What happens when a bloated, bureaucratic national government, whose job is to facilitate aid and support to its state governments instead impedes support and even interferes in the affairs of its state governments? Well, let's take a look at an example: The National Government of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM).
Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay
RIGHT TO CRITICIZE
First off, I would like to say that I have nothing against the National Government, instead, as a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, believe it is my duty to question the direction and decisions of my leaders all the time. In fact, I'll refer to the FSM Constitution and a case annotation on this.
With that being said, I will share my own observations and submit my own opinions based on my personal experience.
NON-SHARING OF REVENUES
For years, fishing license fees have brought in millions of dollars to the FSM. The last two recorded years were at $60 to $70 million per year. Not one cent was shared with any of the four states of the FSM.
For those that don't know what the issue is here, allow me to paint a picture of why this is unfair. First, the job of the national government is of course to facilitate aid and share revenue with its four states. The national government is a patch of some 130 acres located in Palikir, in the State of Pohnpei. It employs about 1,000 citizens from mostly Pohnpei. There are no schools, no hospitals, no emergency services at the national government. Just a complex of buildings, which are actually nice buildings, that house bureaucrats and civil servants whose job is to create policy, facilitate support to the four states of the FSM, and be the face of the FSM to our diplomatic and international partners. The national congress is there, along with the supreme court of the FSM and the National Police, who are really just security guards for national government property.
This is a very small section of the FSM, not even 1% of the total land mass that receives up to $70 million per year for fishing license fees alone. They also receive captive insurance fees from Japanese insurance companies that are around $20 million per year, not to mention 50 percent of each state's gross revenue tax. The States, on the other hand, had to share $80 million divided by 4 states in compact sector grants for education, health, and infrastructure only. This may seem unfair. And it is. 130 acres and 1000 plus employees are the only beneficiaries of a lucrative fishing license fee industry and captive insurance industry. Whatever shall be done for the rest of the nation?
CON-CON TO THE RESCUE
Thank God for Constitutions. The FSM constitution has a provision that allows for constitutional amendments every 10 years. Time for some change. Guess what was voted to change? Yes! the sharing of fishing license fee revenue. The people of the FSM voted and agreed unanimously (of course!) that the National Government must share these revenues with the rest of the states.
Just a side note here on the requirement of voting to change the revenue sharing of fishing license fees. That a vote by the people of the FSM had to be undertaken to force the National Government to share the fees with its own people is not only sad but downright messed up. Why so greedy, leaders at the National Government?
OUTCOMES
One of the outcomes of not sharing millions of dollars of fishing license fee revenue and now being forced to share revenue with their people is that now, the bloated national government must cut funding to certain programs. In order to keep their lavish lifestyle of traveling to and fro, purchasing the latest vehicles, and maintaining six-figure representation funds for congressmen, they cut aid to non-public schools, scholarships, supplemental budget for social security, and conservation societies.
ONE SAD OUTCOME: AID TO NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Let's focus on aid to non-public schools. The usual assistance provided was $1 million annually to non-public schools. So, how much did the national government cut? $750,000.00. Yes, a 75% cut to non-public, meaning private schools, that they have relied upon for many years. Cut, just like that. Because, instead of cutting other non-essentials (like travel and six-figure representation funds), they decided to cut crucial aid for the education of our next generation. What is the priority and focus, here?
There are more chain reaction decisions that have and will continue to have negative outcomes. It is unfortunate that the knee-jerk reaction of the FSM Congress to constitutional amendments is to cut. It is what it is. What possible benefit will come from cutting 75% of aid to non-public schools? Why would that even be a choice?
,
0 Comments