Puerto Rican statehood 2009?

[Padfoot]

An article from CQ Politics indicates that Puerto Rico's political status may be changing in the near future.  A bill on Puerto Rico's future status is currently moving through the House with bipartisan support and support from leaders in both parties.  The bill, HR 900, calls for a plebiscite to be held during the 111th Congress in which Puerto Ricans would decide between ending or continuing their territorial status.  If they vote to end territorial status a later vote would be held to decide between statehood and independence.  HR 900 is currently moving through the the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee of Insular Affairs.  Both the chairman and ranking Republican on the Natural Resources Committee have expressed their support and the bill has a bipartisan list of 96 co-sponsors as of March 30th.  (THOMAS hasn't listed any cosponsors who may have signed on since 3/30/07)

It is unclear how this proposal will fair in the Senate.  Sen. Martinez R-FL has indicated he will be introducing a similar measure in his chamber and it can be assumed Sen. Salazar D-CO would join him based on passed cooperation on this issue.  They cosponsored a bill supporting a plebiscite after the release of a report in December 2005 by the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status.  This task force claimed the Constitution of the United States does not allow for a mechanism “to bind future Congresses to any particular arrangement for Puerto Rico as a Commonwealth” without an amendment to the Constitution.  This was in reference to the "enhanced" commonwealth status convened on the territory by a previous Congress.  Sen. Lott R-MS opposed the past plebiscite bill has indicated he will oppose the current plebiscite bill as well.  Again based on past cooperation, Sen. Burr-NC, Sen. Kennedy D-MA, and Sen. Menendez-D-NJ will likely join him.  These four Senators banded together to oppose the task force's findings.  However, they never gained any support for their bill. 

Sen. Lott currently supports a different course of action outlined by HR 1230 which is moving alongside HR 900 through the Subcommittee of Insular Affairs.  It is a largely symbolic bill that essentially reaffirms the right of the people of Puerto Rico to call a Constitutional Convention through which elected officials may make a proposal to change the status of Puerto Rico.  As far as I can tell HR 1230 doesn't really do anything except remind everyone that territories are allowed to petition Congress for a change in status.  The bill seems to have much less support seeing as it only has 25 cosponsors.

As an interesting side note, all of the congressional delegates from US territories are members of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs.  The subcommittee is chaired by Del. Donna M. Christensen of the Virgin Islands and the ranking Republican is Del. Luis G. Fortuño of Puerto Rico.

Both HR 900 and HR 1230 are scheduled for a joint subcommittee hearing on April 25th.  This is a follow up to a hearing that was held on both bills on March 22nd.  Chairman Nick J. Rahall II has promised a vote by the full Natural Resources Committee before the July 4th recess.

It should also be noted that the Bush administration will likely support the plebiscite measure. 

[MasterJedi]

If everything would continue like some people want it to it would be another extremely close vote. But if the first vote does narrowly go to end being a territory there would be an overwhelming statehood vote IMO because most people on Puerto Rico don't want to become a new country.

Hopefully it all works out and we get a new state.

[Bono]

Oh, sh**t, not again.

[Colin]

This has happened before and every time Puerto Rico has voted against it and why shouldn't they? They get large amounts of federal aid without its residents having to pay federal taxes. It's possibly one of the best systems that is available for Puerto Rico currently and while the results are always close I think it will still go for the better deal.

[Verily]

Why hold two separate plebiscites? The first would probably pass easily with support from both the (pro-statehood) Partido Nuevo Progresista and the (pro-independence) Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and opposition from the (pro-commonwealth) Partido Popular Democrático. The second would be an interesting battle. The PNP currently holds a wide majority in both houses of the Puerto Rican congress, if that's any indication of a likely result.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Puerto Rico is divided on whether to become a state, and there seems to be a lot of nationwide support for them becoming a state.
DC overwhelmingly wants statehood, and there seems to be a lot of nationwide opposition for them becoming a state.

Ideally both would become states, but those different reasons could stop both of them.

[MODU]

Why hold two separate plebiscites? The first would probably pass easily with support from both the (pro-statehood) Partido Nuevo Progresista and the (pro-independence) Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and opposition from the (pro-commonwealth) Partido Popular Democrático. The second would be an interesting battle. The PNP currently holds a wide majority in both houses of the Puerto Rican congress, if that's any indication of a likely result.

I was thinking the same, though I don't know why they would vote for statehood now when they've voted against it in the past.  They have the best of both worlds right now.  They receive aid by the gov't (to help off-set their poor economy) while having the relative freedom of independence from the nation.

[MasterJedi]

Why hold two separate plebiscites? The first would probably pass easily with support from both the (pro-statehood) Partido Nuevo Progresista and the (pro-independence) Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and opposition from the (pro-commonwealth) Partido Popular Democrático. The second would be an interesting battle. The PNP currently holds a wide majority in both houses of the Puerto Rican congress, if that's any indication of a likely result.

I was thinking the same, though I don't know why they would vote for statehood now when they've voted against it in the past.  They have the best of both worlds right now.  They receive aid by the gov't (to help off-set their poor economy) while having the relative freedom of independence from the nation.

Well if the first vote passed it would be pretty easy for them to become a state since no one wants independence except around 5% of the population. What probably happens is in the first vote the pro-statehood and pro-independence vote for them not to be a territory anymore and then an overwhelming majority votes for statehood in the second vote.

[Padfoot]

Why hold two separate plebiscites? The first would probably pass easily with support from both the (pro-statehood) Partido Nuevo Progresista and the (pro-independence) Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and opposition from the (pro-commonwealth) Partido Popular Democrático. The second would be an interesting battle. The PNP currently holds a wide majority in both houses of the Puerto Rican congress, if that's any indication of a likely result.

I was thinking the same, though I don't know why they would vote for statehood now when they've voted against it in the past.  They have the best of both worlds right now.  They receive aid by the gov't (to help off-set their poor economy) while having the relative freedom of independence from the nation.

Well if the first vote passed it would be pretty easy for them to become a state since no one wants independence except around 5% of the population. What probably happens is in the first vote the pro-statehood and pro-independence vote for them not to be a territory anymore and then an overwhelming majority votes for statehood in the second vote.

I think that the actual goal of this is to force a pro-statehood vote rather than gauge the actual will of Puerto Ricans.  The last few plebiscites have shown a nearly equal divide between pro-statehood and pro-territorial voters with territorial status squeaking out narrow victories and approximately 5% voting for full independence.  If you unite independence and statehood voters against territorial status then you can force territorial people to choose between statehood and independence and the vast majority of Puerto Ricans would rather remain part of the US.  Basically, the outcome of these two votes is fairly easy to predict which is why this is being so strongly opposed by the pro-territorial party.

As for the topic of federal taxes I think wiki does a fairly decent job of explaining it:

"A common misconception is that residents of Puerto Rico do not have to pay federal taxes. Residents of the island pay federal taxes (import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, etc.) and some even pay federal income taxes (Puerto Rico residents who are federal employees, or who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., etc). While most residents of the island do not pay federal income tax, they do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), as well as Puerto Rico income taxes. In addition, because the cutoff point for income taxation is lower than that of the IRS code, and because the per-capita income in Puerto Rico is much lower than the average per-capita income on the mainland, more Puerto Rico residents pay income taxes to the local taxation authority than if the IRS code were applied to the island. Puerto Rico residents are eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. Puerto Rico is excluded from Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Puerto Rico receives less than 15% of the Medicaid funding it would be allotted as a state. For Medicare, Puerto Rico pays fully but only receives partial benefits."

[bgwah]

Why hold two separate plebiscites? The first would probably pass easily with support from both the (pro-statehood) Partido Nuevo Progresista and the (pro-independence) Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and opposition from the (pro-commonwealth) Partido Popular Democrático. The second would be an interesting battle. The PNP currently holds a wide majority in both houses of the Puerto Rican congress, if that's any indication of a likely result.

I was thinking the same, though I don't know why they would vote for statehood now when they've voted against it in the past.  They have the best of both worlds right now.  They receive aid by the gov't (to help off-set their poor economy) while having the relative freedom of independence from the nation.

Well if the first vote passed it would be pretty easy for them to become a state since no one wants independence except around 5% of the population. What probably happens is in the first vote the pro-statehood and pro-independence vote for them not to be a territory anymore and then an overwhelming majority votes for statehood in the second vote.

Probably.

The most interesting thing about this to me is how would they vote. Republicans know how DC votes and as a result oppose DC statehood. At a glance I find it unlikely that Puerto Rico would be a Republican state or even a swing state, at least the federal level, but I don't know.

[Verily]

Why hold two separate plebiscites? The first would probably pass easily with support from both the (pro-statehood) Partido Nuevo Progresista and the (pro-independence) Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and opposition from the (pro-commonwealth) Partido Popular Democrático. The second would be an interesting battle. The PNP currently holds a wide majority in both houses of the Puerto Rican congress, if that's any indication of a likely result.

I was thinking the same, though I don't know why they would vote for statehood now when they've voted against it in the past.  They have the best of both worlds right now.  They receive aid by the gov't (to help off-set their poor economy) while having the relative freedom of independence from the nation.

Well if the first vote passed it would be pretty easy for them to become a state since no one wants independence except around 5% of the population. What probably happens is in the first vote the pro-statehood and pro-independence vote for them not to be a territory anymore and then an overwhelming majority votes for statehood in the second vote.

9% voted for the PIP at the at-large level in 2004, and it's thought that many PPD supporters actually support independence but vote PPD because the PIP is a train wreck (the so-called watermelon voters; PIP's color is green and PPD's is red).

[Verily]

Why hold two separate plebiscites? The first would probably pass easily with support from both the (pro-statehood) Partido Nuevo Progresista and the (pro-independence) Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and opposition from the (pro-commonwealth) Partido Popular Democrático. The second would be an interesting battle. The PNP currently holds a wide majority in both houses of the Puerto Rican congress, if that's any indication of a likely result.

I was thinking the same, though I don't know why they would vote for statehood now when they've voted against it in the past.  They have the best of both worlds right now.  They receive aid by the gov't (to help off-set their poor economy) while having the relative freedom of independence from the nation.

Well if the first vote passed it would be pretty easy for them to become a state since no one wants independence except around 5% of the population. What probably happens is in the first vote the pro-statehood and pro-independence vote for them not to be a territory anymore and then an overwhelming majority votes for statehood in the second vote.

Probably.

The most interesting thing about this to me is how would they vote. Republicans know how DC votes and as a result oppose DC statehood. At a glance I find it unlikely that Puerto Rico would be a Republican state or even a swing state, at least the federal level, but I don't know.

I think it's telling that the PPD is closely allied with the Democrats while the PNP tends to divide its loyalties person by person. In other words, around 2/3 to 3/4 of all voters in Puerto Rico support Democratic Party allies. Without the issue of Cuba that drives the Cuban immigrant population to support the Republicans, poor Hispanic voters such as those of Puerto Rico are likely to vote 60-70% Democratic. A House delegation from Puerto Rico would have six members, probably 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

[CultureKing]

Why hold two separate plebiscites? The first would probably pass easily with support from both the (pro-statehood) Partido Nuevo Progresista and the (pro-independence) Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and opposition from the (pro-commonwealth) Partido Popular Democrático. The second would be an interesting battle. The PNP currently holds a wide majority in both houses of the Puerto Rican congress, if that's any indication of a likely result.

I was thinking the same, though I don't know why they would vote for statehood now when they've voted against it in the past.  They have the best of both worlds right now.  They receive aid by the gov't (to help off-set their poor economy) while having the relative freedom of independence from the nation.

Well if the first vote passed it would be pretty easy for them to become a state since no one wants independence except around 5% of the population. What probably happens is in the first vote the pro-statehood and pro-independence vote for them not to be a territory anymore and then an overwhelming majority votes for statehood in the second vote.

Probably.

The most interesting thing about this to me is how would they vote. Republicans know how DC votes and as a result oppose DC statehood. At a glance I find it unlikely that Puerto Rico would be a Republican state or even a swing state, at least the federal level, but I don't know.

I think it's telling that the PPD is closely allied with the Democrats while the PNP tends to divide its loyalties person by person. In other words, around 2/3 to 3/4 of all voters in Puerto Rico support Democratic Party allies. Without the issue of Cuba that drives the Cuban immigrant population to support the Republicans, poor Hispanic voters such as those of Puerto Rico are likely to vote 60-70% Democratic. A House delegation from Puerto Rico would have six members, probably 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

That many more dem votes sounds good to me! Though the main thing I would like about this happening is that we would finally get a state where spanish is the first language (I need to practice)

[Tender Branson]

Are there any polls that show if Puerto Ricans favor the Status Quo, Independence or Statehood ? I suppose they must be split on the issue.

[ag]

Why hold two separate plebiscites? The first would probably pass easily with support from both the (pro-statehood) Partido Nuevo Progresista and the (pro-independence) Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño and opposition from the (pro-commonwealth) Partido Popular Democrático. The second would be an interesting battle. The PNP currently holds a wide majority in both houses of the Puerto Rican congress, if that's any indication of a likely result.

I was thinking the same, though I don't know why they would vote for statehood now when they've voted against it in the past.  They have the best of both worlds right now.  They receive aid by the gov't (to help off-set their poor economy) while having the relative freedom of independence from the nation.

Well if the first vote passed it would be pretty easy for them to become a state since no one wants independence except around 5% of the population. What probably happens is in the first vote the pro-statehood and pro-independence vote for them not to be a territory anymore and then an overwhelming majority votes for statehood in the second vote.

I think that the actual goal of this is to force a pro-statehood vote rather than gauge the actual will of Puerto Ricans.  The last few plebiscites have shown a nearly equal divide between pro-statehood and pro-territorial voters with territorial status squeaking out narrow victories and approximately 5% voting for full independence.  If you unite independence and statehood voters against territorial status then you can force territorial people to choose between statehood and independence and the vast majority of Puerto Ricans would rather remain part of the US.  Basically, the outcome of these two votes is fairly easy to predict which is why this is being so strongly opposed by the pro-territorial party.

As for the topic of federal taxes I think wiki does a fairly decent job of explaining it:

"A common misconception is that residents of Puerto Rico do not have to pay federal taxes. Residents of the island pay federal taxes (import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, etc.) and some even pay federal income taxes (Puerto Rico residents who are federal employees, or who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., etc). While most residents of the island do not pay federal income tax, they do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), as well as Puerto Rico income taxes. In addition, because the cutoff point for income taxation is lower than that of the IRS code, and because the per-capita income in Puerto Rico is much lower than the average per-capita income on the mainland, more Puerto Rico residents pay income taxes to the local taxation authority than if the IRS code were applied to the island. Puerto Rico residents are eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. Puerto Rico is excluded from Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Puerto Rico receives less than 15% of the Medicaid funding it would be allotted as a state. For Medicare, Puerto Rico pays fully but only receives partial benefits."

Puerto Ricans do indeed pay rather high taxes - not much different overall than residents of most of the resto fo the US. But now a greater proportion of it goes to the Commonwealth government.  If Puerto Rico were to become a state and, its residents thus, subject to federal income taxes, the outcome would be that either the overall tax burden in Puerto Rico would become heavier than anywhere in the US (not good at all for obvious economic reasons) or the new State government would have to become much leaner than the Commonwealth government is now. The latter would, probably, mean firing a lot of people currently in on government payroll - if I were an employee of the Puerto Rican government right now (or had a close family member who was) I would definitely vote to preserve status quo.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, the PIP will obviously urge people to vote no on the first referendum because if it passes then Statehood would clearly favor Independence on the second, based on the results of previous referenda.  The two stage process is clearly designed to increase the chance that Puerto Rico will choose Statehood.  In the past, with all three options on the same ballot, maintaining the Commonwealth has edged out becoming a State with a small sliver of the voters choosing Independence.

[Padfoot]

Well, the PIP will obviously urge people to vote no on the first referendum because if it passes then Statehood would clearly favor Independence on the second, based on the results of previous referenda.  The two stage process is clearly designed to increase the chance that Puerto Rico will choose Statehood.  In the past, with all three options on the same ballot, maintaining the Commonwealth has edged out becoming a State with a small sliver of the voters choosing Independence.

It is fairly clear to anyone looking at this proposal that the ultimate outcome will be Puerto Rican statehood if people continue to vote in a predictable fashion.  If this referendum actually happens, it will be interesting to see how the independence voters choose to vote.  Will they stubbornly vote to end the territorial status knowing full well that the independence option will lose in the second referendum or will they vote for continued territorial status in the hopes that they can get more people to support independence in the future?  Independence voters will be the swing vote if this referendum takes place.