Senate cut budgets in some agencies.

[marke]

I laud Senate for having the political will to give credit where credit is due. Can you imagine the National Printing Office which printed Cha Cha forms for Sigaw ng Bayan. Sigaw ng Bayan is a private entity yet public funds was used for purposes of Cha Cha.

Good that the Senate give it a zero budget. Other governmnt departments should suffer the same fate also especially those agencies which are non performing and have useless existence.

[baron]

The bicameral conference meeting will have a great debate and discussion on such budget cuts. As much as the senators would want to post an image that they are doing their jobs, they are not doing it very well. The speculations will only translate to a heated discussion between the Lower House and the Senate. As much as the NPO and PCGG need a budget to run the office, I would say that the Senate is overdoing it.

How could a government agency function if there will be no budget allocated for them? How about the government employees on these offices?

The bicameral conference meeting should review the blatant slashes of the Senate on some government agencies.

[wanderlust]

The bicameral conference meeting will have a great debate and discussion on such budget cuts. As much as the senators would want to post an image that they are doing their jobs, they are not doing it very well. The speculations will only translate to a heated discussion between the Lower House and the Senate. As much as the NPO and PCGG need a budget to run the office, I would say that the Senate is overdoing it.

How could a government agency function if there will be no budget allocated for them? How about the government employees on these offices?

The bicameral conference meeting should review the blatant slashes of the Senate on some government agencies.

I agree. Wholesale cuts on the funding of government agencies will not benefit the public. The cuts they made were largely on capital expenditures, like infrastructure and transportation. Now, we need to increase infrastructure spending, not decrease it. This is needed to propel economic growth.

[marke]

IMHO, agencies which are already useless or are involved in rather anomalous conduct must be given zero budget. The National Prnting Office for example. I have no sympathy for this agency. Better it be abolished.

[lalakingbisdak]

What about the budget of those militant congressmen/women? Where will their funds go? To the street protest (posters and all that stuff)? Or bulsa gihapon?

[baron]

If there is no solid proof yet that these government agencies are involved in anomalous conducts, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Instead of not giving them the budget they need, we should instead be aware of where will they put the budget allocated to them. That is why we have the Commission On Audit which is very independent. There is annual auditing on how the funds were used and allocated.

Mere allegations that these government agencies are involved in anomalous conducts is not a solid basis for us to simply abolish the government agency concerned. If that's the case, I wonder if there will be any government agency left. Not that all is corrupt, but rather, others just put up a bad image to such government offices that made other people think they are corrupt, even though they are not.

[wanderlust]

If there is no solid proof yet that these government agencies are involved in anomalous conducts, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Instead of not giving them the budget they need, we should instead be aware of where will they put the budget allocated to them. That is why we have the Commission On Audit which is very independent. There is annual auditing on how the funds were used and allocated.

Mere allegations that these government agencies are involved in anomalous conducts is not a solid basis for us to simply abolish the government agency concerned. If that's the case, I wonder if there will be any government agency left. Not that all is corrupt, but rather, others just put up a bad image to such government offices that made other people think they are corrupt, even though they are not.

What we should watch out for is how our legislators spend their pork barrel. Who or what agency is making them accountable for the billions in their discretion? It seems to me that there is constant hullabaloo about the executive's spending, but not enough noise about exactly where the legislative pork barrel goes. As far as our congressmen are concerned, since district representatives have particular districts to benefit from their pork, there is more accountability there than, say, in regard to the pork barrel of party-list representatives, or those of senators.

It seems that these budget cuts are just another "papogi" tactic of our lawmakers that hardly takes into consideration the real interests of the people. As if the delay in passing the budget is not enough, they have also chosen to cut capital expenditures that are necessary to promote economic growth.

[lalakingbisdak]

If there is no solid proof yet that these government agencies are involved in anomalous conducts, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Instead of not giving them the budget they need, we should instead be aware of where will they put the budget allocated to them. That is why we have the Commission On Audit which is very independent. There is annual auditing on how the funds were used and allocated.

Mere allegations that these government agencies are involved in anomalous conducts is not a solid basis for us to simply abolish the government agency concerned. If that's the case, I wonder if there will be any government agency left. Not that all is corrupt, but rather, others just put up a bad image to such government offices that made other people think they are corrupt, even though they are not.

Bai, its easy to cheat sa COA. Show them receipt lang, if not "under the table" ana ang mga politiko nga gipang korakot ang kwarta sa gobyerno. 98% sa mga politicians mga korakots!

[marke]

If there is no solid proof yet that these government agencies are involved in anomalous conducts, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Instead of not giving them the budget they need, we should instead be aware of where will they put the budget allocated to them. That is why we have the Commission On Audit which is very independent. There is annual auditing on how the funds were used and allocated.

Mere allegations that these government agencies are involved in anomalous conducts is not a solid basis for us to simply abolish the government agency concerned. If that's the case, I wonder if there will be any government agency left. Not that all is corrupt, but rather, others just put up a bad image to such government offices that made other people think they are corrupt, even though they are not.

What we should watch out for is how our legislators spend their pork barrel.Â* Who or what agency is making them accountable for the billions in their discretion?Â* It seems to me that there is constant hullabaloo about the executive's spending, but not enough noise about exactly where the legislative pork barrel goes.Â* As far as our congressmen are concerned, since district representatives have particular districts to benefit from their pork, there is more accountability there than, say, in regard to the pork barrel of party-list representatives, or those of senators.

It seems that these budget cuts are just another "papogi" tactic of our lawmakers that hardly takes into consideration the real interests of the people.Â* As if the delay in passing the budget is not enough, they have also chosen to cut capital expenditures that are necessary to promote economic growth.

The pork barrel of the legislators goes to the implementing agency. Meaning the pork goes to the executive offices. So if we will audit that the executive branch will come out again with cookie on their hands. These pork barrel does not go immediately to the legislators, it is coursed to the line agencies.

[marke]

'Authoritarian,' says senator on Arroyo budget veto threat
President, Senate 'bad blood' blamed for impasse


First posted 01:09pm (Mla time) June 06, 2006
By Maila Ager, Veronica Uy
INQ7.net




Subscribe to Breaking News alerts, send ON EXTRA BREAKING to 2207 for Globe, or send EXTRA BREAKING to 386 for Smart.


(2ND UPDATE) PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s threat to veto the proposed 2006 national budget is “authoritarian,� a senator said Tuesday.
“That's what an authoritarian says to impress upon the people that what she says goes,� Senate Minority Floor Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said in response to the President’s warning earlier in the day that she would use her veto powers to reject a 2006 budget that would be passed with cuts by Congress.

The President issued the warning after a bicameral conference committee failed to reconcile late Monday the two versions of the proposed 2006 budget by the Senate and the House of Representatives, with the senators refusing to restore the alleged “pork barrel funds� of Malacañang they left out and the House lawmakers pushing for the approval of the appropriations as proposed.

Failure to finalize the national budget will mean that the government will operate on a reenacted budget from 2005, which Senate President Franklin Drilon, Senator Joker Arroyo, and Iloilo Representative Rolex Suplico warned would be more advantageous to Arroyo.

Pimentel said that if the President would veto the compromise budget to be hammered out by the bicameral conference committee, “that's fine. So we have no budget. But that's up to her. If she wants to play hard ball, she will get hard ball.�
Pimentel said a reenacted budget would mean no new projects. “Let it be. Let her answer to the people [about] what she's doing.�