Cut and cut cleanly
ELECTED officials say there is a need to “raise revenue” to pay for the government’s obligations, but no one, as far as we know, has publicly asked: What are these obligations, and why should the government continue to meet them even when it’s running out of money? To be sure, the federal-court-mandated payments to the Settlement Fund (75% of the retirees’ pension benefits) must be prioritized because failure to do so could be financially worse for the CNMI. Then there are the payments for medical referrals and the government employees’ health and life insurance as well as the funds for public safety and emergency response, and the 25% for PSS. Arguably, these, too, are of “greatest importance.”
But what about the rest of the CNMI government’s expenditures? Why can’t the administration and lawmakers mandate at least 15% in spending cuts for all three branches of government with each branch determining which of their spending items should get less funding (or none at all)?
To quote the Rolling Stones, you can’t always get what you want. Especially if you’re broke. But it seems that some government officials believe they should have everything they want even if they can’t afford it.
Who do they think they are? Politicians? Oh wait.
Promises, promises
MANY Commonwealth officials who participated in the CNMI Fiscal Response Summit in April 2020 are now in charge of the executive and legislative branches of government. The then-lt. governor said the implementation of spending-cuts, government reorganization, among other fiscal measures, “should have been done a long time ago.” That was over three years ago. Early this year, as the newly elected governor, he said “everything is on the chopping block…in light of a funding shortfall.” Moreover, he said he didn’t “want to go out and raise taxes again and impose the penalty on the businesses and the people of the Commonwealth because of the misappropriation [and] misdeeds [of] government officials.”
A few months later, however, he proposed a business gross revenue tax hike while his legislative allies introduced fee- and tax-hike measures. On the chopping block are everyone’s wallets, but not the government’s. Businesses, small and big, are downsizing, reducing their costs, including their employees’ work-hours; some are already laying off people. Other residents are leaving the islands and relocating to jurisdictions where the economy is not dysfunctional. So now, according to some elected officials, those who are left should pay the government more so it can continue to be big and bloated and overspending.
Pointless
WHATEVER happened to the “first Governor’s Small Business Advisory Council” that the governor announced in February? He said he wanted to “hear…the voices and recommendations of our small businesses on the issues and policies that affect them, and by extension the wider economy.”
It probably doesn’t matter. With or without such a council elected officials are aware of what small businesses, consumers and other members of the community are saying about the proposed fee and tax-hike measures, and why they shouldn’t be passed in this bad economy.
For many elected officials, however, the bottom-line is politics. They believe that it is more politically viable to tax and spend than to impose fiscal discipline, which apparently applies only to households and businesses, including government vendors still waiting to be paid.
“Change you can believe in” indeed.
