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.

Election Promises are Mostly About Spending Other People’s Money

To all the voters out there. Be reminded that there is nothing called as a “free lunch”. Every scarce resources expended or consumed will have to be worked and paid for. What always seems free, someone will have to shoulder the cost.

Elections have mostly been predicated on promises, particularly noble sounding promises backed by the spending of other people’s money.

It’s important for the public to know and understand of the behavioral difference of how money is spent.

The distinguished free market economist Milton Friedman explains in the following video

Yet the easiest thing to do is to spend other’s peoples money. That's the expertise of political agents. But there will always be a price paid for this.

The following quote from the legendary investor Jim Rogers on the Fed’s policies embodies such dynamic:

If You Give Me A Trillion Dollars I'll Show You A Good Time

Quote of the Day: On Banking Union

But a banking union just makes the problem worse. Not today, maybe. But certainly tomorrow. What makes government action attractive is the opportunity for the body politic to pool its money to achieve things that individuals cannot achieve on their own. This idea ignores the possibility of voluntary collective action. But more importantly, the romance of this idea ignores the reality that inevitably, politicians are spending other people’s money. One of the simplest and deepest ideas of Milton Friedman is that people don’t spend other people’s money very carefully, especially when they are spending it on other people.

That’s from Professor Russ Roberts at the Café Hayek on proposals for a banking union to solve the EU debt crisis.

Whether it is banking union or fiscal union they are all the same, they ALL depend on the free lunch (Santa Claus) principle or of spending other people’s money.

And this is what makes the touted political solutions unfeasible and unsustainable. The easiest thing to do in this world is to spend other people's money.

Quote of the Day: Spending Utopia

From Thomas Sowell

Amid all the concerns about the skyrocketing government debt, a front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal said: "Families Slice Debt to Lowest In 6 Years." It is remarkable how differently people behave when they are spending their own money compared to the way politicians behave when spending the government's money.

I would add that it’s also remarkable how the consensus expect people who work for governments as morphing into supernatural entities by operating above and beyond economic laws.

When we apply utopianism to reality we either get lost, confused and frustrated or become mental slaves (zombies) to the fantasies of a transcendental state.

Central Planning Failure: China’s “Train Wreck” Edition

Think government knows what is best for us?

This from Charles Lane of the Washington Post (hat tip Cato’s Dan Mitchell) [bold emphasis mine]

For the past eight years, Liu Zhijun was one of the most influential people in China. As minister of railways, Liu ran China’s $300 billion high-speed rail project. U.S., European and Japanese contractors jostled for a piece of the business while foreign journalists gushed over China’s latest high-tech marvel.

Today, Liu Zhijun is ruined, and his high-speed rail project is in trouble. On Feb. 25, he was fired for “severe violations of discipline” — code for embezzling tens of millions of dollars. Seems his ministry has run up $271 billion in debt — roughly five times the level that bankrupted General Motors. But ticket sales can’t cover debt service that will total $27.7 billion in 2011 alone. Safety concerns also are cropping up.

Faced with a financial and public relations disaster, China put the brakes on Liu’s program. On April 13, the government cut bullet-train speeds 30 mph to improve safety, energy efficiency and affordability. The Railway Ministry’s tangled finances are being audited. Construction plans, too, are being reviewed.

Liu’s legacy, in short, is a system that could drain China’s economic resources for years. So much for the grand project that Thomas Friedman of the New York Times likened to a “moon shot” and that President Obama held up as a model for the United States.

Rather than demonstrating the advantages of centrally planned long-term investment, as its foreign admirers sometimes suggested, China’s bullet-train experience shows what can go wrong when an unelected elite, influenced by corrupt opportunists, gives orders that all must follow — without the robust public discussion we would have in the states.

This exemplifies what has been wrong in China. Similar to our previous accounts of ghost cities and Potemkin malls, what has largely been touted as the “Chinese growth miracle” seems more like a boom bust cycle from reckless centrally planned ‘delusions of grandeur’ financed by Chinese taxpayers.

And cracks appear to be widening as time goes by. Once malinvestments reach a “tipping point” or a critical mass then these cracks will break into a torrent.

Next, this further shows how wastage and inefficiency of government spending translates into huge negative externality costs. Centralization "orders that all must follow" translates to systemic fragility where losses are borne by everybody "could drain China's economic resources for years", while losses from decentralization are distributed hence anti (less) fragile (Nassim Taleb-Fooled By Randomness).

In addition, the above likewise exhibits how taxpayer resources are wasted on facilities or infrastructure projects that are hardly demanded for by consumers. Because non-profit oriented central planning decision making neglects the risk-reward tradeoffs and are instead guided by political goals, taxpayers end up absorbing the consequences of wrong decisions (sales can't cover debt service and safety issues).

Moreover, this is another example where government finds it too easy to spend someone else’s money. To quote the illustrious economist Milton Friedman “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.” Apparently this is a universal trait for politicians and bureaucrats.

And importantly, discretionary power over spending other people’s money becomes too much a temptation to resist claims over other people’s money as one’s own. Thus, concentration of power, enabled by arbitrary laws, serves as breeding and nestling grounds for corruption, in the above case "embezzlement".

Finally central planners believe that they know better of what society needs than of the individual through the markets. As the above also shows, they don’t.

This further validates the knowledge problem proposed by the great F. A. Hayek as evidenced by majestic mistakes which continually plagues the “unelected elite”:

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design

President Obama’s Use of Regime Uncertainty and the Political ‘Government Shutdown’ Blackmail

All of a sudden, President Obama embraces the Austrian perspective of Regime Uncertainty (Robert Higgs).

From the Washington Post, (hat tip Russ Roberts)

At a town hall meeting near Philadelphia on Wednesday, President Obama warned that the uncertainty of a shutdown could slow the economic recovery.

“Companies don’t like uncertainty, and if they start seeing that suddenly we may have a shutdown of our government, that could halt momentum right when we need to build it up — all because of politics,” Obama said.

Of course, the use of uncertainty here is all about political convenience. This have been predicated on the ongoing battle over proposed budget cuts from the Republicans.

The administration appears to use “government shutdown” as leverage to negotiate to prevent or mitigate these.

Graphics from Cato’s David Boaz

Yet what is being argued looks inconsequential relative to the budget (government spending) gains over the years.

And based on the Cato’s graphics, the Republican proposal would seem not as a NET reduction, but rather a reduction of expansion.

As Jacob Sullum of the Reason foundation writes,

The cuts represent less than 2 percent of the total budget, less than 4 percent of the deficit, and less than 5 percent of discretionary spending, which rose in real terms by 75 percent from 2000 to 2010 and by about 9 percent in each of the last two fiscal years.

Yet the administration is trying to spook (blackmail) the public with the prospects of mayhem from a prospective government shutdown.

US government shutdowns have not been rare.

Below is a table from Bespoke Invest showing previous shutdowns.

Bespoke writes, (bold highlights mine, table above from Bespoke)

“funding gaps in the federal government are hardly rare. While we all remember the two shutdowns in 1995, there have actually been a total of 17 shutdowns going back to 1975. However, due to their length as well as changes in federal law over the years, not all funding gaps are created equal. For starters, of the seventeen funding gaps highlighted, only eight lasted longer than three days. In other words, in most cases the shutdown was a one day affair or else it occurred over a weekend.

“As shown in the table, however, funding gaps prior to 1980 all lasted one week or more, and then from 1980 to 1995 all funding gaps lasted three days or less. The reason for this change is the fact that beginning in 1980 the US Attorney’s Office ruled that any time there was a funding gap, non essential federal agencies were required to begin terminating activities and ‘shutdown.’ Once that opinion was issued, funding gaps took on added urgency forcing lawmakers to come to an agreement. This is why the shutdown in 1995 was so notable.

Bottom line:

This serves as a lucid example that when it comes to cutting government (privileges) in terms of spending and control, you can hear the shrill of cry OUCH from politicians! Even if the proposed spending cuts seem inconsequential or even perhaps symbolical.

And in desperation or as a political maneuver, politicians employ various ‘strawmen-bogeyman’ tactics to scare the wits out of the public so that the public would be stampeded to approve their desires.

As former US President John Adams once wrote [The Foundation of Government],

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

Milton Friedman’s 4 ways money is spent

Stripping away control and spending other people’s money is so addictive that politicians can’t seem to do away with it and would fight heaven and hell to avoid it.

Update: Bespoke appears to have been proven right, a deal has been reached according to marketwatch.com. Details have yet to come in.

One Source of Wealth Inequality: Government Owned Or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs)

Those promoting class schism by presenting misleading arguments on wealth-tax inequalities deal with superficial analysis, instead they should rant about is this:

GOVERNMENT WASTAGE AND INEFFICIENCY THAT LEADS TO HIGHER TAXES.

Today’s news headlines provides a magnificent example.

This example from the Inquirer,

Another government-owned and -controlled corporation (GOCC) has been found to have granted its officers and employees millions of pesos in unauthorized allowances, bonuses and other benefits.

Despite owing the government over P7 billion in concession fees and other liabilities, Philippine National Construction Corp. (PNCC) last year gave its board of directors, officers and employees over P57 million in allowances that lacked legal basis, according to the Commission on Audit (COA).

PNCC whose president is Theresa Defensor also gave some P261.33 million in unauthorized cash advances to its employees, the audit agency said in its latest report on the GOCC.

The COA said the corporation should have first settled its obligations with the national government before improperly providing “huge” allowances to its personnel.

On Sept. 8, President Benigno Aquino III ordered the suspension until Dec. 31 of all allowances, bonuses and incentives of board members of GOCCs and government financial institutions (GFIs).

Here, media’s framing of government’s wastage seem to be angled only from the morality aspects.

Yet one noteworthy statement from the same article…

The COA said these disbursements had no authority from the DBM or the Office of the President.

My comments:

1. Legality seems to be determined according to the unilateral political discretion of the incumbent leadership, where arbitrary rules equate to subjective actions by the regulators or administrators.

As Ludwig von Mises pointed on the inherent weaknesses of bureaucratic organizations… (bold emphasis mine)

There are, of course, in every country’s public administration manifest shortcomings which strike the eye of every observer. People are sometimes shocked by the degree of maladministration. But if one tries to go to their roots, one often learns that they are not simply the result of culpable negligence or lack of competence. They sometimes turn out to be the result of special political and institutional conditions or of an attempt to come to an arrangement with a problem for which a more satisfactory solution could not be found. A detailed scrutiny of all the difficulties involved may convince an honest investigator that, given the general state of political forces, he himself would not have known how to deal with the matter in a less objectionable way.

This also means that since the administration of these organizations are mainly politically determined, management actions may be directed at the rewarding or dispensing of favors to political allies or adherents, or trying to attain high approval ratings by projecting control, or other non-market based actions.

2. Spending someone else’s money has always been the easiest thing to do. And that’s what bureaucracies essentially stand for.

This from GMA TV,

Government-owned and –controlled corporations (GOCCs) got P15.95 billion in subsidies in the 10 months to October, up by 54 percent from P10.36 billion a year earlier, the Bureau of Treasury (BTr) reported Wednesday

3. Bureaucracy isn’t concerned with profitability, but with fulfilling regulatory, or as stated above, specific political goals for the benefit of the political leadership.

This from ABS CBN

Goverment owned and controlled corporations (GOCCS) are bracing for a major shakeup as the state plans to abolish some of these agencies.

Budget Secretary Florencio Abad said on Monday that some of the 14 GOCCs being monitored by the goverment, may have to be folded up.

The abolishment of losing and redundant GOCCs is part of the government's overall strategy to trim the bureacracy and stop the bleeding of its coffers through huge subsidies to these agencies.

There seem to be little concerns, except for paying lip service, on the trimming the leviathan. Also there seems hardly any discussions on the justifications for the continued existence of these political enterprises, aside from looking at financial conditions.

In addition, there also seems hardly any reckoning on the adverse impact on the economy by, not only misallocation of resources, but as privileged competitor at the expense of the private sector (yes, some GOCCs are profitable. That’s because they are monopolies of strategic sectors, e.g. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Government Service Insurance System, Social Security System, Philippine Deposit Insurance and many more).

Yet these enterprises represent anti market or totalitarian tendencies by the state.

Again from the great Professor von Mises (bold emphasis mine)

Those who criticize bureaucracy make the mistake of directing their attacks against a symptom only and not against the seat of the evil. It makes no difference whether the innumerable decrees regimenting every aspect of the citizen’s economic activities are issued directly by a law, duly passed by Congress, or by a commission or government agency to which power has been given by a law and by the allocation of money. What people are really complaining about is the fact that the government has embarked upon such totalitarian policies, not the technical procedures applied in their establishment.

Bottom line: Finger pointing on the rich is one wrong way to address equality issues. Instead we should deal with the system that promotes on such inequality. The system where politics has been empowered at the expense of the markets, and a system that encourages waste, inefficiency, corruption and wealth redistribution from the economic-productive class to the power hungry political class.

Presidential Inaugural, Traditionalism And Spending Other People's Money

People are enthralled with ritualism.

This would be evident today in the inaugural of President-elect Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III and Vice President-elect Jejomar Binay.

And the pomp and pageantry attendant to this celebration comes with a cost; we learned that more than 10 million pesos (US $215,000) had been earmarked for this grand event.

My wife tells me to let this be (which I guess reflects the mainstream view), since this has been a tradition.

To heck with tradition! Money consumed from public spending extravagance is always lost productivity.

And the same reason holds why Philippine poverty rates has also been a tradition, the Australian government website notes that, ``In 2006, almost 27.6 million people lived below the Philippines' poverty threshold. This represents 26.9 per cent of Philippine families and 32.9 per cent of the population. According to international data, 44 per cent of the population subsisted on US$2 or less a day.”

Since money is a scarce resource, public spending, which is always political, represents the priorities of political leaders. Therefore, traditionalism means “the heck with poverty, long live grandiosity!” Poverty, thus, is reduced to political convenience. They matter only during elections and when justifying policies to the public to expand government's role in society.

As the illustrious Milton Friedman precisely said, ``If I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!"

4 ways to spend money, table from Freedom Channel Blog

Thus, free lunch it is, at our expense.

How true, yet how unfortunate.

Unfortunate because, as Ludwig von Mises wrote in Omnipotent Government, "people lack the mental ability to absorb the principles of sound economics. Most men are too dull to follow complicated chains of reasoning".

In other words, the public's lack of understanding makes us all so easily manipulated by political leaders.

Can Governments Be Trusted To Implement Self-Discipline?

If past performance is to be reckoned with, based on the Euro Zone, the answer is NO.

This from Bloomberg, (bold emphasis mine)

``Euro-area governments breached their own fiscal rules more than half of the time since they began trading the single currency, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News.

``With Greece’s debt crisis now exposing the weakness of fiscal oversight in the 16-nation economy, governments missed one or both of the European Union’s two budget requirements 57 percent of the time since they adopted the euro. Those rules limit debt to 60 percent of gross domestic product and budget deficits to 3 percent of GDP, as set out in the 1997 Stability and Growth Pact.

``The pledge by countries to meet their fiscal rules turned out to be “rhetoric rather than reality” and contributed to the debt crisis, David Blanchflower, a Bloomberg News contributor and former Bank of England policy maker, said in an interview from Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, where he teaches economics.

``Of the economies that have been in the euro since it started trading in 1999, Belgium and Italy missed one or both of the targets in all 11 years. Greece failed in all nine years in which it used the euro. Finland and Luxembourg satisfied both goals every year."

Read the rest here (hat tip: Professor Antony Mueller)

Here is a Bloomberg interactive graph:

click on the image to direct you to the interactive graph at Bloomberg or click here

As the illustrious Milton Friedman explains about the 4 ways money is spent -where the fourth way is about people spending other people's money on other people,

``In this case, the buyer has no rational interest in either value or quality. Government always and necessarily spends money in this fourth way. This guarantees inefficient public spending because the spenders have no vested interest in efficiently allocating those funds." (bold highlights mine)

So in absence of discipline the next recourse is to print money! So who says we're in a crisis?