"Free Lectures" Can local subsidies and central law revision be confused? Comment on Huang Guochang’s “Double Standard Theory”

The blue and white parties in the Legislative Yuan took advantage of their majority and passed the 22nd Amendment to the Elderly Welfare Act on the third reading, requiring the central government to subsidize the health care premiums of eligible elderly people. People's Party Chairman Huang Guochang immediately accused the DPP of affirming Pingtung County Governor Zhou Chunmi's provision of elderly health insurance subsidies, but opposing the central government's amendment of the law, which is basically a "double standard." However, local governments independently promote welfare and the central government establishes subsidy obligations through laws, which involve different authorities, procedures and financial responsibilities. Huang Guochang deliberately conflated the two in an attempt to blur the focus with political labels, but avoided the issue that is truly worthy of discussion: Does Congress fully consider constitutional boundaries, financial resource allocation and policy sustainability when expanding welfare expenditures?

Local proactive allocations and legislative requirements for central expenditures should not be confused.

Huang Guochang's so-called "double standards" confuse the institutional distinction between executive power and legislative power. Zhou Chunmi promotes health insurance subsidies for the elderly, which are based on local government's independent planning and budgeting based on administrative needs, financial capabilities and policy priorities. In addition, Article 70 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that the Legislative Yuan shall not propose additional expenditures in the budget proposed by the Executive Yuan. The constitutional principle revealed by this provision is that budgetary powers cannot be arbitrarily confused. Although the Legislative Yuan has the power to enact laws, when it comes to new expenditures, it must still face up to the Constitution's requirements for the separation of powers. Since the institutional foundations of the two are different, how can there be double standards?

The fiscal impact of local governments adapting to local conditions is completely different from that of centrally mandated expenditures.

There is a fundamental difference in fiscal effects between local government's independent promotion of welfare and the establishment of central subsidy obligations through law. Local subsidies are subject to local financial resources and annual budget constraints; if the law is amended to establish continuous central subsidy responsibilities, the government will have to face long-term and stable expenditure needs. In particular, Taiwan has entered a super-aging society, and the elderly population and related welfare needs continue to grow. The cost of policies cannot only be seen in front of the eyes. Without clear financial resources, complete cost assessments, and long-term support plans, expanding subsidies is tantamount to writing a check first and then handing the bill to the entire population.

Huang Guochang accused the ruling party of "double standards", but deliberately avoided core issues such as how to divide powers, where financial resources come from, and whether policies can be maintained in the long term. What really deserves testing is not whether local governments can subsidize and why the central government has reservations, but that any policy to expand welfare must explain the institutional basis, financial costs and fair mechanisms.

Taking care of the elderly is the responsibility of the state, but social welfare cannot be reduced to a political bargaining chip under majority rule. If Blue and White believe that comprehensive subsidies are indeed necessary, they should propose a complete financial resource plan, cost assessment and long-term support, and accept social testing. Elderly welfare is worthy of support, but it does not mean that the constitutional divide can be ignored, nor does it mean that all people must bear all costs unconditionally. Only by taking into account institutional norms, fiscal discipline, vulnerable care and generational equity can welfare policies be truly sustainable!