Look into Your Hearts, and Leave Us a Little Seed Corn

Look into Your Hearts, and Leave Us a Little Seed Corn
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 24, 2007

Comment: The following China Times editorial evokes mixed feelings. On the one hand, I empathize with the China Times editor. When I say I "empathize," I mean I identify with and understand the editor's situation, feelings, and motives. Politicians should behave in the responsible manner the editor wishes they would.

On the other hand, I sympathize with the China Times editor. When I say I "sympathize," I mean I feel pity, sorrow, and compassion for the editor's distress. I feel pity, sorrow and compassion for the editor's distress because I have come to realize that politicians who seek elective office in democracies and other monopolistic states will never behave in the responsible manner the editor wishes they would.

The Chinese have an expression: 緣木求魚 yuan mu qiu yu. It means: "climbing a tree in search of fish." As you can probably guess, the expression refers to the fruitless act of looking for something where it will never be found.

Expecting politicians of any stripe to behave in the responsible manner the editor wishes they would is an example of "climbing a tree in search of a fish."

The vast majority of people alive today are under the spell of the democratic myth. They genuinely believe that democracy's raison d'etre is to protect the rights of the ordinary citizen.

They don't realize democracy's actual reason for being is to enable ambitious politicians to exercise limitless power and remake the world in their own image, at the ordinary citizen's expense.

Once one understands democracy's actual reason for being, one will never again make the mistake of "climbing a tree in search of fish." One will never again labor under the delusion that one's "democratically-elected leaders" have any interest whatsoever in looking into their hearts, or leaving us a little seed corn.

See:
Central Election Committee Reform must not be Undermined

Look into Your Hearts, and Leave Us a Little Seed Corn
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 24, 2007

As the legislative elections loom, the spectacle of ruling government and opposition lawmakers recklessly promoting pork barrel legislation in their struggle for re-election is being repeated once again. On the one hand, they slash taxes. On the other hand, they expand welfare benefits. Tomorrow the Legislative Yuan will review the "Temporary Act for Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly." Ruling and opposition lawmakers are eagerly pushing for increases. In a single breath, they have proposed 25 versions. The smallest proposed increase is 4000NT, the largest 10,000NT. They apparently consider the nation's finances child's play.

Meanwhile, the Executive Yuan is making it up as it goes along. If someone asks for an inch, the Executive Yuan gives a mile. The Ministry of Interior led the way by proposing a draft for a "National Annuity Law," attempting to combine Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly, Welfare Subsidies to Farmers, and other welfare benefits into one, sacrificing a smaller sum to prevent lawmakers of all stripes from increasing Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly.

This scattering of dollar bills to buy votes has not stopped at Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly and a National Annuity. A little earlier, the Legislative Yuan had already proposed abolishing the inheritance tax. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) also responded by making it up as it went along. The MOF announced day that it was considering reducing the maximum rate for the inheritance tax and the gift tax by half, substituting tax exemptions and tax deductions with a "Basic Living Expense," and drastically reducing the individual income tax. This was another case of giving a mile when someone asks for an inch.

That's how it is this year, and that's how it has been in years past. In March 2004, we held a presidential election. In November 2004 we held a legislative election. In January of that year, the Legislative Yuan passed the amended land tax bill after three readings. It implemented a one half reduction of two year property appreciation taxes, unconditionally extending it for one year. Later, in February of that year, the Blue Camp Lien Soong ticket posted advertisements pledging that if it was elected, it would drastically increase government employees and teachers' salaries, by an amount equal to "two national incomes." The Green Camp Democratic Progressive Party took one look, and Central Personnel Administration Chief Lee Lee Yi-yang immediately wrote out a check, guaranteeing that he would increase the military, civil service, and teacher salaries by three percent

Both the Blue and Green camps, both the ruling and opposition parties, are of one mind on this. Both add fuel to the flames, both encourage the unhealthy practice of exchanging dollar bills for votes. Even conservative former Kuomintang Chairman Ma Ying-jeou indicated the other day that he approved increased Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly. As the onrushing wave carries everyone along in its wake, the only ones remaining are the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics and and handful of clear-headed legislators such as Wang Jung-chang, standing their ground, appealing to the ruling and opposition parties to step on the brakes and not neglect the nation's finances.

Nobody opposes the social welfare system. Providing adequate care to the elderly, the weak, the disabled, elderly widows and widowers, and the poverty-stricken, is the government's responsibility. However social welfare should not be coercive egalitarian redistribution of wealth. Not all the elderly are poverty-stricken. Not all farmers are in financial straits. Without greater discernment, the expenditure of vast sums, not based on actual poverty, but on age, will only make it harder to conserve resources and to look after poverty-stricken people who truly need to be looked after. Currently the central government spends 80 billion NT every year on Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly and Welfare Subsidies to Elderly Farmers. If one still wishes to increase benefits, be aware that every time Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly are increased 1,000 Yuan, the burden on the state treasury increases 10 billion Yuan. Every time Welfare Subsidies to Elderly Farmers are increased 1,000 Yuan, the burden on the state treasury increases 84 billion Yuan. At the same time, the National Health Insurance system teeters on the brink of collapse, insurance premiums keep increasing, the scope of health insurance coverage keeps diminishing, safeguards to poor patients keep shrinking, and the effectiveness of medical health insurance treatment keeps declining. Put simply, it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul!

The reason this kind of pork barrel legislation, which reduces tax revenues even as it increases benefits, appears at election time, is that the beneficiaries are clearly defined, while the victims are not. Reducing taxes may allow certain taxpayers to feel that their tax burden has been lightened. Increased benefits may allow certain recipients to increase their income. Conversely, the financial shortfall created by reducing taxes while increasing benefits has no clearcut victims.

Theoretically, the financial shortfall can be made up by issuing government bonds, but eventually bonds must be repaid by means of tax increases. The problem is, a nation endures, and its central government never goes bankrupt. Therefore the day of reckoning on which the shortfall must be made up by means of tax increases constantly recedes into the future. Therefore, regardless of whether one is reducing taxes or increasing benefits, the shortfall can always be covered by issuing bonds. No need for any specific target to bear the burden created by pork barrel legislation. Therefore, no matter whether one is reducing taxes or increasing benefits, every kind of pork barrel legislation is theoretically a Zero-sum Game. But in practice, so long as the government does not collapse, it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition. Because of this, ruling and opposition party political figures have unscrupulously resorted to pork barrel legislation, undermining the nation's finances and sapping the nation's vitality.

This resort to pork barrel legislation every time an election rolls around, is already deeply ingrained in Taiwan's election culture. Frankly it's going to be difficult to rectify this trend. To expect ordinary citizens to spontaneously awaken and resist the temptation to exchange votes for dollar bills is wishful thinking. The only hope is that ruling and opposition party political figures will look into their hearts, reach a consensus, abide by a gentlemen's agreement, and refrain from cutthroat competition. One needs to realize that if one resorts to pork barrel legislation to buy votes, one's opponent can do the exactly the same thing. Whether one engages in cutthroat competition or not, makes no difference as far as votes are concerned, but a major difference as far as the nation's finances are concerned. The Blue and Green camp "Princes" need to be clear on this. Instead of cutthroat competition, they ought to declare a truce, and leave a little seed corn for the nation's future!

Original Chinese below:

中時電子報
中國時報
2007.04.24
拿出良心 為國家財政留點老本吧
中時社論

趕在立委改選前夕，朝野立委藉推錢坑法案拚選舉的戲碼再度重演，一邊是掄刀刪砍稅負收入、一邊則大筆擴增社福支出。立法院明天將審查「敬老津貼暫行條例」修正案，朝野立委踴躍提案，竟能一口氣提出二十五個漲價版本，上漲額度少則四千，多則一萬，形同視國家財政如兒戲。

在此同時，行政院則是且戰且走，要一塊給五毛，拿饅頭換餡餅，由內政部領銜提出「國民年金法」草案，試圖將敬老津貼、老農津貼等各種社福支出，匯總合一，犧牲較少額度，抵擋各路立委所提調高敬老津貼法案。

這股撒鈔票買選票的風潮，不僅僅止於提高敬老津貼、實施國民年金，稍早之前，立法院已經主動提案，要廢除遺產贈與稅制，而財政部的因應對策，也是且戰且走。該部日前宣布，考慮將遺產稅與贈與稅最高稅率，降低一半，並且，著手研究以「基本生活費」取代免稅額與扣除額，打算大降綜所稅。這也是要一塊給五毛，拿饅頭換餡餅。

今年如此，往年亦然，民國九十三年間，三月有總統大選，十一月有立委大選。先是那年元月間，立法院三讀通過土地稅法修正案，將實施兩年的土地增值稅減半徵收規定，無條件延長一年。之後，那年二月，藍營連宋登廣告，承諾如果當選，要大幅調高公教人員待遇，幅度達到「兩個國民所得」。綠營民進黨一看，人事行政局長李逸洋馬上開支票，保證調高軍公教待遇三％。

不分藍綠，朝野有志一同，同時推波助瀾，助長鈔票換選票歪風，就連行事一向保守的前國民黨主席馬英九，日前也曾表示，贊成提高敬老津貼。狂瀾席捲之際，只剩下主管支出的主計處，以及立委王榮璋等少數頭腦清醒立委，中流砥柱，呼籲朝野趕快煞車，切勿枉顧國家財政。

沒有人會反對社會福利制度，對於老弱傷殘、鰥寡無依、生活困苦民眾，給與充分照顧更是政府的職責。然而，社會福利畢竟不是齊頭式發鈔票，老人未必困苦，老農未必艱辛，倘若不加鑑別，未依困苦實情，而按身分年齡，耗費鉅額經費，反而難以收縮資源，照顧真正需要照顧的困苦艱辛民眾。目前中央政府每年用於敬老津貼、老農津貼支出，已近八百億元。倘若還要往上加碼，敬老津貼每增加一千元，國庫每年增加一百億元負擔；老農津貼每增加一千元，國庫每年增加八十四億元負擔。在此同時，全民健保搖搖欲墜，保費逐漸增加，健保支付範圍卻逐漸縮小，貧困民眾醫療保障日益縮水，優待醫療健保福利成效大打折扣。簡單的說，就是補了這裡，卻缺了那裡！

選舉期間之所以會出現錢坑法案症候群，既減稅收又增支出，其關鍵因素即在於這些錢坑法案具有「受益對象明確，受害苦主模糊」特性。減稅收，可使特定納稅人減輕納稅犧牲感；增支出，可使特定領受人增加收入。另一方面，減稅收與增支出所造成的財政缺口，卻無明確的受害對象。

理論上，財政缺口可藉由增發公債暫時填補，但公債最後終究須靠增稅才能償還。問題是，國家永續存在，中央政府不會破產清算，所以，這「終究須靠增稅償還」之日，永遠遙遙無期。所以，無論減稅收還是增支出，都可以靠發行公債軋平財政缺口，無需特定對象承受錢坑法案所造成的犧牲。於是，不論減稅收還是增支出，各種錢坑法案理論上是正負相抵的「零和遊戲（Zero-sum Game）」，但實際上，只要政府不倒，都是無本生意，只有正面收益，而無負面損失。正因為這項特色，朝野政治人物多年來才會如此肆無忌憚，亂挖錢坑，把國家財政挖得千瘡百孔，元氣大傷。

這股每逢選舉就挖錢坑的歪風，已經內化為台灣根深蒂固的選舉文化。要矯正這股歪風，老實說，很難期盼基層民眾自發覺醒，拒絕政客撒鈔票換選票誘惑。唯一的指望，就是朝野政治人物拿出良心，針對這種歪風形成共識，遵照君子協定，不搞惡性競爭。要知道，你會挖錢坑買票，對手一樣能比照辦理，彼此競相惡性競爭，與彼此完全不競爭，對選票影響都一樣，但對財政影響就大不相同。藍綠兩營的天王們，應該看清楚這一點，與其惡性競爭，不如雙方休兵，為國家財政留一點老本吧！