Car reform can greatly reduce the "three public funds", but in some poor areas with fewer buses, it means increasing financial expenditures. In addition, the average number of official vehicles in a county in Hunan is 100. After all cancellations, the financial expenditure of tens of millions of yuan can be reduced in one year, but at the same time, nearly 40 million yuan must be paid for vehicle compensation. Rubber Industrial Timing Belt,Rubber Timing Belt,Rubber Coated Timing Belt,Toothed Rubber Belt Jiangsu Bailite Transmission Technology Co., Ltd , https://www.bailitebelt.com
Recently, there has been some kind of "polarization" phenomenon in bus reform: on the one hand, civil servants in many areas complain that the vehicle subsidy is too low, and on the other hand, the financial expenditures in some poor areas have been greatly increased. These grassroots complaints and financial rebounds are directly related to the fairness and efficiency of bus reform.
Car repair is not a "welfare" in any sense
The bus is a public law enforcement resource, but the following two trends have greatly increased bus expenses and reduced the efficiency of official duties: first, the use of financial funds or even "small treasury" excessive purchase and maintenance of official vehicles; second, official vehicles As a "privileged" type of welfare led by administrative units at all levels, private use is a serious phenomenon. This round of reform is to break the "privileged" welfare of administrative units at all levels, restore the public attributes of bus expenditures, and improve the efficiency of official duties.
In specific practice, the general public service vehicles should be cancelled as much as possible, and the generalized vehicle compensation should be replaced. This reform has greatly reduced the "disciplinary power of the bus use" of the leadership or the unit itself, and adopted the "fixed quota according to the post" for each civil servant. In this way, the actual “privileged†welfare of the unit leader is changed to a universal civil servant right. The previous bus management focused on the use of supervision, but the cost is too high, and the results are very small. Now it is changed to the vehicle, and the supervision cost is greatly reduced.
Technically speaking, this operation can effectively squeeze the space for bus over-consumption consumption and bus private use, but the concept of “car-filled welfare†that permeates the ordinary civil servants is still deeply rooted and needs to be clarified.
It must be affirmed that the bus or the car is not a "welfare" in any sense, but a necessary factor for official service, and a factor of the "object" of the official service, just like the factor of the "person" of the civil servant itself. People and vehicles are united and point to common business. The so-called welfare does not necessarily need to be related to official duties, and is an institutional incentive for the overall performance of civil servants outside the official business process. Bus or car repair is not for incentives, but to ensure that civil servants at all levels perform their basic duties.
The above-mentioned "car to fill the low" commentator is to make the car supplement as a pure civil service welfare. In those places where there are more official vehicles and more expenditures, the “flip†to the universal vehicle compensation mode naturally means that the welfare is reduced. However, the so-called reduction in actual welfare or a decline in the sense of welfare just proves that this reform is successful and effectively cuts fiscal expenditures. And if civil servants can understand the car from the perspective of business necessity rather than positional welfare, the voice of complaints can be eliminated.
Bus reform to guard against negative efficiency This round of bus reform did not make a one-size-fits-all approach. The central government only gave the basic direction of reform and the floating limit of vehicle subsidies. The specific plans were adopted by local governments according to local conditions.
The bus reform for the universal vehicle compensation model must be implemented: First, the reform cannot cause the “expenditure†of the official vehicle finance expenditure in any region, otherwise the reform is negative efficiency; second, the reform should allow civil servants of different ranks or regions to be implemented. Treat differently, but this difference should not go beyond reasonable limits.
In order to balance fairness and efficiency, local car repair programs need to be tailored to local conditions and circumstances.
First, the appropriate level of funding for the region should be determined. If the level of funding is the highest, the central government directly sets the hard standard according to the civil service ranks. It is a one-size-fits-all approach, that is, welfare egalitarianism, which seriously sacrifices efficiency.
On the other hand, if the level of fund-raising is the lowest, and the townships are co-ordinated, the regional differences in vehicle compensation will be magnified to the maximum, and the fairness will be sacrificed. To this end, the appropriate level should be chosen. Based on China's national conditions, the county-level differences are still relatively large, so the car-funded funding level is appropriate at the municipal or provincial level. The intermediate level of overall planning can effectively bridge the regional financial differences and the fairness of vehicle reform.
Secondly, it is necessary to implement the reform of official service, and to optimize the implementation of official duties by means of e-government as a whole, and gradually reduce the demand for vehicles and the financial burden.
Thirdly, the vehicle subsidy should establish the minimum standard in the regional coordination. On this basis, it is possible to implement certain differences in the same level of vehicle compensation according to departmental or industry differences, and to adapt to the situation, it is not necessary to implement a regional one-size-fits-all approach. Against "one size fits all" is to oppose the car as a simple welfare issue. The "minimum standard + difference arrangement" model is to balance fairness and efficiency.
·The bus reform should abandon the concept of "welfare"