Gibo Teodoro’s Marshall Plan and his “Nanny State” Politics
A good leader is one who honestly believes in this famous motto of Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest Founding Fathers of the United States: “Government works best when it governs least.”
Lights, camera, action!
The most-awaited election engine has just started, and the entire Filipino nation is now eager to bid incumbent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo goodbye.
Less than 100 days in the run up to the May 10 elections, our presidential candidates, along with their political allies, have been very busy courting the voters’ attention, promising next-to-impossible political, economic, and social platforms and agenda, and doing their best to gain the support of our country’s demagogues and “king-makers.”
One might say that it’s easy to fool voters in this country that is never founded on the right philosophy. Since the Filipino nation lacks intellectual leadership, it can be likened to a ghost ship floating aimlessly amidst turbulent waters. It’s no surprise that every presidential candidate has been busy spouting vague generalities, welfare statist proposals, sickening contradictions, and good-to-hear promises so to fool the people. Yes, all the presidential candidates are offering to up the country’s level of welfarism or nanny-statism. However, the most offensive part of this political farce is that sad, nauseating fact that the people are applauding these statist politicians and even goading them to push for more welfarist political promises. This is normal to a country that embraces a culture of mediocrity. What the people don’t know is that they are asking for their own enslavement and the destruction of this country.
Like the rest of the candidates, administration presidential bet Gilbert “Gibo” Teodoro promises to bring positive changes to the country with his “nanny state” politics and “Marshall Plan.”
Teodoro’s mediocre politics
In terms of economic platform, Mr. Teodoro simply spouts vague generalities and floating abstractions. He highlights the importance of “innovation” without concretizing the ways and methods by which to achieve this goal. The question that should be asked is: What particular economic system is consistent with “innovation?” He does not elaborate.
Although he speaks of both domestic and foreign direct investments, he is still mum on what concrete economic system he would apply in order to keep foreign investors had he been elected president of the country. The administration bet and his opponents only have three choices: a) free-market capitalism, b) mixed economy, or c) statism (fascism or socialism). According to 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, the Philippines has an economic freedom score of 56.3, making its economy the 109th freest in the 2010 Index. Our country ranks 20th out of 41 countries in the Asia–Pacific region, and its overall score is slightly below the world and regional averages. The Philippines is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, a reputation that is not good to foreign investors.
This is the condensed economic platform of Mr. Teodoro: “To avoid a state of progress plateau, the country needs more innovative ideas to fuel the industry and the economy. The country has exhausted the era of copying and remodeling trends; it is time for something new in order for the country to become more globally competitive. The country needs to generate more ideas. The talents and minds of our countrymen is our greatest resource.”
Now let us break down this statement that is full of vague generalities and contradictions. He speaks of “more innovative ideas,” “new trends,” “global competitiveness,” “generation of more ideas,” the need for more talents and minds, among others. These are all abstractions, but I have not yet heard his concretized economic model/system to achieve these goals. What is clear is that the psyco-epistemology of his politics is that these floating abstractions can only be achieved through government controls, intervention, and regulations. Yes, like his political opponents, Mr. Teodoro seeks to double the size of the government under his proposed leadership program. He speaks of an ultra mixed economy with a higher degree of government intervention, controls and regulations.
Gibo’s nanny or mommy state proposal
Mr. Teodoro admits the fact that we need to lower our national debt. Perhaps he is aware that his number one endorser in Malacanang, President Arroyo, doubled the combined debt borrowed by her three predecessors, former presidents Joseph Estrada, Cory Aquino, and Ferdinand Marcos. From 2001 to 2008, the total borrowings of our Economics graduate president, who is a big fan of John Maynard Keynes, ballooned to 923.8 billion pesos, more than double the P358.03 billion incurred by the past 3 presidents.
Teodoro says that it’s better to borrow money than tax the people. “Lahat naman ng bansa may utang, at minsan mas mabuti pang utangin ito depending on financial conditions other than buwisan mo lalo ang mga tao. So, financial management yan, treasury management and financial management.”
Is he saying that it’s okay to increase our national debt since all countries are indebted to foreign creditors? It seems that Teodoro learned a great deal from the President who doubled the country’s financial obligation. As a result, every Filipino, including those not yet conceived, owes something to our country’s domestic and foreign creditors.
When it comes to education, Teodoro implicitly speaks of his “nanny state” politics. He says that the government must “[e]xhaust all means to give everyone the proper college education–Aside from usual scholarships and state subsidies, creative solutions should also be implemented to give every Filipino the education that is rightfully his.”
The question is, where will he get the money or wealth to provide “everyone the proper college education?” Taxes? Maybe not. Maybe he’d just borrow money to maintain his ratings.
Gibo as a welfare-statist politician
In fairness to Mr. Tedoro, he speaks of some “indirect” ways to finance his welfarist or nanny state politics, like proper internal revenue collection, proper “management” of pork barrel, fighting corruption, and regional autonomy. Here’s one contradiction in Mr. Teodoro’s welfarism: He speaks of providing what the people and the students need, but he balks at ending the “perks” of our congressmen. In the first place, the only job of these lawmakers is to make laws. Again, where will he get the money? He does not specify.
His plan for the country is focused on infrastructure programs during his first 100 days in office. Mr. Teodoro states: “You have no choice but to continue with a lot of programs like the infrastructure programs that need to be continued and management day-to-day of the security situation. Number three, you have to plan your legislative agenda, the most important thing. Your first budget, your legislative agenda. That legislative agenda would include the constitutional convention law, the support for the new Philippine education road map because basic education must be reengineered.”
Gibo’s dangerous universal health care
But like most socialist politicians in this country, he’s in favor of implementing universal or single-payer health care system, a very dangerous scheme that is being practiced in Venezuela, Cuba, France, Canada, Great Britain, and all socialist/statist countries in the world. This, I think, is the most dangerous part of Mr. Teodoro’s “nanny state” politics.
In the United States, people in Massachusetts manifested their strong opposition to the Obamacare by electing a Republican candidate, Scott Brown, to replace a Senate post held by demise Senator Ted Kennedy for four decades. The landslide victory of Brown evidences the fact that most Americans are opposed to the universal health care because they clearly understand that this statist proposal is against their individual rights. Yes, America became the greatest nation on earth because they can truly comprehend the true essence of liberty and individual rights, which are not beset with contradictions and vague premises. The American ideal of liberty and individual rights is founded on the fundamental law of logic— the Law of Identity, which means A is A, and the Law of Causality.
“And I want to experiment also legislatively with universal participative health care, if it is feasible. Meaning to say, everybody participates. I mean, what’s for a rich person to contribute 100 or 200 pesos per month to a participative delivers on health care so there’s more for everybody, not merely in terms of buying medicine and providing care but for providing reimbursements for doctors and nurses, so there’s an incentive to stay and participate in the system and I want also a legislative proposal for student loan program rather than scholarships,” says Teodoro. But this is the most dangerous experiment a president could ever make. Mr. Teodoro has to check his premise. Like all of his rivals, Mr. Teodoro’s politics is centered on “distribution,” not on “production.”
Gibo as a “bad leader”
A bad leader is one who is addicted to redistributive policies. Most bad leaders are motivated by altruism and good intention, but they are unaware that their welfare statist policies are dangerous to the liberty and rights of their people, as well as to the progress and future of their country. Venezuela and Cuba are a good example of this kind of statist politics. A good leader is one who knows that “production” precedes distribution. He is aware that if a government issued a flurry of welfare state programs to help the poor, then somebody had to produce wealth, otherwise the whole country would go bankrupt, prompting the politicians to either tax the successful and the people who produce or borrow money from foreign sources. A bad leader is concerned only with policies that produce short-term positive effects. A good leader focuses on policies that would yield long-tern positive outcome. It is clear that like all of his opponents, Mr. Teodoro believes in that classical idea that for a government to serve the people, it needs more power. A good leader is one who honestly believes in this famous motto of Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest Founding Fathers of the United States: “Government works best when it governs least.” But it seems that not a single presidentiable or politician believes in this ideal.
His sinister Marshall Plan
Mr. Teodoro’s peace and order platform is centered on his idea of “Marshall Plan.” “The Marshall Plan approach has proven very successful in eradicating violence in society ravaged by generations of fighting. If properly implemented in Maguindanao, people living in the region could do their part in helping the country achieve economic stability and greatness,” he says.
The Marshall Plan is an experiment applied during the term of former United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The central objective of this plan is for the United States to lead the rebuilding and creation of a stronger economic foundation for countries in Western Europe, and repelling the threat of internal communism. In the United States, Marshall Plan cut across political, economic, and social spectrum of the country that later on led to global welfarism worth nearly $100 billion in current dollars.
However, Teodoro’s Marshall Plan is primarily a military strategy designed to “eradicate” violence in society.” The danger of this military strategy is that it’s not well defined. I am in favor of eradicating insurgency and the threat of Islamic terrorism in the country, but I believe that this politico-military action should be properly defined, and that the people should be adequately informed so that they be guided in their decisions or choices. For me, it is dangerous to vote for a political platform that is not fully defined and is full of vague generalities, contradictions and unspecified terms and aspirations.
Definition of Terms:
Free-market Capitalism: it is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.
Individual rights: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.
Law of Causality: The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it.
Law of Identity: The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it . . . . The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.
Nanny State: is a term that refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies (of economic, social or other nature), and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. Opponents of such policies use the term in their advocacy against what they consider as uninvited and damaging state meddling. It has been referred to as a form of political correctness.
Statism: A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.
Welfare state or welfare statism: Morally and economically, the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull. Morally, the chance to satisfy demands by force spreads the demands wider and wider, with less and less pretense at justification. Economically, the forced demands of one group create hardships for all others, thus producing an inextricable mixture of actual victims and plain parasites. Since need, not achievement, is held as the criterion of rewards, the government necessarily keeps sacrificing the more productive groups to the less productive, gradually chaining the top level of the economy, then the next level, then the next.
 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Philippines.
 Balea, Judith (2009, July 28). Lower RP Debt: Truth or Spin. BS-CBN Website, http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/07/28/09/lower-rp-debt-truth-or-spin.
 Presidentialexpert.com, http://www.presidentialexpert.com/leadership_thomas_jefferson.html
 Philippine Star Website, http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=537562&publicationSubCategoryId=67