Don't just cut pork barrel; totally abolish it
Don't just cut pork barrel; totally abolish it
Posted 11:25pm (Mla time) Mar 06, 2005
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 7, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I HEARTILY endorse the suggestion of Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago that all congressmen and senators commit mass suicide "as a service to the people." Yes, why not? After all, that's what they always say when campaigning for elective positions: they only want to serve. What better service can they give than to say goodbye to the people permanently? Santiago should immediately set the example. I propose, however, that three senators be exempted: Panfilo Lacson, Alfredo Lim and Franklin Drilon, who just saved the taxpayers P360 million by rejecting their pork barrel. We need more officials like them.
The exchange of accusations between the congressmen and senators over the recent passage of the 2005 national budget has exposed the trickery and deceit that legislators employ to steal money from the people. Several persons, still blissfully unaware of the knaves that their representatives are, have asked me what the quarrel is all about. In two dirty words, it's about "pork barrel."
For those who are still confused, this is what happened: Malacañang had submitted a proposed budget with the pork barrel reduced from P200 million to P120 million for each senator, and from P70 million to P40 million for each congressman. The House of Representatives passed this budget and sent it to the Senate. The Senate passed it in toto a few days ago. This infuriated the congressmen.
Why are they angry when the Senate passed the budget that they themselves approved? Because they had planned to restore the pork barrel to its original amount during the bicameral committee conference. Then, they'd pin the blame on the senators by claiming that the bill they passed had a reduced pork barrel budget. The alternate plan was to boycott the bicam committee meeting so that no new budget would be passed before the March 16 deadline. Under the law, when no new budget is passed after that date, the previous year's budget is automatically adopted-as what happened last year when the 2003 budget was adopted for the year 2004. That budget contains a higher allocation for pork barrel.
The senators got wise to this trick and hastily passed the budget earlier approved by the House, foiling the clever plot of the congressmen. The latter thought they were being smart but the senators outsmarted them. That's what made the congressmen furious.
In retaliation, they accused the senators of secretly restoring their own pork by realigning the intelligence funds of different agencies.
False, said Senate President Drilon last Saturday. What they did, he explained, was to identify which and where specific slices of the intelligence funds would be going-e.g., the witness protection program-so that auditing would be more accurate. If all were lumped together, any expense could be labeled "for intelligence" and that would be the end of it, he said. That makes graft, corruption and abuse easier to commit. In short, no part of the intelligence funds will go to their pork, Drilon said.
What the Senate should have done was to totally abolish the pork barrel, not just reduce it.
"I have no objection to that," Drilon said, reminding the journalists that he and two other senators (Lacson and Lim) have already rejected their pork and have told the budget department not to release them. Which means the three of them together have saved P360 million for the government. It is not likely that the representatives will do the same thing (they have less moral scruples), but in case any of them does, I suggest that we erect a statue for him or her at the Luneta.
Next year, Malacañang should have the guts to submit a proposed budget that has no allocation for pork. How can it ask the people to pay more in taxes when it allows members of Congress to waste tax money on such a corrupt expense as the pork barrel? Despite denials, everybody now knows that legislators cannot let go of the pork because part of it goes into their private pockets.
In the first place, it is not the job of legislators to usurp the functions of the Department of Public Works and Highways. Their job is to make laws, not to be another DPWH. Legislators legislate laws; the executive units-national and local-implement these laws. The Constitution is very clear on this.
Legislators claim they only identify projects for their districts and that none of the money passes through their hands. The money doesn't pass through their hands but parts of it end there-after (the contractors are paid and sometimes even before) and pass on the kickbacks.
Besides, if the legislators really want to, they can name their projects at the city, municipal, provincial and regional development councils of which they are members.
Let's face it, the legislators cling to the pork because it is a source of kickbacks and a source of votes. They say that their constituents go to them for projects and that if they don't endorse those projects, the credit and votes will go to the mayors and governors. But if they make it clear that their job is to make laws, not to usurp the job of the DPWH, the people will stop bothering them. They won't have to be tempted with kickbacks and they won't have to violate the Constitution by usurping executive functions. If Lacson, Lim and Drilon can do without their pork, why can't they?
* * *
Starting today and every Monday hereafter, the Front Page piano bar will feature celebrity cooks to whip up dishes for lunch for journalists and their guests. The first such cook is Rep. Imee Marcos. She will cook today popular Ilocano dishes, what else.
Posted 11:25pm (Mla time) Mar 06, 2005
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 7, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I HEARTILY endorse the suggestion of Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago that all congressmen and senators commit mass suicide "as a service to the people." Yes, why not? After all, that's what they always say when campaigning for elective positions: they only want to serve. What better service can they give than to say goodbye to the people permanently? Santiago should immediately set the example. I propose, however, that three senators be exempted: Panfilo Lacson, Alfredo Lim and Franklin Drilon, who just saved the taxpayers P360 million by rejecting their pork barrel. We need more officials like them.
The exchange of accusations between the congressmen and senators over the recent passage of the 2005 national budget has exposed the trickery and deceit that legislators employ to steal money from the people. Several persons, still blissfully unaware of the knaves that their representatives are, have asked me what the quarrel is all about. In two dirty words, it's about "pork barrel."
For those who are still confused, this is what happened: Malacañang had submitted a proposed budget with the pork barrel reduced from P200 million to P120 million for each senator, and from P70 million to P40 million for each congressman. The House of Representatives passed this budget and sent it to the Senate. The Senate passed it in toto a few days ago. This infuriated the congressmen.
Why are they angry when the Senate passed the budget that they themselves approved? Because they had planned to restore the pork barrel to its original amount during the bicameral committee conference. Then, they'd pin the blame on the senators by claiming that the bill they passed had a reduced pork barrel budget. The alternate plan was to boycott the bicam committee meeting so that no new budget would be passed before the March 16 deadline. Under the law, when no new budget is passed after that date, the previous year's budget is automatically adopted-as what happened last year when the 2003 budget was adopted for the year 2004. That budget contains a higher allocation for pork barrel.
The senators got wise to this trick and hastily passed the budget earlier approved by the House, foiling the clever plot of the congressmen. The latter thought they were being smart but the senators outsmarted them. That's what made the congressmen furious.
In retaliation, they accused the senators of secretly restoring their own pork by realigning the intelligence funds of different agencies.
False, said Senate President Drilon last Saturday. What they did, he explained, was to identify which and where specific slices of the intelligence funds would be going-e.g., the witness protection program-so that auditing would be more accurate. If all were lumped together, any expense could be labeled "for intelligence" and that would be the end of it, he said. That makes graft, corruption and abuse easier to commit. In short, no part of the intelligence funds will go to their pork, Drilon said.
What the Senate should have done was to totally abolish the pork barrel, not just reduce it.
"I have no objection to that," Drilon said, reminding the journalists that he and two other senators (Lacson and Lim) have already rejected their pork and have told the budget department not to release them. Which means the three of them together have saved P360 million for the government. It is not likely that the representatives will do the same thing (they have less moral scruples), but in case any of them does, I suggest that we erect a statue for him or her at the Luneta.
Next year, Malacañang should have the guts to submit a proposed budget that has no allocation for pork. How can it ask the people to pay more in taxes when it allows members of Congress to waste tax money on such a corrupt expense as the pork barrel? Despite denials, everybody now knows that legislators cannot let go of the pork because part of it goes into their private pockets.
In the first place, it is not the job of legislators to usurp the functions of the Department of Public Works and Highways. Their job is to make laws, not to be another DPWH. Legislators legislate laws; the executive units-national and local-implement these laws. The Constitution is very clear on this.
Legislators claim they only identify projects for their districts and that none of the money passes through their hands. The money doesn't pass through their hands but parts of it end there-after (the contractors are paid and sometimes even before) and pass on the kickbacks.
Besides, if the legislators really want to, they can name their projects at the city, municipal, provincial and regional development councils of which they are members.
Let's face it, the legislators cling to the pork because it is a source of kickbacks and a source of votes. They say that their constituents go to them for projects and that if they don't endorse those projects, the credit and votes will go to the mayors and governors. But if they make it clear that their job is to make laws, not to usurp the job of the DPWH, the people will stop bothering them. They won't have to be tempted with kickbacks and they won't have to violate the Constitution by usurping executive functions. If Lacson, Lim and Drilon can do without their pork, why can't they?
* * *
Starting today and every Monday hereafter, the Front Page piano bar will feature celebrity cooks to whip up dishes for lunch for journalists and their guests. The first such cook is Rep. Imee Marcos. She will cook today popular Ilocano dishes, what else.
posted by Dante at 10:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home