Why the Pork Barrel Will Unlikely be Abolished

From today’s headlines:

In face-to-face interviews with 1,200 respondents aged 18 and above who were randomly selected nationwide, Pulse Asia also found that 67 percent believed that corrupt practices during the Arroyo administration involving the PDAF continued under the Aquino administration.

Most Filipinos, thus, approved of President Aquino’s announcement that the time had come for the scrapping of the pork barrel.

For about one in three Filipinos (32 percent), politicians were using the PDAF to get themselves and their relatives elected, while another 27 percent said the pork had given lawmakers an opportunity to receive bribes and commissions.

A fundamental reason why the Pork Barrel will unlikely be abolished (but will likely be transformed into another Pork with a lipstick) can be deduced from the consensus perspective which views the problem of Pork as having been based from personality virtues rather than an institutional-structural disease 

 

And media and their experts reinforce the populist belief that nirvana will be achieved (or the Pork will be of merit) once “angels” would run the government. 

But as 4^th President of the United Sates and “Father of the Constitution” James Madison Jr. warned in the Federalist papers (Federalist 51),

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Government is about political power or the control of people and of resources by a few. Or political power is about the rule of men over men.

This means political power is hardly about righteousness for the simple reason that political power is about organized force. And to acquire and wield political supremacy means political agents will resort to all forms of manoeuvrings (which includes unethical means) for the purpose of acquiring the privilege of control over men.

The principle of economics tells us too that politicians and bureaucrats, like all the rest, are mere mortal human beings who are driven by self-interests (Public choice) and thus will be subject to the frailties and temptations of the common men.

But instead of promoting equality through opportunity and law, political power is about unjust coercive redistribution, as the illustrious economist Thomas Sowell says it best

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it.

The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. When politicians discover some group that is being vocal about not having as much as they want, the “solution” is to give them more. Where do politicians get this “more”? They rob Peter to pay Paul.

After a while, of course, they discover that Peter doesn’t have enough. Bursting with compassion, politicians rush to the rescue. Needless to say, they do not admit that robbing Peter to pay Paul was a dumb idea in the first place. On the contrary, they now rob Tom, Dick, and Harry to help Peter.

In a related separate but related issue we see a variant of the Pork Barrel in action… (from another Inquirer article today)

In spite of widespread public outrage, the presidential body tasked with overseeing the pay and perks of state corporations justified Monday the bonuses that the Social Security System (SSS) had rewarded its managers while ramping up contributions of members, noting that 19 other state corporations have also handed out such management windfalls.

Paolo Salvosa, the spokesman of the Governance Commission for Government Owned or Controlled Corporations (GCG), talked to reporters after the panel members went to Malacañang to defend the much-maligned P1 million that the SSS board, headed by Emilio S. de Quiros as president and vice chair, ordered for each of its directors.

De Quiros announced at the same time that employees’ contributions to the SSS would be increased by 0.6 percent, raising their monthly salary contributions from 10.4 to 11 percent.

He said this would stretch pension funding capability “to perpetuity.” He indicated further increases in premiums were forthcoming.

The SSS chief has been roundly criticized, among others, for taking trips abroad, first class, all expenses paid, every two months since he took over the pension agency.

One may not be “corrupt” in the sense of 'kickbacks' and directly from pocketing of taxpayer funds, but the principle has been the all the same…

The politics of coercive redistribution is about the spending other of people’s money through the predation of Juan to pay Pedro and from the intermediation of political agents, who likewise benefits by getting a cut from such forcible transfer process. 

And Pork Barrel represents an element of the politics of coercive redistribution. It has been always easy to spend the toils and savings of other people in order to get elected or to maintain populist approval or for personal perks.

And in defense of the system, politicians run circles on the public by emitting smoke screens of putting the blame on previous administrations rather than to come clean by being transparent or by proving to the public of their alleged moral excellence by opening their earmarks (past and present) for scrutiny. 

Politicians also resort to legal technicalities to prevent such happening.

Bottom line: for as long politicians will be able to persuade their constituencies of the supposed necessity of spending other people’s money, the Pork barrel won’t likely be abolished.

The constituency should demand to scrutinize the Pandora’s Box as I earlier wrote

Yet the public should clamor for an independent non-partisan audit on earmarks (Pork barrel) of all incumbent officials (which should include previous tenures or positions) beginning with the highest to the lowest ranking.

This means abolishing the Pork may only happen from a radical reformation or transformation of public opinion. Or said differently, only when the public will be thoroughly convinced that the Pork is an incorrigible institutional defect will abolishing the Pork become a reality.

As the great Ludwig von Mises wrote (bold mine)

What determines the course of a nation's economic policies is always the economic ideas held by public opinion. No government, whether democratic or dictatorial, can free itself from the sway of the generally accepted ideology.