Go Back   Puerto Rico Discussion Forum > Society > Politics
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


The Washington Times against Statehood

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 24th September 2007, 17:33
L_F_Miranda L_F_Miranda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1,019
L_F_Miranda
Smile The Washington Times against Statehood

"El que se inventa los embustes tambien se los cree." Puerto Rican saying circa 1944.

The Washington establishment, a.k.a. "The powers that be," are making themselves known where they stand on our status issue. They ask, "Statehood, for what!" In other words, NO SE VISTAN QUE NO VAN.

Their rational:

Puerto Ricans are content with what they have. A colony? What colony! The U.S doesn't have colonies. Everything on the island is just fine. In fact a Swedish study found that Puerto Ricans are the most submissive, grateful and happiest people on this planet. If Commonwealth is not broken, why fix it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article published Sep 24, 2007

Editorial: Puerto Rican statehood


September 24, 2007


The push for Puerto Rican statehood is soon to get new life in Washington. In the coming weeks, Congress will consider the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, which sets the island on a course for statehood. Naturally, that's not how the bill's backers describe it. But the series of carefully arranged plebiscites set out in the bill minimize the wishes of the 45 percent or so of Puerto Ricans who favor keeping the status quo, and emphasize the similar number who want statehood.

Statehood for Puerto Rico, like statehood for the District of Columbia, is a solution in search of a problem. The 4 million Puerto Ricans enjoy U.S. citizenship, are exempt from U.S. income taxes (but not payroll taxes) and enjoy many of the public benefits of residents of the 50 states. The statehood issue is the dominant one in island politics, and over the years, while neither side has built a majority, on four occasions since the 1950s voters have rejected both statehood and independence. Enough Puerto Ricans have considered the commonwealth a good deal for long enough to sustain the status quo. The only complaint is that Puerto Rico has only a "resident commissioner" in Washington, who, like the representatives of the District of Columbia, Guam or American Samoa, cannot vote in Congress.

Americans of the 50 states see few reasons to change the status quo. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken in June finds that 34 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans prefer making Puerto Rico the 51st state, while 44 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans favor keeping commonwealth status. Twelve percent of Democrats and 8 percent of Republicans favor independence, and 20 percent said they don't know.

So, where's the crisis? The likely demographic and economic effects of statehood are disputed, but since Puerto Rico is significantly poorer than most of the states and already bears a high tax burden, the imposition of federal income tax would likely prompt a flight to America by professionals and wealthy Puerto Ricans. In a territory whose economy seems to have turned the corner, this would be disastrous.

The present arrangement is working. The burden of proof in arguments to change this lies with statehood advocates. Such proof is not likely to emerge. What's likely is more of the demagoguery we heard in the arguments for giving the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. Advocates called Republican opponents who objected on constitutional grounds little short of bigots and racists. Since nothing is broken in Puerto Rico, there's nothing to fix.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Washington Times should not be confused with The Washington Post. The Washington times is very, very CONSERVATIVE!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 25th September 2007, 09:41
Stanley Stanley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,872
Stanley
Miranda:

If I were an American born and raised in the US I would think exactly the same way-----the article makes sense.

The differences in opinions can be explained:

Black American will likely favor independence for PR as they don’t want to see any more Hispanics competing with them.

Anglo Americans that never heard of PR (those that live in areas with no Hispanics) will likely say, “Yes, make them a state”.

Anglo Americans that have seen a couple of Puerto Rican day parades will likely say, “Heck, no, make them a republic and send them all back”.

Regarding party affiliation:

As you have said many times-----PR as a state is best for left wing folks and worse for right wing folks who do not want to expand the welfare state.

__________________


Los recuerdos suelen
Contarte mentiras



Stanley
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 25th September 2007, 17:15
L_F_Miranda L_F_Miranda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1,019
L_F_Miranda
Inconsistensies

You know what Stanley, the older I get the more I think that what they tell me is basically B.S. No, I wasn't born a cynic, it's been a long process of having constant Reality Checks.

For example:

I was brought up thinking in American democracy, who wasn't. The people rule, the constitution prevails, equality and freedom for all. George Washington never told a lie and Lincoln was from a poor family etc. etc.

But as I grew up these concepts and historical fantasies began to crumble.

First there was Jim Crow in the South, with Blacks being denied rights and some being strung up in trees for looking at a white woman.

Did this bother anyone? Maybe just a few, but Americans continued to brag about Democracy and Freedom like if they owned the concept. They even had the nerve to bad mouth the Soviet Union because it wasn't free, without looking at 12% of their own population. Duhhhhhhhhh

Inconsistency, you bet.

I also grew up thinking that American citizens were all the same, with the same right to vote and each had an individual say in their governing.

However there were 4 million American citizens in Puerto Rico that were disenfranchised. Did it bother anyone? I guess not.

The Washington Post says its because........

"The 4 million Puerto Ricans enjoy U.S. citizenship, are exempt from U.S. income taxes (but not payroll taxes) and enjoy many of the public benefits of residents of the 50 states." Duhhhhhhhh

But they still are disenfranchised in the most bragging Democracy on the face of this planet.

The Washington Times continues saying:

"The statehood issue is the dominant one in island politics, and over the years, while neither side has built a majority, on four occasions since the 1950s voters have rejected both statehood and independence."

But isn't there a flaw with this argument?

Aren't American citizens supposed to aspire to be equal with one another and those who can't vote are having their rights trampled?

If we follow and accept the argument of the Washington Times, Blacks should have been given a choice between remaining slaves and being free in 1859. In fact before the civil war started they were going to give the slaves a choice with a Slave plebiscite. Most folks thought the Blacks would have chosen slavery or the status quo because they were taken care of by the plantation owners. They were loyal and grateful. Slavery was the only thing they knew.

The Washington Times also prints that "If its not broken don't fix it." However ALL political parties on the island, the representatives of the Puerto Rican people think that the system IS BROKEN and must be fixed. DUHHHHHHHHH

Nonetheless I still will have to live with inconsistencies like:

1-Israel is the most democratic nation in the Middle East yet they hold more than half of its population under occupation with out rights hoping they will pack up and leave some day.

2-Larry Craig was caught trying to have sex with an undercover cop and went before a judge and declared himself guilty to off set publicity. However as soon as he returned to Washington last week one of the first votes that he cast was to support a Republican effort to block court access for detainees, people who have gotten into trouble just as he did. DUHHHHHH

3-On the island we have people like Faraon, Doña Miriam, Luis Fortuño etc. who are Republican statehooders a "clavo pasao."

However when Univision, property of Republican right wing Cubans and Mexicans, wanted to schedule a Republican candidate night in Miami, all Republicans turned them down except John McCain, who will be the Republican presidential candidate when snow balls freeze in hell.

And Finally when the Democratic candidates accepted Univision's offer, they were told by the moderator, Can't remember his name, SPEAK ENGLISH, this is America. LOL

You can't win............
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 26th September 2007, 16:52
Suki Suki is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,567
Suki is on a distinguished road
Miranda el cinismo no trae cambios necesarios---solo la lucha trae cambios necesarios. Nunca debemos subestimar lo que la gente puede hacer cuando estan unidas y enfocadas en algo valioso....eso lo aprendi.

Es un placer leerlos de nuevo.

Suki
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 27th September 2007, 10:22
Stanley Stanley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,872
Stanley


Suki:

If you look back at PR history something always stands up. We are very passive and pacific. We are known for the "Ay Bendito". It is no surprise we remain the only Latin country that never gained independence.

We never had a leader like Castro or other similar figures. And if we did------perhaps he was not followed due to lack of charisma.

Now that we have "barriga llena, corazón contento", we are destined to be more passive.

__________________


Los recuerdos suelen
Contarte mentiras



Stanley
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 27th September 2007, 12:44
L_F_Miranda L_F_Miranda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1,019
L_F_Miranda
Is it really Statehood?

Once again Juan-Ma exposes his theory that it's Statehood what is holding up the status question.

Will the Gringos ever make up their minds and bring us into the fold?

We are after all AMERICAN CITIZENS, what more can 4 million American Citizens hope to aspire, certainly not Independence?

My question is always , How will they get rid of us if it ever came to that? Puerto Ricans, as a whole, believe in Gringo Fair play and its a heressy to think that they won't follow our desires if expressed democratically 50 + 1. But are we naive or what!

I know for a fact that when Empires need to follow their NATIONAL INTERESTS, they don't care a hoot about Democracy, Equality or who they trample, much less 4 million citizens, 60% of whom live off welfare and are considered non-white and don't speak English. But I might be wrong and the Faraon's of this world might be right, but..........

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Endoso al ultimátum y al retiro del ELA

Por: Juan Manuel García Passalaqcua

La escritura ya está en la pared. El Partido Popular Democrático se juega la vida a sus 70 años en las elecciones del 2008. Por esa razón, se dan el retorno de Rafael Hernández Colón y el ultimátum de Eudaldo Báez Galib. Ante el colapso de El Alacrán, su ex Presidente y su ex Secretario General, coinciden. Me uno a su exigencia de que se le dé un ultimátum a Estados Unidos para desarrollar el ELA actual. O de lo contrario retirar al ELA.

Doy fe personalmente que El Americano lleva 30 años tratando de decidir qué hacer con la última colonia del mundo. Ha pasado por cuatro etapas: 1. Los futuros alternos, 2. La definición de alternativas, 3. El diseño procesal, y 4. El sí o no a la colonia. Faltaba la quinta etapa: 5. El ultimátum, Nuestro. Ahora. Veamos las cinco etapas de El Americano en detalle:

1- Los futuros alternos.- Esta historia comienza el 25 de julio de 1978, luego de meses de deliberación secreta al nivel del Consejo Nacional de Seguridad de ellos, con la participación de un pequeñísimo grupo de puertorriqueños no electos, entre ellos yo. Ese día el Presidente de los Estados Unidos mediante una Proclama Presidencial anunció que su país retiraba para siempre la defensa de la condición política colonial y abría una deliberación sobre lo que bautizamos como “Futuros Alternos para Puerto Rico”. Incluía mi cuarta alternativa a las tradicionales, la transformación de la condición colonial en una de soberanía. El Presidente le pidió al Congreso estadounidense que implementase esa Política de Futuros Alternos.

2- La definición de alternativas.- El Senador Bennett Johnston de Louisiana se echó encima la carga de definir en detalle las alternativas de condición política a que podía aspirar Puerto Rico. Por dos años, trabajó arduamente en constante consulta con el liderato electoral de Puerto Rico para definir lo que era la condición política actual y su desarrollo, lo que podía ser la admisión como estado de la Unión, y lo que podía ser la independencia. Su esfuerzo definitorio se estrelló ante la objeción del liderato del Partido Republicano en el Senado, que evitó incluir la admisión como estado comouna alternativa, y derrotó el proyecto de ley definitorio por un simple voto a nivel del Comité del Senado. Murió el segundo intento.

Un proceso decisional.- El representante Don Young de Alaska se echó encima nuevamente la carga de la cuestión del status, pero esta vez evitó el maremagnum de la definición de alternativas y se centró en el diseño de un proceso electoral en que el pueblo votante de Puerto Rico escogería la alternativa que prefiriese. La deliberación en la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos tuvo su histórico punto culminante en la tarde y noche del 4 de marzo de 1998. Bauticé entonces el debate de doce horas consecutivas como “la noche de los cristales rotos” (en Claridad, 13-19 y 20-26 de marzo de 1998). El debate se centró sobre el papel que jugaría el idioma inglés en los futuros alternos, muy especialmente en la opción de la admisión como estado de la Unión. La conclusión fue la histórica Enmienda de Salomón (del congresista del sector de Nueva York aledaño a Quebec), que exigió que de votar pidiendo la admisión como estado, la instrucción en nuestras escuelas debía realizarse en el idioma inglés. Ese proyecto para un plebiscito se aprobó por un solo voto en la Cámara de Representantes pero no en la Comisión del Senado americano. Murió el tercer intento.

3 El sí o no a la colonia.- El asunto volvió a revivir (por cuarta vez en tres décadas) a instancias del congresista boricua de Nueva York José Serrano junto al comisionado residente Luis Fortuño, y los senadores hispanos Ken Salazar de Colorado y Mel Martínez de Florida. Esta vez la Cámara y el Senado de ellos tuvieron dos visiones totalmente distintas. En la Cámara se radicó un proyecto para dos plebiscitos, primero para determinar si nuestro pueblo estaba contento o no con la colonia, y de no estarlo, que escogiese entre la petición de admisión como estado o la soberanía (en cualquiera de dos formas, o independencia o libre asociación soberana). En el Senado se radicó el otro proyecto con un solo plebiscito sobre colonia sí o no.

El pulseo entre los técnicos atravesó a su vez por varias etapas. Inicialmente prevaleció la teoría de los senderos (“pathways” en inglés) que nos obligaba a escoger entre senderos hacia la estadidad o la independencia mientras continuábamos viviendo en la colonia, sin compromiso alguno de ellos. Más tarde esa teoría fue sustituída por la de las peticiones (“seeking” en inglés) que ni siquiera eran senderos sino peticiones sin compromiso alguno de acceder a la que triunfase en los plebiscitos. Y esa segunda teoría fue sustituida a su vez por la tercera de la conformidad o inconformidad (“yes or no” en inglés) con la colonia. A esta fecha duermen el sueño de los justos.

4- Ahora, el ultimátum.- Los pobres americanos –treinta años después de emprender el camino hacia futuros alternos para el pueblo de Puerto Rico—no saben qué hacer con los cuatro millones de puertorriqueños que no quieren decidirse. Les he cogido mucha pena a los pobres americanos que no saben qué hacer con nuestro ningunismo. Luego de más de un año de deliberaciones tras bastidores, el 13 de septiembre de 2007 se anunció que los funcionarios no electos de ambas Cámaras estadounidenses están cerca de un consenso. Esa nueva realidad no tenía precedente alguno en los 30 años anteriores. El consenso está en la eliminación del segundo plebiscito, otra vez para evitar que se entienda que se nos ofrece la estadidad. ¡Vade retro!

En un solo plebiscito sobre colonia sí o no, de ser la respuesta SÍ se celebraría el mismo cada 8 años, hasta que los boricuas se arrepientan de su contentura con la colonia. Y de ser la respuesta NO, el Congreso dejaría en manos de la Casa Blanca la determinación de los futuros alternos, hasta el 31 de diciembre del 2009. ¿Qué haría el Congreso de ellos, de votar NO? Ya propuse al Congreso –insisto en esta columna—que de ganar el repudio con una votación por el NO, ellos dispongan unilateralmente del territorio el 23 de septiembre del 2010. Ese es mi ultimátum.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC4 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.