Whining about pork

By René B. Azurin

Congressmen jostling for their share of pork barrel funds probably should not be described as “pigs at a trough” because the comparison could be unflattering to boars who observe, comport themselves with quite a bit of dignity. Dignity is not the word that comes to mind at the spectacle of lawmakers whining about delays in the release of what is euphemistically called their Priority Development Assistance Fund. Probably a more apt image would be that of the spoiled brat bawling, “Mommy, I want my candy!”

The recent whining has been directed at what have been reported to be “tightening controls” over the discretionary budget allocations. Notably, congressmen who had no cause to complain about the release of their pork barrel funds during the previous administration are now whiners. Probably, these poor discriminated-against congressmen are kicking themselves for not being able to pull off the politico’s traditional trick of switching sides at the precise moment that the political winds have shifted. They must have inexplicably forgotten the lesson that every politician who enters Congress immediately learns: that pork has always been the president’s carrot (and stick) for controlling legislators unburdened by principles or scruples. Go with what the president wants and you get candy; oppose the president and you get grief.

Significantly, every president always includes pork for congressmen in the annual budget he submits to Congress, and congressmen (both senators and representatives) always quickly approve this (huge) budgetary allocation. P200 million per senator and P70 million per representative of course translate into a lot of candy and, understandably, the PDAF item never encounters opposition from those responsible for approving the nation’s annual budget. In fact, it is why (most) congressmen run for office in the first place. Indeed, without seeing the appropriate amount allocated to this PDAF, congressmen would undoubtedly find themselves physically unable to affix their signatures to any national budget.

In effect, congressmen are knowingly complicit in their subservience to the president and in the subjugation of the supposedly independent legislative branch of government to the executive branch. When they complain about the “undue hold” the president has over them, they are spitting into the wind.

The complaints being aired now are revealing. Congressmen complain, “The DBM [the Budget Department of the executive branch] wants us to give more details, not only what projects are to be funded and who the beneficiaries are, but also a specific program with objectives.” Whoa. Whoa! Isn’t such specificity standard procedure in spending the public’s money? Good lord. Shouldn’t the public now be raising a ruckus with this revelation that it is not? This is an explicit admission that our budget department has heretofore been disbursing funds to legislators for unspecific projects and unspecified beneficiaries.

One would have thought that the introduction now of the new “limiting” procedures would be welcomed by those -- since they function as the people’s eyes and ears -- who should be pushing for more transparency and accountability in government. Well, apparently not, Eufrocina.

Congressmen are also complaining about another newly introduced provision of the 2012 General Appropriations Act which says that “a realignment [of PDAF allocations] may only be allowed once.” What? Congressmen want the power to “realign” their PDAF allocations as many times as they like? Hmmm. That sounds suspiciously like a convenient tool for negotiating the percentage of kickback for a project-sponsoring congressman.

Hey, if anyone ever imagined that PDAF allocations were indeed intended for “development”, they have to have been finally disabused of that silly notion by the sound of congressmen whimpering that they should not have to specify the projects to which these funds should be directed (or even their objectives) and that they should be allowed to “realign” their allocations however and whenever they like. Welcome, Eufrocina, to Wonderland.

Typically, congressmen try to justify their voracious appetite for pork by pointing to important projects that they support with these funds. They pretend never to hear the correction that legislators are constitutionally mandated to legislate, not to implement projects, and if building houses or schools or markets is their preferred activity, then they should run for mayor, governor, or even president, but not for congressman.

Putting in new restrictions on the use and disbursement of pork barrel funds is certainly welcome but, if the Aquino government truly wants to build a straight path (daang matuwid) toward genuine reform, it should find the political will to abolish the pork barrel system altogether. What the pork barrel system does is undermine the very structure of our government, that is, the basic structure of having the powers of government parceled out to three separate, independent branches -- the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary -- with each checking and balancing the powers of the others.

What pork does is compromise the theoretical independence of the legislative branch (Congress), supposedly responsible for reviewing and appropriating funds for the programs of the executive branch, and exercising oversight functions as the people’s eyes and ears to make sure that the people’s taxes are properly used. This oversight role is prescribed so that there is a constitutional watchdog to guard against possible abuses by the executive branch of the tremendous powers of government granted to it by our Constitution. Obviously, unless Congress is truly independent, this function will not be performed.

As demonstrated by their recent whining, congressmen waiting for the executive branch to release their PDAF are putty in the hands of the President and his minions. To members of Congress, opposing the president’s wishes has a pecuniary consequence: no (or delayed) pork. So, for as long as this insidious system of discretionary fund allocations is in place, there will always be millions of reasons why congressmen will allow themselves to be manipulated by the President. This makes a mockery of the “check-and-balance” supposedly designed into our structure of government.

The pork barrel system is a surrogate for many of the problems that now affect our badly-governed country. Abolishing it will eliminate many of the opportunities for high-level graft and corruption. Further, if it no longer existed, wealth-motivated individuals will have less incentive to invest millions to purchase public office, and this might mean that truly service-oriented individuals will have better chances of getting elected to Congress. Also, without the pork stick, the executive branch will lose an effective way of whipping members of the legislative branch into line, and this would mean that our system of government will have a better chance of working as designed.

The daang matuwid demands that the whole pork barrel system be abolished. It should be clear (to everyone) that corruption cannot be checked if even the supposed overseers and guardians of public funds benefit from these to the tune of P200 million and P70 million a year, respectively. The word to properly describe this is obscene.