden behind the Intelligence Fund, the Calamity Fund, the Social Fund, et cetera, will only make the GAA one big pork barrel legislation drafted, enacted and approved by the Executive, with the delighted cooperation of operators of the Executive in Congress who will incorporate in the GAA the pork needed to endear her to the masses.
Pork barreling is a convenient explanation for government deficits. Given its magnitude, projected to be P18 billion for 2005, that amount foregone by our legislators, plus the undisclosed pork for the Executive, would go a long way in addressing the deficit.
But then, who is ready to do away with his (and more of hers) pork? Who would even want to run for congressman or senator when pork is no longer perk?
Which brings us to wonder why there is so much sound and fury spent on the pork barrel and the permutations of how it should be doled out. It’s either there is one, or there is none at all, in any form or smell. To be sure, our legislators have not yet seen that ennobling light on the road to Damascus to be able to let go off easily their pork. From the richness of the meat, they will, in the end, still keep their pork. And everybody will still be happy, giving credence to what the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism claims that the Senate and the House will continue to feast on the bounties of the pork barrel.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The term - and the practice thereof - is, originally, an Americanism which Filipino politicians have been quick to adapt as an integral part of their perks. It is derived from the notion of a member of the U.S. federal congress giving his constituents a barrel of pork. (Smoked pork products were, at one time in the United States, shipped in barrels.) In its current context, to pork barrel means to secure votes by getting expenditure steered or allocated to one’s own constituency. It is an elaborate scheme imbedded in the national budget and other spending laws designed to enrich constituents of national politicians and provide pickings for their local counterparts. Seemingly innocent and well-intentioned enough, it involves funding for government programs where economic or service benefits are concentrated but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. The country’s military spending, public works projects and agricultural subsidies symbolize an ancient discipline which lies at the heart of Philippine politics: pork barreling.
Public money that has the smell of that coming out of a pork barrel have funded a variety of projects, mostly those involving infrastructure. Most popular have been projects dealing with this road, or that bridge, or that public building over there - and the recurring rehabilitation or upgrading that suspiciously go with them following a short time after their completion. Other projects funded by pork have included livelihood projects, health subsidies and LGU capability building.
Sadly, pork barrel benefits are not distributed based on a national formula taking into consideration actual needs. Pork barrel funding is obtained through adroit political maneuvers and advantageous committee assignments awarded to senior members of Congress who have already mastered the art of insertion (no pun intended). Or, if you are a congressional newcomer, you should have previously demonstrated that you are capable of pulling in votes more than that of the President’s home province.
Pork barrel projects, if at all they are implemented and not go to someone else’s pocket, generate jobs, help the local economy, and simultaneously bring political credit to the legislator who works on getting the project funded. These, and the certainty of a commission to this or that foundation or contractor, are enough powerful incentives for our legislators, making elimination of all pork barrel spending highly unlikely.
Which make us believe that our honorable members of Congress will still slip budgets for their favored projects into the General Appropriations Act (GAA), only that this time around, under the proposed line-item budgeting, they will have to indicate what and where these projects are, and for how much, unlike before when the pork was hidden in a lump-sum appropriation. The claim that line-item budgeting resulting in the elimination of the pork barrel will become a reality only on that happy, blessed day in 2005 when the GAA reflects a figure less the mind-boggling billions earmarked for the legislators. Computed at P200 million each for 24 senators and P60 million each for 220 congressmen, the total fails to appear at the digital display screen of my fake Sharp calculator!
The lump sum appropriation for the pork barrel of members of Congress, subsumed under the Priority Development Assistance Fund, makes it impossible for the Executive to exercise its line-veto power, for then it would unnecessarily make its favorites suffer similarly as those whom it hates. It therefore comes as a big surprise why Congress would want to adapt line-item budgeting, and allow the retention in the GAA and the subsequent release of its pork to be at the complete mercy of the Executive.
The line-veto power (also called item-veto power) is a powerful sword of the Executive, as had been demonstrated in Gonzales vs. Macaraig, Jr., 191 SCRA 452, where the Supreme Court upheld the exercise by the President of this power over the 1990 GAA enacted by Congress. In the guise of prioritization of projects, or the scrapping of unnecessary or redundant ones, the President could very well dictate which projects may move forward and those which may stand frozen for all eternity. With the Executive’s power to delete specific projects in the GAA, an out-of-grace congressman or senator who slipped in his favorite project into the GAA will soon find himself at the not-so-tender mercies of the hand that wields the veto. This, plus the pork of the Executive hidden behind the Intelligence Fund, the Calamity Fund, the Social Fund, et cetera, will only make the GAA one big pork barrel legislation drafted, enacted and approved by the Executive, with the delighted cooperation of operators of the Executive in Congress who will incorporate in the GAA the pork needed to endear her to the masses.
Pork barreling is a convenient explanation for government deficits. Given its magnitude, projected to be P18 billion for 2005, that amount foregone by our legislators, plus the undisclosed pork for the Executive, would go a long way in addressing the deficit.
But then, who is ready to do away with his (and more of hers) pork? Who would even want to run for congressman or senator when pork is no longer perk?
Which brings us to wonder why there is so much sound and fury spent on the pork barrel and the permutations of how it should be doled out. It’s either there is one, or there is none at all, in any form or smell. To be sure, our legislators have not yet seen that ennobling light on the road to Damascus to be able to let go off easily their pork. From the richness of the meat, they will, in the end, still keep their pork. And everybody will still be happy, giving credence to what the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism claims that the Senate and the House will continue to feast on the bounties of the pork barrel.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment