[Reporter’s Notebook] "The More They're Criticized, the More They Smile"... Lawmakers' "Note Budgets"

This Year’s Budget Review Also Marked by Closed-Door Bartering Between Parties
Lawmakers Judged Every Four Years in General Elections... Budget Requests as a Political Tool
Behind-Closed-Doors Local Budget Allocations Hinder Proper Funding for Essential Projects

[Asia Economy Reporter Hyunju Lee] "Reporter, please don't forget to include our lawmaker when writing about the local constituency budget bill!"

At the moment when the latest budget bill since the enactment of the National Assembly's Advancement Act was about to be passed, I received such a message from a lawmaker's aide. Afterwards, lawmakers, as if by agreement, distributed details of increased budgets in their constituencies to reporters.

Every year, lawmakers created budgets that did not previously exist. Especially party leadership and members of the Special Budget and Accounts Committee took the lead. This year was no different. Chung Jin-seok, Emergency Response Committee Chairman of the People Power Party, increased the budget for the East Asian Historical City Promotion Institute construction project in his constituency, Buyeo County, by 1.25 billion KRW. He also increased the budget for establishing a metropolitan bus rapid transit (BRT) connecting Sejong City and Gongju Station by 1.4 billion KRW. Policy Committee Chairman Sung Il-jong secured 8 billion KRW for the construction of the Daesan-Dangjin Expressway, which was not included in the government proposal. Kwon Seong-dong, known as a 'Yun Core Member' (a key associate of President Yoon Seok-yeol), secured 1.5 billion KRW for sewage pipe maintenance in his constituency, and Jang Je-won increased the budget for disaster risk area maintenance projects by 2.345 billion KRW over the original government proposal. Lawmakers Bae Hyun-jin and Park Soo-young also secured substantial budgets for their constituencies.

In the Democratic Party, Senior Deputy Floor Leader for Policy Wi Seong-gon secured 6.222 billion KRW for the organic waste biogas project in Seogwipo City, which was not in the government proposal. Park Jeong, the opposition party's ranking member of the Budget Committee (Gyeonggi Paju-eul), secured 3 billion KRW for a dedicated music performance hall in Paju, which previously had zero budget, and 200 million KRW for design services to expand the Munsan-Beopwon road.

It was not only specific lawmakers who secured local budgets. Most lawmakers were eager to secure budgets for their constituencies. When the National Assembly reviews the budget, an unofficial channel is established to receive budget requests by lawmaker. Budget needs from each region are exchanged in note form and submitted to the Ministry of Economy and Finance for consideration of increases. Through the 'small subcommittee,' which leaves no official minutes, lawmakers compete to request increases in their constituency budgets.

While securing local budgets, how much budget was allocated for the ordinary citizens' economy and vulnerable groups? Looking at next year's budget, surprisingly, 663 billion KRW for public rental housing, a campaign promise of Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, and 352.5 billion KRW for local love gift certificates were disguised as support for the livelihood economy and vulnerable groups, increasing by over 1 trillion KRW. This accounts for more than half of the 1.7 trillion KRW increase in budgets for the livelihood economy and vulnerable groups. The labels of livelihood economy and vulnerable group support budgets were ultimately exchanged between each other.

Despite fierce public criticism, the old practice of note budgets repeats every year for a reason. Local lawmakers are judged by their constituents every four years in general elections. The government supports project costs for local governments through the new year's budget proposal, and when local complaints are not properly allocated, the lawmakers' offices are pressured. Most lawmakers explain that those who fail to secure proper budgets will be judged as 'incompetent' in the next election. Despite media criticism using terms like 'closed-door budget,' 'piecemeal,' and 'old practices' every year, lawmakers boldly hold press conferences to promote their budget achievements.

However, the problem is that budget allocation is done entirely behind closed doors, so the feasibility of projects cannot be verified. Since national finances are limited, if unplanned local constituency complaint budgets increase, other necessary budgets inevitably decrease. Voices to correct these recurring old practices every year continue, but as long as this budget review process, decided through closed-door meetings and bipartisan negotiations, continues, the shameless practice of dividing local constituency budgets will persist. The National Assembly's budget review system needs reform.