Using the National Aquarium as an example of wasteful spending in the Abinader administration

[Dolores]

The Abinader administration seeks to increase taxes on the population to fund its programs. But the government rarely has considered streamlining government instead of raising taxes.

Economist Ellen Perez Ducy writes in Diario Libre on 31 October 2024 providing a clear example of the bloated government. She chose the government entity of the National Aquarium because the Aquarium listed first. She writes it is a clear indication of what is happening in government.

She writes that industry standards suggest that administrative staff should not exceed 15% of the total employment. Yet the National Aquarium, an educational, scientific, cultural and recreational institute, currently closed for remodeling for around a year, has a budget of RD$137 million, of which only 25% goes to technical staff. The National Aquarium houses around 3,250 tropical species.

Perez...

Continue reading...

 

[NanSanPedro]

Perez Ducy writes that as a state institution, the National Aquarium also appears to be a machine for redundant jobs. Not only does the payroll typically absorb 55% of the total budget. She writes that 70 of the 99 employees have functions classified as ‘General Management, Administrative, and Financial’, and only 29 have technical functions, including two secretaries and a driver, leaving us with 26 technicians, or a quarter of the total staff.

Typical govt, not isolated to the DR.

 

[Notengo]

Smells fishy.

 

[NALs]

Perez Ducy is ignoring that the DR government is by far the largest employer in the country. Think for a moment what it means if say 20% of its current employees are fired. What other jobs are waiting for the newly fired to take? Even those that in reality do no work but are getting paid, that’s one less paycheck they will get. If it ended there it wouldn’t be a problem for the rest except the fired, but not all of them have the highest integrity, especially if their economic situation gets worse. An upsurge in unwanted visitors in homes, purse snatchers, muggers, etc could very well follow.

That person might be using the USA as an example of a government with less employees (relatively) than the Dominican, but the USA government fires 20% of its workforce and most would get a new job before the year they were fired is over. That isn’t always the case in the DR.

 

[NanSanPedro]

Perez Ducy is ignoring that the DR government is by far the largest employer in the country. Think for a moment what it means if say 20% of its current employees are fired. What other jobs are waiting for the newly fired to take? Even those that in reality do no work but are getting paid, that’s one less paycheck they will get. If it ended there it wouldn’t be a problem for the rest except the fired, but not all of them have the highest integrity, especially if their economic situation gets worse. An upsurge in unwanted visitors in homes, purse snatchers, muggers, etc could very well follow.

If they were doing something of value, you would have a point. But they're not, just like the USA, they suck off the govt tit. All that does is teach laziness. Again Luis was talking tax increases to fund these leeches. Sorry not sorry.

 

[NALs]

If they were doing something of value, you would have a point. But they're not, just like the USA, they suck off the govt tit. All that does is teach laziness. Again Luis was talking tax increases to fund these leeches. Sorry not sorry.

It’s the government. It isn’t meant to produce anything. That’s why when things aren’t profitable and hardly any one or no one from the private sector would do them, yet society needs them to function: the government steps in and offers that despite at a loss. You see it in many things such as mass transit, potable water distribution, etc. in this case, the more people the government employees, the less thieves there are in the streets. It would be very hardpressed to find someone that doesn’t like moving about an area that doesn’t have the crime levels where they should be (if already high, imagine it should be higher.)

 

[josh2203]

It’s the government. It isn’t meant to produce anything. That’s why when things aren’t profitable and hardly any one or no one from the private sector would do them, yet society needs them to function: the government steps in and offers that despite at a loss. You see it in many things such as mass transit, potable water distribution, etc. in this case, the more people the government employees, the less thieves there are in the streets. It would be very hardpressed to find someone that doesn’t like moving about an area that doesn’t have the crime levels where they should be (if already high, imagine it should be higher.)

That does not make any sense. I think there are two concepts mixed up here, to produce something and produce profits or be profitable? What good is a government that would not produce anything? It does not have to be profitable at all. I'm sorry but this reminds me of the other thread where you claimed that a government is not even supposed to provide infrastructure?

The DR govt produces education, public hospital etc etc. It does not make a lot cash with the students but that's a darn important function of the govt anyway...

 

[bob saunders]

It’s the government. It isn’t meant to produce anything. That’s why when things aren’t profitable and hardly any one or no one from the private sector would do them, yet society needs them to function: the government steps in and offers that despite at a loss. You see it in many things such as mass transit, potable water distribution, etc. in this case, the more people the government employees, the less thieves there are in the streets. It would be very hardpressed to find someone that doesn’t like moving about an area that doesn’t have the crime levels where they should be (if already high, imagine it should be higher.)

Still doesn't mean there isn't plenty of room to trim the really redundant positions.

 

[NanSanPedro]

It’s the government. It isn’t meant to produce anything. That’s why when things aren’t profitable and hardly any one or no one from the private sector would do them, yet society needs them to function: the government steps in and offers that despite at a loss. You see it in many things such as mass transit, potable water distribution, etc. in this case, the more people the government employees, the less thieves there are in the streets. It would be very hardpressed to find someone that doesn’t like moving about an area that doesn’t have the crime levels where they should be (if already high, imagine it should be higher.)

I still think the life lessons being taught here are counter productive. Lazy effs producing nothing. Demasiado estupido.

The govt has a responsibility to those it extracts taxes from to use it wisely. This is rarely done. To say that these lazy pukes might become thieves is just mental masturbation.