Puerto Rico Democracy Act – Legislation Biased in Favor of Statehood

Igottago2 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-27-2010, 06:10 PM

Puerto Rico Democracy Act – Legislation Biased in Favor of Statehood

Posted April 27th, 2010 at 1:15pm

According to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House will vote on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, later this week. The legislation provides Puerto Rico a two stage voting process and makes some non-resident Puerto Ricans eligible to vote on Puerto Rican statehood. This legislation has rigged the process in favor of making Puerto Rico the 51st state and is not a fair way to force statehood on a Commonwealth whose people may not want it. Furthermore, this may be an expensive proposition for the American people who are already on the hook for approximately $12.9 trillion in national debt.

This bill attempts to rig the voting process and denies the American people a real say on the issue of whether they want to allow Puerto Rico to be granted statehood. The fact of the matter is that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood numerous times and this bill seems to have been written in a way to fast track statehood without a majority of Puerto Ricans favoring the idea. Furthermore, the people of the United States should be allowed a vote on whether they want to admit Puerto Rico as a new state. If the people of Puerto Rico can vote, the people of the United States should have a vote.

The legislation contains many questionable provisions. First, the legislation sets up a voting process rigged for success. The legislation sets up a preliminary vote and the voters are given two options. If a majority of Puerto Ricans vote in favor of changing the status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to “a different political status,” then a second vote would be scheduled to poll voters on the following three options:
1.“Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States;”
2.“Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution;” and,
3.“Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union.”
Clearly, a plurality of the people of Puerto Rico could vote for “Statehood” without a majority of the people voting ever supporting the idea. The people of Puerto Rico have rejected statehood three times and it seems that this vote is set up to allow a simply plurality of the people to carry the day.

Another odd provision allows non-resident Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood for the Commonwealth. The bill states that “all United States citizens born in Puerto Rico who comply, to the satisfaction of the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission, with all Commission requirements (other than the residency requirement) applicable to eligibility to vote in a general election in Puerto Rico.” Residency requirements may be waived, because Puerto Ricans living in the states would naturally favor statehood for the Commonwealth.

This provision allows non-resident Puerto Ricans to undermine the will of the residents of the Commonwealth. According to the U.S. Census, there are more Puerto Ricans residing in the 50 states, than in the proposed 51st state. The estimates as part of the American Community Survey estimates that out of the 301 million people in the United States, 4.13 million are of Puerto Rican descent. The Census also estimates that the population of Puerto Rico is a mere 3.97 million. This would allow for the will of the residents of the Commonwealth to be overridden by people who have chosen to move one of the 50 states.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) put out a report dated July 28, 2009 on H.R. 2499. The CBO report estimated that there would be no score for this bill, because it only authorizes a vote, but if Puerto Rico was granted statehood the cost would be massive. My boss, Edwin Feulner wrote in 1997 piece titled Do We Need a 51st State? “in an era of government downsizing and balanced budgets, it would increase entitlement spending (welfare, Medicare, Social Security) by an estimated $3 billion per year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” Those arguments still hold water today. The Lexington Institute argues that “Puerto Rico, which received $18 billion in direct federal expenditures in FY 2008, has a population with a median national income of $17,741, nearly a third below that for the United States. While eligibility for many major federal social programs is the same in both jurisdictions, others, like the Food Stamp Program, include different eligibility requirements. This would likely result in increased federal expenditures should statehood be achieved, but a lack of comparable data makes cost projections for such changes difficult.” It is clear that the cost of statehood to the taxpayers will be high.

The Puerto Rico Democracy Act has some serious flaws. The votes seem to be set up in a way that favors statehood. The two provisions that allow a plurality of Puerto Ricans to vote for statehood to be ratified and the allowing of non-resident Puerto Ricans to vote in the plebiscite is of deep concern to those who favor a fair vote and referendum on statehood. A vote by members of Congress is not enough to indicate consent of the American people for Puerto Rican statehood. If the Obamacare vote and secretive procedure is instructive, many Members of Congress are willing to defy the will of their own constituents.

additional links can be found at
Puerto Rico Democracy Act ? Legislation Biased in Favor of Statehood | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

mlurp · #2 (**permalink**) 04-27-2010, 06:16 PM

Great post

I have to get time to check this out.

mlurp · #3 (**permalink**) 04-28-2010, 05:52 PM

What I am finding isn't that good. How many times has Puerto Rico voted to remain as is? Yet a new party has cropped up with ideas of statehood. Even though they have voted to not change and become a state for years.

Except the words FREEDOM and RACIST to be used, in the upcoming debates.

Quote:

The New Progressive Party
Point of View

The New Progressive Party, also known as the "Statehood" party believes in full integration into the United States as the 51st state of the union.

The party is of the opinion that citizenship as well as the territorial status of Puerto Rico are governed under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution, and as such are not permanent in nature. A treaty and a law were approved to make Puerto Rico a territory in 1898 . Another law, the Jones Act, was passed that granted residents American citizenship in 1917. Even our existing commonwealth status, was authorized by law 600 in 1950. Statehooders claim a simple new law can cancel or reverse any of the above mentioned actions, thus our citizenship and territorial status are always in danger. They are not permanent. They could be eliminated any time with a simple new law from Congress.

Statehooders also believe that, while we are part of the U.S. economy and not able to vote for the President, and our lack of representation in congress, we are at a great disadvantage in obtaining our fair share of federal programs and funds. Under statehood, Puerto Rico would be entitled to two (2) Senators and six (6) Representatives.

Statehood will complete the full rights and benefits package of American Citizenship, now missing as an American Citizen from in Puerto Rico.

Studies have shown Puerto Rico has not been able, and cannot grow economically at an adequate rate as a territory or commonwealth. These studies show the island should attain a growth rate of 2.2 to 3.5% faster through full integration to the U.S. economic and political systems. Statehood would provide a much more stable political and economic environment, which will discourage fleeting investments and will attract new investment funds. In addition new and expanded social programs will benefit those that need it the most, the poor.

Faster economic development under statehood will mean higher incomes for U.S. Citizens living in Puerto Rico, and a much improved standard of living for all.

Followers of the statehood status call themselves "estadistas". They usually identify themselves by waving their party's flag, white with a blue palm tree in the center or by an American flag.

The New Progressive Party believes that full American Citizenship and a fair and equitable permanent relationship with the United States can only be achieved by becoming a full fledged State of the greatest nation of all- The United States of America.

John A. Regis Jr., July 1998

We invite the New Progressive Party to submit its own official position on American Citizenship and on the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States for inclusion in this web page.

GOOGLE SEARCH:
Puerto Rico and the new progressive party - Google Search

mlurp · #4 (**permalink**) 04-28-2010, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Stealth Statehood [Naomi Lopez Bauman]

Alex Castellanos’ post discussing the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (HR 2499) correctly points out that “the principles of democracy, inclusiveness, and self-determination belong to all U.S. citizens.” What he misses, however, is the Puerto Rican government’s plan to rig their election by eliminating the commonwealth option in their next series of self-determination elections.

Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood in the last three self-determination elections, and independence is extremely unpopular. The strategy to virtually eliminate as an option for voters Puerto Rico’s current status as a commonwealth, leaving only independence and statehood as options, will all but guarantee a statehood landslide. The plan is spelled out in their legislation (pp. 7-8) and can be found here. The New Progressive Party (PNP), which is pro-statehood, controls all branches of government. There is little doubt that this bill would become law soon after the U.S. Congress passes the Puerto Rico Democracy Act.

The plan is this: After statehood wins a landslide majority, Puerto Rico will elect a congressional delegation to send to Washington, D.C., and they will demand to be seated. This is the same strategy Tennessee used to gain admission to the Union in 1796. The PNP party platform can be found here, and it says on p. 179 (translation from Spanish): “After having obtained a majority vote for Statehood, we will implement the most effective strategies to have Congress approve an enabling act admitting Puerto Rico as a State of the Union, by including the strategy known as the Tennessee Plan.”

PNP leader and former governor Carlos Romero Barceló once told local newspapers, “They [congressional leaders] will have to support [statehood] in order to avoid being accused of bigotry against Hispanics.” In other words, they won’t hesitate to denounce anyone who resists their demand as “racists.”

Mr. Castellanos further claims that Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly support conservative values and elect Republicans to office in the commonwealth. But in reality, Puerto Ricans cannot be counted on to support free-market and conservative candidates on the national level.

In the 2008 presidential primaries, more than 388,000 Puerto Ricans turned out to vote for then-senators Obama and Clinton. Fewer than 1,000 voters turned out for the Republican caucus.

Why do pro-statehood leaders use such strong-arm tactics to force their way into the Union? The main reason is that Puerto Rico’s economy is in shambles and it needs a bailout from the U.S. Treasury that it could not hope to get as a commonwealth.

The endgame for Democrats is that they will likely pick up seats (and seats will be eliminated in other areas of the country after the next Census redistricting) — and not just in Puerto Rico. You can bet that D.C. won’t sit idly by if Puerto Rico gains statehood.

Rather than conduct an honest and open debate about the potential costs and benefits of Puerto Rican statehood, congressional leaders — on both sides of the aisle — are preparing to pass this resolution with no opportunity for public debate and amendments. Furthermore, by sanctioning a rigged election process in Puerto Rico, Congress will be running roughshod over Puerto Ricans’ desire — expressed in three previous elections — to remain a U.S. commonwealth.

Republicans need to remember the old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Republicans should continue to support the ideals of self-determination for Puerto Rico, but it should be done in the light of day with an opportunity for public debate.

— Naomi Lopez Bauman is a public policy consultant. She lives in Shreveport, La.

Stealth Statehood - Naomi Lopez Bauman - The Corner on National Review Online

MORE GOOGLE SEARCH: Puerto Rico and statehood - Google Search

I placed the the burden on the readers because I have to leave to take care of business.

Igottago2 · #5 (**permalink**) 04-28-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

Stealth Statehood - Naomi Lopez Bauman - The Corner on National Review Online

MORE GOOGLE SEARCH: Puerto Rico and statehood - Google Search

I placed the the burden on the readers because I have to leave to take care of business.

Here is another article on it.

Answers Needed Before Another Star is Added to U.S. Flag

Posted by Rep. Doc Hastings (Profile)

Friday, April 23rd at 5:36PM EDT

73 Comments
Next week the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, which gives the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to vote on their political future including the possibility of becoming America’s 51st state. Officially, the bill would create a two-step voting process where the people of Puerto Rico would vote to either maintain the status quo or select a different political status. If a different political status is desired by the majority of the electorate, Puerto Ricans would have three options: independence, free association with the U.S., or full statehood.

If that sounds unnecessarily confusing, it’s because it is. And there are numerous questions about the implications of this bill that no one is talking about. For example:

Could this bill create a path towards statehood? Absolutely. Statehood is the goal of the bill’s backers. It is said the results of the vote is nonbinding, but should the statehood option be declared the winner, it could be used to press Congress to act as soon as next year on a vote to make Puerto Rico the 51st state. This is troubling since the winner just needs to receive the most votes, not the majority (ie, Statehood could “win” with 34% of the vote.) Shouldn’t a strong majority of people support statehood before admission is considered – as was the case with both Hawaii and Alaska?

Would Puerto Rico statehood mean they would get seats in Congress? Puerto Rico has a population of four million people – as a state, they would receive two U.S. Senators and 6-7 House seats. But as long as there is 435 seat maximum in the House, if Puerto Rico receives 6 seats then other states expecting to gain a seat after the 2010 census would lose representation.

If both Spanish and English are the official language of Puerto Rico, how would that work if it became a state? When the House considered a similar bill in 1998, a vote on the issue of English as the official language was allowed, but it’s unknown whether current House Democrat leaders will allow a similar vote this time.

Would a new state add costs to the federal government? A new state would come with significant costs – spending that would measure in the billions of dollar a year.

Shouldn’t the people of Puerto Rico be allowed to vote to express their views on their future political status? I’m very sympathetic to allowing the people of Puerto Rico to express their views – yet they are free to hold such a vote anytime they choose to conduct one. If a Congressionally-sanctioned vote is going to be held, it must come with an open, thorough understanding of what independence or statehood would mean to Puerto Rico and the existing 50 states. This approach of voting first and answering questions later is exactly backwards. Furthermore, it makes no sense that H.R. 2499 allows not just residents of Puerto Rico to vote, but extends voting privileges to anyone in the other 50 states who was born in Puerto Rico. Why should someone who has lived and voted for decades in Alabama or Wyoming be given special status over their neighbors to vote on whether Puerto Rico becomes a state?

The bottom line is that there are many questions that have not been answered, and there are a great many implications that aren’t being considered or even discussed. Congress owes it to the citizens of the 50 states and to the people of Puerto Rico to have a full, open debate and resolve these questions before voting on this bill. If this doesn’t happen, then Representatives should vote NO

Answers Needed Before Another Star is Added to U.S. Flag | RedState

Igottago2 · #6 (**permalink**) 04-28-2010, 08:59 PM

[QUOTE=mlurp;140068]What I am finding isn't that good. How many times has Puerto Rico voted to remain as is? Yet a new party has cropped up with ideas of statehood. Even though they have voted to not change and become a state for years.

From what I heard today they plan to phrase the question different this time..

Instead of asking if they wish to become a state, they plan on asking the people if they wish to leave things the way they are.

Sorry, I can't remember the exact phasing they plan to use but it is designed to confuse the voters... No means yes..

mlurp · #7 (**permalink**) 04-29-2010, 04:34 PM

[quote=Igottago2;140124]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

What I am finding isn't that good. How many times has Puerto Rico voted to remain as is? Yet a new party has cropped up with ideas of statehood. Even though they have voted to not change and become a state for years.

From what I heard today they plan to phrase the question different this time..

Instead of asking if they wish to become a state, they plan on asking the people if they wish to leave things the way they are.

Sorry, I can't remember the exact phasing they plan to use but it is designed to confuse the voters... No means yes..

Yes and that is the key to becoming a state. By changing the question the progressives have the people by the gonads.
Proverty is high, once out of the areas the travel agencies promote. Crime is bad and contolled by just a few.

So on the first vote, people will want to change. The second vote most will take statehood because of the direct bennies. I understand that the other two choices have about 3% each of the population. A done deal for more "D" votes.
Ammesty is next... that will bring in 4+ million more "D's" voting. While many saw what they thought was a clear win for the "R's" the Progressives without the base were planning.
November, is slowly looking good for the Dems. Thats why some "R's" are starting to get more on board with some of the issues.

Ever heard of the Tennessee Plan for statehood? Check these sites:

Quote:

SKIPPED the Begining.

But when the results were known, Blount called a convention to draft a constitution and plan for statehood, to assemble in Knoxville in January 1796. Debates were spirited, but a constitution was agreed upon in three short weeks. A copy was sent to Philadelphia, and White was instructed to apply immediately for statehood.

Thomas Jefferson called the Tennessee Constitution "the least imperfect and most republican" document. But, although the document proclaimed the sovereignty of the people, the delegates did not refer it to a popular referendum for ratification. According to Robert Corlew's Short History of Tennessee, they believed haste was necessary before the Congress adjourned.

Gov. Blount authorized elections so that the state would be prepared to function. John Sevier, who had previously served as governor of Franklin, was elected governor. James Winchester of Sumner County (later one of the proprietors of Memphis) was elected speaker of the Senate.

Corlew says, "Had Tennesseans applied for admission a year or two earlier, chances are they would have encountered little or no opposition in Congress." But since Tennessee was the first territory to apply, there was uncertainty about how to proceed.

Congress divided along party lines. Jefferson's supporters now called themselves Republicans. Federalists, supporters of Alexander Hamilton, hoped to delay Tennessee's admission until after the election, which they hoped John Adams would win.

They argued that a territory had no right to form itself into a state, only Congress could do that. The Tennessee Constitution was therefore illegal. They also protested that the census was unfair, it referred to "persons" while the Congress used the term "inhabitants."

The count had been taken at a time of great migration through the Cumberland Gap to Kentucky, so it was probably inaccurate.

Republicans James Madison, Albert Gallatin and North Carolina representative Thomas Blount, a brother of William Blount, led the debate favoring Tennessee. They proposed a compromise whereby Tennessee would have one representative in Congress instead of two at first, meaning three electoral votes instead of four. It worked, pacifying the Federalists. Both houses accepted the new state.

A recent study prepared by the University of Puerto Rico on the subject of statehood says, "Several states, beginning with Tennessee in 1796, chose a bold method of obtaining admission to the union. The states which followed Tennessee's initiative undertook a uniform course of action once they made a decision to seek statehood. The 'Tennessee Plan,' as it has come to be known, consists of the following steps:

"1) Unsuccessfully petitioning Congress for admission;

"2) Drafting a state constitution without prior congressional intervention;

"3) Holding state elections for state officers, U.S. senators and representatives;

"4) In some cases, sending the entire congressional delegation to Washington to demand statehood and claim their seats;

"5) Finally, Congress, presented with a fait accompli, has little choice but to admit a new state through the passage of a simple act of admission. . . .

"However, two conditions were imposed:

"1) Tennessee's senators had to stand for re-election, which they did successfully; and

"2) Until the next census, Tennessee was to have one representative, not two.

"The most significant aspect of Tennessee's statehood battle was the swiftness of the process. It was admitted five months from the convening of the constitutional convention and three months after the election of the two United States senators."

President George Washington signed the bill making Tennessee the 16th state on June 1, 1796.

Sources: Robert E. Corlew, A Short History of Tennessee (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1981). Ted Morgan, Wilderness at Dawn (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993). Tennessee Blue Book 1995-1996, Bicentennial Edition. "Tennessee Plan Suggests Speedy Path to Statehood," Osceola Sentinel, Osceola, Fla., July 31, 1998

PUERTO RICO HERALD: 'Tennessee Plan' Paved Way For State

OR:
Puerto Rico/Tennessee Plan

Google Search: Tennessee Plan - Google Search

mlurp · #8 (**permalink**) 04-29-2010, 04:42 PM

Please note I am not a racist or against other living here. I am againts the slezzy politics which have one real purpose POWER and maintaining the goal by controlling the number of voters. Nor am I against having a new star on the flag But at what cost to the already over burden system, for more votes to mostly one party...

It is that simple.

Igottago2 · #9 (**permalink**) 04-29-2010, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

Please note I am not a racist or against other living here. I am againts the slezzy politics which have one real purpose POWER and maintaining the goal by controlling the number of voters. Nor am I against having a new star on the flag But at what cost to the already over burden system, for more votes to mostly one party...

It is that simple.

Yes I did see the Tennessee plan the other day but thanks for posting it for others here to read...

I worked in PR for over a year and I can tell you that they don't want to be a state..

I don't think your a racist, I just think you wish to save this country same as many on this board. I do believe there are some on this board that have been duped into believing that the government actually cares about them...

Spencer Collins · #10 (**permalink**) 04-29-2010, 04:57 PM

Statehood for PR is highly unlikely,I have a friend who owns property there and he says the idea is not at all popular.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Igottago2 For This Useful Post:
mlurp