[Reporter`s view] Budget is classic pork barrel

Announcing the bipartisan agreement to pass the 2001 budget, the floor leaders of the two main political parties, Rep. Chung Kyun-Hwan of the Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) and Rep. Chung Chang-Wha of the Grand National Party (GNP), promised Sunday to keep down pork barrel projects for local constituencies to a minimum.

After having adjusted the numbers the next day, Reps Chung Sye-Kyun (MDP) and Lee Hahn-Koo (GNP), both senior members of the National Assembly¡¯s Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, explained that appropriation for investment in infrastructure was increased to energize the slumping economy.

However, a glance at the papers the two parties exchanged in the course of the budget study readily belied their commitment.

How did the opposition GNP come out?

The opposition party repeatedly had pledged itself to correct the budgetary favors granted to the Honam (southwestern) provinces. A paper prepared by the GNP budget-account group to adjust requests for increased appropriations Sunday contained many pleas for boosted spending on projects planned in Yongnam (Southeastern) provinces. Most of the requests, 80 percent, were apparently meant as favors for the region regarded as its power base. Among them were expenditures for the planning and designing of a dormitory for Taegu Teachers College, the construction of Taegaya historical theme park, the organization of the F3 international motor race in Changwon and building a culture-arts hall in Yangsan.

About the same is true of the MDP.

While working out a revised version of the 200l budget with part of the GNP requests incorporated, it inserted on the quiet some similar pork-barrel projects for its home region, which were not taken up at its earlier consultation meetings with the government. They were public works on constructing a detour road around Kwangju City, a rail link between Changhang and Kunsan and an eastern access road to Kwangyang port.

This cozy collaboration between the ruling and the opposition parties to share budgetary favors for their respective home constituents resulted in ballooning appropriations for infrastructure projects, making it impossible to keep the promise of relieving burdens on taxpayers going through hard times.

Those in the political circles would say that it is an established practice repeated every year. The opposition party says it has no alternative but to use such favors to meet the demands of the voters and placate their grievances. But the stark fact of life is that the money going into those public works programs to do lawmakers proud and garner more votes comes from tax revenues collected from the people.

How will the men on the street shivering in the cold of winter amid a deepening economic crisis react to the development in the legislative chamber?