Most Popular
-
1
Dongduk Women’s University halts coeducation talks
-
2
Defense ministry denies special treatment for BTS’ V amid phone use allegations
-
3
Russia sent 'anti-air' missiles to Pyongyang, Yoon's aide says
-
4
OpenAI in talks with Samsung to power AI features, report says
-
5
Two jailed for forcing disabled teens into prostitution
-
6
Trump picks ex-N. Korea policy official as his principal deputy national security adviser
-
7
South Korean military plans to launch new division for future warfare
-
8
Gold bars and cash bundles; authorities confiscate millions from tax dodgers
-
9
Kia EV9 GT marks world debut at LA Motor Show
-
10
Teen smoking, drinking decline, while mental health, dietary habits worsen
There is no substitute for victory in elections. Party strategists and anyone who wants to have their name published in the media make sweet promises that they think will help attract votes.
The series of election pledges churned out by parties these days have one thing in common ― be they a fivefold increase of soldiers’ salaries and the release of allowances to unemployed college graduates. It is a lack of convincing explanation on how to fund them.
Parties put up no collateral to vouch for the fulfillment of these promises. If a ruling party is eventually proved unable to translate its election pledges into reality, it can claim change of circumstances, conveniently attributed to external factors, or cite extreme obstructions by the opposition party.
The Lee Myung-bak administration is a good case in point. The Grand National Party’s key platform in the 2007 presidential campaign was the “747 policy” ― 7 percent of annual GDP growth, $40,000 in per capita GDP and entering the G7. After four years, these triple objectives still remain a mirage on the far-off horizon, but officials can blame the failure on the recurring global economic crises since 2008 and the public has mostly forgotten them. The president will finish his single-term with some regrets.
Ahead of the 2012 elections, Rep. Nam Kyung-pil of the Saenuri Party (formerly called GNP) has made conspicuous pledges. He suggested raising the monthly salaries for the conscripted soldiers from the present 93,000 won to 500,000 won a month (for a corporal), 100,000 won more than party policy-makers had previously proposed. Beyond that, Nam boldly proposed to offer free breakfasts to all elementary, middle and high school students.
Nam, a reformist leader, must be keenly aware how the free school lunch issue that had galvanized a partisan dispute throughout 2011 led to the defeat of the ruling party in the mayoral by-election in Seoul. He is now calling for a counterattack on the leftist force with the proposal for free breakfast for all students up to high school, numbering 2.5 million across the country.
The Emergency Committee of the party headed by Park Geun-hye has already included a set of generous welfare programs as part of her 2012 platform. Among them was a pledge to provide bonuses to irregular employees equivalent to 80 percent of the amount for regular workers. The committee also promised to cut interest rates on loans to rent apartments and lowered the credit card fees to 1.5 percent.
The main opposition Democratic United Party is well ahead in the contest of welfare. Its “three-plus-one” policy requires 17 trillion won to provide free school meals, free child care for infants, free medical care and halved tuition fees for college students. Another 16 trillion won will be needed for its employment and housing aid projects and subsidies for the poor. The DUP claims the huge funds can be established without issuing bonds or levying new taxes but through the overhaul of existing finance, taxation and welfare systems.
Because there are so many promises, it is hard for the media and civic groups to make proper scrutiny of each of them. They should begin to remind the people that 1 trillion won means collecting 20,000 won from each and every living soul in this country ― from infants to 90-year-olds. So multiply that figure by the number of trillions to estimate the scale of the many welfare programs.
Somebody has to pay for citizens’ benefits. If not enough is collected, the state goes bankrupt. Problems beyond funding involve the fact that the programs considerably interfere with the private sector, such as bonuses to irregular workers. As the state cannot resolve them with subsidies alone, the only possibility is trying to enforce it through legislation, regardless of their practical effects.
Undoubtedly, 2012 will be remembered for a race for populism in the annals of the republic. Politicians too know that populism is bad for the nation’s health but they are increasingly addicted to it. Some will win, others will lose, but the people as a whole will suffer.
The series of election pledges churned out by parties these days have one thing in common ― be they a fivefold increase of soldiers’ salaries and the release of allowances to unemployed college graduates. It is a lack of convincing explanation on how to fund them.
Parties put up no collateral to vouch for the fulfillment of these promises. If a ruling party is eventually proved unable to translate its election pledges into reality, it can claim change of circumstances, conveniently attributed to external factors, or cite extreme obstructions by the opposition party.
The Lee Myung-bak administration is a good case in point. The Grand National Party’s key platform in the 2007 presidential campaign was the “747 policy” ― 7 percent of annual GDP growth, $40,000 in per capita GDP and entering the G7. After four years, these triple objectives still remain a mirage on the far-off horizon, but officials can blame the failure on the recurring global economic crises since 2008 and the public has mostly forgotten them. The president will finish his single-term with some regrets.
Ahead of the 2012 elections, Rep. Nam Kyung-pil of the Saenuri Party (formerly called GNP) has made conspicuous pledges. He suggested raising the monthly salaries for the conscripted soldiers from the present 93,000 won to 500,000 won a month (for a corporal), 100,000 won more than party policy-makers had previously proposed. Beyond that, Nam boldly proposed to offer free breakfasts to all elementary, middle and high school students.
Nam, a reformist leader, must be keenly aware how the free school lunch issue that had galvanized a partisan dispute throughout 2011 led to the defeat of the ruling party in the mayoral by-election in Seoul. He is now calling for a counterattack on the leftist force with the proposal for free breakfast for all students up to high school, numbering 2.5 million across the country.
The Emergency Committee of the party headed by Park Geun-hye has already included a set of generous welfare programs as part of her 2012 platform. Among them was a pledge to provide bonuses to irregular employees equivalent to 80 percent of the amount for regular workers. The committee also promised to cut interest rates on loans to rent apartments and lowered the credit card fees to 1.5 percent.
The main opposition Democratic United Party is well ahead in the contest of welfare. Its “three-plus-one” policy requires 17 trillion won to provide free school meals, free child care for infants, free medical care and halved tuition fees for college students. Another 16 trillion won will be needed for its employment and housing aid projects and subsidies for the poor. The DUP claims the huge funds can be established without issuing bonds or levying new taxes but through the overhaul of existing finance, taxation and welfare systems.
Because there are so many promises, it is hard for the media and civic groups to make proper scrutiny of each of them. They should begin to remind the people that 1 trillion won means collecting 20,000 won from each and every living soul in this country ― from infants to 90-year-olds. So multiply that figure by the number of trillions to estimate the scale of the many welfare programs.
Somebody has to pay for citizens’ benefits. If not enough is collected, the state goes bankrupt. Problems beyond funding involve the fact that the programs considerably interfere with the private sector, such as bonuses to irregular workers. As the state cannot resolve them with subsidies alone, the only possibility is trying to enforce it through legislation, regardless of their practical effects.
Undoubtedly, 2012 will be remembered for a race for populism in the annals of the republic. Politicians too know that populism is bad for the nation’s health but they are increasingly addicted to it. Some will win, others will lose, but the people as a whole will suffer.
