Su Chia-chuan's 400 Dollars and Su Tseng-chang's 400 Million Dollars

Su Chia-chuan's 400 Dollars and Su Tseng-chang's 400 Million DollarsUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 11, 2010

Election season has arrived. The candidates are issuing blank checks left and right. In Taichung, Su Chia-chuan promised that if he was elected, he would increase old age benefits from 1600 dollars to 2000 dollars. Other old age benefits would also be increased proportionately. Su Tseng-chang blasted Taipei City's garbage collection policy. He called for a stop to the sale of prepaid garbage bags, and vowed to distribute garbage bags for free.

DPP politicians have a penchant for issuing blank checks. It is among their nastiest habits. They have engaged in bidding wars over annual pensions and farm subsidies, and raised the ante on a whole range of benefits targeting selected voters. These will undoubtedly liven up the elections. But they will also turn democratic elections into a populist vote-buying contest. Over the past decade, the public has gradually begun to see through the "vote-buying via policy" racket. But the practice continues, unabated.

When Chang Wen-ying was in office, Taichung City issued old age benefits amounting to 2000 dollars. When Jason Hu came into office, as part of a larger effort to balance the budget, he reduced it to 1600 dollars. He reduced the amount by 400 dollars, but it was still 600 dollars more than the 1000 dollar amount for Taichung County. The amount was still high, but not without reason. Su Chia-chuan refuses to address the overall budget. Instead, he insists on increasing the ante. What is this, if not a calculated attempt to buy the senior vote, at 400 dollars per vote? The problem is, suppose he is elected and actually begins fufilling his campaign promises? Out of whose hide does he intend to extract his pound of flesh?

Su Chia-chuan has raised the ante for old age benefits. For Su, "cash is king." Whether his strategy will work, depends on the wisdom of Taichung citizens. Su Tseng-chang's proposal to eliminate prepaid trash bags in Taipei also reeks of short-sighted opportunism. From a policy perspective, it is a grave mistake, and reveals his superficial understanding of real life garbage collection methods.

Taipei City charges for garbage collection on a per bag basis. The city earns less than 400 million dollars a year from the sale of garbage bags. Su Tseng-chang argues that if one day the reduction of garbage volume reaches a point where the cost of garbage collection exceeds the income derived from the sale of garbage bags, the system will no longer be able to pay for itself. Therefore, Su reasons, garbage bags should be issued to the public free of charge! Su Tseng-chang's mistake is seeing only the city government's 400 million dollar income from the sale of garbage bags. He fails to see how the per bag charge mechanism provides a powerful incentive for citizens to engage in the proactive separation of garbage and reduction of garbage volume.

Ten years ago, before the implementation of prepaid garbage bags, Taipei City produced more than 3,000 tonnes of garbage per day. Ten years later, the amount of garbage produced per day is less than 1,000 tonnes, a 67 percent reduction. Such a huge change is almost magical. This is what the prepaid garbage bag regime can achieve. In order to reduce their own garbage collection expenses, each household makes an effort to separate their garbage and reduce the volume of their garbage. They do everthing they can to get the most use from each of their garbage bags. In other words, a simple price mechanism motivated individual citizens to work toward the greater good of the city as a whole. That is something the government can never accomplish with state power, no matter how much it might spend.

Taipei City's garbage collection regime is a model worthy of universal emulation, Not only has it succeeded in reducing the volume of garbage, even more importantly it has inspired the public to exercise discipline and restraint as it eagerly cooperates with government policy. Without prepaid trash bags, how could one possibly achieve such results? The separation of garbage and the reduction of garbage volume has made our nation's capital cleaner. It has increased environmental awareness among the public. That is why Taipei County and other counties and cities ought to adopt the very same policy.

When Su Tseng-chang was Taipei County Chief, he refused to coordinate with Taipei City by simultaneously implementing its progressive garbage collection regime. Su held Taipei County back in a major way. Now he is running for Taipei City Mayor. Lacking a proper understanding of how the garbage collection process works, he is promising to distribute garbage bags to the public free of charge. Does he really not understand that distributing garbage bags free of charge will undermine the financial incentive to do the right thing? That it will undermine public willingness to separate garbage and reduce garbage volume? That it would turn the clock back to the past? Su Tseng-chang considers 400 million dollars chump change. But he has overlooked the collateral benefits generated by the policy. They may well exceed 400 billion dollars. This is the blind spot in his logic.

A political candidate must explain his vision to the public. But targeting specific demographics, attempting to buy their votes by issuing blank checks, is base political opportunism and demeans the value of elections. Su Chia-chuan has raised the ante by 400 dollars. Su Tseng-change has raisd the ante by 400 million dollars. Their proposals may glitter like gold, but up close they are the same old base metal. One can only hope that most citizens in the 21st century have the eyes to see.

蘇嘉全的四百與蘇貞昌的四億
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.11 10:27 am

選季來臨，候選人的支票漫天飛舞。蘇嘉全在台中宣布，他如果當選，將把重陽敬老金從一千六百元提高為兩千元，其他老人福利也要比照北、高發放。蘇貞昌則批評台北市的垃圾處理政策，並主張未來停止垃圾「隨袋徵收」政策，改為免費發放垃圾袋。

喜歡開現金支票，似乎是民進黨政治人物的專長和癖好。從當年的老人年金，到老農津貼及各種名目的加碼比賽，對吸引特定選民、炒熱選情極有助益，卻也將民主選舉扭曲為可以「現金收買」的民粹操作。十年來，民眾已逐漸認清這類「政策賄選」的手法，但政治人物卻似仍樂此不疲。

張溫鷹時代曾發放兩千元的重陽敬老金，到胡志強時代減為一千六百元，是衡度台中市整體財政而作的調整。雖比過去少了四百，但比起台中縣的一千元，則多了六百，顯示這個金額並不低，也有其合理性。蘇嘉全不談整體預算，一味主張加碼，誰說這不是「四百元買一張老人票」的政治算計？問題是，如果他當選要落實承諾，增加的預算要從誰身上去拔毛？

蘇嘉全加碼敬老金，是一項「現金才是王道」的戰術；能否奏效，要看大台中市民的智慧。相形之下，蘇貞昌主張台北市取消垃圾隨袋徵收的政見，同樣充滿投機氣味，且從政策角度看，更犯了極嚴重的邏輯謬誤，暴露了他對垃圾處理機制的實際認識太過淺薄。

蘇貞昌的說法是：台北市垃圾處理費用是隨袋徵收，市府每年出售垃圾袋所得不過四億多元；一旦垃圾減量達到一個地步，光是賣垃圾袋的行政處理費用就將超過隨袋徵收的所得，形成「費不及費」的問題。所以，屆時，垃圾袋應改為免費發送。蘇貞昌的謬誤在：他眼中只看到市府出售垃圾袋的四億元年收入，卻沒有看到「隨袋徵收」機制如何激勵了市民積極投入分類、減量的無限潛力。

十年前，在實施垃圾隨袋徵收前，台北市每日要製造三千多公噸的垃圾量；如今，一天垃圾量僅剩一千多公噸，較當年減少了百分之六十七。如此偌大的變化，最神奇的按鈕，就是採取了垃圾隨袋徵收的制度。每家每戶為了撙節自己的垃圾費用，都主動進行垃圾分類、減量，讓自家每一個垃圾袋都達到最高效用。亦即，一個簡單的價格機制，觸發了個別市民的積極動機，終而達到了整體城市的「善」的目標，這是政府用公權力花再多代價都做不到的事。

今天，台北市的垃圾處理能成為世界各國仿效的典範，不僅在於它成功地減少了都會的垃圾量，更在於市民展現了高度的節制紀律與自我要求，對政策的樂於配合。若非垃圾隨袋收費，這樣的成績如何達成？而隨著分類減量，首都變得更清潔，市民培養出更強烈的環保意識，也因此才有台北縣等其他縣市跟進取法。

蘇貞昌當年擔任台北縣長，拒絕和北市同步實施具有進步意識的垃圾政策，讓台北縣起步慢了一大截；現在他為了選市長，又不明就裡地宣稱垃圾袋要免費發送。難道不知道：垃圾袋一旦變成免費，勢將破壞其「以費制量」的心理機制，削弱市民主動分類、減量的積極性，把故事又推回從前。蘇貞昌覺得四億元不過是個小錢，他卻輕忽了整個政策透過這四億產生的槓桿效益，可能四千億都不止，這是他的邏輯盲點。

向市民說明自己的執政願景，是候選人必須做的事；但用針對性的金錢支票來賄買特定選民，卻屬於惡質、投機的一類，把選舉廉價化了。蘇嘉全嘴裡四百元的加碼，或蘇貞昌眼中四億元的免費，金光閃閃，卻都是「老梗」，不知能否獲得廿一世紀多數市民的喝采認同？