They then managed to achieve consensus on a way to lower the number of legislative staff they can hire — while permitting themselves the ability to hire contractors. All this without lowering their budget one penny. They also voted to give the Legislative Bureau more money.
Not one member mentioned how to fund the pension or the hospital. The administrative budget provides just $5 million to the hospital for operations. For FY 2012, CHC is “expected” to collect $18 million in revenues. How? Apparently, not providing CHC with an adequate budget is fine for most high level government officials who will be able to avail themselves of medical referrals — which are denied to just about everyone else.
The budget bill now goes to the Senate. Expect more haggling over details that are important only to politicians who know how to waste taxpayer money even if there’s not much left of it.
Painful options
TO forestall an economic disaster, the Retirement Fund will submit four options to restructure pension payments. The first option is a modest proposal to eliminate COLA and future disability payments which, according to the Fund, will extend the life of the pension agency by one year. The second option is a 10 percent cut in benefits across the board as well as the elimination of COLA and disability payments, which will extend the Fund’s life until 2017. The third option proposes a 25 percent cut across the board while the fourth option is a 50 percent cut which will evidently guarantee the continued survival of the Fund.
Generally, government officials are terrified to make distinctions, even if it is in the public interest to do so. But such is the extent of the crisis that Fund officials are now prepared to do so by cutting disability payments. That would deprive support to one of the most vulnerable members of any society. Still, the Fund’s willingness to end it indicates that the agency views disability support as bogus in the first place. Here’s another idea. Why not exclude the benefits to the large number of grandchildren who have been added to the pension rolls?
However, a family or individual receiving sums under $20,000 probably rely on that amount exclusively and have no political or financial resources to draw on to survive. Hence, benefits cuts should begin above the $20,000 mark. But COLA benefits should go out the door. The Fund cannot afford them and the increases will not be able to keep pace with the rising cost of commodities, goods and services anyway.
Those at the very top end of the pension scale should be ready to absorb the highest level of costs because they can afford it, and in most cases, they are the best educated, most resourceful and have many more options than those earning $20,000. Of course, this option is not fair to them, but that is the price the CNMI has to pay for ignoring the declining condition of the Fund. Promoting familial and political interests has finally brought this once prosperous commonwealth to its knees.
It is now time to consider the interests of all the members of this community, ensure the survival of its most vulnerable members and bring in new leaders with new ideas.
