« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Puerto Rican’s Take on Statehood

By: aesthete (Diary)  |  April 30th, 2010 at 01:14 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

As some of you on RedState know, I am a Puerto Rican: yeah, one of the crazy ones with the 3′ x 4′ flag in his house and a smaller one in his car. My irrational love of all things Puerto Rico matches up quite nicely with the most stubborn Southerner’s love of state, and I would recommend Puerto Rico to anyone wanting to live or vacation there without hesitation. That is why my heart yearns for me to write an uncritical and positive homily on the virtues of PR statehood. Realizing that following your heart only works in Disney movies and radio friendly three minute long pop songs, however, I have this to say: don’t do it. It’s unfortunate, but at present, adding PR to the list of states would be ill-advised for both PR and the US.

That there is a large cultural barrier is indisputable: though it is highly patriotic, the territory is very different in character from the American heartland. While its cultural independence from the other states coupled with national and local patriotism would have made it an ideal member in 1787, it is less ideal in present-day America, where the federal government is far less concerned about its jurisprudence. A Puerto Rican Congressperson won’t be circumspect in his push or larger government: it’s almost expected in PR.

Chronic unemployment is a staple of Puerto Rican politics, and has been since time immemorial. This is largely the result of federal policies which had enormous disparate impact and New Deal holdover legislation, as well as some unfortunate natural disasters. In 1938, for instance, 2/3rds of all textile factories closed when the federal government established a minimum wage of 25 cents (!), because worker productivity wasn’t high enough to justify that price. Operation Bootstrap and other Keynesian programs have been popular among pols looking to increase their stature, and have all failed. Unemployment is currently at ~15%, and is expected to hit 17% shortly. This has made PR susceptible to populists and demagogues promising them a Square Deal which they have yet to deliver.

The exemption from federal taxes has made PR a good place for businesses who want access to US markets to invest. The low wages demanded by PR’s inhabitants have also made it a good place for (relatively) cheap labor. Both of these factors have made it a pharmaceutical and manufacturing center. State pols have taken advantage of this by jacking up territory taxes to an unconscionable level to pay for the incestuous relationship between the public unions and craven politicians (more on that). If they were required to pay federal taxes, the entire structure of PR’s economy and government would change radically. With a rosy economic forecast, this would be difficult to handle well. Under the current economic forecast, it would be a disaster to throw the PR economy so out of whack, and the guy left holding the bag would be Uncle Sam.

Though there are virtually no private unions in the territory (minimum wage has made it impossible to get a job in PR!), public unions are unusually large, powerful, and entrenched. This, as well as PR’s own version of machine politics, have made politicians in the territory subservient to their demands. Unfortunately, this has led to the California-like decline of the island: recently, Puerto Rico’s credit was downgraded by Moody’s Investor Services, with the possibility of further downgrades in the future. It also currently boasts the highest debt per capita of any of the territories or states, including California.

Its current Republican governor, Luis Fortuno, is pretty much our Chris Christie: his budget cuts have led to the elimination of 17,000 jobs, which is unfortunate for those who are jobless, but necessary for fixing the territory’s fiscal mess, which dwarfs California’s. He has put forth his 2010-11 budget here;. Scroll down to page 5 and you can see the problem: “social development” makes up for over half of PR’s expenditures, even after Fortuno’s cuts. Most of what is charitably called “social development” is the operating cost for the fiefdoms established by the public sector unions, and they are quite protective of their holdings! This, in turn, funds the politicians who are elected to do their bidding, and these politicians then continue this positive feedback loop by voting for a larger share of government funds to go to these unions. While I wish Gov Fortuno the best in solving his government’s fiscal crisis, only time will tell if his cuts are lasting, and if they inspire more fortitude on the part of citizens and legislators.

There are certainly aspects of PR that are admirable: if made a state, it would be the most anti-abortion state in the Union. The people of PR are wonderful, and their democratic institutions are well-developed and generally free from political violence. However, its fiscal problems, unemployment level, and distinctness from the American body politic make it difficult for me to recommend statehood. Puerto Ricans have consistently and wisely voted to keep the status quo in referendum concerning this very subject. America, wait a couple of decades before allowing a territory with less fiscal discipline than CA have a say in where your money gets spent: PR is just fine without the state coin, and the current arrangement works better at present than statehood.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • liandro

    in the back ground for hours the other day. It is nice to have an local’s opinion to match up to what I heard there. From the news, it seems the new representative from Puerto Rico ran on getting this vote launched. What do you know about that?

  • aesthete

    Until recently, the big thing in PR has been Gov Fortuno’s showdown with the public unions. There have been a series of strikes, which fortunately, haven’t gotten Gov Fortuno to budge. I do know that the party with the greatest ties to the Republican party, the New Progressive Party (PNP), has consistently been in favor of statehood. Gov Fortuno, who hails from this party, was just recently in DC testifying before Congress on that very issue (he’s pro-statehood). It wouldn’t surprise me to see the PNP representative running on that issue. The Popular Democratic Party, a pro-labor party which is more friendly to Democrats, is in favor of the status quo, mostly to support the legislature’s profligate spending. Fortunately for PR, it doesn’t look good for the PDP: despite several strikes on the part of the public sector unions and a sympathetic media, public support for Fortuno has stayed relatively strong.

  • buddyp

    Aesthete,

    I worked one year in Puerto Rico (1988-9). Enjoyed it very much.

    One aspect of status has always bothered me. In the past when we had a military draft, Puerto Ricans were subject to it, including of course in wartime. And the same would apply if we had a draft again, including in wartime.

    As you know, Puerto Ricans cannot vote in the general election for president, and they have no voting representation in Congress.

    Thus, they can be drafted to fight a war chosen by a government in which they have no real representation. I find that disturbing, even though I realize Puerto Ricans benefit economically from being U.S. citizens.

    What do you think?

  • aesthete

    You’re probably asking the wrong person about enfranchisement: while I think that some democratic input is good and necessary for a system, I’m not completely sold on the idea of universal suffrage. At the federal level, an individual vote is essentially meaningless; a statistically-insignificant ballot drowned out by ten other low-information voters between two narcissists who differ only in the degree of their poor caliber (see: McCain and Obama). I’d like to think that the people drafted to serve in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam weren’t fighting and dying for our ability to choose whether Barack Obama or John McCain would lord over us for 4 years!

    Fortunately, I think that there is much more than suffrage which is worth dying for: the right to own a gun, or to worship who and how you choose, or the right to speak your piece without fear of government sanction, or to own and dispose of property, for example. These are rights that mostly don’t exist in the rest of the world, or that only exist in truncated form. They certainly don’t exist in many Latin American countries to the extent that they should; Cuba stands opposed to most of these rights, and is less than 1000 miles away from PR. I think that ensuring that PR doesn’t become Cuba is something worth dying for; I think that PR’s place in the great experiment in preserving human liberty is worth more than guarantees that it will be a part of the power politics which make up most Presidential politics.

    I do agree that the lack of Congressional representation is more concerning, but I personally prefer not having to pay taxes, especially since the elected territorial government already has people pony up so much. IMO, most Puerto Ricans, if told that they would have to pay federal taxes as the price for voting, would probably go with not having to pay taxes.

    Out of curiosity, where in PR did you work?

  • Menlo

    The draft is cruel, inhumane, evil, and blatantly unconstitutional regardless of one’s right to vote. Fortunately, that’s not a realistic possibility in the future.

  • buddyp

    First, you rightly point out that there are many benefits Puerto Ricans enjoy as U.S. citizens beyond economic benefits.

    But my point about what I find disturbing isn’t that Puerto Ricans can be drafted without having the benefit of voting (however much or little one values that opportunity), but rather that they can be forced to fight in a war that was chosen by a government in which they have no representation, no “say” to the same extent as other Americans who can be drafted.

    I worked in Hato Rey (“Milla de Oro”). I lived in Isla Verde, right next to the El San Juan hotel, which was next to the Sands (I don’t know if they’re both still there). I was 23 years old. Great beach a block away. Pretty girls. That was a fun year.

  • aesthete

    Like I said, I might just be the wrong person to ask: I would, for example, not have a problem personally with serving under the military of a Constitutional monarchy that did a good job of protecting people’s rights. I served a (brief and uneventful) stint in the USAF voluntarily, and I don’t regret it. I do agree that it would be nice in some respects to be able to vote for federal officials in PR, but would also point out that a Puerto Rican — any Puerto Rican — can move to the continental US and vote. Conversely, any American living in PR is restricted from voting for federal officials in like manner. It’s a region thing, not a matter of different rights (though it of course dis-proportionally affects Puerto Ricans).

    I guess we’ll see how it goes — it looks to me like statehood is the way things are going, and I will definitely celebrate on that day (even if I’m not too sure about the implications). Emotionally speaking, I’m all onboard with statehood, and you’re right that as a matter of justice, it’s probably not right to have a special area where what is seen by most as the defining tenet of citizenship is denied. I’m just not sure if it’s that great from a practical standpoint.

  • buddyp

    Fair enough. Re: your Constitutional monarchy analogy, I would suggest, though, that it’s arguably worse to be subject to military draft in a nation in which most other citizens have representation (via their votes) but you don’t, as opposed to a nation in which no one has such representation. In other words, it’s a combination of lack of representation with the idea of second-class citizenship in this regard. So everyone else is forced to fight a war chosen by the politicians they (collectively) chose, but not you (and by “you” I mean, as you point out, anyone residing in P.R., regardless of where they are originally from).

    Also, you make an important point that what matters is residency, but on a practical level I would assume that many Puerto Ricans don’t have the means to move to the mainland and establish a life there.

    I was wondering (perhaps I knew this at one point but I’ve forgotten), how is it that the Republican party became associated with the statehood party (PNP)?

  • buddyp

    I forgot to mention, thanks for your service (USAF).

  • aesthete

    which was reinforced by Cold War politics.

    The PR Republican Party was founded right after the Spanish American War by members of the prior conservative party that existed in colonial PR under the Spainards. It was dominated by the sugar and rum industries, and favored statehood and very close ties to the US both for economic reasons, and because they didn’t see good prospects for and independent PR fresh off of colonization and without a friend in the world. Statehood also became a bone used to keep PR in the US and compliant during the early years of the Cold War; it was close to becoming a state along with AK and HI in the late 50s, but the Democrats didn’t like the idea of another Republican stronghold — in the early 50s, the territories of Hawaii and PR were believed to be strongly in the Republican column, and AK was the Democratic stronghold, go figure. HI got the nod, partly because it was seen as more stable than PR (which had a revolt at around that time). The fact that a Puerto Rican indipendista nearly assassinated Truman didn’t help, either — however, this priority further solidified the PR Republican Party’s stance towards statehood, and that of the mainland party.

    The PR Democratic Party wasn’t even formed until the 50s, when statehood became a possibility. Nevertheless, it became associated with preserving the status quo in the Commonwealth, both as a compromise between the two extremes of statehood and independence, and because the PR Dems caucused with the PDP, which went on to be the dominant political force and benefited from being the exclusive taxing authority on the island.

    The hardcore Marxists became associated with the indipendistas, who wanted completely estrangement from the US, and due to the red/anti-colonialist connection, became a clearinghouse for pro-Cuba, pro-USSR and other extreme leftist politics. They had a moment in the late 50s, getting ~20% of the vote at their high point. Since then, they’ve been more a protest vote third party like the Green or Libertarian Party in the US.

  • aesthete

    that I’m generally unsupportive of the draft unless it’s in the service of preventing an existential calamity; I like the voluntary military and prefer that to an army of conscripts. I do appreciate your point, though.

  • buddyp

    I would think that these days, Republicans would NOT want PR to become a state, since I assume most voters would be Democrats, and thus more D electoral votes and more D members of Congress. Right? So if statehood looked like a real possibility at some point, do you think Republicans would try to prevent it?

    One thing I found interesting when I was there. One would think that, politically, Puerto Ricans would fall along a continuum of status preferences from least association with the U.S. (independence) to (at the other extreme) statehood, with commonwealth in between. And accordingly I would assume that commonwealth would be the second choice of most who favor statehood and of most who favor independence. But a colleague of mine there who favored statehood had independence as his second choice, precisely because he wanted to get away from second-class citizenship (the voting and representation matter) one way or another.