“No Pork Barrel” Under Parliamentarism Says a Facebook Propagandist, then Gets KO’d!

A politically clueless founder (or dear fuhrer) of an absurd pseudo-political group that has been advocating parliamentarism posted the following on Facebook:

FACEBOOK LINK

Hilarious! Perhaps he’s talking about his own “UNICORN” country. Obviously he’s off his meds again.

The guy’s name is Orion Dumdum. I say, what an aptly named megalomaniac, psychotic creature! That sounds like dum-dum or dumb-dumb.

Mr. Dumdum naively, stupidly rejects what he calls “presidentialism” because it is gridlock-prone? Well, Dumd-Dumb simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about because “political gridlock” also happens in parliamentary countries, like India,ItalyUnited Kingdom, to name a few. In fact, this Wikipedia entry would have informed him “gridlock” and government shutdown also affect the Westminster systems:

In parliamentary systems based on the Westminster system, parliamentary deadlocks may arise when an election results in neither or none of the major political parties having the numbers in the lower house (the house where the government is formed) to form a government, or when the the votes in a lower house of parliament are so close that a government cannot be sure of getting its legislation passed through the house, or when another party (usually referred to as the opposition party) controls a majority of votes in the upper house.

Dumdum also said that under his parliamentary system there would be “NO PORK” or “no pork barrel”. What a clueless parliamentary twit. His Facebook status indeed proves he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that he’s more interested in spreading his own propaganda joke disguised as “intelligent” political commentary.

The truth is, pork barrel exists in parliamentary countries. Perhaps Mr. Dumdum dogmatically, naively believes it only exists in what he calls ‘presidential’ countries. This makes me think Dumdum is too politically clueless and ignorant to know how the term “pork barrel” is used in politics.

  • Pork barrel system in Australia. This post states: “The importance of the parliamentary system in promoting party-based pork barrel politics is most evident when one compares the patterns of Australian local grant distribution with those of a non-parliamentary system, such as the USA.” In Australia, pork barrel system and distribution “promotes the importance of party-oriented votes”. The result, according to the article, “is a powerful incentive for the ministerial elite to use their discretionary powers over local grants or programs to place the lion’s share of such funds into electoral districts controlled by their own party.”
  • Pork barrel practice in Italy. Here’s an abstract of this study that explains pork barrel expenditures in Italy:

    “We provide new evidence on the link between electoral rules and public  finance outcomes. In particular, using a panel which includes the expenditure proposals sponsored by each member of the Italian Senate from 1993 to 2012, as well as other individual and district characteristics, we show that, in line with the theory, legislators elected with a majoritarian system have a higher propensity to sponsor pork barrel bills than those elected with a proportional system. Furthermore, this relationship is more pronounced in areas where civicness is low. The latter result holds even if we control for legislature and district fixed e ffects.”

  • Here’s another study: Ministerial drift, parliamentary conflict or pork barrel politics?
  • This study states: “The House system was the most heavily oriented to the more “pork-barrel” policy issues, those concerned with the delivery of services to local communities.”

  • From this article:

    “[T]he parliamentary system institutionalizes ‘pork barrel’ politics. The aforementioned fusion of executive and legislative power in a parliamentary system effectively makes the entire national budget (except of course for debt servicing and certain fixed expenditures) one big ‘pork barrel’. There is no check for the power of the Prime Minister and his ruling gang to do what they want except to resort to the Judicial system, but that assumes that irregularities or kickbacks can be documented (which is never easy to do). Thus, if we are now disturbed by the way many politicos are presently wielding restricted powers, what do we imagine will happen after we’ve given them unrestricted powers?”

  • Pork barrel in India. Here’s an abstract of this study titled Core or Swing? The Role of Electoral Context in Shaping Pork Barrel:”We find that the ruling party targets schools in “swing” constituencies when there area disproportionately large number of close races in the state. Thus, while ruling party politicians might prefer to reward their most ardent supporters, they are constrained by electoral realities. The theoretical framework and methodological tools highlighted in this paper have significant implications for the study of distributive politics.”
  • From a book titled Do Institutions Matter?: Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad:

PORK BARREL

PORK-BARREL2

PORK3

Sorry, folks, especially Mr. Dumdum (the most shameless parliamentary propagandist I’ve ever seen and encountered online), but pork barrel also exists, or is even rampant, in parliamentary countries.

Those who believe that a shift to parliamentarism is the only answer to our “pork barrel” crisis are either lying or politically naive. The only practical solution to this pork issue is: ABOLISH PORK BARREL and totally remove  the power or capacity of our lawmakers or any politicians to abuse, misappropriate public money.

Mr. Dumdum’s Facebook post is actually what stupid, ignorant people do when they don’t have facts. They resort to propaganda and lying.

7 thoughts on ““No Pork Barrel” Under Parliamentarism Says a Facebook Propagandist, then Gets KO’d!

  1. Pingback: A Parliamentary Dum-Dum’s Tyrannical ‘Gridlock is Bad” Clueless Diatribe Against America’s Pol System | vincenton

  2. Pingback: The Curious Case of a Pathological Lying Pro-Parliamentary Dum-Dum: His “Ceteris Paribus”, “Probabilistic Causality” Gibberish | vincenton

  3. But the pork barrel described in the above parliamentary systems is not at all the same as the pork barrel system that has emerged in the Philippines. In parliamentary system of government, discretionary funds are allocated based on policies determined by the ruling party and have passed debates in parliament. These funds are used to ensure the reelection of a member of parliament as he is held accountable to his constituents. There is transparency in that, the bureaucracy has local representatives that administer the funds, the money does not go directly to the politicians pockets. These discretionary funds are decided by the representative in consultation with this constituency, and the implementing agency then implements the project, the politician does not concern himself with who gets the contracts. Although, there may still be corruption if one political party is in power for a long time, since a cozy relationship with the bureaucracy may ensue. Still, the constituency, politician and implementing bureaucrats work hand in hand in making sure the project gets implemented.

    In the presidential system, especially that one that we have, politicians get to dictate who should be the contractors and the bureaucrats are co-opted by the porkies, leaving the constituency totally clueless of these transactions. I say, the ‘the pork barrel’ as it exists in our presidential system is not at all the same as the one that exists in the parliamentary systems above. In addition, the political party has supremacy and will punish an erring politician who will jeopardize the standing of the political party in an election. I haven’t heard of any pork barrel funds from politicians in Japan which have been channeled to NGOs, Jesus, this is simply unthinkable in a parliamentary system of government where the implementation of projects is assured by the checks and balances inherent in the relationship among the constituency, politician and the implementing government agency. The delivery of public services is simply efficient in a parliamentary form of government, where funds are used to make government agencies function smoothly. The ‘pork barrel’ system that the Philippines has owing to its disarrayed public policy making, with the executive competing for legitimacy with legislature is simply legalized plunder.

    I don’t know what you have against Dumdum, but I commend his efforts in forwarding the advocacy of shifting to parliamentary form of government. 27 years of this system have rendered the country almost like a failed state. Isn’t it obvious, we need to try a different form of government??????

    • So, you’re not denying pork barrel also exists in parliamentary countries… Good then. To be honest that’s quite a big improvement, because what you said goes against Orion’s stupid, baseless talking point. You’re only saying they’re different…

      You said: “But the pork barrel described in the above parliamentary systems is not at all the same as the pork barrel system that has emerged in the Philippines.

      — You must have your own definition of pork barrel. Like I said above, “This makes me think Dumdum is too politically clueless and ignorant to know how the term “pork barrel” is used in politics.”

      Of course, we have our own pork barrel system. That’s because our lawmakers in the past had a corrupt, utterly flawed understanding of the Congress’ “power of the purse”. First, it was called CDF. And then it was called PDAF. Now B.S. Aquino has his own DAP. Know how political pundits use the term pork barrel. Those scholars and writers I quoted exactly knew what they’re talking about when they said, and confirmed, pork barrel also exists and is rampant in parliamentary countries.

      I hope you’re not saying the Philippines- not presidential system- invented pork barrel.😉

      Question 1: When did our politician fully institutionalize pork barrel?

      Question 2: According to what Orion told you, when did we adopt what you, peeps, call presidentialism?

      Once you answer these questions, I will tell you when those parliamentary countries I cited adopted their own pork barrel systems… This is just to show whether your arguments are consistent and logical or not.😉

      You said: “In parliamentary system of government, discretionary funds are allocated based on policies determined by the ruling party and have passed debates in parliament.”

      Well, perhaps in other parliamentary countries. There’s no actual book or bible that states, “THIS MUST BE THE PORK BARREL SYSTEM FOR PARLIAMENTARY COUNTRIES.” I hope you’d be able to show me your parliamentary bible. Is this your understanding of things? Do you even know pork barrel in America is entirely different from ours? Do you know that? Know things properly, OK?

      Everything you said is not backed by facts. I’ve provided studies and sources. Everything you said either came from Orion or are just made-up stories you concocted to defend your parliamentarism. Nice try!

      “I don’t know what you have against Dumdum.”

      I’ve NOTHING against him. It’s your guy who takes things very personally. If people disagree with him, your paranoid, psychopathic, narcissistic Dear Fuhrer thinks he’s being personally attacked. Does he actually think he represents parliamentary system? He should learn to differentiate his own delusional self from his own political advocacy, which is parliamentarism. That’s exactly how dictators think. If people disagree or criticize their failed politics, the dictators think they’re being personally attacked. But who the heck is he? Is he above reproach? I just think his parlia-dogma is just non-factual, illogical, baseless, ignorant, idiotic, and fanatical.

      This is politics. Anyone who holds and advocates any kind of policy or politics or ideology must be ready for criticisms. Unless you’re a megalomaniac, narcissistic psychopath who thinks very highly of your own deluded self.

      Review your comment… Are you trying to say the pork barrel system for parliamentary countries must be uniform or the same? Also, you trying to say the pork barrel system for “presidential” countries must be uniform or the same? If that’s what you think. then YOU ARE BEING SO ILLOGICAL. Why? Because the pork system in America is entirely different from ours. Diyan pa lang sablay ka na, and it shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, parliamentary countries also have their own pork systems.

      By the way, know the proper concept or pork barrel, or how political scholars and experts use the term.

      I appreciate your comment.😉

  4. Pingback: Brutally Slapping a Megalomaniac, Sociopathic Parliamentary Dum-Dum With Bricks of Facts | vincenton

  5. Pingback: American Liberals’ “Gridlocked” Mentality | vincenton

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s