Lacson supports marcos' budget oversight, hontiveros warns of constitutional limits
Senator-elect Panfilo 'Ping' Lacson and Senator Risa Hontiveros are at odds over President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s plan to observe the upcoming national budget deliberations.
The Department of Budget and Management earlier said the President intends to monitor the entire budget process to ensure alignment with government priorities.
Lacson welcomed the move, saying it could strengthen discipline in Congress—as long as Marcos does not interfere in bicameral conference committee discussions.
'It will send a clear and very strong signal to the members of Congress not to make a mockery of our role in the budget process… and that we should not treat the national budget as individual prerogatives,' Lacson said in a statement.
However, Hontiveros raised constitutional concerns over the president's involvement, stressing the limited role of the executive in the budget process.
'The power of the purse is wielded by Congress and Congress alone,' she said during a media forum.
'Walang papel ang presidente bilang observer sa bicam sa Konstitusyon. 'Pag pinilit 'yan baka magkaroon pa sila ng problema, baka kasuhan sila.'The debate comes amid legal challenges to the P6.3-trillion 2025 national budget, currently pending before the Supreme Court. Critics have flagged blank allocations and the zero subsidy for PhilHealth as signs of potential abuse.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Why Medicaid work requirements won't work
Kathryn Anne Edwards, Tribune News Service The US labour market is a truly astonishing thing to behold. It includes 171 million Americans, as young as 14 and older than 90, some who never finished elementary school and others with PhDs. It is resilient and dynamic, shrinking during recessions but growing again after. It provides the majority of Americans with the majority of their income. All of which is to say: It is common to look to the labor market as a kind of salve for all economic wounds. Whatever the problem is, the solution is to get people working. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For all its strength, the labor market is encumbered by the low-wage labor market — where work doesn't support a stable living, and where jobs are so bad they're more salt than salve. This is a reality that Republicans in Congress, in their current push to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, ignore. They are making policy for a labor market that doesn't exist. The 'low-wage labor market' is a vague designation. It's typically defined as those workers who have relatively or absolutely low hourly earnings, such as the bottom quintile or quarter of wage earners, or earners below some nominal wage cutoff. Whatever the definition, however, there are some aspects of the low-wage labor market that are obvious: The low-wage labor market is large. At least 39 million workers in the US earn less than $17 an hour, which is the equivalent of $35,360 annually. That is just below 138% of the poverty threshold for a family of three — the income needed for parents to be eligible for Medicaid in states that expanded it under the Affordable Care Act. Earnings in the low-wage labor market are volatile. Earnings volatility measures change in wage income from one month to the next. Instability at both the very top and very bottom is so great that economists have a term for it: the 'wild ride.' Recent research from the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project shows that low-wage earners see more spikes and dips in income than any other group, with the dips being especially large. They have the most volatile earnings when measured by the coefficient of variation, regardless of whether the household has a single or multiple earners. That volatility can be partly attributed to unpredictable hours. Many low-wage earners are employed in shift work, in which their hours and schedule can vary week to week, often with little notice. According to Harvard's Shift Project, two-thirds of workers in retail and food service get less than two weeks' notice of their schedule, half get less than one week's notice, and 70% report that the timing of their scheduled shifts changes at least once a month. This flexibility is more likely to be imposed by employers rather than requested by employees; the more volatile the hours, the fewer hours typically worked. Low-wage jobs usually also have low-quality benefits. Of private-sector workers in the bottom 25% of the wage distribution, 30% do not have access to any type of leave, whether it is sick, holiday, vacation or personal. Some 56% do not have access to an employer-sponsored health-care plan, while 84% do not have access to an employer-sponsored dental plan. And 50% do not have access to a defined-contribution retirement plan. The bottom line is clear. Working Americans are eligible for social benefits such as Medicaid not only because their pay isn't high enough, but also because it isn't reliable enough. Classic labour theory holds that workers are balancing two conflicting goals: the consumption of purchased goods, and the consumption of leisure time. The former requires time at work; the latter requires time away from work. It is up to the worker to calibrate how much of each they want. Of course, economists will try to predict how workers and consumers will react to any change in their earnings. If a worker gets a wage increase, the 'income effect' would push them to work less: They can still consume the same amount of purchased goods but also have more leisure time. Alternatively, a wage increase could trigger the 'substitution effect,' pushing them to work more: The price of leisure (foregone wages) is now more expensive. But what if that worker gets a non-wage increase from a public benefit? There is no substitution effect, just the income effect — that is, they would work less. This is the economic foundation for the idea that public benefits discourage work. Work requirements are meant to counter this incentive. It sounds reasonable. But for at least 39 million Americans, work brings low wages, unstable earnings, unpredictable hours and few benefits.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Republican removes post criticising Sikh congressional prayer
Republican Congresswoman Mary Miller is facing criticism after she said it was 'troubling' that a Muslim led the morning prayer in US Congress, and then changed her social media post once she learnt that it was actually a Sikh man who had spoken. 'America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth,' she wrote in her social media post on X on Friday. The representative later removed her post after being admonished by both her Democratic and Republican colleagues. 'Mary, you're a racist, bigoted, disgusting, and shameful person, you don't deserve to represent anyone in public office,' wrote Democratic Representative Maxwell Frost. The man who led the prayer, Giani Surinder Singh of the Gurdwara South Jersey Sikh Society, was invited to be the morning guest chaplain by Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew according to Politico. Republican Representative David Valadao took Ms Miller to task for her post. 'I'm troubled by my colleague's remarks about this morning's Sikh prayer, which have since been deleted,' he wrote on X. 'Religious freedom is one of our nation's founding principles, and I started the American Sikh Congressional Caucus to draw attention to this very issue and work towards religious tolerance for all.' Representative Miller's comments, which were also widely considered to be Islamophobic, came on the first day of Eid Al Adha, one of the most important holidays of Islam. Morning invocations are not unusual in the US Congress, and are often given by religious leaders and figures.
Dubai Eye
13 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump, Musk clash over government contracts, political disputes
US President Donald Trump threatened to cut off government contracts with billionaire Elon Musk's companies, while Musk suggested Trump should be impeached, beginning an all-out brawl on social media. The hostilities began when Trump criticised Tesla CEO Musk in the Oval Office. Within hours, the once-close relationship had disintegrated in full public view, as the world's most powerful man and its richest launched personal jabs at one another on Trump's Truth Social and Musk's X. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump posted on Truth Social. Wall Street traders dumped shares of Musk's electric vehicle maker and Tesla closed down 14.3 per cent, losing about $150 billion in market value. It was Tesla's largest single-day decline in value in its history. Minutes after the closing bell, Musk replied, "Yes," to a post on X saying Trump should be impeached. Trump's Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of Congress and are highly unlikely to impeach him. The trouble between the two started brewing days ago, when Musk denounced Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill. The president initially held his tongue while Musk campaigned to torpedo the bill, saying it would add too much to the nation's $36.2 trillion in debt. Trump broke his silence on Thursday, telling reporters in the Oval Office he was "very disappointed" in Musk. "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore," Trump said. While Trump spoke, Musk responded with increasingly acerbic posts on X. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election," wrote Musk, who spent nearly $300 million backing Trump and other Republicans in last year's election. "Such ingratitude." In another post, Musk asserted that Trump's signature tariffs would push the US into a recession later this year. Besides Tesla, Musk's businesses include rocket company and government contractor SpaceX and its satellite unit Starlink. Musk, whose space business plays a critical role in the US government's space program, said that as a result of Trump's threats he would begin decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft. Dragon is the only US spacecraft currently capable of sending astronauts to the International Space Station. Hours later, Musk appeared to reverse that move. Responding to a follower on X urging Musk and Trump to "cool off and take a step back for a couple of days," Musk wrote: "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." In another possible sign of de-escalation on Thursday evening, Musk separately posted, "You're not wrong," in response to hedge fund manager Bill Ackman saying Trump and Musk should make peace. Pugilistic Pair The feud was not entirely unexpected. Even before Musk's departure from the administration last week, his influence had waned following a series of clashes with cabinet members over his cuts to their agencies. For Trump, the fight was the first major rift he has had with a top adviser since taking office for a second time, after his first term was marked by numerous blow-ups. Trump parted ways with multiple chiefs of staff, national security advisers and political strategists during his 2017-2021 White House tenure. A few, like Steve Bannon, remained in his good graces, while many others, like UN Ambassador John Bolton, became loud and vocal critics. After serving as the biggest Republican donor in the 2024 campaign season, Musk became one of Trump's most visible advisers as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, which mounted a sweeping and controversial effort to downsize the federal workforce and slash spending. Musk was frequently present at the White House and made multiple appearances on Capitol Hill, sometimes carrying his young son. Only six days before Thursday's blowup, Trump and Musk held an appearance in the Oval Office where Trump praised Musk's government service and both men promised to continue working together. A prolonged feud between Trump and Musk could make it more difficult for Republicans to keep control of Congress in next year's midterm elections. In addition to his campaign spending, Musk has a huge online following and helped connect Trump to parts of Silicon Valley and wealthy donors. Musk had already said he planned to curtail his political spending in the future. Soon after Trump's Oval Office comments on Thursday, Musk polled his 220 million followers on X, "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 per cent in the middle?" 'Kill the Bill' Musk targeted what Trump has named his "big, beautiful bill" this week, calling it a "disgusting abomination" that would deepen the federal deficit. His attacks amplified a rift within the Republican Party that could threaten the bill's prospects in the Senate. Nonpartisan analysts say Trump's bill could add $2.4 trillion to $5 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion in debt. Trump asserted that Musk's true objection was the bill's elimination of consumer tax credits for electric vehicles. The president also suggested that Musk was upset because he missed working for the White House. "He's not the first," Trump said on Thursday. "People leave my administration... then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it and some of them actually become hostile." Musk wrote on X, "KILL the BILL," adding he was fine with Trump's planned cuts to EV credits as long as Republicans rid the bill of "mountain of disgusting pork" or wasteful spending. He also pulled up past quotes from Trump decrying the level of federal spending, adding, "Where is this guy today?" Musk came into government with brash plans to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. He left last week having cut only about half of 1 per cent of total spending while causing disruption across multiple agencies. Musk's increasing focus on politics provoked widespread protests at Tesla sites in the US and Europe, driving down sales while investors fretted that Musk's attention was too divided.
