Let me first state that I have always been against “pork barrel” spending by the government. This refers to government funds allocated to senators and congressmen to be used based on their personal decisions to fund projects or programs of their choice. The lawmakers, under the pork barrel system, can also choose the implementer of the projects. This is an unsavory practice.
While there is a general consensus on the abolition of pork barrel, there have been recent debates on another similar issue. I refer to “earmarks.” Unfortunately, many people, even government officials, do not understand the distinction between pork barrel and earmarks.
The technical definition of earmarks is as follows: “Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenues bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities.”
My understanding then is that earmarks refer to projects or programs specified by lawmakers, but the choice of the implementer is the sole discretion of the executive branch of government. Abolishing earmarks is much more difficult than the abolition of pork barrel. Perhaps, that is why in many democracies around the world, earmarking still exists in some form.
I refer to countries like the United States and Germany where the term used is kirchturmpolitik. This means “church tower politics,” which refers to concentrating government funding for projects in the home county of national politicians. This derogatory term is derived from the use of funds limited to an area where the church steeple of the politician’s town can still be seen.
In the United States, earmarks were legally allowed until it was supposedly abolished in 2011. Last year I wrote a story which is worth repeating here. The Republican-controlled Congress refused to approve a funding bill which resulted in a 16-day partial government shutdown in the United States. Finally, President Obama and the Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky struck a deal and a bipartisan budget bill was passed, ending the shutdown.
However, the Senate-approved funding bill included $2.918 billion for a dam project in Kentucky, which is the home state of McConnell. The original budget was $775 million when the project started. Without additional funding, the project would have to be halted because of cost overruns.
The interesting thing is that according to a US Senate spokesman, the funding should not be considered as “earmarking” because the request came from the office of President Obama. Also, the Democratic Senate leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, suddenly started defending a project in Kentucky more than 2,000 miles away from his home state. Reid said that it was not an “earmark” because “it saves taxpayers a lot of money and the new budget provision would allow work on the project to continue which in turn would save taxpayers millions of dollars.” The argument seems to be that in order to save money there was a need to spend more money.
But the dam project would save 600 jobs and McConnell is fighting for re-election this year. His main campaign slogan is that as ranking Senate leader, he can do “more “ for Kentucky. In fact, in American politics it is a common election practice for senatorial and congressional candidates to promise to bring more projects and government funding to their home states or districts.
We seem to be going through a similar debate in the Philippines. While we all agree that the pork barrel should be abolished, we are not quite sure what to do about earmarks. There is a need to fully understand the national budgeting process.
There is one big Money Pot where all taxes collected, customs collections, other national government revenues and borrowings are placed. The funds in what is called the National Treasury will be have to be allocated or budgeted before they can be spent. The President, through the Cabinet, proposes how to spend the money in a national budget.
However, the House of Representatives must first approve the national budget and then the Senate must agree. During this process, the House and the Senate have the right to disapprove or amend the national budget.
The national budget has basically three types of spending. Some of the money will be spent on items that will benefit the people as a whole. Examples are expenses for defense or to pay off government debt. Then there are monies needed to maintain government agencies. This means paying salaries and operating expenses.
Then there are the monies that will benefit only a specific group of people. For example, if money is spent to build an overpass in EDSA, it will benefit those who regularly travel through EDSA. We might even argue that it will benefit the whole of Metro Manila by easing traffic congestion in other parts of the metropolis. But this overpass will certainly not benefit the people living in Surigao or Sulu or Siquijor. In fact, most people in the Philippines will not benefit. A classroom built in Mindoro will not benefit the informal settlers in Tondo. Congressmen will always place the interest of their constituency ahead in the budgeting of specific projects.
If we have sufficient funds to satisfy all the local concerns everywhere in the country then there would be no need to balance conflicting demands. But even in the United States, there is a demand to increase appropriations for deteriorating highways and bridges which have not been met because of lack of funds.
If Congress does not make the specific allocation, the task will fall to the executive branch. But there is no guarantee that this will be a better solution. Right now, the budget allocation is a joint decision of the executive and legislative branches.
In a democracy, all institutions and processes are subject to abuse. The best protection is always the maintenance of checks and balances, transparency and the election of officials with integrity.
* * *
Email: elfrencruz@gmail.com