Personally, I voted with my feet. I left PR to join the Air Force and the only reason for me to go back nowadays is to visit my folks...
PR PING!
Posted on 03/03/2006 6:31:33 PM PST by nypokerface
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - Puerto Rican Gov. Anibal Acevedo-Vila denounced on Friday a new congressional proposal for a two-part referendum on the Caribbean island's legal status, saying the ballot was written in favor of statehood.
The bill, presented to the U.S. Congress on Thursday, came after a presidential task force called on U.S. lawmakers to set a date for a plebiscite on Puerto Rico's legal status, reinvigorating long debate over whether it should seek statehood, independence or to remain a commonwealth.
In the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2006, Rep. Jose Serrano, a Democrat from New York, said his proposal "has the potential to finally end the colonial status of Puerto Rico."
Acevedo-Vila, a supporter of commonwealth status, said it was misleading to use the word colonial. "No one is willing to defend something that is defined that way," he said.
"That is undemocratic and, with all due respect, that is un-American," he told a Hispanic business summit in Orlando.
Acevedo-Vila said Puerto Rico had not been considered a colony since its constitution was adopted in 1952.
Spain ceded the island, which lies about 995 miles (1,600 km) south of Miami, to the United States in 1898. It became a commonwealth in 1952 and has its own legislature and courts.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but island residents do not vote in U.S. general elections. They do vote in national primaries, when Democrats and Republicans pick candidates, and are subject to most federal laws.
Puerto Rico is represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by a delegate who does not vote, except in committees. Puerto Ricans pay no federal income taxes but receive limited government benefits.
Fewer than 3 percent of Puerto Rican voters favored independence in a 1999 referendum. The rest of the island's 3.8 million people are fairly evenly divided between remaining a commonwealth and becoming a state.
The December report by the presidential commission was the first time in 40 years the White House became directly involved in question of the Spanish-speaking island's political status.
Luis Fortune, Puerto Rico's nonvoting representative in Congress and an advocate for statehood, supported the bill presented in the U.S. House this week.
It proposes two sets of referendums -- the first on whether commonwealth status should be rejected and the second asking voters to choose between statehood and independence.
Back in the 19th century, most states voted by 2/3'rds or greater margins to be admitted. Considering how many times statehood votes have failed by slim margins, I'd hate to have one finally pass with just 50.01% of the vote.
I meant territories.
The PRs have had it both ways for much too long. It's time for them to put up or shut up! Therefore, it's
Statehood (and pay your taxes!) or
Independence (and suck up to the Cubans)
Make a decision. Make it happen. Now.
But I a vote for statehood is not reversible no matter how narrow it is. I'd sure hate to have terrorists use annexation as an excuse to make more attacks against the US.
the chinese are watching from grenada....
No income tax.
"saying the ballot was written in favor of statehood."
Just trash it. The status quo is fine with me.
I don't give a hoot why they won't vote between those two choices. All I care about is our viewpoint. I really don't want them influencing our politics, nor do I see any advantage to us if they decide to play the Castro role.
"What is so hard to understand, and why will they not vote for a decision between the two logical choices?"
I think you are answering your own question.
They get the privileges of being an American (other than voting) without having to pay federal income tax.
I sure would like to not be handing 30% of my income over to the government, as well.
We now know with almost 100% certainty that the explosion of the Maine was an accident, not an intentional act of war by Spain. How about we give Puerto Rico back to Spain as our way of saying, "Oops"?
Become independent and link up with Castro and Chavez.
Ir doesn't matter whether you're happy with the status quo or not.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. It is their right, and their right ALONE, to determine if and when they want to change the status of their citizenship.
This is a huge boil on the butt. No, we don't want an independent Puerto Rico, because it probably would come under Castro/Chavez influence, or control. And we don't want the two more Rat senators that statehood would bring, to say the least. If it comes down to a choice, we should cut them loose.
The Republican "leadership" in Congress should have buried this thing six feet deep. There should be NO option for Puerto Rican statehood in the foreseeable future. It is not like America and would be far more trouble than it's worth. Even less should it be given statehood based on a bare majority of the population in one vote.
Not true. But it is lower than in the United States proper.
For example, in 2002, the effective tax rate for taxpayers with income below $10,000 was 2%. It doubles to 4.1% in the $10,001-$20,000 income bracket, increases to 7.1% in the $20,001-$50,000 income bracket, 14% for the $50,001-$100,000, and peaks at 23.3% for those making more than $100,001. The average effective tax rate for all personal income was 9.9%.
Either they pursue statehood or embrace independence.
Totally their choice.
But they must make that choice ALLONE.
And the time is now, that they make the choice.
When does it become "our" choice?
Personally, I voted with my feet. I left PR to join the Air Force and the only reason for me to go back nowadays is to visit my folks...
PR PING!
"We" don't really have much choice in the matter anymore -- just a responsibility to do "what is right".
We acquired Puerto Rico from Spain back in 1898, along with Cuba and the Philippines. Now it is up to Puerto Rico to decide whether they want to be independent like Cuba and the Philippines, or remain a territory of the United States (either status quo or as a state)
IMHO, they deserve statehood if they want it.
Population Estimate ~ July 2004 (pdf)
Puerto Rico...............3,894,855
Oregon......................3,594,586
Oklahoma.................3,523,553
Connecticut...............3,503,604
Iowa..........................2,954,451
Mississippi................2,902,966
Arkansas..................2,752,629
Kansas.....................2,735,502
Utah.........................2,389,039
Nevada.....................2,334,771
New Mexico..............1,903,289
West Virginia............1,815,354
Nebraska..................1,747,214
Idaho........................1,393,262
Maine.......................1,317,253
New Hampshire.........1,299,500
Hawaii......................1,262,840
Rhode Island.............1,080,632
Montana......................926,865
Delaware.....................830,364
South Dakota...............770,883
Alaska.........................655,435
North Dakota................634,366
Vermont.......................621,394
District of Columbia.......553,523
Wyoming......................506,529
I'm with you!
Either they pursue statehood or embrace independence.
Totally their choice.
But they must make that choice ALLONE.
And the time is now, that they make the choice.
The younger generation became real radical there for a time in '99,2000,& maybe 2yrs after,gosh I can't even remember what yr it was.I was there when they started raising hell,said they wanted The US Navy outa there,most proclaiming they were Puerto Rican and not American and liked it that way.You know..."Puerto Rico Pride" and all that they wanted to be independent.
Much unemployment then.I looked around the Island and saw ..really nothing..they import just about everything they eat..it's sky high at the markets.They depend on tourism and the only good roads are what the US government built,highly subject to hurricanes and destruction....I couldn't believe they were hollering they wanted not to be a part of the USA.After they drove the US NAVY out I can imagine they have a little fear come on 'em and looks like second thoughts about it.The Navy employed several thousand people,plus job contracts,much more.(scratching head? But..hell,..if they want independence..kick 'em outa the EAGLE'S Nest,they're more of a liability to taxpayers here than an asset.YOUR FREE!!!
Adios!!
For whatever it's worth, PR sends a Republican to Congress now.
Independence would mean an end to the huge welfare, foodstamps and other freebies so enjoyed there. Why ever would they give up such a gold mine?
It's a Democratic culture. The "Republican" representative fron PR may be a celebrity, may be a RINO, or may be there because of a split in the left-liberal vote. This is not a place we want as a full part of the United States.
*ping*
Thought this thread may be of interest, especially post #29.
Why, because you say so?
The rest of us U.S. taxpayers are the one's paying all the bills, not those ingrates in Puerto Rico.
They vote we should support them for the rest of eternity and we should, because why???
That island has never given us anything, but grief and debt.
Let those Socialist parasites get themselves out of bankruptcy.
Hell, they not only Socialized medicine down there, they Socialized their auto insurance, too!
Talk about a recipe for financial disaster!
They can take their Socialist wish list and go get lost.
Residents of Puerto Rico have never voted for Democrats or Republicans in general elections, and your assumption that they would vote Democrat seems to be based on the fact that (mostly low-income) children and grandchildren of Puerto Ricans in NYC and Chicago vote Democrat for President. But have you noticed that the Irish and Italians and Poles and just about every other ethnicity in NYC and Chicago votes Democrat for President? While Florida Puerto Ricans (who are for the most part recent transplants from the Island) voted for Gore in 2000, they voted for Jeb in 2002 and (according to some polls) for W. in 2004 and seem poised to make the GOP their permanent home, since they are for the most part very culturally conservative and understand the importance of the War on Terror.
BTW, if Puerto Rico were to become a state, it would rank 25th in population and would elect 2 Senators and 6 Representatives. I have no idea who would get elected at first---probably likeable politicians who had previously run under the local party labels---but within a few years I think you'd find that Puerto Rican voters are very similar to those in Louisiana: Very conservative on social issues, more liberal on economic issues, very pro-military (despite calling for the closing of the Vieques bombing range, which was a NIMBY issue, and which only came up after a civilian guard died in a bombing accident) and very protectionist of local industries. Pollster Frank Luntz found that voters in Puerto Rico ranked as very conservative on every social issue that he asked about except the death penalty (where the Catholic tradition leads most people to oppose it, although not as much as they used to). If I had to guess, I would say that 20 years after Puerto Rico is admitted as a state it will have 1 Republican and 1 Democrat Senator and 3 Republican and 3 Democrat Representatives.
BTW, Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner (non-voting delegate in Congress), Luis Fortuño, is a strongly pro-life, pro-military and pro-business Republican. He is Puerto Rico's Committeeman for the National Republican Party and has served in the platform committee at the National Republican Convention. He is by no means a RINO.
The island's residents and its elected politicians will always be pushing for a greater redistribution of our wealth into their pockets no matter what label you put on them.
A Socialist is a Socialist is a Socialist. We don't need anymore Socialists. We don't need an island in the Caribbean that requires 10's of billions of U.S. Taxpayer's dollars and 100's of thousands of our private sector and federal jobs every year to survive.
We can gain nothing by admitting Puerto Rico to the Union. We can only lose.
Exactly. Let's deliver this message to the Republican "leadership" in Congress, loud and clear.
Who knows what it will be 20 years from now. The best bet is no substantial change. But even if there is 1 Republican senator and 1 Rat, that Republican might not be a very good Republican. And in the meantime, 2 Rats is two too many.
Pro-life isn't good enough for me. There are many other issues.
Also, I don't know what "pro-business" means. Does it mean pro-free market and pro-small government, or does it mean pro-subsidies?
The fact that someone is on the Republican National Committee and has served on the party's platform committee means nothing.
Subsidies from the rest of us U.S. Taxpayers in the form of scams to avoid 90% of their income taxes, as they did under Section 936, or the current option of Certifying themselves as Foreign Corporations doing business in Puerto Rico to avoid paying U.S. income tax are the only real incentives Puerto Rico has to offer U.S. corporations to steal jobs from the mainland.
The small businesses on the island get SBA loans and preference when bidding on federal contracts. That comes out of the U.S. Taxpayer's pockets, too.
Make Puerto Rico a state and put them on an even playing field with all the other states and the whole island will be on Welfare.
The U.S. Taxpayers have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making Puerto Rico a state.
Well, maybe California should be kicked out of the Union. You send Boxer and Feinstein to the Senate, and when you do elect a "Republican" it's an ultra-RINO like Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's too bad that all those U.S. citizens live in California; I guess they should move to other states if they want to participate in federal elections, since 2 RAT Senators is 2 too many.
Denying 3.9 million U.S. citizens the right to participate in their nation's government is unfair and un-American. And discriminating based on presumed future electoral performance (based on suppositions, not facts) is even more un-American. Puerto Rico doesn't vote for Republicans or Democrats, it votes for pro-statehood candidates and pro-commonwealth candidates, but conservative Republicans are routinely elected even in urban areas. The Mayor of San Juan, Jorge Santini, is a conservative Republican who was the only myor of a large U.S. city to publicly support the repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban (the Brady Committee actually campaigned against him in his 2004 reelection). Bayamon is Puerto Rico's second-largest city, and its mayor is also a Republican (although I can't vouch for his conservative bona fides as I can for Santini). And the Resident Commissioner, Luis Fortuño, is a conservative Republican who became the first person ever elected Resident Commissioner in an election in which his party's gubernatorial candidate (economically conservative Democrat Pedro Rosselló) failed to win. And when thousands of middle-class voters from Puerto Rico moved to the mainland during the past decade, they started voting Republican as well; exit polls show that these voters in the Orlando area gave a majority to Jeb Bush in 2002 and around 50% to George W. Bush and Mel Martinez in 2004.
You can choose to ignore those facts and assume that voters in Puerto Rico would vote exactly like the children and grandchildren of uneducated Puerto Ricans who moved to NYC during the Great Depression and never left the barrio, but you would be making a decision out of ignorance. In any event, Americans do not deny other Americans the right to vote even if they think that those voters would make the wrong choice---at least Republicans don't do that. Just think about that before you say that the 3.9 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico should be denied statehood.
The guy that Socialized Puerto Rico's medicine and maybe their auto insurance is "economically conservative"?
Don't let the truth get in the way of your agenda.
Name one damn thing Pedro Rosello has ever done to save the mainland U.S. Taxpayers one damn dollar of the billions confiscated from them to pay for Puerto Rico's Socialist programs every year.
LOL!
Pedro Rosselló implemented the biggest tax cuts in Puerto Rico history. But of course, 4Freedom doesn't think that a governor who cuts state taxes is economically conservative, since governors should all raise state taxes so as to reduce the burden on federal taxpayers, right? Is Jeb Bush an economic liberal because he has refused to implement a state income tax and allowed the federal government to continue to pay welfare to poor Floridians? Give me a break. Rosselló is an economic conservative, but he's not an idiot.
And it's ironic that 4Freedom accuses Rosselló of not going out of his way to save U.S. taxpayers money (which, as everyone knows, is not the role of state governors and which no state governor sets out to do) when in Puerto Rico Rosselló is accused of having sold out Puerto Rico when he struck a deal with Congress for the elimination of the federal tax breaks to U.S. companies doing business in Puerto Rico. 4Freedom, the bloody shirt you keep waving, Section 936 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, no longer provides federal tax breaks to U.S. companies doing business in Puerto Rico; it was eliminated by Congress in 1995 and the phase-out period has already concluded. So you need to find another excuse for your prejudiced remarks.
4Freedom's sole contribution to FR is posting that Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics are all lazy ingrates that should all be deported regardless of their citizenship status. He especially hates Hispanics who serve in our Armed Forces, since he claims that they all serve solely because of veterans' benefits. I believe that it is beyond the pale to question the patriotism of men and women who place their lives on the line in order to ensure our freedom and way of life. Those "wetbacks" (the Puerto Rican ones are U.S. citizens, but you don't seem to care) who join the military are the ones who allow you to spew your hatred, 4Freedom. If you don't like the fact that the U.S. Post Office gives preference to military veterans when considering job applications you go ahead and write your congressman about how our citizen soldiers are being given too many "freebies." But he saves his harshest vitriol for residents of Puerto Rico, who in his eyes have committed the worst sin imaginable: Not volunteering to pay more federal taxes.
4Freedom, if your screen name had any truth to it, you would be respectful of the people who have fought and died for your liberties and you would support (or at least not oppose, for crying out loud) the freedom and equality of all of your fellow U.S. citizens.
"Urine." Ha ha. I guess those white sheets haven't affected your razor-sharp wit.
Please explain how federal income taxes were raised because of state income taxes being lowered in Puerto Rico. Federal income taxes are a heck of a lot lower now than they were in the late 1990s when Rosselló lowered Puerto Rico's state income taxes. And please go on the record calling every governor who lowered his state's taxes a "socialist."
"Did Rosello Socialize medicine in Puerto Rico?"
No, he didn't. Puerto Rico had a public-hospital system when Governor Rosselló went into power. Rosselló privatized the public hospitals and instead introduced a "healthcare card" that was made available to poor and working-class people. Your claim that Rosselló "socialized medicine" is as silly as saying that a governor who privatized the entire public-school system and gave poor children school vouchers had "socialized education" in the state.
"Did Rosello Socialize auto insurance in Puerto Rico with the creation of ACAA and Compulsory Auto Insurance?"
No, he didn't. Rosselló set up a system in which car owners have to obtain government car insurance IF THEY DON'T ALREADY HAVE PRIVATE AUTO INSURANCE. This allowed responsible drivers (who of course already had auto insurance) to be able to make claims upon the insurance policy of the schmuck who crashed into them, instead of having to make claims on their own policies (and thus have to pay higher fees) even when they weren't at fault, all without costing such responsible driver a single cent. The $99 ACAA fee is not paid by responsible drivers who own private car insurance, only by those who do not have insurance and otherwise would screw the people they crash into. If anything, the ACAA plan instituted by Rosselló is "anti-poor" (as Jesse Jackson would call it), but it is certainly not "socialized" anything.
Now, could you please answer why you insist upon questioning the patriotism of the brave men and women of our Armed Forces?
Please explain where you think all the billions of dollars in cash, federal and private sector jobs, federal agency spending and tax avoidance scams comes from, if not from the mainland U.S. Taxpayers, race-baiter.
"Your claim that Rosselló "socialized medicine" is as silly..."
When everybody gets a card that they can use anywhere they go to receive free medical care and prescription drugs, without paying any health insurance premiums themselves, that's Socialized medicine.
Your convoluted denials and outright lies are what's silly.
Here's what Rosello did with Puerto Rico's auto insurance.
He created a giant bureaucracy to dole out medical care, free prescription drugs and $3,000 maximum auto repairs to everyone that gets into an accident, regardless of who's at fault. Socialists love big bureaucracies.
The fun doesn't stop there. In Puerto Rico, new car buyers are allowed to drive a new car out of the showroom with what the Socialists call 'Double Insurance'.
What that means is the car gets fixed, but any injuries to the passengers are taken care of by Rosello's Socialist ACAA Agency and not the private insurance company.
The law doesn't allow the injured parties to sue ACAA. Guess what. Injured parties have to sue the drivers that are at fault for the accident in civil court.
If you file a lawsuit in civil court in Puerto Rico and you don't speak Spanish, it's going to cost you $75 an hour for a translator. It's a waste of time and money anyway. The judge isn't going to give you somebody's house or order the driver at fault to pay you more than a token couple of bucks a month.
"This allowed responsible drivers (who of course already had auto insurance) to be able to make claims upon the insurance policy of the schmuck who crashed into them,..."
In an auto accident in Puerto Rico with a driver that only has Rosello's Socialist Compulsory Insurance, there's nobody to sue for your personal injuries except your own private insurance company and ACAA only pays the first $3,000 of your car's damages.
"The $99 ACAA fee is not paid by responsible drivers who own private car insurance, only by those who do not have insurance and otherwise would screw the people they crash into."
Every driver in Puerto Rico pays the $99 ACAA fee. The drivers that buy their own double insurance policy get their $99 put towards the cost of their additional policy.
The way this Socialist Compulsory Insurance scheme really "screws" drivers in Puerto Rico is almost none of you are compelled to buy FULL coverage. The majority of the drivers in Puerto Rico don't have it. Even drivers with brand new cars.
There's nobody to sue for your personal injuries and everybody has to go to Rosello's Socialist bureaucracy for medical treatment and prescription drugs.
The majority of the drivers seriously injured in car accidents in Puerto are "screwed" way worse than they ever were, thanks to Rosello's Socialist creation.
Only most of them don't find out how badly they've been "screwed" by Rosello's Socialist scheme until after they've had a serious accident and then it's too late.
4Freedom, I don't know from where you get your information, but you are once again mistaken. Drivers in PR with a reasonably large net worth (i.e., middle class and up) certainly do have an incentive to buy full auto insurance, since if they happen to strike a pedestrian they didn't see or hurt someone in an accident they can get sued for medical costs and "pain and suffering," same as in the rest of the U.S. And when you buy private auto insurance, the $99 cost of the ACAA minimum public insurance is waived by the government; the insurance companies give you a voucher to pay those $99, which I did two weeks ago. Yes, the ACAA public insurance only covers damage to the automobile up to a certain dollar amount, but in the old days when an uninsured driver slammed into your car you wouldn't be able to get squat from them (since you'd have to sue them and they'd cry poverty). And as for having to sue to collect upon bodily injuries and pain and suffering caused by uninsured drivers, that obviously wasn't changed with the system that was put in place, but it is the same as anywhere else in the U.S.
As for the medical care card, as I explained, it is only given to persons below the poverty line, and it replaced a system in which every person could go to one of the numerous public hospitals at any time. Governor Rosselló privatized most of the public hospitals when he implemented his health reform. Do you think it is preferable to have the government run the hospitals than to have the government sell off the public hospitals, give health vouchers to poor people that are redeemable in private hospitals? If so, you must be one of those "conservatives" who kowtow to the unions and would rather have a bloated public-school system than to offer school vouchers so that students can attend private school---especially since Hispanic children aren't prohibited from receiving an education and will thus be well educated "ingrates," right? BTW, Governor Rosselló approved a school-voucher plan in Puerto Rico, but it was opposed by the unions, the "separation-of-church-and-state" extremists and the anti-statehood politicians, and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court (with a solid anti-statehood majority, since justices are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the senate and almost all the anti-statehood justices retire every 8 years when the "commonwealth" party gains back the governorship) declared the law unconstitutional, probably to 4Freedom's glee, since he believes that school vouchers are "socialism" unlike the public school system controlled by the unions.
For the record, I would rather not have a medical care system such as the one Governor Rosselló adopted, but it was 100 times better than what Puerto Rico had before. Governor Rosselló revolutionized Puerto Rico's government, but you can't expect him to turn it into New Hampshire's government overnight. Just like Stephen Laffey, Republican Mayor of Cranston and Rhode Island Senate candidate, who is unfairly depicted as "an economic liberal" by RINO supporters of über-RINO Senator Lincoln Chafee because he had to raise some taxes (while cutting others) in order to get Cranston out of the huge economic mess it was in before he was elected, you are unfairly maligning Governor Rosselló's performance as Governor by failing to consider the *net* change in the role of government in Puerto Rico during his 8 years in office. Governor Rosselló cut income taxes heavily during his tenure, and while the resulting income tax rates were still way too high, there's a big difference between someone who lowers the income tax rate from 39% to 33% and someone who raises the income tax rate from 27% to 33%; calling Rosselló a "socialist" because he set the tax rate at 33% is disingenuous. Of course, you somehow claim that a governor who cuts taxes is actually a "socialist" because you claim that it results in increased federal spending, but when I took Civics class I learned that it was the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President that approved the federal budget.
Pedro Rosselló is a conservative on economic issues and especially on crime. His record on social issues is more mixed, but he's no Giuliani on social issues. I think it's a shame that Rosselló decided to declare himself a Democrat in 1993 as a way of getting leverage with the Democrat President and Democrat Congress.
But in any event, what does this have to do with whether 3.9 million U.S. citizens should be given the right to participate in our national government?
Really? Ok, give us the numbers. There are over 2 million cars registered in Puerto Rico.
How many of them have full coverage?
According to the San Juan Star, there were about 130,000 NEW cars sold in Puerto Rico last year.
How many of those have full coverage?
"As for the medical care card, as I explained, it is only given to persons below the poverty line,..."
Really? How many 'Rosello Socialized Medicine Cards' are out there, total?
Are you really naive enough to think somebody actually investigates whether or not the holders of these Rosello Cards are declaring all of their income?
How much does all of the free medical care cost that's being given away via the new Rosello Cards versus what free medical care cost via the old system?
"Do you think it is preferable to have the government run the hospitals than to have the government sell off the public hospitals, give health vouchers to poor people that are redeemable in private hospitals?"
What's the difference in cost? How can you ask anybody on this forum to answer a question like that without the numbers?
What I see is the amount of free health care given away controlled to some degree because it could only be received at 6 government hospitals>
Now, because of these 'Rosello Cards', The San Juan Star believes Puerto Rico's free health care system is bankrupt.
So, let's see the numbers you have to the contrary.
The cost is prohibitive. The Taxpayers of the United States gain nothing from making a state out of Puerto Rico.
The U.S. Taxpayers gift $16 to $18 billion dollars in cash to the ingrates in Puerto Rico every year plus billions of dollars in salaries for 10's of thousands of federal government jobs hijacked to Puerto Rico plus billions of dollars in federal income taxes lost because companies doing business in Puerto Rico certify themselves as Foreign Corporations to avoid paying their income taxes.
We don't need another state that we'll have to support forever.
Go find another country to support your Socialist Utopia. We're tired of it.
We don't need another state that'll send Liberal Socialists to our Congress. We have too many of them, already.
The majority of the drivers in Puerto Rico, that are injured in auto accidents, have to sit in a Puerto Rican government office from 8:00am until 3:00pm to get a fistful of coupons to see doctors, get MRI's and physical therapy, but these 'Looney Toons' don't think that's Socialism.
Do you have access to any of the data from their Seguros Compulsorios, ACAA or Plan Reforma?
These are some of the questions I asked Gold Water to answer.
"Drivers in PR with a reasonably large net worth (i.e., middle class and up) certainly do have an incentive to buy full auto insurance,..."
Really? Ok, give us the numbers. There are over 2 million cars registered in Puerto Rico.
How many of them have full coverage?
According to the San Juan Star, there were about 130,000 NEW cars sold in Puerto Rico last year.
How many of those NEW cars sold last year in Puerto Rico have full coverage?
"As for the medical care card, as I explained, it is only given to persons below the poverty line,..."
Really? How many 'Rosello Socialized Medicine Cards' are out there, total?
Are you really naive enough to think somebody actually investigates whether or not the holders of these Rosello Cards are declaring all of their income?
How much does all of the free medical care cost that's being given away via the new Rosello Cards versus what free medical care cost via the old system?
"Do you think it is preferable to have the government run the hospitals than to have the government sell off the public hospitals, give health vouchers to poor people that are redeemable in private hospitals?"
What's the difference in cost? How can you ask anybody on this forum to answer a question like that without the numbers?
What I see is the amount of free health care given away controlled to some degree, because it could only be received at 6 government hospitals.
Now, because of these 'Rosello Cards', The San Juan Star believes Puerto Rico's free health care system is bankrupt.
So, let's see the numbers you have to the contrary.
4Freedom, you once again seem unable to grasp the concept of judging a governor's programs based on *what the programs looked like before*.
I don't know what percentage of drivers in Puerto Rico have full insurance coverage (while everyone I've discussed this with has full coverage, I freely accept that I've only discussed this with my friends, co-workers and neighbors, which is not a good cross-section of the population), but I bet you it's not less than what it was before the compulsory auto insurance law was passed. If the same percentage of drivers have full coverage, but the ones that don't have full coverage pay $99 a year into a fund that pays for an innocent driver's repairs when an uninsured driver slams into his car, it's a far better system that what was in place before. And as I explained, ACAA does not provide a disincentive for getting full coverage, since it does not indemnify the driver from lawsuits for wrongful death, disability, etc., which is why I and everyone I know has full coverage.
As for the health-care card, I don't know what percentage of the population is entitled to receive the card. I'm sure it's a higher number than would be entitled to it if everyone told the truth when they filed their taxes, but isn't that always the case? And your skewed way of judging whether something is "socialism" is just puzzling. Before: Health-care system in which everyone was entitled to go to a crappy publicly run hospital (which were avoided like the plague by those who were middle-class and up). After: The public hospitals were privatized, and people below the poverty level were given health-care cards with which they could visit private doctors that had agreed to the (low) fees paid by the government. Now, 4Freedom, the first instance is one in which the government was the sole provider of health care to those who could not afford to go to private doctors and hospitals; that is called socialism. The second instance is one on which the government privatizes public hospitals and allows poor people to have access to high-quality medical care through a voucher-type program. That is called free enterprise. I ask you this, if a governor dismantles the public-school system and hands out education vouchers, would you call such governor a "socialist" if the cost of private education was higher than the cost of public education? Maybe you could call him a "Big Government Conservative" (like President Bush) but he clearly wouldn't be a socialist.
I have another question for you, 4Freedom, if you hate Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans so much, why do you visit Puerto Rico as often as you claim you do? It is not a good idea for alcoholics to hang out in bars, nor for bigots to go to places where they're surrounded by those they despise.
1. The Commonwealth needs to make English its sole official language. Of course, it would be nice if the U.S. did the same first. Neither are likely to happen.
2. Puerto Rico proves that it can be economically self-sufficient. In other words, get the share of the population on food stamps/WIC Cards well below the 45-55% (it was 52% in 2002, may have dropped) participation rate. It would also be nice to see a thriving internal private sector, and to see the governor take a chainsaw to the state budget. Too many Boricua owe their living, either directly or indirectly to Tio Azucar. Time to have a REAL operation bootstrap (ie no subsidies, tax breaks, or large scale federal/military employment on the island).
3. Both the PNP and PDP need to adopt a bipartisan anti-corruption campaign from the top to the bottom. The elite of the parties in question are dominated by corrupt, annoying San Ignacio prep alumni, while the local party bosses are the biggest bunch of left-side-of-the-bell-curve moochers and slimeballs this side of New Orleans.
Well, there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem regarding economic self-sufficiency and political status. In 1959, the per-capita GNP of Hawaii and Puerto Rico were about the same, but Hawaii's economy took off after it was granted statehood. But for the most part, you're preaching to the choir here. Puerto Rico needs to end its reliance on the public sector (on the feds for transfer payments and on the state and local government for employment) regardless of what it's future status will be. Only as a heavily subsidized "commonwealth" can Puerto Rico's government charge such high taxes and employ so many people. Statehood would mean that residents of Puerto Rico would pay income taxes on their Puerto Rico-source income and that the state government would no longer be able to levy a 33% income tax on the $50,000+ bracket.
As for English as the sole official language, that's a phony issue. I think Congress should adopt English as the official language of the federal government, and that all communications with the federal government should be in English. But if the State of New Mexico wants to publish its laws in both English and Spanish (as it does), how does this hurt the use of English as our common language? And the same thing would apply to Puerto Rico.
Regarding government corruption, I think once you decrease the size of the government it will become a minor issue. Like economic dependency, government corruption is a symptom of the present "commonwealth" status; it should not be a cause of keeping Puerto Rico mired in such status forever.
But the main issue regarding residents of Puerto Rico, as well as residents of the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Marianas and the U.S. Virgin Islands, is "can we allow U.S. citizens to be subject to federal laws without having representation in Congress?" Our Founding Fathers answered "no" when it was Parliament that ruled over them, and they decided no longer to be British subjects and declared their independence. Given that neither Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, the Northern Marianas nor the USVI want to become independent or to stop being U.S. citizens, we need to find a way for all such citizens to participate in our federal government. In the case of DC, I think the optimal answer would be to create a new state that includes DC and its suburbs in MD and VA. In the case of Puerto Rico, its population is large enough that it should be its own state, and the USVI should be given the choice of becoming part of the State of Puerto Rico. In the case of Guam and the Northern Marianas (and the tiny, practically unpopulated, Pacific Islands subject to federal laws), they should be given the choice of becoming part of the State of Hawaii. The cultural and economic issues you bring up should definitely be dealt with, but not to the exclusion of disenfranchising millions of U.S. citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.