The party is over By Antonio M. Longo May 2, 2006

In your editorial "Puerto Rico and statehood" (Sunday) you wonder why Republican Washington is disenchanted with Puerto Rico's commonwealth status and is "strangely flirting with Puerto Rican statehood" while financial chaos is unfolding in San Juan because of a $738 million deficit in the commonwealth budget.

The answer is clear: Republicans have correctly identified commonwealth status as the root of this financial disaster. Puerto Rico can no longer depend on the largess of the federal government that existed during the Cold War. The party is over.

The people of Puerto Rico also are increasingly aware of their need to assume the full responsibilities of U.S. citizenship in order to share in all of its benefits. Statehood will give Puerto Rico the political stability needed to attract investors, provide real jobs and thus end its dependence on federal government handouts. Furthermore, history points to the fact that the economy of all of our previous territories had an accelerated improvement by converging into the national economy through statehood.

Your editors ignore that Puerto Rico is represented in Congress by one non-voting representative, the very capable Luis Fortuno who, contrary to your predictions of a solid Democratic 51st state, happens to be a conservative Republican highly regarded by our congressional GOP leadership.

Republicans are for statehood for the right reasons. Democracy requires that we end the 108-year history of colonialism in Puerto Rico and allow this disenfranchised U.S. territory the full political power of first-class U.S. citizenship.

ANTONIO M. LONGO
Alexandria

Puerto Rico's status By Delegate Luis Fortuño May 3, 2006

The editorial on the recent Bush administration policy report to Congress about the political status of Puerto Rico is fraught with misinformation ("Puerto Rico and statehood," Sunday).

First, you question support of statehood by a Republican administration. In 2000 and 2004, the GOP platforms strongly supported statehood, and called for a referendum in which the current status, statehood and separate nationhood are defined in legally valid terms accepted by Congress.

However, the Report by the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status did not simply call for a vote between those three options. Rather, the White House report recommends a very neutral ballot choice between keeping the current status and seeking a new status. Under this approach, there would never be a vote on statehood or separate sovereign nationhood unless a majority voted to seek an end to the current status, so your allegation that the White House seeks to "jettison" the current status is simply wrong.

Because the administration's report concludes that governing federal law defines Puerto Rico as a territory, the pro-commonwealth leaders of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) have hired Republican lobbyists to advance their theory that Puerto Rico became a nation when Congress authorized adoption of a local constitution in 1950.
Thus, their proposal is not to continue the current status at all, but to advance "Enhanced Commonwealth." That status formula includes local power to decide which federal laws apply to Puerto Rico, the ability to conduct a separate foreign policy starting with international trade agreements, while keeping U.S. citizenship, permanent union and free trade with the United States, federal block grants and most other benefits of statehood, but none of its responsibilities. The White House report correctly concludes that status model is precluded legally and politically unrealistic.

Your assertion that voters approved the current status four times inaccurately includes the 1952 vote to approve the local constitution as a vote for "Commonwealth."That was not a political status vote, since it did not change Puerto Rico's status, and statehood, independence or "Commonwealth" were not on the ballot.

In three locally sponsored plebiscites, using disputed and highly controversial ballot definitions of commonwealth devised by the local political parties, the actual results were mixed. In 1967 the current status won by over 60 percent of the vote. In 1993 the current status got 48 percent, statehood 46 percent.

In 1998, over 46 percent voted for statehood, but the current status, labeled "Commonwealth," was accurately defined as territorial, and got less than 1 percent. "None of the Above" received just over 50 percent voter approval.

Clearly, the status of Puerto Rico is not resolved, so your accusation that the White Houserecommendations for status resolution surrender ground gained in the Cold War against Castro and other critics of U.S. policy is simply absurd. President Reagan knew a thing or two about the Cold War, and he actively supported statehood as the best model for an American success story in Puerto Rico.

Ronald Reagan's words were, "As a 'commonwealth' Puerto Rico is neither a state nor independent, and thereby has a historically unnatural status...To show the world that the American idea can work in Puerto Rico is to show that our idea can work everywhere."

Finally, as a Republican in Congress representing 4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, a population close to that of Kentucky and Arizona, I find amusing your assertion that as a state Puerto Rico would send only Democrats to Congress. What does not amuse me is that Americans from Puerto Rico are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq at a per capita rate that ranks well within the top 5 among the 50 states, yet their Congressman has no vote, and they do not vote for their Commander-in-Chief.

I have introduced a bill, that currently has a 105 co-sponsors, to implement the recommendations of the White House report. By the time final legislation is passed there will be a record before Congress on the status issue that will lead to conclusions very different than those reached in your editorial.

DELEGATE LUIS FORTUNO
U.S. House
Washington

Puerto Rico and statehood by The Washington Times April 30, 2006

For decades, cold warriors defended Puerto Rico's commonwealth status as a bulwark against international communism. But these days it's Republican Washington that seems uncomfortable with the commonwealth and is strangely flirting with Puerto Rican statehood. With financial chaos unfolding this week in San Juan -- the island's government might have to shut down if the legislature cannot approve a loan to cover its $738 million deficit -- both cities' energies would be better directed to the more immediate problems.

In December, the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status proposed a referendum whose mechanics would all but ensure that commonwealth status is jettisoned. How odd that the Bush administration would think that Puerto Rico's status is somehow unresolved -- this happens to be Fidel Castro's position, too -- but public comments by task-force members have suggested the belief that commonwealth is just a waystation to either statehood or independence. And the solution they've devised would almost certainly make Puerto Rico the 51st state by creating runoffs with different options in successive rounds of voting.

This week Puerto Rican Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila decried the proposal as undemocratic, which it is. On four occasions over five decades, Puerto Ricans have endorsed the status quo. Presumably some conservatives might be unhappy paying for the island's special treatment, which is understandable but misdirected. Fiscal prudence would only be just one element to consider among many (and it rings a little hollow given the relatively small impact on the overall federal budget). Commonwealth status has been quite beneficial to Puerto Ricans, of course, but it has also benefited the mainland in ways that would be easy to overlook -- most significantly, by creating a foothold of stability in a volatile region very close to home.

In the Cold War, the tax benefits, subsidies and ease of U.S. travel went hand in hand with a shield from Fidelismo which benefited both the mainland and Puerto Rico. The shield is still relevant, at least as long as the administration prefers fewer Venezuelan-style strongmen ruining the region's economies and wants more stable democracies in its backyard.

The task force's recommendations wouldn't cut Puerto Rico off, of course -- they would create a brand-new 51st state. The politics behind that are intriguing, not least because for purely political reasons, it would seem odd for a Republican White House to push statehood. Do Republicans really want to contend with the permanent installment of two more Democrats in the Senate?

In any event, Puerto Ricans don't seem to want statehood in sufficient numbers to make it a serious option. Hopefully President Bush will let his task force's recommendations be forgotten.