The U.S. House of Representatives late yesterday overwhelmingly passed a bill that would authorize a plebiscite in Puerto Rico on the territory’s ultimate political status. Approval by the Senate and President Obama are expected before Sunday.
The legislation would provide funding for most discretionary Federal programs through September 30th. Included is a provision for the plebiscite proposed by Obama in his Fiscal Year 2014 Budget.
Puerto Rico’s Elections Commission would be given $2.5 million for a plebiscite if its proposed status option or options would resolve the question of the territory’s ultimate status and are found by the U.S. Department of Justice to not conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the U.S.
Obama proposed the plebiscite because the “Commonwealth” party governor and legislative majorities of Puerto Rico elected in November 2012 disputed theresults of a plebisciteheld the same day by the insular government then under statehood party leadership. Fifty-four percent of the vote was against continuing territory status, sometimes misleadingly called “Commonwealth” after the name of the insular government, and 61.2% was for statehood among the possible alternatives. Nationhood options split the rest of the vote on the alternatives, with 33.3% for nationhood in an association with the U.S. that either nation could end and 4.5% for full independence.
The Obama Administration had supported the vote, and the President’s spokesman said afterwards that the results were “clear:” Puerto Ricans voted to resolve the question of the territory’s ultimate status (choose statehood or nationhood) and a majority chose statehood.
Concerned that lobbying by Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla against the statehood petition could result in congressional inaction on the self-determination decision of Puerto Ricans, the White House proposed another plebiscite under U.S. Justice Department auspices that would be
more difficult to dispute.
more difficult to dispute.
Garcia and other ‘commonwealthers’ had supported the losing territory status option in the plebiscite even though they said Puerto Rico is not aterritory– contrary to rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, statements of successive presidents and their administrations, and congressional findings.
The ‘commonwealthers’ also disputed the plebiscite’s results certified by Puerto Rico’s tripartisan Elections Commission, contending that ballots without votes on the alternative to territory status should be counted in the percentage breakdown of the results — contrary to determinations of the Elections Commission and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court as well as the law regarding the plebiscite and general election practice.
The real complaint of the ‘commonwealthers’ was that the ballot did not include their proposal for an unprecedented, new “Commonwealth status.” Under the proposal, the Federal government would permanently empower the Commonwealth government to: veto the application of Federal laws; restrict the authority of Federal courts; and enter into international agreements and organizations that only sovereign nations can join. The proposal would also perpetually bind the U.S. Government to grant: a new subsidy to the Commonwealth government; all current assistance to Puerto Ricans; continued U.S. citizenship; continued free entry to the U.S. to any goods shipped from Puerto Rico; and ownership of most Federal land.
The Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations and congressional leaders have said that the proposal is impossible forconstitutionalandother reasons.
When congressional passage became clear this week, the Governor said he would soon make a proposal that would follow through on the status plebiscite authorization but also implement his 2012 campaign proposal regarding the territory’s status. Itpledged a Government assembly to determine a new status choice for Puerto Rico if the Federal government did not act in response to the 2012 plebiscite results by the end of 2013.
The territory’s Legislative Assembly has already established a joint committee for legislation on the assembly.
The Obama plebiscite legislation is virtually the same as one proposed by President Clinton and enacted into law by a Republican Congress in 2000. Its plebiscite was not held because of the opposition of “Commonwealth” party Governor Sila Calderon.
Puerto Rico has been aterritoryof the U.S. not incorporated into the nation since 1898. This status prevents its 3.6 million people from having voting representation in the government that makes their national laws and enables Puerto Rico to be treated differently than the rest of the nation in Federal programs — generally to the detriment of Puerto Ricans.
Read the whole story
· · ·
By Howard Hills*
Recent news reports have compared the daunting fiscal and economic issues facing the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico to the bankruptcy of Detroit. Any meaningful comparison between Puerto Rico and Detroit would require that we imagine a scenario in which Michigan ceded Detroit to the national government, making the city a
Federal reservation governed under arbitrary and inconsistent
Federalpolicies imposed by Washington. Then imagine that there suddenly were more U.S citizens in Detroit than
in 22 of the
States of the Union, but they are stripped of voting representation in Congress or a vote for
Federal reservation governed under arbitrary and inconsistent
Federalpolicies imposed by Washington. Then imagine that there suddenly were more U.S citizens in Detroit than
in 22 of the
States of the Union, but they are stripped of voting representation in Congress or a vote for
the President.Then,
imagine if Detroit was allowed limited home rule, but only in purely local matters. All local laws adopted in Detroit would be subject to nullification by Congress, because there would be no rights reserved to the people under the 10th Amendment. Due process and equal protection rights would not apply toFederal actions, because – as in the case of Puerto Rico – the Congress decides the Constitution itself should not apply.
Instead,
Federal laws applied at the discretion of Congress would be supreme, without democratic consent by the governed. Residents of Detroit would be U.S. citizens by birth, but they would not have equal rights and opportunities with the rest of the nation unless they moved to another city in one of the fifty
States.
Federal laws applied at the discretion of Congress would be supreme, without democratic consent by the governed. Residents of Detroit would be U.S. citizens by birth, but they would not have equal rights and opportunities with the rest of the nation unless they moved to another city in one of the fifty
States.
When compared to Detroit in that context, the only real surprise is that Puerto Rico’s economy
has been as vibrant and resilient as it has proven
to be over the decades, despite
the territory’s less than equal and less than democratic political status.
has been as vibrant and resilient as it has proven
to be over the decades, despite
the territory’s less than equal and less than democratic political status.
Indeed, were Puerto Rico to enjoy the comparative advantages Detroit still enjoys, including a
stable., constitutionally-defined political status, the island territory would be on a trajectory of robust economic recovery and sustainable growth.
stable., constitutionally-defined political status, the island territory would be on a trajectory of robust economic recovery and sustainable growth.
Instead, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico are left with an uncertain political future that discourages investment and impedes Puerto Rico’s economic convergence with the rest of
the nation, based on equal rights and duties of U.S. citizenship.
the nation, based on equal rights and duties of U.S. citizenship.
A comparison of Puerto Rico to Detroit based on historical realities underscores the true impact of
Federal policies denying equal civil rights for millions of U.S. citizens residing in our nation’s last large and
heavily-populated territory.
Federal policies denying equal civil rights for millions of U.S. citizens residing in our nation’s last large and
heavily-populated territory.
There are
about 3.5 million U.S. citizens in Puerto
Rico. Some 1.5 million people born in Puerto Ricohave moved to live in the
States of the Union to acquire equal rights and opportunity.
They are among five million people of Puerto Rican origin in the States. Thus, Federal policy forces millions of U.S. citizens to move
to a State to acquire equal opportunity and benefits and voting rights.
about 3.5 million U.S. citizens in Puerto
Rico. Some 1.5 million people born in Puerto Ricohave moved to live in the
States of the Union to acquire equal rights and opportunity.
They are among five million people of Puerto Rican origin in the States. Thus, Federal policy forces millions of U.S. citizens to move
to a State to acquire equal opportunity and benefits and voting rights.
That denial of equal citizenship rights has been
Federal policy since 1922, when the U.S. Supreme Court singled out Puerto Rico from all other territories as a
Federal reservation in which Congress can rule U.S. citizens without full application of the U.S. Constitution.
Federal policy since 1922, when the U.S. Supreme Court singled out Puerto Rico from all other territories as a
Federal reservation in which Congress can rule U.S. citizens without full application of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress and the
Federal courts long ago should have rejected that confusing and legally unjustified 1922 ruling, as they did other anachronistic Supreme Court decisions from the same era that denied equal rights.
Federal courts long ago should have rejected that confusing and legally unjustified 1922 ruling, as they did other anachronistic Supreme Court decisions from the same era that denied equal rights.
Like Hawaii, Puerto Rico is
a group of islands separated from the mainland by ocean, but for a century it has been within the physical, social, economic, and moral boundaries of our
nation — and many legal boundaries, just as surely as any other place in the USA.
a group of islands separated from the mainland by ocean, but for a century it has been within the physical, social, economic, and moral boundaries of our
nation — and many legal boundaries, just as surely as any other place in the USA.
As with every territory in U.S. history, only a permanent status with equal citizenship rights will make full economic prosperity possible.
* Lead counsel for territorial status affairs National Security Council, White House (1982-1986); Territorial law advisor U.S. Department of State (1986-1988). All views expressed are personal opinion of author.
Read the whole story
· · ·
The U.S. Congress has
agreed with President Obama on authorizing a plebiscite in Puerto Rico on the territory’s ultimate political status.
agreed with President Obama on authorizing a plebiscite in Puerto Rico on the territory’s ultimate political status.
The final approval came
Thursday night with the U.S. Senate’s passage of a bill to provide funding for most discretionary Federal programs through September 30th. Obama is expected to sign the bill into law.
Thursday night with the U.S. Senate’s passage of a bill to provide funding for most discretionary Federal programs through September 30th. Obama is expected to sign the bill into law.
It would become the second law in history authorizing Puerto Ricans to choose whether the territory should become a U.S. State or a nation. Similar legislation proposed by President Clinton was approved by a Republican Congress in 2000 but it was not implemented due to the opposition of “Commonwealth” party Governor Sila Calderon.
Puerto Rico’s Elections Commission would be given $2.5 million for a plebiscite if its proposed status option or options would resolve the question of the territory’s ultimate status and are found by the U.S. Department of Justice to not conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the U.S.
The possible options are U.S. statehood, independence, and nationhood in an association with the U.S. that either nation could end. The
vote could be on one or more of these options.The
Although the current status is often misleadingly called “commonwealth” after the name of the insular government, a “Commonwealth” proposal would not qualify for the plebiscite because, as Obama’sTask Force on Puerto Rico’s Status has pointed out, Puerto Rico would remain subject to congressional authority under the Constitution’s Territory Clause under any “Commonwealth” proposal (that is not statehood or nationhood).
Obama proposed the plebiscite because the “Commonwealth” party governor and legislative majorities of Puerto Rico elected in November 2012 disputed theresults of a plebisciteheld the same day under insular law. Fifty-four percent of the vote was against continuing territory statusand 61.2% was for statehood among the possible alternatives. Nationhood options split the rest of the vote, with 33.3% for nationhood in an association with the U.S. and 4.5% for full independence.
The Obama Administration had supported the 2012 vote, and the President’s spokesman said afterwards that the results were “clear:” Puerto Ricans voted to resolve the question of the territory’s ultimate status (choose statehood or nationhood) and a majority chose statehood.
Concerned that lobbying by Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla against the statehood petition could result in congressional inaction on the self-determination decision of Puerto Ricans, the White House proposed another plebiscite under U.S. Justice Department auspices. The Justice Department role would make it more difficult to dispute the results.
Garcia and other ‘commonwealthers’ had supported the losing territory status option in the 2012 plebiscite even though they said Puerto Rico is not aterritory– contrary to rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, statements of successive presidents and their administrations, and congressional findings.
The ‘commonwealthers’ also disputed the plebiscite’s results certified by Puerto Rico’s tripartisan Elections Commission. They contended that ballots without votes on the alternative to territory status should be counted in the percentage breakdown of the results — contrary to determinations of the Elections Commission and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court that only votes should be counted in the percentage breakdowns for the purpose of determining results.
The real complaint of the ‘commonwealthers’ was that the ballot did not include their proposal for an unprecedented, new “Commonwealth status.” Under the proposal, the Federal government would permanently empower the Commonwealth government to: veto the application of Federal laws; restrict the authority of Federal courts; and enter into international agreements and organizations that only sovereign nations can join. The proposal would also perpetually bind the U.S. Government to grant: a new subsidy to the Commonwealth government; all current assistance to Puerto Ricans; continued U.S. citizenship; continued free entry to the U.S. to any goods shipped from Puerto Rico; and ownership of most Federal land.
The Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations and congressional leaders have said that the proposal is impossible forconstitutionalandother reasons.
When congressional passage became clear this week, Garcia said he would soon make a proposal that would follow through on the status plebiscite authorization but also implement his 2012 campaign proposal regarding the territory’s status. It pledged a Government assembly to determine a new status choice for Puerto Rico if the Federal government did not act in response to the 2012 plebiscite results by the end of 2013.
The territory’s Legislative Assembly has already established a joint committee for legislation on the assembly.
Puerto Rico has been aterritoryof the U.S. not incorporated into the nation since 1898. This status prevents its 3.6 million people from having voting representation in the government that makes their national laws and enables Puerto Rico to be treated differently than the rest of the nation in Federal programs — generally to the detriment of Puerto Ricans.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Federallegislation to authorize a plebiscite in Puerto Rico on statehood, on nationhood, or on both — but not on “Commonwealth” — was signed into law last night.
The
legislation, which was proposed by President Obama
and embraced by Appropriations Committee chairmen in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives
, was included as part of a larger bill to provide funding for Federal programs.
legislation, which was proposed by President Obama
and embraced by Appropriations Committee chairmen in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives
, was included as part of a larger bill to provide funding for Federal programs.
Puerto Rico’s Elections Commission will be given $2.5 million for a plebiscite if its proposed status option or options would resolve the question of the territory’s ultimate status and are found by the U.S. Department of Justice to not conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the U.S.
The possible options are U.S. statehood, independence, and nationhood in an association with the U.S. that either nation could end. The vote could be on one or more of these options.
The current territory status, often misleadingly called “commonwealth” after the name of the insular government, could not be an option because it cannot resolve the question of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status. As long as Puerto Rico is a territory, Puerto Ricans can seek statehood or nationhood.
The “Commonwealth” party has proposed a new “Commonwealth” arrangement but it, too, would not
qualify: As the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status has
explained, Puerto Rico would remain subject to congressional authority under the Constitution’s Territory Clause under any “Commonwealth” proposal.
qualify: As the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status has
explained, Puerto Rico would remain subject to congressional authority under the Constitution’s Territory Clause under any “Commonwealth” proposal.
Obama proposed the plebiscite because the “Commonwealth” party governor and legislative majorities of Puerto Rico elected in November 2012 disputed theresults of a plebisciteheld the same day under insular law. Fifty-four percent of the vote was against continuing territory status and 61.2% was for statehood among the possible alternatives. Nationhood options split the rest of the alternatives vote, with 33.3% for nationhood in an association with the U.S. and 4.5% for full independence.
The Obama Administration supported the plebiscite, and the President’s spokesman said its results were “clear:” Puerto Ricans voted to resolve the question of the territory’s ultimate status (choose statehood or nationhood) and a
strong majority chose statehood.
strong majority chose statehood.
Concerned that lobbying by Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla against the
territory’s statehood petition could result in congressional inaction on the self-determination decision of Puerto Ricans, the White House proposed another plebiscite under U.S. Justice Department auspices. The Justice Department role would make it more difficult for a losing side to dispute the results.
territory’s statehood petition could result in congressional inaction on the self-determination decision of Puerto Ricans, the White House proposed another plebiscite under U.S. Justice Department auspices. The Justice Department role would make it more difficult for a losing side to dispute the results.
Garcia and other ‘commonwealthers’ had supported the failed territory status option in the 2012 plebiscite even though they said that Puerto Rico is not aterritory – contrary to rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, statements of successive presidents and their administrations, and congressional findings.
The ‘commonwealthers’ also disputed the plebiscite’s results certified by Puerto Rico’s tripartisan Elections Commission. They contended that ballots without votes on the alternative to territory status should be included in the percentage breakdown of the results — contrary to determinations of the Elections Commission and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court that only votes should be counted in determining results.
The real complaint of the ‘commonwealthers’ was that the ballot did not include their proposal for an unprecedented “Commonwealth status.” Under the proposal, the Federal government would permanently empower the Commonwealth government to: veto the application of Federal laws; restrict the authority of Federal courts; and enter into international agreements and organizations limited to sovereign nations. The proposal would also perpetually bind the U.S. Government to grant: a new subsidy to the Commonwealth government; all current assistance to Puerto Ricans; continued U.S. citizenship; continued free entry to the U.S. to any goods shipped from Puerto Rico; and ownership of most Federal land.
The Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations and congressional leaders have said that the proposal is impossible forconstitutionalandother reasons.
When the likely enactment of the plebiscite authorization became clear this week, Garcia said he would make a proposal that would
incorporate both the authorization and his 2012 campaign pledge for a Government assembly to determine a new status choice for Puerto Rico if the Federal government did not act on the 2012 plebiscite results in
incorporate both the authorization and his 2012 campaign pledge for a Government assembly to determine a new status choice for Puerto Rico if the Federal government did not act on the 2012 plebiscite results in
2013 — even though the Federal government acted only two and half weeks later.The “Commonwealth” party-controlled
Legislative Assembly has already established a joint committee to draft assembly legislation.
Yesterday, the leadership of Puerto Rico’s statehood party said that the new law’s plebiscite should be on
statehood since it won the 2012
plebiscite and the other possible options were clearly rejected.
statehood since it won the 2012
plebiscite and the other possible options were clearly rejected.
The new law is the second in history to authorize Puerto Ricans to choose the territory’s status. Similar legislation proposed by President Clinton was approved by a Republican Congress in 2000 but was not implemented in 2001 due to the opposition of a “Commonwealth” party governor.
The plebiscite funding in that law expired with Fiscal Year 2001. The authorization in the new law is not limited to one year.
Puerto Rico has been a territory of the U.S. not incorporated into the nation since 1898. This status prevents its 3.6 million people from having voting representation in the government that makes their national laws and enables Puerto Rico to be treated differently than the rest of the country in Federal programs — generally to the detriment of Puerto Ricans.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Last month, the chairman and senior minority party member of the U.S. Senate committee that handles territories political status matters sent a letter to the leaders of Puerto Rico’s three local political parties reiterating that any statusproposalsimilar to the “Commonwealth” party’s cannot be implemented.
Because one Congress constitutionally cannot give up the power of future Congresses over a territory without making the territory a State or a nation, Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Ranking Minority Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) wrote “to stress that non-viable status options such as ‘enhanced commonwealth’ should not be considered” in any future process on the political status preference of Puerto Ricans.
Their letter followed-up on statements made during an August hearingof the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. It explains that including a “Commonwealth” proposal that cannot be implemented as a status choice would confuse the process and could prevent resolution of the question of the territory’s ultimate status. Even if Puerto Ricans were to choose such a proposal, it could not be put into effect.
The administrations of both Democratic and Republican presidents, including President Obama, have made the same point, as have other congressional authorities.
“Commonwealth” is a word in the formal name of Puerto Rico’s insular government. It is not a political status, although Puerto Rico is often misleadingly referred to as “a commonwealth.” Under the U.S. Constitution, Puerto Rico is aterritory of the U.S.
Puerto Rico’s “Commonwealth” party, which claims that Puerto Rico is a “Commonwealth” instead of a territory, has made a number of proposals to limit Federal authority and give the insular government national powers and better Federal benefits, which have been called “perfected, developed, enhanced, and Commonwealth.” The various proposals have been rejected since the 1950s.
The party’s version of the proposal since 1998 calls for Puerto Rico to be recognized as a nation but in a permanent association with the U.S. Under the arrangement, Federal laws and courts would have jurisdiction in Puerto Rico but only as determined by the insular government. In addition, Puerto Rico would have the powers to enter into international agreements and organizations that require nationhood. At the same time, the U.S. would be permanently required to grant new economic benefits as well as continue current benefits to Puerto Ricans and U.S. citizenship.
Accepting the reality that this proposal is impossible should help resolve the question of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status, the Senate leaders explained.
Puerto Rican advocates of the alternatives to the current territory status — statehood, independence, and nationhood in an association with the U.S. that either nation could end — applauded the Senate leaders’ counsel. For example,
Hernán Padilla, president of a group seeking equality for Puerto Ricans within the nation, wrote the senators, “It helps both political leaders and voters on the Island understand that efforts to resolve the political status issue should only contemplate constitutional realistic and viable options. We are grateful that you have publicly expressed the truth.”
Hernán Padilla, president of a group seeking equality for Puerto Ricans within the nation, wrote the senators, “It helps both political leaders and voters on the Island understand that efforts to resolve the political status issue should only contemplate constitutional realistic and viable options. We are grateful that you have publicly expressed the truth.”
Former “Commonwealth” party Governor Rafael Hernández Colón, however, argued that excluding an empowered Commonwealth status proposal from a future status process would disenfranchise voters. ”The policy expressed by Senators Wyden and Murkowski goes against the right of self determination of the Puerto Rican people,” he added. “Exclusion of a developed Commonwealth from the ballot would deprive Commonwealth supporters of their right to vote.”
Hernandez made these assertions in an advertisement in The Hill, a newspaper for the congressional community, written in the form of a newspaper column. The ‘column’ was also sent to a news service in Oregon by Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla’s Washington office, which is headed by Hernandez’s son. Wyden represents Oregon in the Senate.
Hernandez’s contention — also expressed by Garcia in the August Senate hearing and more recently — is specious. There is no right to vote for something that cannot come about.
Despite repeated rejections since the 1950s, Hernández contends that “developed Commonwealth” is a possible option. ”The developed Commonwealth would include changes in the compact establishing the federal relations to provide for more effective self-government,” Hernández misleadingly offered. “Basic democratic principles require that voters may vote for such changes.”
The Federal government, however, has already allowed Puerto Rico to exercise authority similar to that which States possess.
The governing arrangement that Hernandez and Garcia want would ‘cherry pick’ and combine incompatible aspects of statehood, nationhood, and territory status.
In a 2007 report, the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status under President George W. Bush wrote that, ”[T]he “New Commonwealth” proposal that some have proposed contemplates a political status for Puerto Rico that is not permitted by the United StatesConstitution. As long as Puerto Rico remains a territory of the United States, Congress may not impair the constitutional authority of later Congresses to alter the political powers of the government of Puerto Rico by entering into a covenant or compact with Puerto Rico or its residents.”
The Task Force under President Obama wrote in
2011 that, ““[u]nder the Commonwealth option, Puerto Rico would remain, as it is today, subject to the Territory Clause of the U.S.Constitution.”
The Task Force under President Obama wrote in
2011 that, ““[u]nder the Commonwealth option, Puerto Rico would remain, as it is today, subject to the Territory Clause of the U.S.Constitution.”
The Federal government’s position on the current
“developed Commonwealth” proposal has remained the same since the Clinton Administration, which issued a legal memorandum that rejected numerous aspects of the proposal.
“developed Commonwealth” proposal has remained the same since the Clinton Administration, which issued a legal memorandum that rejected numerous aspects of the proposal.
As noted above, the basic problem with the proposal is that it would permanently bind the Federal government to the arrangement, requiring the ‘mutual consent’ of Puerto Rico as well as the U.S. for changes. This would effectively make the U.S. a colony of Puerto Rico. Sovereign nations have the unilateral right to determine whether and how to be associated with other nations.
Obama’s Task Force report explicitly explained that “The Obama Administration has taken a fresh look at the issue of such mutual consent provisions, and it has concluded that such provisions would not be enforceable.”
Republican administrations have concluded the same. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kevin Marshall of the George W. Bush Administration made the following statementto Congress in 2007, which still rings true today:
T]he primary question [faced by the Task Force] regarding options was whether the Constitution currently allows a “Commonwealth” status that could be altered only by “mutual consent,” such that Puerto Rico could block Congress from altering its status. Since 1991, the Justice Department has, under administrations of both parties, consistently taken the position that the Constitution does not allow such an arrangement.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
As more of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico have aspired to equality with residents of the States, Puerto Rico’s “Commonwealth” party has
worked in tandem with anti-Latino groups to block the self-determination of Puerto Ricans. The
most recent example of their mutual efforts is featured on the Website of
ProEnglish, a group that is run out of the same office
as an organization working to reduce immigration into the U.S. Most immigrants to the U.S. at present are people of Hispanic origin.
worked in tandem with anti-Latino groups to block the self-determination of Puerto Ricans. The
most recent example of their mutual efforts is featured on the Website of
ProEnglish, a group that is run out of the same office
as an organization working to reduce immigration into the U.S. Most immigrants to the U.S. at present are people of Hispanic origin.
The featured post [below] earlier ran as a blogpost on the Website of The Hill, a newspaper for the congressional community. It was authored by the chairman of the “Commonwealth” party’s Federal affairs committee. It argues that Puerto Rico’s current political status (territory, often misleadingly called “Commonwealth“) did not lose Puerto Rico’s November 2012 plebiscite on status options. The blog also asserts that the statehood option did not win — contrary to thecount of Puerto Rico’s Elections Commission.
There is a history of
working with anti-Hispanic voices. In 1998, ‘commonwealthers’ enlisted anti-Hispanic immigrant leaders in efforts to prevent congressional approval of Puerto Rican status choice legislation
(H.R. 856). The bill passed the House
of Representatives but this opposition impeded the legislation’s movement in the Senate, and H.R. 856 was not enacted into law.
Read the whole story
· ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
There Is No “Commonwealth” Solution by hadeninteractive
In a blog post in The Hill, a newspaper for the congressional community, former San Juan MayorHernán Padilla, president of a group seeking equality for Puerto Ricans, re-examined Puerto Rico’s 2012 plebiscite on the territory’s political status. In the vote, the people of Puerto Rico rejected territory status and chose statehood among the alternatives.
Puerto Rico’s government administration, narrowly elected the same day, has refused to accept the plebiscite’s self-determination decision. Padilla explained why:
The root of the argument against the November 2012 plebiscite can be traced directly to the Popular Democratic Party’s (PDP) governing board resolution, dated February 11, 2012 … It wrongly asserts that the current “Commonwealth” status was not in the ballot, because in the PDP’s view, “the Commonwealth is not and should not be subject to the plenary powers of the U.S. Congress.”
In comments on the post, a reader asserted that Puerto Rico has a “Commonwealth” relationship with the U.S. and it is like the union between England and Scotland. The relationship between Puerto Rico and the U.S. is, in fact, that of a territory and the nation that owns it. Puerto Rico is subject to the plenary powers of the U.S. Congress, and will continue to be until Puerto Rico becomes a State or a nation.
There is no similarity to the union between England and Scotland.
There is no similarity to the union between England and Scotland.
Padilla examined another objection to the results of the 2012 vote: the “Commonwealth” party’s “Development of the Commonwealth” proposal was not on the ballot. As U.S. Government officials have stated over and over through the years, most recently in the form of a letter from the leaders of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, any “enhanced Commonwealth” is not a possible status option. It cannot be implemented by
Congress because on Congress cannot give up the powers of a future Congress without making the territory a State or a nation. Putting a proposal that cannot be a reality on the ballot is a waste of time and resources and unfair to voters.
Congress because on Congress cannot give up the powers of a future Congress without making the territory a State or a nation. Putting a proposal that cannot be a reality on the ballot is a waste of time and resources and unfair to voters.
Padilla also addressed a third argument for the refusal to respect the 2012 vote: there were blank ballots on the question of the alternative to territory status. Supporters of the idea of a “Developed Commonwealth” status have claimed that ballots without votes on the alternative should be counted in the percentage breakdown of the results for the question, contrary to determinations of Puerto Rico’sElections Commission and Supreme Court. As Padilla points out, “[O]ur electoral statute in Puerto Rico establishes that blank votes are not valid and should not be counted in favor of any candidate or proposal. Secondly, both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court have upheld that … should not be credited for any position or candidate or even taken into consideration in any determination of a majority.”
The 2012 vote underscored that the people of Puerto Rico are not satisfied with the current status, and the vote against continuing as a territory should be respected.
The fly in the ointment is the insistence of Puerto Rico’s current administration that its “Development of the Commonwealth” proposal be an option in a status choice process, although U.S. Government officials haverepeatedly said that it cannot be agreed
to by the Federal government.
to by the Federal government.
Some comments on Padilla’s post called for the U.S. to “sit down and negotiate” a new “Commonwealth” status but, as President Obama’s Task Force has reported, Puerto Rico would remain subject to Congress’ territory governing authority under any “Commonwealth” arrangement.
While proponents of the “Development of the Commonwealth” wait for Federal officials to change their uniform and consistent understanding of the U.S. Constitution, Puerto Rico continues to suffer thenegative consequences of being a territory, even though its people have voted against the status.
The leaders of the U.S. Senate committee responsible for the status of territories recently reiteratedthat any proposal similar to the “Development of the Commonwealth” proposal
is a “non-viable” scheme that should not be considered by Puerto Ricans. It is time to accept that fact and move forward.
is a “non-viable” scheme that should not be considered by Puerto Ricans. It is time to accept that fact and move forward.
Read the whole story
· · ·
In a ruling last Friday, Judge Bernard McGinley of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania struck down the state’s controversial voter ID law. The law limited photo ID options for voters to drivers licenses or passports — alternatives like student IDs, school district worker IDs, military retiree IDs, and government benefit cards were not accepted. According to a story in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Governor Tom Corbett (R) has not ruled out bringing an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania law is one of several state voter-ID laws that have been enacted in recent years. As the Pennsylvania case began to receive increased attention, there was growing speculation as to whether Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania would be disproportionately impacted due to a 2010 Puerto Rican law invalidating all birth certificates issued before July 1, 2010 and requiring everyone of voting age who was born in Puerto Rico and did not already have a passport or driver’s license to take the extra step of obtaining a new birth certificate before applying for a voter ID. The Puerto Rico Report covered the first phases of this litigation in the months leading up to Election Day 2012.
In his ruling, Judge McGinley stated that the law might make it more difficult for poor, minority, and elderly voters to exercise their right to vote. Lacking adequate evidence of existing voter fraud or the need for a new voter ID law, the court decided that the law placed an undue burden on voters and had the potential to disenfranchise voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is far from Puerto Rico, which also has the word“Commonwealth” in its title. At first glance, the use of this word seems to be all that the two entities have in common. However, Pennsylvania has 381,646 Puerto Rican residents, more than half of the state’s Hispanic population, and Pennsylvania’s Puerto Rican population is growing.
The people of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States but lack proportional representation in Congress and are ineligible to vote in presidential elections. When they move to the mainland — asan increasing number of Puerto Ricans now choose to do — they become eligible to vote in all elections, including presidential contests, and gain congressional representation.
The Garcia Padilla Administration’s lead Federal affairs official issued a government news release today denying that the U.S. Department of Justice must approve the option or options for the plebiscite on Puerto Rico’s ultimate political status authorized by a new Federal law.
The assertion is contradicted by a joint statementof the heads of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives committees responsible for the law and a report by the House committee that the Senate chairwoman embraced in putting the legislation before the Senate.
It also contradicts President Barrack Obama’s proposal for the law.
Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration (PRFAA) Director Juan Hernandez Mayoral’s contention is primarily important because it is now up to Puerto Rico’s Elections Commission to propose terms for the plebiscite and the territory’s Legislative Assembly to pass legislation for it. Appointees of Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla can block action in the Commission and other members of the territory’s “Commonwealth” party control the legislature.
Additionally, the party’s “Commonwealth status” proposal has been rejected by the Justice Department in the Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations as being impossible forconstitutional and other reasons.
Hernandez wrote that the statement last week by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) did not include the presidentially proposed requirement for the Commission’s proposed plebiscite status options and explanatory materials to be found by the Justice Department to not conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the U.S.
The congressional leaders’ statementin fact, however, specifically said that the House committee report’s terms apply, and the House report explicitly requires Justice Department approval.
The Federal plebiscite authorization also requires that the plebiscite be on options that can “resolve” the question of Puerto Rico’s status. This requirement precludes Puerto Rico’s current territory status, sometimes also misleadingly called “Commonwealth,” from being an option. As long as Puerto Rico is a territory, Puerto Ricans can petition for statehood or nationhood, so territory status cannot “resolve” the issue.
The Justice Department requirement was proposed by President Obama’s office because of the “Commonwealth” party’s impossible “Commonwealth” proposal. Congressional leaders agreed because of it.
Congressional committee leaders of both national political parties have also found the “Commonwealth” proposal to be
impossible.Under the proposal,
the U.S. would be permanently bound to an arrangement under which Puerto Rico could veto the application of Federal laws, limit Federal court authority, and enter into international agreements and organizations as if the territory were a sovereign nation.
The U.S. would also be required to grant Puerto Rico a new subsidy and most Federal land in the territory as well as to continue to grant all current assistance to Puerto Ricans, free access to any shipments from Puerto Rico, and U.S. citizenship to islanders.
Although Governor Garcia publicly supported Obama’s plebiscite proposal, there have been reportsthat PRFAA lobbyists and Hernandez’s brother who heads the “Commonwealth” party’s status committee raised questions in Congress that undermined the proposal.
Two of the members of Congress closest to the “Commonwealth” party also spoke critically of the proposal, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL).
But the proposal was championed by: Puerto Rico’s representative to the Federal Government, statehood party President Pedro Pierluisi, who has a seat in the U.S. House with a vote only in committees; senior House Appropriations Committee member Jose Serrano (D-NY), who was born in Puerto Rico; House Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Ranking Minority Member Chakkah Fattah (D-PA); Senate territories committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR); House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD); Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); House Appropriations Committee member and Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-FL); and Mikulski, among others of both parties.
Obama proposed the plebiscite because Garcia and the commonwealthers who were narrowly elected with him in 2012 to control Puerto Rico’s legislature opposed Federal action to implement the results of a status plebiscite under local law held along with the elections.
The vote rejected Puerto Rico’s territory status and overwhelmingly chose statehood by a vote of 61.2% among the possible alternatives. Garcia supported the current status in the plebiscite, although he argued that Puerto Rico is not subject to congressional territory governing authority as held by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice Department.
Garcia and some other commonwealthers primarily objected to the vote, however, because it did not include their party’s “Commonwealth status”proposal.
Other commonwealthers, though, supported the plebiscite’s option of nationhood in an association with the U.S. that either nation could end. It received 33.3% of the vote.
Independence was chosen by 4.5% of the vote.
In 2012, Garcia ran on a platform of having a local government assembly on status if the Federal government did not act on the issue in 2013.
When it was clear that the Federal plebiscite authorization would become law just two and a half weeks after 2013, Garcia said that he would propose a status resolution process based on his 2012 platform as well as on the Federal law. He did not elaborate but said that he would detail the processsoon.
Commonwealthers have proposed a local status assembly. Some hope that this course of action would avoid the Federal government ruling out their “Commonwealth status” proposal before they can try to get it accepted in Puerto Rico.
Hernandez made the false assertion about the Federal plebiscite authorization in an attack on Pierluisi, wrongly charging that Puerto Rico’s top vote getter in the 2012 elections was misleading in saying that congressional leaders had agreed to the Justice Department requirement.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
Puerto Rico’s representative to the Federal government has advised President Obama that the plebiscite on the territory’s ultimate political status authorized by a new Federal lawshould be on U.S. statehood.
Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, who heads the territory’s statehood party, sent Obama alettermaking the suggestion shortly after the party’s leadership settled on the idea.
The vote authorized in the new law can be on one or more of the options of statehood, independence, and nationhood in an association with the U.S. that either nation can end. Only these options would qualify because the plebiscite is limited to options that can “resolve” the question of Puerto Rico’s status.
Puerto Rico’s current status — territory but often misleadingly called “Commonwealth” after a word inthe formal name of the insular government — would not qualify for the Federal plebiscite because Puerto Ricans can always seek statehood or nationhood as long as Puerto Rico is a territory.
In addition, a non-territory
‘developed’ or ‘enhanced’ “Commonwealth status” that Puerto Rico’s “Commonwealth” party wants would not qualify because, in the words of President Obama’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, Puerto Rico would remain subject to congressional authority under the Constitution’s Territory Clause. A2011 report by the Task Force,prior presidential administrations, and congressional leadershave all rejected the unprecedented “Commonwealth status” proposal as impossible forconstitutionalandother reasons.
‘developed’ or ‘enhanced’ “Commonwealth status” that Puerto Rico’s “Commonwealth” party wants would not qualify because, in the words of President Obama’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, Puerto Rico would remain subject to congressional authority under the Constitution’s Territory Clause. A2011 report by the Task Force,prior presidential administrations, and congressional leadershave all rejected the unprecedented “Commonwealth status” proposal as impossible forconstitutionalandother reasons.
The argument for having a plebiscite on the statehood option alone
is that it received far more support than both of the nationhood options combined in a plebiscite conducted under local law in 2012.
is that it received far more support than both of the nationhood options combined in a plebiscite conducted under local law in 2012.
A ‘Statehood: Yes or No’ vote would pit statehood against the current territorial status as well as the
nationhood options. The 2012 plebiscite rejected Puerto Rico’s current status, demonstrated more support for statehood than the current status, and chose statehood among the possible alternatives to territory status.
nationhood options. The 2012 plebiscite rejected Puerto Rico’s current status, demonstrated more support for statehood than the current status, and chose statehood among the possible alternatives to territory status.
The final option or options for the plebiscite are to be determined by Puerto Rico’s tripartisan Elections Commission to the extent that the U.S. Department of Justice determines that
the Commission’s option proposal or proposals do not conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the U.S.
the Commission’s option proposal or proposals do not conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the U.S.
Obama proposed the plebiscite in his Fiscal Year 2014 Budget because the territory’s new governor and legislative majorities, narrowly elected at the time of the 2012 insular plebiscite, dispute the 2012 vote. The President supported the 2012 plebiscite and the White House embraced its results but Obama aides were concerned that opposition by the new Puerto Rico officials would prevent action in Congress on the self-determination decision of Puerto Ricans.
The new governor and legislative majorities primarily dispute the plebiscite because it did not include their party’s “Development of the Commonwealth”proposal. Underthe proposal, the U.S. would be bound to an arrangement under which Puerto Rico would be able to veto the application of Federal laws and court jurisdiction and enter into international agreements as if it were a sovereign nation while the U.S. provides greater economic benefits than at present, continuing
other benefits and U.S. citizenship.
other benefits and U.S. citizenship.
The new governor and legislative majorities also dispute the 2012 plebiscite because it described Puerto Rico’s current status as “territorial”. They contend that Puerto Rico is not a territory, although the U.S. Supreme Court as well as successive presidents and congressional authorities have saidthat Puerto Rico remains subject to congressional authority under the Constitution’s Territory Clause even though, like other territories, it has been authorized to exercise self-government on local matters.
A plebiscite under U.S. Justice Department auspices would be difficult to dispute.
Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla has suggested that he will seek to hold a plebiscite under the new Federal law but only after holding a local government status assembly.
A few years ago,
his “Commonwealth” party asked congressional committees to authorize an up-or-down vote on statehood when Pierluisi proposed Federal authorization for a referendum similar to the plebiscite that the Government of Puerto Rico wound up conducting under local law in 2012.
his “Commonwealth” party asked congressional committees to authorize an up-or-down vote on statehood when Pierluisi proposed Federal authorization for a referendum similar to the plebiscite that the Government of Puerto Rico wound up conducting under local law in 2012.
Read the whole story
· · ·
The U.S. Department of State today said that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, Puerto Ricans want to resolve the question of its ultimate status, and a majority of Puerto Ricans chose statehood as the alternative to territory status in a 2012 plebiscite.
The statements reaffirmed Federal positions on Puerto Rico’s status not accepted by the “Commonwealth” party insular government administration narrow elected at the same time of the plebiscite.
The statements were made in response to questions about expressions this week by the presidents of Venezuela and Cuba. Venezuelan Nicolas Maduro and Cuban Raul Castro reiterated their government’s calls for Puerto Rico’s independence. Maduro also proposed Puerto Rico’s membership in Petrocaribe and the Community of Caribbean and Latin American States (CELAC).
Then Venezuela President Hugo Chavez led the formation of Petrocaribe in 2005. The organization lets its 17 other member nations buy Venezuelan oil on preferential payment terms. It is now exploring other economic cooperation measures.
The U.S. buys more Venezuelan oil than any other nation but has not been invited to join Petrocaribe.
Despite this, “Commonwealth” party Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila explored the possibility of buying oil from Venezuela in 2005. Puerto Rico uses imported oil to make 69% of its electricity, and oil price increases that began four decades ago have led to extremely high electricity rates, a major drag on the territory’s economy.
The administration of current Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla has said that it is not interested in joining CELAC — but it has not ruled out membership in Petrocaribe. The U.S. is also excluded from CELAC, a 33-country group formed in Venezuela in 2011 with a political agenda.
Garcia and some other “Commonwealth” party leaders have tried to deny that Puerto Rico is subject to the broad authority over territories that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress — although the Governor has also acknowledged the fact when pressed.
One of their arguments for not recognizing the 2012 plebiscite results is that its current status option was defined as “territorial”. Garcia and others supported the current status option, which was rejected by 54% of the vote.
These ‘commonwealthers’ suggest that Puerto Rico is a “Commonwealth” but not a territory.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Puerto Rico is subject to Congress’ Territory Clause authority, and President Obama’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status has reported that it will continue to be under any “Commonwealth” arrangement. This explanation echoed reports by previous Federal administrations and congressional committees. The State Department has previously maintained thatPuerto Rico is a territory.
Garcia and other ‘commonwealthers’ also claim that a majority of Puerto Ricans support the current status despite the 2012 plebiscite and past plebiscite results.
Consistent with this, Garcia and the post-2012 “Commonwealth” party majority in Puerto Rico’s Legislative Assembly dispute that statehood won a majority of the 2012 plebiscite vote. Puerto Rico’s tripartisan Elections Commission, however, determined that statehood won 61.2% of the vote among the alternatives to territory status but the ‘commonwealthers’ assert that it did not. They claim that ballots without votes should be counted in the percentage results, contrary to Puerto Rico Supreme Court rulings.
The independence called for by Maduro and Castro received 4.5% of the vote. Nationhood in an association with the U.S. that either nation could end was chosen by 33.3%.
The State Department statement on the 2012 plebiscite results was identical to the statement of President Obama’s spokesman after the plebiscite, a vote that the White House supported.
In addition, 130 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have sponsored legislationrecognizing the statehood choice. Puerto Rico’s representative to the Federal government and U.S. House member with a vote only in committees is the lead sponsor of the bill. Pedro Pierluisi was the highest vote getter in the 2012 elections and heads the territory’s statehood party.
The primary objection of ‘commonwealthers’ to the 2012 plebiscite, however, is that it did not include their “Development of the Commonwealth” proposal. Under the proposal, Puerto Rico would be empowered to enter into international organizations and agreements as if it were a sovereign nation as well as empowered to nullify Federal laws and court jurisdiction. It would, additionally, continue to receive new and existing U.S. benefits. And the U.S. would not be able to change any of these provisions.
The Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations and congressional committee leaders have said that the proposal is impossible for constitutional and other reasons.
In its statement today, the U.S. State Department noted that, “Because Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, the Federal government is responsible for the foreign relations of Puerto Rico, including decisions related to its membership or other participation in international organizations.”
Less than two weeks ago, Federal legislation for a plebiscite on options that would “resolve” the question of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status was enacted into law. The options could be U.S. statehood, independence, and nationhood in a non-binding association with the U.S.
Territory status, whether called that or “Commonwealth” could not be an option because it is an undemocratic status that cannot resolve the issue. Puerto Ricans will still have the right to petition for statehood or nationhood as long as Puerto Rico is a territory.
Proposals for the plebiscite’s options would be made by Puerto Rico’s Elections Commission but would have to be approved by the U.S. Department of Justice as not conflicting with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the U.S.
The Justice Department approval requirement was included to ensure that impossible proposals, like the “Commonwealth” party’s “Commonwealth” proposal, are not included.
President Obama proposed the new plebiscite because of the opposition of Garcia and the “Commonwealth” party majorities in Puerto Rico’s legislature to Federal action on the 2012 plebiscite results. It threatened to lead to congressional inaction on the self-determination decision of Puerto Ricans. A plebiscite under Federal auspices would be harder to dispute.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
“There are other steps we can take to help families make ends meet, and few are more effective at reducing inequality and helping families pull themselves up through hard work than the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Right now, it helps about half of all parents at some point. Think about that — it helps about half of all parents in America at some point in their lives. But I agree with Republicans like Senator Rubio that it doesn’t do enough for single workers who don’t have kids. So let’s work together to strengthen the credit, reward work, help more Americans get ahead.”
- President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2014
Studies have affirmed for years that the EITC encourages work, and more recent research shows that these federal policies also improve children’s school performance and boost their productivity and earnings into adulthood.
The EITC is a refundable tax credit, meaning that it is not limited by the amount of an individual’s tax liability. This is important because roughly half of all Americans do not earn enough income to trigger the obligation to pay federal income taxes at all. Under the EITC, individuals throughout the 50 states can receive refund checks from the IRS even if they do not owe any federal income taxes.
The EITC, however, does not apply to Puerto Rico, a territory with one of the highest poverty levels in the nation. Coupled with the Child Tax Credit (CTC), the EITC lifted 9 million working people in the fifty states and District of Columbia out of poverty in 2010. Coverage of low-income workers in the territory would provide these workers — and Puerto Rico’s economy — with an estimated $520 million a year.
As a candidate, the President pledged to work for the equal treatment of low-income Puerto Ricans in the EITC.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
Statehood a Threat to Puerto Rico’s Culture? by hadeninteractive
Opponents of statehood for Puerto Rico offer a variety of arguments, from the difficulty of designing a flag with 51 stars (designers have already suggested a number of practical options) to the fear ofbilingualism.
Often these supposed threats are intended to appeal to mainland citizens, especially those who are not Puerto Rican or lack direct ties to Puerto Rico. The threat of statehood that is most often presented to the people of Puerto Rico is the fear of losing cultural identity.
Is this a realistic fear?
“Politicians who make this argument,” says one columnist, “underestimate — indeed, disrespect — the strength of our culture.”
Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico’s representative in Congress, put it this way in a speech to the Puerto Rico Chapter of the Federal Bar Association:
Our history, our traditions, our language, our faith, our food, our music, our dance, our art, our love of family, and our embrace of life—these things constitute the very essence of what it means to be Puerto Rican. Nothing—least of all equality under statehood—could ever diminish their power or their role in our lives. Our culture is simply too strong and too resilient.
These may be emotional arguments, but this is an emotional question. We can look to the fact that Puerto Rico takes pride in the exceptional record of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. military, in the athletes like Gigi Fernández who have represented the U.S. and Puerto Rico in the Olympics, or the pride Puerto Ricans feel in mainland leaders such as Justice Sonia Sotomayor. We can point to the fact that more Puerto Ricans now live on the mainland than in Puerto Rico, and that this diaspora continues to maintain parades, festivals, and other reminders of Puerto Rican heritage.
We could also look to the special characters of the states of the Union. Texans are not the same as the Down Easters of Maine, and they do not choose to be. Texan athletes carry the flag of Texas as well as the flag of the United States, and Maine’s Francophone population is as proud of their language as the Spanish speakers of Texas.
The fact that more of Puerto Rico’s people live on the mainland than in Puerto Rico should, in itself, convince us that Puerto Rico’s culture is not endangered by the possibility of statehood. As millions of Puerto Ricans choose statehood for themselves simply by moving to the mainland, they reaffirm by their choice that they do not accept second class citizenship, not that they reject their heritage.
Read the whole story
· ·
Taxes paid by residents of Puerto Rico are being used to assist residents of a State in obtaining new Federal subsidies for healthcare insurance not available to residents of the territory.
Middle-income residents of States are eligible for the new subsidies. The Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration’s Orlando, Florida office has been helping Floridians register for the assistance provided by the 2010 Federal healthcare system reform, according to the agency’s Director, Juan Hernandez Mayoral.
The office and its staff will concentrate the effort for six hours today, Hernandez said in a news release. Insular government resources have been dedicated to it for several days.
The new Federal healthcare insurance exchange program is paying part or most of the cost of insurance premiums for residents of States earning from 100% to 400% of the Federal poverty level. In 2014, this is from $11,670 to $46,680 in the case of an individual, with $4,060 to $16,240 more for each additional family member. So, for example, families of four with incomes between $23,850 and $95,400 can receive the subsidies.
The Government of Puerto Rico is struggling with an enormous debt and a crippling annual budget deficit. To reduce the deficit to $820 million during the fiscal year that ends June 30th, the Government raised taxes for the year $1.38 billion last year and has just cancelled a 7% to 6.5% reduction in its sales tax scheduled for this month. The deficit is expected to be made up by borrowing that will cost the Government more to pay back.
The Federal healthcare system reform law included just $925 million for middle-income insurance premium subsidies in Puerto Rico from this year through 2019. It has been estimated that subsidies would cost $6.75 billion over the six years.
Because Federal policymakers recognized that the $925 million would not be sufficient to pay for the subsidies, the law permits the Government of Puerto Rico to use the money for its Medicaid program, which pays for healthcare for low-income individuals and families.
Since the insular government does not even provide healthcare for all individuals and families earning less than the amount needed to qualify for the subsidies in the States because of a lack of funding, it is using the $925 million for its low-income healthcare program. The program also receives a much smaller financial contribution from the Federal government than the Medicaid programs of the States.
The Federal middle-income subsidy program was created to insure as many individuals who lack healthcare insurance or adequate insurance as possible. Of some 282,000 Puerto Ricans who did not have insurance during the last quarter of last year, only 1,882 have obtained coverage through an alternative subsidy program created by the administration of Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla (“Commonwealth” party), newspaper El Nuevo Dia reported yesterday. Garcia aides earlier estimated that 130,000 people would be covered by the end of the six-month period that ends March 31st.
Puerto Rico can constitutionally be treated unequally in Federal programs because it is a territory and because territories cannot have voting representation in the Federal government.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Final congressional approval is expected today for legislation that could lead to a small step towards the equal treatment of Puerto Rico in the main Federal program for ensuring that low-income people have enough to eat.
The bill would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to study the Commonwealth government’s practice of giving people cash for 25% of their Puerto Rico Nutrition Assistance Program (PAN) benefits. The other 75% is provided through an electronic purchase card. In the States, cards are used for 100% of the benefits.
The Department would have 18 months to do the study. It would include assessing any adverse effects on program beneficiaries and retailers of ending the cash assistance.
Depending upon the findings, providing 25% of benefits in cash would either be phased out 5% a year beginning in Federal Fiscal Year 2017 or continued by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
The provision is contained in a compromise between House of Representatives and Senate versions of a five-year ‘farm bill’ worked out by the leaders of the agriculture committees of both houses. The House approved the compromise last week. The Senate is expected to approve it today.
Most of the compromise’s more than $986 billion cost is for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps. The $2 billion a year Nutrition Assistance Program for Puerto Rico is a spin-off of SNAP.
The House bill would have prohibited the Commonwealth from providing benefits in cash, treating the territory more equally with the States. Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) championed the prohibition. He did so because of a U.S. Agriculture Department finding that the cash has often been used to buy goods other than food — including liquor, cigarettes, and lottery tickets, in addition to more worthwhile items.
Puerto Rico’s representative to the Federal government who has a seat in the U.S. House with a vote only in committees, Pedro Pierluisi (statehood party/D), opposed the prohibition and obtained the compromise. The Federal affairs office of Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla (“Commonwealth” party) also opposed the provision.
Office head Juan Eugenio Hernandez Mayoral additionally, however, wrongly charged that Pierluisi was responsible for the House provision. He claimed that Pierluisi caused it by proposing equal funding for Puerto Rico in SNAP.
In fact, the prohibition was sought by a Washington, DC lobbyist hired by Puerto Rico’s large food retailers.
A 2010 study by the U.S. Agriculture Department estimated that State treatment in SNAP in 2009 would have increased the number of low-income households in Puerto Rico receiving assistance 167,000, from 554,000 to as many as 721,000. This could have provided food aid to an additional 501,000 Puerto Ricans.
Further, State treatment would have raised the assistance to the average household already getting benefits 9.6%, $23 per month from $240 to $263. That would have further helped the 554,000 households receiving assistance, approximately 1,662,000 Puerto Ricans.
State treatment could have provided an additional $825 million during the year. This would have been a major injection into Puerto Rico’s failing economy as well as benefitted needy Puerto Ricans and Puerto Rican farmers and food sellers.
In opposing the cash benefits prohibition, Pierluisi said that the territory should not have to comply with all program requirements unless it is funded equally in the program and in other programs for low-income individuals. He also noted that PAN beneficiaries use the cash for necessities of life other than food that are not met in other programs for low-income individuals in which the Commonwealth is also funded less well than a State.
A counterargument is that the Commonwealth not having to adhere to national rules for the food assistance can be used as an excuse for its lesser funding.
Puerto Rico’s Commonwealth government claimed years ago that it was providing some of the assistance in cash to enable program beneficiaries to buy food from small retailers who did not have the equipment for electronic card purchases. But the Commonwealth has not enabled these small retailers to acquire the technology needed.
Although Puerto Rico was formerly treated like a State in Food Stamps, it was taken out of the national program and given a special — lesser — program in 1981. The discrimination against Puerto Rico was made possible by itsterritorystatus, sometimes misleadingly called “Commonwealth.”
The Reagan Administration had proposed similar lesser programs for the States — but U.S. senators from the States blocked the change for the States. Because Puerto Rico is a territory, it had no senators to do that.
Read the whole story
· · ·
While incomes of residents of the States — including residents of Puerto Rican origin — have grown in recent years, incomes of residents of Puerto Rico have stagnated or decreased, according to a report from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Overall, “Puerto Rico’s median household income was $19,518 during … 2010 to 2012,” the report notes, “statistically unchanged from 2007 to 2009.”
But incomes dropped in three of the territory’s four largest municipalities. They remained the same in seven of the ten largest.
This chart show shows the household income, labor force participation rate, and percentage of residents holding at least a bachelor’s degree in two municipalities in Puerto Rico and among Puerto Ricans in two cities in the States:
Although Guaynabo and San Juan both had higher than average household incomes for Puerto Rico, both were significantly lower than the average household incomes in U. S. mainland cities — San Juan’s average household income is about half that of Puerto Ricans in Chicago or Miami.
By comparison, the average household income of the poorest state, Mississippi, is $39,592, far higher than the city with the highest income in Puerto Rico.
Puerto Ricans in Miami were less likely to hold a college degree than those in Puerto Rico, but still were more likely to be employed and earn much more than those living in cities in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans in Chicago showed labor force participation rates like those of Miami, rather than the much lower rates seen in Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Business, taking data from the same source, reported that the proportion of educated people leaving Puerto Rico continues to increase. The “brain drain” is a source of concern for Puerto Rico, as nearly 4,000 people leave the territory each month, voting for statehood with an airline ticket.
Read the whole story
· ·
On February 19th, Harvard Law School will present a conference on “Reconsidering the Insular Cases.”
The featured keynote address will be by the Honorable Juan Torruella, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit:“The Insular Cases: A Declaration of their Bankruptcy and My Harvard Pronouncement”
The Insular Cases are a series of Supreme Court cases settled between 1901 and 1905 which imply that U.S. citizens living in the “insular” or island territories, including Puerto Rico, are not automatically covered by the U.S. Constitution. The opinions given by the court at the time determined that “fully incorporated” territories were covered by the Constitution, but that “unincorporated” territories, such as Puerto Rico, were only partly covered by the Constitution.
Exactly which cases are included among the Insular Cases has been a matter of some controversy.Downes v. Bidwell(1901) established the incorporated vs. unincorporated distinction andBalzac v. Porto Rico(1922) affirmed it in the case of Puerto Rico.
Torruella has spokenrepeatedly on the problems created by the Insular Acts, which are, he says, “some of the most notable examples in the history of the Supreme Court in which its decisions interpreting the Constitution evidence an unabashed reflection of contemporaneous politics.”
Supporters of the discredited idea of “Enhanced Conmmonwealth” for Puerto Rico sometimes point to the Insular Cases as an example showing that Congress can create new kinds of relationships with territories; however, panelist Christina Duffy Ponsa has argued that this is a“perversion”of the Insular Acts.
The program includes three panels:
- History: Perspectives and Lessons
Panelists: Christina Duffy Ponsa (Columbia Law School); Efrén Rivera Ramos (University of Puerto Rico School of Law); Bartholomew H. Sparrow (University of Texas at Austin)
Moderator: Tomiko Brown-Nagin (HLS)
Moderator: Tomiko Brown-Nagin (HLS)
- Contemporary Issues Regarding the Territories
Panelists: Chimène Keitner (University of California, Hastings School of Law); Rogers Smith (University of Pennsylvania); Michael Williams, Esq.
Moderator: Gerald Neuman (HLS)
Moderator: Gerald Neuman (HLS)
- The Future Status of Puerto Rico
Panelists: Rafael Cox Alomar, Esq.; Andres López, Esq.; Carlos Gorrín Peralta (Inter-American University of Puerto Rico School of Law)
Moderator: Richard Fallon (HLS)
Moderator: Richard Fallon (HLS)
Read the whole story
· ·
The Government of Puerto Rico’s Florida office is making up for a Federal government failure in serving residents of the State, although the insular government has had to raise taxes sharply and is cut spending substantially in the territory — and the Federal service is not available in Puerto Rico.
According to WFTV, Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla’s Federal affairs office in Kissimmee has brought on more staff to keep up with the demand.
The failure is in the Spanish version of the Website for signing up for new healthcare insurance subsidies created by the 2010 Federal healthcare reform known as ‘Obamacare.’
Since the Website is hard to navigate, the office is helping people enroll for the benefits. It has devoted several days to the effort so far and will do so every Wednesday through the end of March.
It has three workers helping citizens of Florida sign up for the benefits that Puerto Ricans can’t receive.
Middle-income residents of States are eligible for the new subsidies.The new Federal healthcare insurance exchange program is paying part or most of the cost of insurance premiums for residents of States earning from 100% to 400% of the Federal poverty level. In 2014, this is from $11,670 to $46,680 in the case of an individual, with $4,060 to $16,240 more for each additional family member. So, for example, families of four with incomes between $23,850 and $95,400 can receive the subsidies.
The Obamacare law included just $925 million for middle-income insurance premium subsidies in theCommonwealth from this year through 2019. It has been estimated that equal subsidies in the territory would cost $6.75 billion over the six years.
Because Federal policymakers recognized that the $925 million would not be sufficient to pay for substantial subsidies in Puerto Rico, the law permits the government of the territory to use the money for its Medicaid program, which pays for healthcare for low-income individuals and families.
Since the Commonwealth government does not even provide healthcare for all individuals and families earning less than the amount needed to qualify for the subsidies in the States because of a lack of funding, it is using the $925 million for its low-income healthcare program. The program also receives a much smaller financial contribution from the Federal government than the Medicaid programs of the States.
The Federal middle-income subsidy program was created to insure as many individuals who lack healthcare insurance or adequate insurance as possible. Of some 282,000 Puerto Ricans who did not have insurance during the last quarter of last year, only 1,882 have obtained coverage through an alternative subsidy program created by the Garcia Administration, newspaperEl Nuevo Diahas reported. Garcia aides earlier estimated that 130,000 people would be covered by the end of the six-month period that ends March 31st.
Puerto Rico can constitutionally be treated unequally in Federal programs because it is aterritoryand because territories cannot have voting representation in the Federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment