response to fiscal situation report and structural deficits

On page 2 of the Fiscal Situation report, the term "structural deficit" was defined as "...the excess of recurring expenditures over recurring revenues." The report goes further saying that "...It thus may be necessary, at some points in the analysis, to make subjective analytical judgments as to what items should or should not be included in calculating the structural deficit..."

I have no problems with that approach. Every quantitative analysis MUST lend itself some degree of subjectivity, particularly its philosophical approach in identifying the issues, and coming up with solutions. These are quite standard and normal in any scientific observation.

The report states that the structural is $354million less the stated ELA structural, because early retirement plans from EQ Board, interest payments on TRANS, swap transactions, and GDB loan payments should not be a part of recurring expenses. Fair enough.
But I was wondering why CNE feels these line items are non-recurring expenditures.

Also, if the structural deficit is between $3.2b to $2.8b, then what would be the solution proposals for this? Will PR decide to further reduce operating expenditures? And if so, from where would these reductions/savings go to? Will the ELA increase the total revenue base by increasing taxes and if so, where?

Although unpopular, I did support imposing the IVU or sales tax because not only did it increase the ELA base, but it supposedly offset inflation and spending, something that the island's economy (and the U.S.) has been too dependent on (70% of GDP?). This dependency exposes the island's economy to a larger risk of prolonged recessions, despite short term fiscal stimulus spending.

I think PR has to consider a combination of cutting operating expenditures with raising revenues, 2 items that are contractionary, but can be offset by re-structuring the island's debt payments, and invest in capital projects that crowd in investments inthe island's metropolitan periphery, not its center. That way, investor confidence will not be as high enough to absorb systemic investor risk (investor pull-out) and enough capital flows will continue at a sustainable pace.