Tia Belau editorial – January 23, 2011
The budget bill is dead. Its death was not even a surprise. Hearing from political observers, the public properly diagnosed the problem and correctly called the outcome.
There were clear warning signs early and throughout the negotiating process that led to the eventual failure of both Houses to come to a budget agreement.
Three areas of disagreement derailed the passage. These could be isolated into philosophical, procedural, and personal level arguments.
The philosophical argument comes in the form of policies governing resource allocation between the national and state governments. This is best demonstrated in the fight where the Senate takes the side that state reliance on the national coffers should be phased out. Chibngii ra tut.
The proposed 5 percent budget cut to state government in FY 2010; reallocating the use of green fee and the distribution formula of the money derived from fishing rights and licenses in the FY 2011; and the use of green fee for state government operations in FY 2012 are all arguments on who should get the biggest share.
However, the “Chibngii ra tut” philosophy is weak an argument. Without any formal declaration or national consensus – constitutionally mandated – to phase out state government dependence on national treasury, the House of Delegates will continue to look at any policies reducing state funds as ill-fated and superficial on its face. As they say all politics are local – wherever your constituents are, is where your politics lies.
The $3 million emergency funding was another area of contention and defined the procedural ground argument. Whether the emergency funding can be accommodated in the budget conference proceedings took a more defeatist view. This is an approach consistent with giving up on the negotiations without addressing the major differences, while expecting the public to understand their “righteous” actions, if not bearing the consequences. This view is the no alternative approach, which obviously failed.
From the floor discussions, opposition in the House for the $3 million was limited to procedural grounds only and none was made against its expressed purpose or its legality. This was the point that could have been the key to close the gap between the two sides but was missed by everyone. The emergency funding could have been removed from CD1 to satisfy the House on procedural grounds, and in return addressed in a separate supplemental appropriation.
It would have been good for the House, good for the Senate, good for the president, and good for the people.
It was neither the numbers nor policies that let the budget die and everyone wounded in the crossfire. Political observers say that personality issues are behind the budget process. That is no secret. Personality issues have existed from the start of the budget process – and that goes all the way back to the days of the Palau Legislature.
The advantage for reaching an agreement was there but the patience was not. The absence from the entire process was the practice of “taking the deep breath or time out” to relax and take control of the emotions, despite the advantage of having in place the continuing budget authority..
Personalities blur the landscape and the chance to focus on what is important.
