It’s every agency for itself
IN the ongoing House budget lamentations (a.k.a. hearings), almost all government entities have complained about their lack of funding while acknowledging that the economy is bad, and the government is not collecting enough revenue.
Now if they truly believe that they deserve more, then they should identify specific branches, departments, divisions, agencies, offices, programs or services that deserve less. They should help lawmakers pinpoint possible funding sources that already exist — i.e., the allotments for unnecessary expenses.
Take the judiciary, for example. It has some of the CNMI government’s highest paid officials and personnel all housed in a pricey and — compared to the TT-era administration and legislative buildings — luxurious edifice, which the judiciary failed to maintain, costing Commonwealth taxpayers about $7 million (but that’s another, and sadder, story that not a lot of people want to recall).
According to the government’s revised FY 2023 budget, $5.76 million was appropriated for the judiciary’s 127 personnel; $430,463 for operations; and $300,000 for utilities. (Yes. Over 88% of the judiciary’s budget was for personnel.) Recently, the Chief Justice told lawmakers that the judiciary is “opposed” to the paltry $300,000 allocated for its “all others” category under the Governor’s FY 2024 budget proposal. The Chief Justice said they need $1.2 million for “all others.”
Fine. Which branch/department/division/office/agency/program/services should get less funding so that the judiciary can get more?
The judiciary says it should also be “exempted” from CUC disconnection. Why? Because, apparently, disconnecting the judiciary just because it can’t pay its utility bills is “constitutionally unacceptable.” But disconnecting the island’s only hospital from CUC’s power grid is what? A dangerous and irresponsible act, to be sure, but probably “constitutional” so it’s “OK”?
A possible “solution” to the government’s budget botheration is an across-the-board 10% (or more) spending cut with each branch, department, agency, office or program determining where to cut while having sufficient reprogramming authority to respond to any contingency.
PSS, of course, would be exempted from this measure. (See Article XV, Section 1[e] of the CNMI Constitution.)
Voters, for their part, should also be reminded that under their Constitution they can propose laws and constitutional amendments through the initiative or initiative petition process.
Do you, for example, believe that the number of Senate and House seats should be reduced or that certain constitutionally created offices are redundant and should therefore be abolished or consolidated with other existing agencies? What about the 25% budget guarantee for PSS? Too much? Not enough?
Here’s your chance to make “democracy work.” Seek like-minded concerned citizens. Enlist the help of civic-minded private lawyers. Draft the initiative or initiative petition. Secure the required number of signatures. Campaign for its ratification.
Do something.
Regarding CHCC
THERE was a time — just last year, come to think of it — when every CHCC funding shortage announcement was hailed by certain politicians as the unvarnished truth and yet another indication of how nefarious and negligent the party in power was.
Now that their party is in power, the previous defenders and advocates of CHCC’s funding needs are noticeably silent. Their political allies, moreover, are asking questions about CHCC’s budget that were never publicly raised when they were not yet in power.
There was, in any case, a practical reason why medical referrals were transferred to the governor’s office — it allowed for the reprogramming of funds, which was a quicker way to pay for the program.
But those who proposed the bill to rename the program and return it to CHCC were also the political opponents of the previous governor whose misadministration, they said, was one of the primary causes, if not the primary cause, of the program’s lack of funding.
However, last year’s opposition politicians are now the governing political bloc. They are now responsible for funding the government’s “critical” public services, which include medical referrals and Medicaid.
When will any of them admit that the main problem — whoever is in charge — is that the government has so many obligations, so many offices, so many employees, so many expenses and so many elected officials promising to spend more money?
