Debating earmarking

Just a week ago, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell struck a deal with Democrats to approve a funding bill that ended a 16-day government shutdown and averted a potential debt default. Supposedly there were no political winners.

However, the Senate-approved funding bill included $2.918 billion for a dam project in McConnell’s home state of Kentucky. The original budget for the project was $775 million but the project would have to be halted without additional funding.

According to the US Senate spokesman, the funding should not be considered as a “earmark” because the request actually came from the office of President Obama. Democratic leader Senator Reid said: “This is not an earmark. It saves the taxpayers lots of money.”He added that the provision allows work on the project to continue which, in turn saves taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

The intent of the Senate seems to be that in order to save money there is a need to spend more money. The project is also expected to generate 600 new jobs.  McConneli is running for re-election in 2014. Reports say that it will be a close election.

This whole affair is causing a  debate in the United States on the issue of earmarks which supposedly has been abolished. It is also important to note that pork barrel funding was also legally abolished in the United States and replaced by “earmarks.”

Now we are going through the same debate in the Philippines. We are seeking to abolish pork barrel. I agree with this proposal. But there are proposals to either substitute this with earmarks or also abolish earmarks. Perhaps this ongoing debate in the United States might provide some objective perspective on this issue.

It is important that people understand what earmarks mean and that it is not necessarily evil.

All taxpayers pay their money into one big national government taxation pot. The funds in that pot have to be divided up on how it will be spent. Some of the money will be spent on things that impact all citizens. This includes money spent on the armed forces or to pay off government debt or research on climate change.

A large part of that money in that pot will be spent on things that will benefit only a small group of people. For example, if the money is spent for an overpass on EDSA, it will benefit only those who regularly travel through that part of EDSA. But it certainly will not benefit the people of the Visayas, Mindanao and Luzon. In fact, most of the Filipino people will not benefit.

If a school building in put in a small town in Mindoro, it will benefit only the barangay inhabitants while the informal settlers in Tondo will not benefit.

But there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with this system. In fact, it is hard to think of a different way of crafting a national budget. Members of Congress are elected from local districts. They are expected to worry about being responsive to their local needs. It is only natural that their constituents will not vote for them if they cannot prove that they have taken care of their local concerns.

But again there will always be conflicting local concerns. Radio commentators treat traffic jams in EDSA as a major concern on a daily basis. But to the remaining 90 million Filipinos, EDSA traffic jams have absolutely of no concern or importance. Our major media networks are actually Metro Manila centric media who treat EDSA traffic jams in the same level as the Muslim crisis.

The Senate and the President are supposed to have broader interests. The president especially is expected to have a view of the entire nation and is supposed to promote national interests without ignoring local concerns.

But the system of national government budgeting cannot be improved by denying the reality of local interests and just claim that everything must be done in the national interest. This argument is easy for those who need very little support from government services.

These are the people who live in gated subdivisions and have their own security guard. They never or barely use public transportation, send their children to private schools here or abroad and have access to private medical care.

But to the vast majority of the Filipino, government services touch their daily lives. They depend on the police for security, on public schools for their children’s education, on buses or tricycles for transportation and on community health centers for the little health care they receive. PhilHealth and Conditional Cash Transfer may be their only means of improving quality of life.

The important question in this debate is how will the national government, local representatives and local governments get together to decide where the classrooms should be built and whether improving traffic on EDSA is more important than building a road in Compostela Valley or Catanduanes or Abra.

And there is the question of emergency spending. Former human rights advocate and Senator Rene Saguisag has said he is in favour of allowing P-Noy to use government savings or DAP funds for relief and rehabilitation projects in Bohol. According to him, if we have to wait for these funds to be allocated by the House and the Senate, it might be too late. In his own words “baka patay na ang kabayo.”

This earmark debate has supporters who argue for the importance of local initiatives and those totally opposed to any form of earmarking. I believe, just like in the United States, earmarking will continue to exist in some form.

It is important that the system be reformed to ensure greater transparency;  honest competitive bidding, and open debate on all proposals.

But the most important task is to ensure that we elect government officials who have the courage and integrity in performing their tasks. This requires moral leadership at the highest leve

Email: elfrencruz@gmail.com