Explanation of 'NO' Vote to the Approval of 2009 General Appropriations Act
By Rep. Teodoro A. Casiño
November 11, 2008
Mr. Speaker, when we started the plenary debates on the budget, I remember that we spent at least five hours debating on the macroeconomic provision. And the reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that, the budget was formulated without considering the global crisis that exploded around September of this year. And because of that, we wanted –we needed to debate the macroeconomic provisions because we needed to rework the budget to make the budget more responsive to the global crisis; to reduce the budget or if that was not possible, then, to rechannel the budget to the items that needed it, that needed increases in this budget given the impending crisis in the Philippines economy brought about by external developments.
After more tan five hours, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the committee did not take into consideration these very urgent points. And we still have the budget as it is, basically, originally proposed, more than P1.4 trillion in budget.
Mr. Speaker, specially, we wanted a reduction in debt service, specifically on unjust or illegitimate debt because a fourth of the budget or more than half of all expenditures, if we include the principal, went to this budget alone.
We wanted a reduction in the discretionary funds, otherwise know as the pork barrel, both the presidential and the legislative kind; and it was already mentioned like the Kilos Asenso program, Kalayaan sa Barangay, the two-billion Reforestation program. These are discretionary funds which are basically political in nature-political finds.
We wanted a reduction in intelligence and confidential funds, including the 650-million peso intelligence funds under the Office of the President, reduction in defense spending. On the other hand, we wanted increases, significant, substantial increases in the budgets of education, health, housing, social services. Increases in the budgets economic services and a reprioritization of infrastructure projects, not only as pump priming, but more importantly infrastructure to spur national industrialization, food security, and modernization in the agricultural sector.
We wanted an increase in the budget of Public Attorney’s Office, for example, in order to implement the law that we passed last Congress.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, political considerations have once again hijacked the budget. Sinabi na namin noon na iyong P1.4 trillion budget is unrealistic, hindi ito nag-re-reflect ng tunay na kakayanan ng economy. This will result in a bigger debt burden years from now. And the budget- this kind of a budget, in this kind of a crisis situation, will be used basically to fund the political interest of the Arroyo administration for the 2010 elections.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I vote no to this budget. Thank You.
No comments:
Post a Comment