Politicians giveth and politicians taketh away
IN January 1984, the CNMI government enacted legislation that, among other things, imposed a 1% “OPA fee” on government agencies, including “autonomous” entities. In October 1995, Senate Bill 9-6 became Public Law 9-68 which exempted the Legislature and PSS from the fee.
This year, CPA has asked lawmakers to pass House Bill 22-102 which would exempt all autonomous agencies.
OPA says no way. According to the public auditor, “nearly all” autonomous agencies are not making the payments required by law. “To date,” she says, “the estimated past due amounts from all autonomous agencies total approximately $40 million…. CUC alone makes up approximately $20 million of the total amount due.” H.B. 22-102, “as written, rewards these public entities’ disregard of the law, forgives a massive debt owed to the CNMI Government General Fund, and will impact the ability of OPA to function independently as required by law.”
Of course OPA is right. But let’s say that the politicians on Capital Hill (miraculously) agreed with OPA and demanded payments from the delinquent autonomous agencies. Where exactly would they get the money? Should CUC disconnect the utility services it provides to government offices that are way behind on their bills? Or should CUC raise its rates? What about CPA?
Who will pick up the tab for all these payment demands required by law which, come to think of it, can be amended or even repealed?
And which do you think is the “path of least resistance” for elected officials who are also candidates in this year’s election?
Anyone still remember what happened to CUC’s “over $100 million” debt to CDA?
There’s a lesson here, somewhere
MANY of us believe that the CNMI “government is big” — even the local Democrats said so, publicly and loudly, in 1983, when they were the minority party.
And yet every time government employees lose their jobs, particularly in an election year, the howls of protesting politicians can be heard throughout the Commonwealth.
Perhaps we exaggerate, but when government furloughs were announced at the height of the Covid-19 restrictions (which put the economy in a coma), many politicians denounced the “unfairness” of it all — without proposing specific measures that could fund the re-hiring of the affected government employees.
Another true story:
In 1997, a general election year, the then-Democratic administration went on a pre-election hiring spree. The economy was still booming. The garment industry still existed. The tourism industry would record the highest number of arrivals in CNMI history. But the opposition party, the Republicans, criticized the administration’s “politically motivated jobs program” (as if another kind existed in government). They talked about “financial accountability” and “fiscal responsibility.” And “the people,” of course, and “the children,” and their “future.” “Democracy,” and “the Constitution” were probably mentioned, too, because why not?
They vowed, in any case, not to approve funding for the new and “illegal” hires, several of whom, in the next House session, showed up in the gallery with their family members. They were all voters.
End of “debate.”
P.S. The Democrats, who split into two factions, lost the 1997 election.
P.P.S. There was no election runoff provision in 1997.
