A robust and morally defensible approach to national budgeting
Our national budget is more than just a ledger of figures; it is a reflection of our collective values and aspirations, and a blueprint for the nation’s future. The process by which this crucial document is finalized, demands the utmost rigor, foresight, and a principled commitment to the public good.
Currently, the journey of the national budget through Congress often involves extensive debate and negotiation, culminating in a bicameral conference committee that reconciles differing versions from the House of Representatives and the Senate. While this democratic process is vital, the underlying methodology for making decisions on allocations and priorities could be significantly enhanced by a more structured and ethical framework.
I propose that the bicameral conference committee adopt a utilitarian calculus as its primary guiding principle. This framework, rooted in the philosophy of utilitarianism, as expounded by Jeremy Bentham, offers a robust and morally defensible methodology for government budget allocations and priorities.
Utilitarianism posits that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. In the context of public policy and budget allocation, this translates to rigorously evaluating potential expenditures based on their capacity to generate the most widespread benefit and to minimize collective harm across the populace.
Applying this utilitarian lens to the national budget would mean that every proposed allocation, from infrastructure projects to health-care programs, defense spending, to educational initiatives, must be scrutinized through the prism of its net societal utility.
The bicameral conference committee, already steeped in the nuances of public policy and armed with diverse perspectives, would be empowered with a common philosophical compass to guide their difficult decisions, moving beyond partisan stalemates to a shared pursuit of optimal public good.
Their discussions would shift from mere horse trading to a data-informed assessment of utility. Reconciliation of differences in budget versions would not solely rest on political compromise but on an evidence-based argument for which spending priorities promise the “greatest good.” This demands transparency, a commitment to empirical data, and a willingness to prioritize collective benefit over sectional interests.
The benefits of such an approach are manifold. It promises a more rational and efficient allocation of taxpayer money, ensuring that resources are directed toward programs with demonstrable positive impacts. It fosters greater accountability, as budget decisions can be justified not only by political will but also by their contribution to societal welfare. It could also enhance public trust in government, demonstrating a principled commitment to the common good.
The act of attempting such a calculation, of striving to maximize aggregate well-being, forces a more thoughtful, empathetic, and ultimately more effective decision-making framework.
I urge our national leaders, especially members of the bicameral conference committee, to embrace a utilitarian approach, grounded in Bentham’s philosophy, transforming the budget process into a powerful engine that ensures every peso spent maximizes the welfare of all citizens.
REGINALD B. TAMAYO,
reginaldtamayo@yahoo.com
For letters to the editor and contributed articles, email to opinion@inquirer.net
