A Quote by Mario Cuomo

It is not a government's obligation to provide services, but to see that they are provided. — © Mario Cuomo
It is not a government's obligation to provide services, but to see that they are provided.
You have to have a government to provide you with legal order, with stability, enforcement of property rights, enforcement of contracts, definition of rules and regulations - the rules of the game, so to speak - and to provide certain shared goods and services, public services. Several people have tried to estimate this and they come out with figures like government spending at 15% of GDP. In the modern world it has gone to 40% or above. So we are way beyond the optimal, and that is easier to say than what the optimum is.
We not only have a legal obligation to honor our commitments, we have a moral obligation to provide the coverage we promised to provide to these people.
We've done a lot of work with our government businesses to ensure that we can get reasonable returns but at the same time that they can provide the services that they do provide to Tasmanians at the most efficient cost.
I like the idea of separation of services. ISPs provide a pipe. Other vendors provide security. Other vendors provide email. When one party controls all the services, it's a 'synergy' for the company, but rarely for the consumer.
We confuse insurance with our moral obligation to provide health-care services to people. And what we try to do is finance our moral obligation through the insurance system, which punishes the people who are fiscally responsible to buy insurance.
On the local, state and federal level, government is working alongside veteran's organizations and other stakeholders to provide services such as medical assistance, employment resources, and housing support to veterans and their dependents and survivors. But there are still gaps in services that must be rectified.
I`m surprised people are that hopeful about what government can do, because if you believe in socialism, society can run a pretty decent government, it can provide services, it can regulate the economy effectively.
I think the personal satisfaction of doing good in the community and increasing value and holding true to the Hippocratic oath and being able to provide services to those that are in need is very strong moral reason to provide services for the underserved.
Charities should not become the junior partner in the welfare state; whether or not they provide services funded by Government or, indeed, receive grants from Government, they must remain independent and focused on their mission.
What is a government supposed to do for its people? To improve the standard of living, to help them get jobs, get kids to schools, and have access to medicine and hospitals. Government may not directly provide these public goods and services, but government must be accountable for whether or not they are delivered to citizens.
You can provide better services for less if you get the federal government out of the way.
No government can provide social security. It is not in the nature of government to be able to provide anything. Government itself is not self-supporting. It lives by taxation. Therefore, since it cannot provide for itself but by taking toll of what the people produce, how can it provide social security for the people?
The postal department does indeed undertake a lot of thankless work and is forced to provide services below cost for bookpost and the like. The answer may lie in some form of a universal service obligation fund, not price-fixing.
History does not provide any example of capital accumulation brought about by a government. As far as governments invested in the construction of roads, railroads, and other useful public works, the capital needed was provided by the savings of individual citizens and borrowed by the government.
Since the women are the ones who bear the babies, and there's nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obligation of the husband to provide the support. It is his obligation and his sole obligation. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed.
Since the women are the ones who bear the babies and there's nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obligation of the husband to provide the support. It is his obligation and his sole obligation. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!