There are definitely plenty of things to talk about. But here are a few things that piqued my interest:
Hopefully the Comelec revisits this rule. Rules are not meant to be followed. Rules are meant to be justified or otherwise abolished. And this rule they have during these debates needs to be canned.
- Binay's attack on the government's underspending and his explanation of his plan to exempt the poor from income tax lacks depth. His attack on underspending lacked its cause. The main reason for the large surplus we have in our budget is the agencies' inability to map out and implement plans and projects. This may be attributed to a more stringent process in releasing budget as well as gross incompetence on the part of our bureaucrats. Instead of slinging mud to the wall and hoping it sticks, Binay could have provided a clear argument for the failure the ruling party.
As for his plan to exempt the poor from taxes, his explanation just opened up more questions. He mentioned our inability to implement our import/export taxation. He cited this as an example on how we can balance out the lost revenue his tax policy would incur. But it just opens up the question on how he plans to improve tariff collection.What does he think of the port booking system that truckers, brokers and freight forwarders are rallying about? Aside from improving freight flow, it would definitely help in accounting for every truck and cargo that leaves the port. But is it worth the supposedly exorbitant fees? How about smugglers that use random beaches? How do we get them to pay tariff? Who is he assigning as BOC chief?
He mentions that the increased purchasing power of the exemption would result in higher VAT collection. But of the poor, how many are patrons of businesses that pay the right amount of taxes? It also opens up new questions. This time it's in sales tax acquisition.
I liken Binay's call to exempt the poor from income taxes to a wrestler mentioning the town in which he is performing in a good light. He's merely trying to get a positive reaction. The sad thing is most of us bit and cheered for him even though it's so easy to see right through him.
- “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
How can we trust someone who took the above oath to be the commander-in-chief of our military? The fact that Grace Poe was allowed to run by the Supreme Court doesn't change the fact that she consciously made an effort to give herself an option to side with the US in the event of a war between our nations. To me, there's nothing wrong for an ordinary, private individual to go for that option. But I can't stand to have a president that deliberately sold her loyalty to another state for her personal comfort.
When I first read the oath in Ireneo Salazar's blog post (link) and saw it word per word on a U.S. government's website (link) , I said to myself "Grace Poe can't win". Binay had the opportunity to hammer in my sentiments. But he disappointed me, as usual.
- Duterte had a point during on the question of climate change and environmentalism. Adhering to the desires of hardcore environmentalists of banning coal plants is not in the best interest of our country. Think of it this way, by going for full renewable energy, the effect on the environment would be minuscule compared to the cost we would incur. According to WESM(link), Coal and Natural Gas power plants are our main power producers. These two are also the types of plants that pollute the most. By taking away these plants, the cost of electricity would skyrocket since by simply looking at WESM, we can see the spot prices in the electricity market of solar and wind power are considerably higher than electricity made by coal and natural gas.
Let's say we actually sacrifice our economy to switch to renewable energy. Is it worth it? Would the improvement in climate offset the economic sacrifice we would incur? But hey, maybe jobs created by renewable power industries would help our economy. But the problem is that other countries posses the comparative advantage in that industry. Japan and the U.S. have the technology. What we have is the manpower. But that industry is capital-intensive. This means that the main beneficiaries of focusing on renewable energy would be the owners of the capital i.e. foreign investors or the people like the Levistes of Solar Philippines.
I'm not belittling the issue of climate change or anything. But it's not our issue to handle hands-on even though we are one of the most affected. We can make a difference as a nation by implementing sound strategies like protecting our forests and stopping "pagkakaingins". We can make sure that power plants adhere to cleaner versions of themselves like clean coal technologies. But crafting back-breaking policies solely because of the environment - like converting jeepneys so they conform to Euro 4 - is ridiculous.
- During the talk regarding renewable energy and climate change, Duterte caught my attention when he mentioned monopolies as the reason for the high power rates. The question of monopolies is not restricted to the power industry. Monopolies are also springing up more frequently especially with the administration's go-to-move when it comes to infrastructure development - PPP's.
The word monopoly has this negative connotation. But it is needed in technological advancements in market-driven economies. Pharmaceutical advancements are fostered thanks to the incentive of guaranteed monopolies. It is a major incentive for the private sector. But in certain industries, monopolies are just deterrents to economic advancement.
Take for example the power industry. The competition in the spot market ensures at least some semblance of efficiency since different power plants strive to produce power in the most efficient way so they can beat their competition. But in distribution, no such incentive to improve efficiency exists because Meralco or other coops have monopolies. There's no need to improve wires or whatever they use. There's no reason to improve personnel management. They have no competitions to push them.
Back to PPP's, the administration that Mar Roxas loves so much allows monopolies to exist freely. From expressways to railways to utilities to hospitals, this Mar Roxas-endorsed style of governance lets go of responsibilities because it itself cannot fulfill them due to ineffectiveness, inefficiency, lack of accountability and lack of political will to fix itself. Mar Roxas' beloved administration's economics leaves crucial services and industries to the private sector to handle. Sure, the private sector may seem efficient to a lot of people. But its irreverence to positive externalities of their operation and their profit-driven management inflates costs which makes the economy inefficient.
PPP's are not always bad. Assuming the government officials are clean and not complete idiots, building the infrastructure goes through a bidding system which provides competition. This should result in a cost-effective build. Privatizing the SSS, GSIS and Pag-Ibig may not be such bad ideas since financial institutions' main goal is profit regardless of who handles them. But once we allow the private sector to take hold of other government responsibilities like when they operate transportation or healthcare, we unknowingly get screwed.
When the second part of Marichu Villanueva's question was deliberately ignored by Roxas, it just got me asking how much he really believes in his party's administration and how much of its style he would adopt. I wonder what he thinks of the new IRR on the BOT law.
- Miriam needs to quit. She's not performing well in the surveys thanks to her illness. If she really believes she knows what's best for the country, she should pass the information to someone in her party who can win and who would take her as a consultant. Because as of the moment, the supposedly brilliant ideas she has in her mind is going to waste because of her inability to campaign and share her plans.
- I've attacked Duterte in my last post (link). And with how he adjusted into what seemed like a more compassionate version of himself who actually gave a bit of crap, it showed what some of us already knew: he's just like the usual trapo spouting out any generic BS he can spout to gain the votes of anyone who cared to listen.
Duterte is not the genuine, no-nonsense guy he and his supporters are selling. But does that matter? If you genuinely believe in Federalism, increased police wages, special courts to speed up the justice system, the death penalty or bilateral talks with China, then I guess he's the man for you. But to vote for him based solely on his promise he can end crime in 6 months is misguided. A benevolent dictator can end criminality in 6 months. A ruthless depot can do the same. Even an effective republic like the one in Iceland (link) can do it. Sometimes how you will do things is more important than what you will do. And his desire to get killed if he doesn't deliver doesn't cushion the blow of any potential failings his administration would have. Because to be frank, his life is not worth 6 months of this nation's time.
- Let's legalize divorce. If it's such a sin, let the church handle it. Priests, pastors, imams and other religious leaders spend a considerable amount of time studying their holy books. I'm sure they can handle their flock.
My reasoning for supporting a divorce bill is similar to my support of same sex marriage (link). There's no point in having the government dictate what's a sin and what's not.
For the people saying that the family is the basic foundation of society, come on. Do you really want the national government to micro-manage everything and mess with your family life. Sobrang spoon-feeding naman yun.
- Grace Poe is not ready to be president. Duterte threw a screwball at her with that question in the individual Q&A round. When she failed to mention talking with the US in her answer when asked what she would do in the event of a Chinese attack, it should have brought her down. She wasted around twenty seconds in saying she would wake up or some other trivial stuff. As I've mentioned before she shouldn't be our president. That one question, as well as several things she tends to forget like the fact she is the vice-chair of the agricultural committee that handled the Coco Levy Fund, proved she can't be our president.
- Grace Poe had a point when she said the big fish of the Liberal Party seem to be exempted from accountability.Aside from that, other people close to the president seem to be exempted as well. There's Abaya who she cited, Jericho Petilla who almost caused a Luzon-wide power crisis during his term as DOE head, Butch Abad who devised the PDAF/DAP fiasco, Francis Tolentino whose incompetence led to the surrender of some of the MMDA's powers to the Highway Patrol Group, MIAA GM Honrado who oversaw the airport during both the laglag bala scam as well as the worst airport in the world year and a whole host of other people I may be forgetting.
- TV5 really did a better job than I expected. The questions were hard-hitting and whenever Ms. Valdez felt like the discussion was not answering the question, she didn't hesitate in dictating the tempo of the debate. The commercials were also reasonable. And the fact that they sold their coverage to other broadcast groups really put them in a positive light for me because information that would affect how the electorate would vote should not be monopolized. The mudslinging was prevalent. But it did not lower the standard of discussion as expected. The only thing I can really say as a major booboo for them is their misunderstanding with Binay's camp. But compared to GMA, their coverage was so much better.
Conclusion:
Now, if you ask me who won the debate, I'd answer Roxas. He made sure to highlight his party's strengths and avoided acknowledging their particular weakness. He made sure to remind his party is not perfect and he effectively staved off attacks sent his way... well... at least compared to Binay and Poe. Duterte is a close second because I felt he was disengaged towards the candidates not named Roxas. But in any case, nobody really stood out for me.
Now, if you ask me who I'd vote for, I'd answer say... does it really matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment