|
During
the Cabinet meeting Tuesday, President Arroyo approved a
P500 one-time subsidy for so-called lifeline electricity
consumers, meaning those who use 100 kilowatt-hours or
less a month. As explained by Energy Secretary Angelo
Reyes, the subsidy would be sourced from a P4-billion
windfall from value-added tax (VAT) collections on oil.
The
disclosure raised several disturbing issues.
First,
the government itself has become a party to the gouging
of consumers of gasoline, diesel, kerosene and other
products of imported petroleum. Its officials even
candidly—and unthinkingly—acknowledged that the sudden
increase in oil-tax collections was a “windfall,” which
is precisely the term used by Big Oil executives to
describe their megaprofits from skyrocketing crude
prices.
Second,
the government’s description of the increased oil-tax
revenue as a stroke of luck, which is what “windfall”
means, indicates that the additional collections were
never projected by its budget programmers. Therefore,
the government could continue to operate even without
the increased revenue from oil.
Third,
that Social Welfare Secretary Esperanza Cabral has been
charged with implementing the lifeline subsidy is
virtual admission that the subsidy is really a dole-out.
Fourth,
the government—like a lotto winner—does not know what to
do with its unexpected boon. Worse, it is in serious
danger of squandering the additional VAT collections
from oil; and waste is precisely what the one-time
dole-out to lifeline electric consumers would ultimately
amount to. In Tagalog, the subsidy would probably be
called balato by its intended beneficiaries, many
of whom would not appreciate it much, anyway.
Finally,
if the government could be so ready to spread around so
much cash—for what we cannot help but suspect are
political purposes—to a specific sector of society, why
can’t it spread the bounty to the entire population?
If the
government can spare at least P4 billion from its VAT
collections in its bid to curry the favor of low-income
consumers, then it most certainly can do away with the
oil tax—or, at the very least, reduce it—and make the
entire country benefit.
If the
problem is how to spend billions in unexpected oil-tax
collections to help Filipinos with the energy crisis,
then the government certainly has other, far more
practical options.
One of
the participants in the Clean Energy Forum 2008 at the
Manila headquarters of the Asian Development Bank, also
Tuesday, was Enrique Peñalosa, former mayor of Bogota,
Colombia.
As
reported by this paper the other day, Peñalosa said
saving energy requires drastic changes, particularly in
the use of funds for infrastructure.
Speaking
evidently from experience, Peñalosa pointed out specific
down-to-earth measures that his local counterparts could
take a cue from. He said redirecting infrastructure
funds to serve pedestrians more would reduce air
pollution and energy consumption in any city.
The
former mayor said
Bogota reduced traffic jams when the city directed its
infrastructure funds to construct bicycle lanes instead
of roads for cars, and widening sidewalks instead of
building small sidewalks where pedestrians could barely
walk on.
“The
friendlier a city is to cars, the less friendly it is
for people,” Peñalosa said.
The
former mayor did not say so, but apparently sidewalks
and bicycle lanes—compared with motorways—require less
funds to build, perhaps in the order of the amounts
mentioned as oil-VAT “windfall.”
Rather
than hand out a one-time balato to what Cabral
estimates as four million “beneficiaries,” the money
would be better spent on energy-saving projects that
have real long-term value for all Filipinos.
Enough
already with the gimmicks. |
