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.
61 thoughts on “Absolute veto”
See what I mean, JL and bogchimash? And this guy (buencamino) is making conclusion with non-existent basis but with unqualified certainty. These people are just amazing!
In relation to MLQ3’s query:
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?
Wait for GMA to observe protocol. She has not yet submitted the Veto Message. In that document, all her dislikes as regards the vetoed items are explained. It also includes her declarations on which funds she will keep without, however, the intention to use them in accordance with the wishes of Congress.
In the mid-90s, FVR said in a Veto Message that he will not disband the CAFGU but the money for the purpose shall remain with the GAA becuase the unit needs the funds.
“See what I mean, JL and bogchimash? And this guy (buencamino) is making conclusion with non-existent basis but with unqualified certainty. These people are just amazing!”
Bencard is just being naive. He apparently hasn’t heard of JocJoc Bolante, the Philhealth Cards and Gloria Arroyo billboards. I guess for him, that’s the ‘non-existent basis’. To Gloria’s credit, they really have talent for this kind of spin, even JocJoc is now ‘non-existent’.
Even half-witted lawyers would know kung saan papunta ang budget na yan.
Paanong magiging propaganda ng Bush admin yung 300 e sinulat ni Frank Miller mid-90s pa at narelease ang first print nung 1998? at tsaka hindi naman neoconservative sa Frank Miller? Masyado namang hinahanapan ng meaning na wala naman. Mga nagkocomment ng ganyan hindi nagbabasa ng komiks.
Good job Ca T! ang galing!
Bencard, kahit si Jocjoc ka pa you are doing a good job too 🙂
and everybody knows Manuel Buencamino so well…….
CaT, you surely made a very enlightening discussion of the arguments and points raised by JL and I believe most of us truly appreciate that. What I want to clarify is just some sort of a follow-up on the questions already given by JL.
In your example, Person 1 is allocated a budget of 1,000. However, Person 1Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s budget allocation is for fixed expenditures, meaning it is more than likely to be expended. So, if parents asked Person 1 to share 250 to Person 2 if ever Person 2Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s allocated budget would not be enough to cover its projects, Person 1 would therefore have a budget deficit during budget appropriation in case he really has to share part of his allocated budget to Person 2, am I following you correctly?
Allocated budget = 1,000
Salaries, fixed expenditures, etc. = 1,000
Payable (Person 2) = 250
Total Expenditures = 1,250
Allocated Budget Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Total Expenditures = -250
Allocated budget = 750
Projects = 1,000
Receivable (Person 1) = 250
Total Expenditures = 1,000
Allocated Budget Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Total Expenditures = -250
The total budget allocated for Persons 1 and 2 is only 1,750. But, because Persons 1 and 2 both used all of the budgets allocated to them, they are now both staring at a budget deficit of 250.
Person 2’s budget deficit however, would be negated since it was covered from his receivable. Person 1’s budget deficit meanwhile stays since he doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have anyway to source out the payable without cutting on his fixed expenditures.
In this kind of scenario, does it mean Person 1 would be forced to make a loan just to be able to compensate for the lost 250? If Person 1 represents the budget allocated for the retirees and Person 2 represents the budget for PDAF of Congress, wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it be much simpler to share parents’ (GMAÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s own PDAF) budget to Person 2 instead?
Bencard, kahit si Jocjoc ka pa you are doing a good job too
Rego, you approve of Joc-joc?
DJB: Only paleoliberals would interpret it as you do, equating America and the West to the Global Jihad of Xerxes…
That was david’s point. When he said The movie really has something for everybody, almost as if it is a motion picture Rorscasch test.
The neocon’s see it as something, the liberals see it as something else. But to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a movie is just a movie. 😀
I do not expect jl or anyone of you to understand how government accounting and budgeting works. I got that subject in my accounting days with 9 units for one semester and all that I remembered were the entries. It was when I worked in the government as a department head when I was tasked of budgeting.
There will be no budget deficit for agency and department levels. We talk about deficit at the national level.
As I have said the budget is made to REMIND the agencies how much they can spend.
Althought there is a budget, there is a need for appropriations from the budget. And even if there is appropriations, the appropriation is needed to be released otherwise you cannot start charging the expenditure items under that appropriation.
Disbursements are made based on actual expenditures.
REmove the idea that if there is a budget approved, that you can spend all or overspend because that’s what you need.
The budget is good only for one fiscal period. For the government it starts July and ends June the following year.
There is no receivable from person 2. It doesn’t work that way.
When I gave the example of budget of 1,000 for person 1, and then he allocated 250 from out of his budget, on the assumption that 1,000 is the approved budget for him and the request for allocation comes after the approval of the budget, the purpose of showing where the 250 goes is for to account how much of the 1,000 were spent. Where did the money go.It does not show any receivable from person 2.
Of course, in the budget as i have said not all what you provided happens.
Sabihin mo nabawasan ang kaniyang budget para sa retirement. Para sa fiscal year lang yon. Then next budget, if the budget was not reduced, balik ulit yon.
Kaya di ba ang retirement benefits minsan ay tagal makuha o kaya huli?
Di ba marami ring inalis na retirement pensions sa matagal ng patay at tumatanggap pa ang mga beneficiaries.
If before the Congress’s budget approval however, the budget for person one is reduced to 750, then it is entirely different thing.
There can be approved budget items where there are no definite sourcing of funds especially those which are not regular expenses incurred for the agency operations.
I understand your view to a point.
I guess groups of people are basing their ideas on unresolved issues. But if the road to their resolution are felt not being addressed and if that is not due to the fault of those groups of people concerned; I cannot totally tell them what not to arrive at with those issues.