Can you spend money like them?

If the money came from their own pockets, they wouldn’t spend it like this.

Suh Kyoung-hoThe author is an editorial writer of the JoongAng Ilbo.

“Negotiations went well. My counterpart [Rep. Song Eon-seog of the governing People Power Party] and I could write a book if we had to tell the whole process,” said Rep. Kang Hoon-sik, a vice chair representing the Democratic Party (DP) at the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, shortly after reaching a bipartisan agreement on next year’s budget outline last week. By his comment, we could imagine a dramatic hassle, as usual, over the budget bill.

As it turned out, the budget bill for next year was stretched by a whopping 17 trillion won ($13 billion) after deliberations in the standing committees. The bill seemed to beat the Dec. 24 record of last year in being the most late under the National Assembly Advancement Act. Fortunately, the legislature did not drag its feet that long this time.

A year ago, I wrote a column criticizing the reckless cut — and the artful addition — in the budget bill. I called it a “half-and-half” bill because, in many cases, the number was set around the halfway point of the sums originally proposed by the PPP and the government. Since the budgetary review was just a formality, rivaling parties simply came to an agreement at the midpoint without certain grounds or cause. The budget was also packaged behind the closed doors of the sub-subcommittee of the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, which does not keep any records. I could publish last year’s critical column on the weird budgetary passage after tweaking some numbers for this year’s since nothing has changed.

I read through a report by the Fiscal Reform Institute, a nonprofit think tank, which analyzed this year’s bipartisan budgetary outline. Unsurprisingly, much of the stretches made after a legislative review went to religious facilities, feasibility studies for large pork-barrel projects and regional development, as well as to Busan City in a kind of condolence for losing its bid for the 2030 World Expo. Out of a 4.7-trillion-won cut, just 10 percent was made through the official channel of the special budget committee. None of the increases were discussed at the budget committee because the additions were left up to the “unofficial” subdivision of its subcommittee.

1227-COL-A

Lawmakers from the governing People Power Party (PPP) and the majority Democratic Party (DP) hold hands after reaching an agreement on next year’s budget in the National Assembly on Dec. 20. From left: Rep. Kang Hoon-sik, the secretary representing the DP at the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts; Rep. Hong Ik-pyo, floor leader of the DP; Rep. Yun Jae-ok, floor leader of the PPP; Choo Kyung-ho, finance minister; and Rep. Song Eon-seog, the secretary representing the PPP at the special committee. [KIM SEONG-RYONG]

The intervention of the subdivision has become a norm since 2008 in an effort to smoothen budget negotiations. Of course, some give-and-take could be deemed an unavoidable cost. But lawmakers have gone too far. The special committee reviewed only 661 out of 9,000 government spending plans, of which 350 items worth 500 billion won were agreed to as the original plan or after small adjustments. The bulk requiring big fixes for a cut or an increase became the responsibility of the sub-subcommittee. The tail has wagged the dog.

The behind-the-scenes agreement by the sub-subcommittee that does not keep any records is a serious issue. The legislature must leave the minimum records on what grounds the budget was settled — even if all the tales “worth a book,” to use Rep. Kang’s phrase, could not be revealed. The National Assembly and the government have the responsibility to explain to the public how they spend the tax revenue. The Fiscal Reform Institute has been calling for the disclosure of the sub-subcommittee’s discussions on next year’s budget as public records, which can be made public a few years later.

The institute’s demand deserves consideration. If the demand is met, the leadership of the two mainstream parties and the government budget authorities could come under the spotlight when the bargaining details are exposed. For instance, despite the obvious differences in regional development projects, many of the increases were made in a lump sum — say, 1 billion won, 2 billion won or 3 billion won — without specifying the exact needs. The report by the Fiscal Reform Institute pointed out that the discretionary addition to the budget was proof of collusion between the rivaling parties. The move is tantamount to a “budget cartel” condoned by the Ministry of Economy and Finance. That is another example of malicious cartels President Yoon Suk Yeol vehemently opposes. Such an audacious give-and-take tradition could be contained if the bargaining procedure is kept on record and subject to disclosure three to five years later under the Public Records Act. Nothing can change if nothing is done.

Although under a fiscal tightening, the government is expected to incur a deficit of more than 44 trillion won in its account balance next year. The budget must be spent with extra care based on the priority. There are too many wasteful plans that merely serve the campaign for the April 10 parliamentary election. Lawmakers and the government must think twice before squandering the taxpayers’ money. If the money came from their own pockets, they wouldn’t spend it like this.