The Larva, Our pathetic excuse for a (non)governor, goes by the name of Luis Fortuño, signed a measure to place into the upcoming referendum the notion of reducing the size of Our legisalture. This as a result of a referendum voted on in 2005 that ended up saying "Reduce the size of this $!@&#%&*@ legislature."
Why is a 2005 result, condemned and then ignored by his own party (and Let's be fair: by the other major party as well, whose then-governor actually put it out there) coming up for "debate and vote" in this here 2012?
Backtracking: The Jellyfish, then-governor Aníbal Acevedo, attacked the legislature, led by the opposition, with this idea of reducing their size, and thus their "power." He took it to the masses who were massively indifferent to the whole thing. (I didn't vote.) About 28% of the eligible voters said "Reduce it," and the legislature...farted on the whole thing.
In Our system, the legislature votes about itself, so changes like a reduction in membership size or a salary hike, are voted on purely on institutional self-interest. The battle in 2005 was not about the size of the legislature (as it should have been, because it's too damn big), but about appealing to voters for "momentum."
Same as in 2012.
The Jellyfish had a contrarian legislature hell-bent on screwing him over at every step. "The hell with running the country and helping it grow: this is politics!"
The Larva (he wishes he had a sting, like The Jellyfish, but he's just not "big" enough to have one) has a contrarian legislature hell-bent on screwing him over at every step. The difference: in 2012, both branches are under the control of the same party.
Historians say that civil wars are the worst, because they pit brother against brother. In Our case, The Larva's (non)administration has pitted slimebag versus slimebucket in another sickening bout of "The hell with running the country and helping it grow: this is politics!"
What did The Jellyfish gain in 2005? A political "card" he could toss on the table to (A) hint that the legislature didn't listen to the people; (B) distract the people from whatever pissant problem he didn't want deal with or (C) claim speciously that he had the people's best interests on his side.
Did it work? Not well. Maybe the 24 charges filed against The Jellyfish in federal court took the sting out of the legislature reduction card. (He as found "not guilty" on all counts.)
What could The Larva hope to gain with this card now?
Ignorant votes. The best kind, cuz We got plenty of 'em!
Here's The Larva's fiendishly transparent plan, in monologue form (smartened up to make it worthy of being placed here):
"Doh! I'm gonna lose the election! Crime! Moiders! De economy! Edumacation! It all sucks! I'm being blamed! But wait! A referendum on status could scare people into voting for me!! We could sell it as if a vote for me is a vote to stay sucking on Uncle Sam's...tit. Yeah!! But that isn't enough!! OH NO! What to do?! [Several weeks later...with a HUGE headache...] I got it! Make another referendum that makes the meanies in the legitasor--legisrazo--Capitolio look bad AND confuses people into voting for me!! The 'cut the numbers' vote again!! Yeah! Hey, where am I?*"
The Larva is trying to stack the deck for his benefit, not Ours, and to try to gain some measure of control in his own party. When the opposition--his own party or the other---attacks him as expected, he will play one or both cards, to hint about the opposition, distract the media and masses or whitewash his pathetic image.
The opposition will say "Crime," and he will play "Status." The opposition will say "Jobs" and he will say "Cut the ones in the lesligato--Capitolio." And because neither card means anything or matches anything truly relevant to Our current situation, this game of "Go Fish" will have no valid conclusion, no true measure of progress, until Election Day.
And after that, some other totally worthless and immensely stupid game will take its place.
Politics as usual.
The Jenius Has Spoken.
*Freebie: Waldo joke.