Same old…
ONE of the dictionary definitions of “junket” is “a trip, as by an official or legislative committee, paid out of public funds and ostensibly to obtain information.” For most of us, however, such trips are government-paid vacations. And many politicians agree — until they get elected and/or assume leadership positions.
Forty years ago, Variety’s then-acting editor criticized the off-island travels of certain government officials in an editorial titled “Dollars Fly Off Island,” only to be told by a Variety op-ed writer, Ruth L. Tighe, to “stop condemning all travel.”
“All travel is not bad,” wrote Tighe. “All travel is not a waste. Just like with everything else, condemning all of anything because one, or two, may be bad, or ill-advised, is not very intelligent.”
In the early years of the Commonwealth, its government was almost totally dependent on federal funding. “Something like 75% of our income comes from the U.S. federal government,” Tighe said in 1983. Hence, when federal officials in the U.S. make funding or other decisions affecting the CNMI, “we must be there to defend our interests,” she added. At the time, the CNMI had a Washington representative — an official lobbyist. Today, a congressional delegate represents these islands in the U.S. House of Representatives. But then and now, in times of great need, or when proposed federal legislation or policy would have profound consequences for the CNMI, its other top officials must head to the nation’s capital and appeal directly to federal authorities.
“[W]e all know from personal experience how much more effective it is to talk face to face, to be able to watch the other person’s face, and hands and eyes and feet,” Tighe said. “We can see whether our arguments are being accepted, and we can change them, in mid-stream, if they’re not. You can’t do that over the phone.” Or Zoom.
“It’s not even as though we were a big important concern to the people back on the Mainland,” Tighe added. “Other countries of the world, all fifty states, the other U.S. territories, are all in line in front of us for their attention. To be heard, and listened to, we MUST be there, in person, to lobby for our own interests. No one else will do it for us.”
Tighe also noted that the CNMI was “attempting to increase its tourist industry. Again, it should be obvious that sitting on the island and waiting for tourists to drop in like manna from heaven won’t work. We must persuade people to come here. We must make sure that there are planes or ships to bring them here. We must make sure that people — tourist agencies — know that we exist, where we are, what we have to offer. And the most effective way to do all this is in person, by off-island travel.”
…same old
RECENTLY a group of lawmakers attended the three-day ASEAN Gaming Summit in Manila. “This year’s largest-ever edition,” its organizers said, “drew experts and enterprises from across the globe, all focused on the world’s most attractive market: Asia.”
The CNMI lawmakers who went to Manila spent a portion of their office funds to be in a gathering where they could meet reputable gaming executives and experts, and learn about the latest developments and trends in the gaming industry — the same industry that, just before it was shut down by the pandemic restrictions, was providing the Commonwealth government tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue.
Many of us complain about “wasteful government spending” which we say includes off-island travels. Yet we also insist that the government meets payroll without resorting to austerity measures or layoffs. We demand that it makes regular payments to the Settlement Fund, including the retirees’ 25% benefits. We say that it must fully fund medical referrals, local Medicare, PSS, scholarships, the college, the trade school, CUC, public safety, the justice system, homesteads. We clamor for improved infrastructure, airports and seaports, more and better roads, among many other things that cost a lot of money and for which not many of us want to pay.
Forty years ago, the then-acting editor of Variety said there was a need to “cut” government “fat.” But official travel expenditures were — and still are — a sliver compared to the government’s other expenses. See, for example, the total amount of salaries and benefits annually allotted for the personnel of several government departments, divisions, agencies, offices, programs, etc., many of which have duplicative, overlapping if not redundant functions.
Government “fat” is, quite possibly, 90% of government. Yet truly and significantly cutting its costs, or even proposing it, is political hara-kiri.
Might as well condemn junkets then.
