How Much Debt Is Left to Our Posterity by Policies of a “Cabinet of Losers”?

 How Much Debt Is Left to Our Posterity by Policies of a “Cabinet of Losers”?

United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan)

November 6, 2019

 Translation of an Excerpt

The recent policies issued by the Tsai government to sprinkle subsidies for electioneering purposes have reached a point where the people could not catch up, totally disregarding the legitimacy, fairness and perception by society of the policies. Earlier, President Tsai was still bragging that the Tsai government “is the government that abides by fiscal discipline the most”; however, her and Premier Su’s recent squandering of subsidies and electioneering policies have simply regarded the national coffers as the Green camp’s exclusive "campaign treasury" for digging, trampling on fiscal discipline under their feet.

Summing up the Tsai government’s recent policies of "great sprinkling of money", they could be divided into three categories: the first is "cash-type" short-term subsidy measures, such as travel subsidies, night market coupons, subsidies for farm machinery, i.e., good news of “spending upon receiving” allowing the public to immediately taste the candy, with the expiration date mostly up to the end of the elections.

The second type is “strong stimulant” construction and preferential treatments, for instance, the extension of the High Speed Rail southward and eastward, and up to the addition of the annuity system to farmers insurance, and other extra-large policy pledges. As for how the policies will be realized in the future, the powers-that-be do not really care, as most of them lack well-rounded feasibility assessments and fiscal planning. However, relying on the bragging of the initiators, they have left to our posterity to bear far-reaching disputes over the environment and the risks over debts.

The third type is bonus policies that "destroy the established system", using a high-sounding name to package an unfair distribution of resources. For instance, Premier Su, without prior discussions, abused his power to repeal the "revenue stamp tax" in order to please specific industries such as land developers, and massively offering extra "subsidies for interest payments" to encourage Taiwan businessmen on the Mainland to come home; these are all measures to sacrifice the taxation system and tax revenues to court the business community. More ironically, over three years ago, Tsai Ing-wen hoisted the big banner of "generational justice" to slash the pensions for the military, civil servants and public school teachers, but now, disregarding the reform of the soon-to-be bankrupt labor insurance annuities, she declared for electoral prospects that she would issue "elderly farmers annuities" which are even more beneficial than labor insurance. May we ask, at the beginning, Tsai Ing-wen used the grounds that "state finances cannot support them" to cut pensions for civil servants and public school teachers, but now can state finances instead allow the government to squander at will?

With regard to the "Cabinet of losers" headed by Su Tseng-chang, the average person only sees its superficial "dare to push", not knowing that behind the "daring" spirit is only Premier Su using the system and resources of the state to engage in his personal loyalty to Tsai Ing-wen, and nothing else.

In over a dozen years, Su Tseng-chang has never won in any elections, principally because the electorate do not identify with his style of doing things; who knew, Tsai Ing-wen, nevertheless, deliberately nominated him to be Premier. If this is not looking down upon the electorate, then what is? With such a man lacking the legitimacy of vox populi, could the voters only silently accept his squandering of state finances? The resources, finances, and systems of the state today have fallen into the hands of a "Cabinet of losers", endlessly squandering them. If it is not "leaving the debt to our posterity,” then leaving the burden to whom?

Attachment : none