The President signed the national budget yesterday, and the Star and Inquirer both point out that the budget’s bloated the pork barrel despite almost daily examples of how its been misused (the Budget Secretary says the money will come from funds meant for the retirement pay of government workers). The President breezily noted that she’d vetoed many items in it:
The President said she had vetoed many items in the budget, but “they’re all very technical in nature, so one of this days I suppose Nonoy Andaya will explain what the vetoes are.”
Now any president has the power to veto legislation, including particular items in the budget, such as, say, the pork barrel. But that power isn’t absolute. A presidential veto always risks the possibility Congress will vote to override the veto, and perhaps that explains why the President decided to sit on the budget -it’s too late for the 13th Congress to override any veto now. Which is where Congress may have wanted things to be, too. But perhaps those who know the ins and outs of official budgeting can tell me, where then do the funds otherwise earmarked for items that were vetoed, go?
The President’s response to self-rating poverty surveys (which indicates fewer people feel hungry in Metro Manila these days) naturally makes it to the papers, too.
In the blogosphere, caffeine sparks points to a chart that suggests the Philippines isn’t on the investment map. It’s quite shocking, really.
In Inquirer Current, John Nery dissects the recent senatorial surveys (see the nifty graphic he put up here). For my entry today, I ended up trying to graph the survey data John presented:
Basically, the graph helps us see whose trajectory is on the upswing, and who is on a downturn. Just for fun, I tried to illustrate the spread (plus or minus three percent for the rankings of the top five):
Which show’s Loren’s hefty lead, and how the rest of the top rankers are neck-and-neck. Each candidate’s color-coded, and the three lines for each color reflect he maximum, the reported score, and the possible minimum, for each.
In the punditocracy, Amando Doronila says the government has a diplomatic headache on its hands with the news on political killings.
In the blogosphere, Dissections interviews Dr. Martin Bautista, Ang Kapatiran senatorial candidate, of whom Now What, Cat? speaks highly. AlterNation 101 also speaks glowingly of Ang Kapatiran. Speaking of elections, The Purple Phoenix says cheating occurs in on line and text voting.
Patsada Karajaw lists 11 dodgy party list parties, and that doesn’t even include the one General Palparan wants to run under. More news on the party lists.
The Bunker Chronicles criticizes the President’s statement on hunger; An OFW Living in Hong Kong discusses why the pork barrel should be eliminated.
Marvelous diatribe against Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore Election Watch.
Very true observation on aging by Ronnel Lim.
And all along I thought I was the only one saying this of the movie “300” aside from the Iranians: but I’m a Baby says it all and my reactions to the movie were exactly the same! It’s a neoconservative propaganda film.
On another cultural note, Soho the Dog is irked over finding out the heirs of composer Sergei Rachmaninoff are poised to extend their copyright over the composer’s works by rearranging the pieces, thus guaranteeing their family close to two centuries of royalties. Stylus Magazine has two interesting articles: U2 vs. REM and Depeche Mode vs. The Cure.