Fortuño submits bill to slash legislature's size - 0 views

• 
  #1 Rachel Barnard on 14 Apr 10

   

  Struggling with the enormous budget deficit he was faced with upon becoming governor, Fortuño submitted a bill on Monday that would get rid of 30% of the seats in Puerto Rico's legislature. If what Fortuño claims is true of aforementioned cuts, that it could trim some $11 million in annual operating costs while at the same time improving the efficiency of the government, why was this not done before. Why is it that we live in excess with an excess of resources when we don't need them until we need the money that could be saved by not having the "excess." Wouldn't it be more beneficial to trim all the fat and save the money for future necessities, rather than carrying on with inefficient methods? I don't claim to understand politics, but this seems like a rather stupid policy or tradition or whatever it is. It just goes to show, if the claim is in fact valid in that it will save millions of dollars, that governments are just not working as efficiently as they could. Compared to the $3.2 billion deficit, $11 million is a pittance but if that much could be shaved off by getting rid of one unnecessary excess just think of all the millions that could be saved if the government actually worked as best as it could, using only what it truly needed to function. I understand that it is important to provide jobs and to have resources available for when they are needed but why should there be jobs that aren't needed? Perhaps, everyone left of the 70% will have to work harder or will they then be working up to their actual potential? Anyways, this bill seems like a step in the right direction, economically for Puerto Rico.
  
  http://www.fromthewestwing.com/article/PR%20guv%20submits%20bill%20to%20slash%20legislature%27s%20size/?k=j83s12y12h94s27k02

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Struggling with the enormous budget deficit he was faced with upon becoming governor, Fortuño submitted a bill on Monday that would get rid of 30% of the seats in Puerto Rico's legislature. If what Fortuño claims is true of aforementioned cuts, that it could trim some $11 million in annual operating costs while at the same time improving the efficiency of the government, why was this not done before. Why is it that we live in excess with an excess of resources when we don't need them until we need the money that could be saved by not having the "excess." Wouldn't it be more beneficial to trim all the fat and save the money for future necessities, rather than carrying on with inefficient methods? I don't claim to understand politics, but this seems like a rather stupid policy or tradition or whatever it is. It just goes to show, if the claim is in fact valid in that it will save millions of dollars, that governments are just not working as efficiently as they could. Compared to the $3.2 billion deficit, $11 million is a pittance but if that much could be shaved off by getting rid of one unnecessary excess just think of all the millions that could be saved if the government actually worked as best as it could, using only what it truly needed to function. I understand that it is important to provide jobs and to have resources available for when they are needed but why should there be jobs that aren't needed? Perhaps, everyone left of the 70% will have to work harder or will they then be working up to their actual potential? Anyways, this bill seems like a step in the right direction, economically for Puerto Rico. <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.fromthewestwing.com/article/PR%20guv%20submits%20bill%20to%20slash%20legislature%27s%20size/?k=j83s12y12h94s27k02" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fromthewestwing.com/article/PR%20guv%20submits%20bill%20to%20slash%20legislature%27s%20size/?k=j83s12y12h94s27k02</a></div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top