This bill is a typical case of "divide and conquer"! attempting to remind senators that they should vote for it because they will 'gain' at the expense of others while trumping on the spirit of the constitution that created the senate in the first place. Appealing to narrow primal interests to get numbers is an old tactic. This was the mindset of akina Moi and Kibaki... giving tokens to ethnic groups to rope them in. Remember akina Ojode turning down ministerial posts when akina Kibaki attempted to rope them in. I am very proud of Kakamega, Kisii, Nairobi and Kajiado and any other county that voted against this bill. They were shocked when they saw people vote against what appeared to be in their interest.

We should be striving at ending up in the 3rd picture not going back to the first! We have been there for a while and we all know it doesn't work

The needs of kenyans in different parts of kenya are different.

A nomadic camel herder huko wajir may need boreholes and veterinary services but may not want tarmac roads or sewer lines because he is always on the move.

On the other hand a factory worker hapo embakasi pipeline needs piped water and sewer.

Therefore giving the wajir guy extra funds for sewer and cabro to be like the "developed" embakasi guy doesnt make sense.

Let every man be given his shilling to address his needs.

You cant copy paste "development".

The needs of kenyans in different parts of kenya are different. A nomadic camel herder huko wajir may need boreholes and veterinary services but may not want tarmac roads or sewer lines because he is always on the move. On the other hand a factory worker hapo embakasi pipeline needs piped water and sewer. Therefore giving the wajir guy extra funds for sewer and cabro to be like the "developed" embakasi guy doesnt make sense. Let every man be given his shilling to address his needs. You cant copy paste "development".

Even in the US, the needs of the people of New York city are different from the needs of the ranchers in wyoming. Therefore trump does not pour extra cash huko wyoming eti so that wyomingians can also have subway trains like new yorkers.

The CRA is rooting for the following formula of CAi= 0.45PNi + 0.26ES +0.18PIi + 0.08LAi +0.02FEi + 0.01DFi, to allocate revenue to the counties. ‘CA’ refers to the total revenue allocated to the county. ‘PN’ is the population index, ‘ES’ is the equal share, ‘PI’ is the poverty index, ‘LA’ is the landmass index, ‘FE’ is the fiscal effort while ‘DF’ is the development factor.

On the matter of revenue sharing, the 2010 Constitution uses the word “basis” as opposed to “formula.” There is in fact no reference to “formula” anywhere in the articles on revenue sharing.

Formulas are problematic for the very reasons that are playing out now. Once enacted, they put the country in a straightjacket that it is forced to live with until the next revision is due.

We were alive to the fact that the history of inequitable “sharing of the national cake” as we call it, is a highly emotive and divisive issue and, indeed, one of the core grievances identified in the Agenda 4 items of the National Accord. We recognised that the country would be on a learning curve for a considerable period and, anticipating that the allocation process had the potential for exacerbating instead of healing ethnic divisions, we felt that we needed a credible authoritative team of “honest brokers” to navigate the country through the transition. The “original sin” of the current standoff is that the CRA adopted the very formula for which it had been envisaged as an alternative. The current dispute centres on whether to put more weight on population or on geography in the formula. This dispute, as far as the spirit and letter of the constitution is concerned, is completely misplaced.

1) The following criteria shall be taken into account in determining the equitable shares provided for under Article 202 and in all national legislation concerning county government enacted in terms of this Chapter--

(a) the national interest;
(b) any provision that must be made in respect of the public debt and other national obligations;
(c) the needs of the national government, determined by objective criteria;
(d) the need to ensure that county governments are able to perform the functions allocated to them;
(e) the fiscal capacity and efficiency of county governments;
(f) developmental and other needs of counties;
(g) economic disparities within and among counties and the need to remedy them;
(h) the need for affirmative action in respect of disadvantaged areas and groups;