SOUNDING BOARD is an outlet for opinions on good and crazy things going on at home (wherever I may be). All are welcome. You are not expected to bring anything except your common sense & sense of humor.
'If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get one million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside.'
-Robert X. Cringely (from geek wisdom)
Sen. Panfilo Lacson challenged his fellow legislators during deliberations on the proposed national budget Wednesday not to collect the Priority Development Assistance Fund of 200 million pesos for each of the 23 senators this year. The PDAF is the former Countrywide Development Fund, the pork barrel that was allegedly a source of kickbacks and campaign funds. Lacson said nearly half the cost of the projects funded under the PDAF is lost to corruption. At least 10 percent goes to legal deductions, while only 40 percent is actually spent on the projects, he said.
Well, I do not know exactly where the Senator got his figures on the percentages going to corruption, legal deductions and projects. But the mere allocation of Php 200 million each for all 24 senators sure needs to be addressed properly.
If I have no idea whatsoever of what's going on in the planning and budgeting process in government, I would say that in contrast to the Representatives in the Lower House of Congress who have legitimate constituents by disctrict, the senators are not supposed to represent any district or region or province. And this is why I am at a loss when I try to reason out and put myself in their shoes. WTF are the pork barrel funds for, Mr. Senator? And Php 200 million each?
In the advent of a tighter link between planning and budgeting, the whole concept of "pork barrel funds" or what is now technically called PDAF does not fit into the entire planning and budgeting system. In fact, pork barrel funds run contrary to the budgeting system. The distortion brought about by pork barrel funds come in the way of insertions in the budget by representatives from both houses (senate and congress). One can try to understand the lower house representatives' sentiments when they rationalize pork barrel as a source of funds for projects being demanded by their constituents that have not been included in the proposed budget. However, by the mere fact that such projects-on-demand are not included, it implies the proposed pork-funded projects are not considered priority.
Why can't these representatives work with the current budgeting system, give up pork, and eliminate one of the biggest distortion in the budgeting process? Why am I so naive sometimes?
posted by Allan at 8:39 AM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
