The paradox of “senator-siblings,” “politicians-in-pairs,” “partners-in-crime,” or whatever other pejoratives fit should be the subject of a proper survey (on public opinion), referendum (a public hearing), and legislated enactment (a policy discourse). There’s an alarming prevalent pattern of brother-sister, brother-brother, half-brothers, mother-son, sister vice sister in the Senate.

A chairman represents a barangay, a mayor a city, a governor a province, a congressman a district/partylist. By this metric, senator-siblings merely represent one family. If it has not become clear by now how this “double-payout” distorts the democratic criterion, sucks the nation’s fiscal bloodstream and presents an unhealthy state of legislative affairs, then what does?

Politics has become a “gold rush” so celebrities, dynasts, incumbents race to the scene like hungry birds to a prize catch. Politicians trooping in 2s, even 3s, from the same families/households should be cause for serious concern — economic, accounting, ethico-meritocracy-wise.

Or, consider a budget pie where only four families partake of 1/3 of the whole when under the most ideal arrangement, every senator only gets a slice but 2 getting 2 shares and 3 getting 3 constitutes an epic tragedy. It dramatically mirrors a classic Tragedy of the Commons.

Imagine a robust grazing ground where head of cattle graze. Owners of two, three, or more bulls certainly benefit more than those who own only one bull. If more of the former than of the latter send several bulls to graze, it effectively frustrates as well as depletes the limited resources in favor of only a few owners.

It leaves the rest worse off than better off. Billions upon billions in public funds and fiscal resources are downloaded to enable a duly-elected senator to fulfill his or her constitutional mandate, the spoils of office notwithstanding. If one carefully examines the expenditure matrix that purportedly itemizes accrued payments, costs, expenses assigned to each senator, only the column on “senator salaries” will be uniform for all.

The rest of the entries falling under about 16 sub-categories indicate spending that range from low to high and the outlier. In other words, there are individual variances in grand totals which could certainly attract debate.

Clearly, cases of actual expenditures exceeding budgeted amounts explain variances, or why some senators spend more than others. So-called “bundles of joy” consist of two main divisions: the “amounts paid to” and the “expenses incurred for” and this follows some 16 columns of item descriptions under both.

Correspondingly, there appear to be three main categories that are uniform to every senator in the table’s horizontal row, viz: Office of the Senator, Committee A, Committee B — each reflecting chargeability of the same 16-column track and some fiscal ceiling. The vertical row of 16 columns are the sub-categories for authorized spending — the budget menu if you will.

Perhaps, this “financial ledger” could be the subject of more careful scrutiny by scholars, budget managers, and other policymakers since the overall spending configuration truly deserves revisiting.

Quickly, flowing from the two main divisions, under them in vertical rows are these various entries (i.e., item descriptions), viz: “senator salaries, extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses, senator’s and staff local and foreign travel, staff salaries and benefits, meetings and conferences, professional/consultancy fees, supplies and materials, rental of motor vehicle/equipment, extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses, other MOE (maintenance and operating expenses), and capital outlay.”

Note quickly how in most, total expenses accruing to every senator ordinarily breaches the P100 million barrier each given year with the exception of an outlier or two. What more if we speak of some P200 million allotted to each senator of what used to be the pork barrel?

Suppose the next election cycle finds the entry of one more Villar, Tulfo, Cayetano, Sotto, another half- brother or sister, and so forth? That’s a lot of 3s in a universe of 24; it can threaten to replicate the same geometric ratio in a universe of 317 in the House of Representatives.

What difference does one family make to be paid bloody double or triple? As they say, “Opportunity dances with those who are already on the dance floor.” Do we let them dance our money away?