(Editor’s note: In the case of GOCCs the whole idea is to report illegal disbursements of tax money only, not prevent or prosecute as noted by the author.)

In barber shops, the unstoppable but unrecorded views of experts – the barbers themselves – can only mean one thing: That most government corporations are created for employment, not for profit and service.

Barber shop ‘experts’

Most barbers’ opinions run like this, that among law enforcers their first order is to prevent crimes or arrest criminals after the failure of preventive measures. But among CoA auditors, their important duty is to report illegal, questionable, and preventable disbursements so the members of Congress can take over to investigate and refer their findings to the Ombudsman.

Watch and probe

This is all the whole government can do: Watch, allow, report, and forget any form of disbursements, whether done for all shameless purposes.

Senator Ralph Recto referred to P391 M spent by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as more than one-half of the total of P682 M GOCCs spent in entertainment bills in 2008.

Some questions

But what’s the difference between a transportation allowance of P100,000 and a P1.8 M gas allowance? One barber said the first is for taking a bus ride on EDSA and the second is for buying gas for a Mercedes Benz. Right?

Same purposes: Personal profit, benefit

These are the items that permit GOCCs to cause the taxpayers to lose their shirts: Salary, per diem (called per daya by small-time bureaucrats), representation allowance, transportation allowance, bonus, incentive allowance, extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses. (The last category was the cause of the fall of the Shah of Iran who went into exile on January 16, 1979, and government forces were routed by Khomeini’s supporters. Right?)

Marks of failure

If recipients of huge benefits are geniuses and competent, then in heaven’s name why did GOCCs continue to be in the red? Can’t something be done to let success precede the collection of high perks? Can’t CoA prevent this?

Low pay for a true expert

Economist Alan Greenspan served as chairman of the Federal Reserve System under Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton – 1987 to 2001. He fought inflation through controlling the discount rate. He lived alone in his apartment in Washington, DC, received a small pay, had no car, and was seen walking and crossing streets leading to Congress where he informed senators/congressmen of his plan to fight inflation. He was often seen carrying his folded old jacket. He declined various offers of fat pay from the private industry.

Cup of chocolate only

Golda Meir of Israel served as fourth prime minister (1969 to 1974) and called a few meetings of her Cabinet, usually held in the kitchen of her home in Jerusalem. She had no entertainment allowance but asked her ministers to help themselves to one cup of chocolate, period. She was called the “only man in my Cabinet” by David Ben-Gurion (first prime minister and father of Israel).

But in RP, it’s different. Public officials

need to impress their neighbors, friends, and everybody by showing them shiny shoes, gold watches, European cars, but all at the expense of tax money. They don’t tell why their employers, GOCCs, were failures.

Letters to friends

President Harry S. Truman kept postage stamps in his wallet for his private mails to friends and kin in his home state of Missouri. On his table there’s a reminder on cardboard: “The buck stops here!”

Guaranty of a daughter’s loan

Warren Buffet, third richest man in the world, explained why he could not give a personal loan of $100,000 to his daughter. He didn’t want people to say he was dipping into the investments he held for thousands of Americans. He asked his daughter to borrow from a bank under his guaranty. Last year, Buffet asked Bill and Melinda Gates to help him administer the Buffet Foundation with his donation of $37 billion. (Sayang!)

Not just compensation

Threats of Senate/House investigations of wanton use of tax money don’t bother the GOCCs’ top officials who received huge benefits, not compensation, which is just and reasonable.

‘There’s the rub’

Are officials with big perks more trustworthy than their friends in bureaus/commissions? There’s a saying that “the more you receive, the more you crave.” Are various perks fully deserved by the recipients? The proper answer is: “There’s the rub!”

Perks might encourage men/women to work harder and succeed. Repeated failures over the years should be stopped and written about, not rewarded. (Comments are welcome at roming@pefianco.com).