I agree. Being stuck in limbo is not working. Even having a direction would be a start.
2 Likes
Which is why the debt relief is a good start in this case, but not the only thing that can or should be done.
11 Likes
Yes! The question isn’t how we can make Puerto Rico like Taiwan, Singapore or Ireland - It’s how we can make Puerto Rico more like Long Island or Delaware.
11 Likes
And
I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first or last time.
We’re perfectly in agreement here. But he is correct that what EW is proposing could face incredible headwinds. So why bet on just this one solution? Why not think of others. It’s not like they are mutually exclusive.
“in 1984, the US Congress decided to exclude Puerto Rico from Chapter 9 bankruptcy law that allows public companies and municipalities to declare bankruptcy and restructure their debts. Under US bankruptcy law, Chapter 9 provides a favorable framework for restructuring debts of public local entities, which respects the sovereignty of the debtor and does not allow courts to require liquidations of assets. The reasons behind why Puerto Rico was excluded from Chapter 9 remain a mystery, with no explanation for the amendment to be found.”
And they don’t control their own currency; so they can’t just devalue the debt.
They’ve been hamstrung - not allowed the tools to address the crisis. We’re the only ones that can change that (we being the US).
edit: and other hamstringing
“The federal funding disparity between states and Puerto Rico is striking. It is best illustrated by Medicaid, where a hard cap on payments from the federal government, introduced by the US Congress in 1968, means that Puerto Rico receives much lower reimbursements than it would receive under the formula used to calculate reimbursements for states. To understand the scope of this difference, based on 2016 expenses, the total cost of the program was $2.4 billion and the cap for Puerto Rico was set at $355 million, an effective reimbursement rate of less than 14 percent. However, under the formula used for states, Puerto Rico would have received about $2 billion in support from the federal government.”
16 Likes
Puerto Rico doesn’t have electoral college votes (and Puerto Ricans living in the US are mostly in non-negotiably blue states already), but a cynic might point out that both groups do participate in primaries.
Less cynically, this does seem to fit with Warren’s emerging MO, which is to pick situations that tend to make people feel defeated and hopeless, and say “here’s something specific and substantial the government could do about it”. I think a lot of people will respond strongly to that.
14 Likes
Part of the problem is the republicans have been against society-based solutions of this sort for at least 40 years – i.e., the whole “government is the problem, not the solution” propaganda. Sure – if you defund programs, defang regulations, and vilify and underpay civil servants, you get a lot of people agreeing. This is exactly the kind of thing we can expect after four decades of negativity. So why not debt relief? The republicans would be against it. Why not full FEMA funding for Puerto Rico? Because our president was against it. Why not considering Puerto Ricans American citizens? Because they are part of the “other” that today’s republicans are pointing to as some kind of major threat to the US.
My solution? Get the republicans the hell out of office. Then maybe we can work on solving some of the severe (and at one time preventable) problems that, sometimes, only governments with strong regulations can solve, funded with taxes by those who can afford it.
ETA: missing word
8 Likes
If one person’s running on a promise to take care of Puerto Rico, and another person’s running on a promise to make the lives of Puerto Ricans harder, then nobody can say those promises make no political difference.
They very clearly, at the absolute minimum, tell you who’s generally aiming for less suffering, and who’s an evil-intending jerk. This is true even if you don’t agree with the practicality of their plans.
At more than minimum, they shift the discourse further in one direction, and create expectations for some action on the topic.
4 Likes
You could be wrong about what? He’s noting that we shouldn’t push for debt relief, because it’s not a long term solution, though. He said we CAN’T do it, when we very much CAN if we push our politicians.
I DID NOT SAY THAT IT WAS THE ONLY SOLUTION. Please read what I wrote and stop making assumptions, thanks.
This was all part of a larger imperial project, too, let’s not forget. And there is some federal taxation on PR, although not all citizens pay federal taxes. But that does mean that some percentage of PR’s wealth is going to DC… so they are being taxed without proper representation… seems like in some distant past, someone fought a revolution over that…
Exactly.
Or someone who is into facts? 
Right? Ended with the liberal consensus… time to seriously start pushing back on this narrative and pointing out where privatization has been a problem.
That’s part of the LONG TERM solution for sure, and the only way we ensure that the people in office do the right thing, is to do that, PLUS put pressure on the people in office today, right now, no matter what their party is.
Right? By proposing this as part of her campaign, she is letting us know where she stands on the issues and why.
12 Likes
Even accepting the idea that non Puerto Rican Americans don’t have sufficient interest in the topic to make it a realistic proposal(I don’t, but for the sake of discussion), I think the number of Americans of Puerto Rican descent in swing seats and districts leaves it entirely viable. We’re talking about 5% of the population of Florida. In fact a swing the size of the Puerto Rican descended portion of each states electorate would have been enough to swing Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan from Trump to Clinton. Now obviously some of those people already vote blue and not everyone would move as a block, but it shows that even looking at a pretty narrowly defined possible constituency easily changes the electoral calculus. I happen to think that the universe of people who consider this a major issue is larger than that. The bully pulpit goes a long way when talking about disaster relief as we’ve seen in things like the 9/11 airline bailout.
4 Likes
Back in the day, it used to be illegal to buy votes by throwing money at special interests. I guess Elizabeth Warren figured out a loophole around that one, since she’s doing it in such a publicly blatant fashion.
No U.S. Presidential or Congressional votes to be bought from the “special interests” in this case: the people of Puerto Rico.
11 Likes
Another cunning plan Baldrick?
7 Likes
While your point seems valid, it is heartbreakingly nihilistic. Also, considering what you think of Warren’s propsals, why the hell then do you think YOUR proposals would have any more chance of enactment than hers??
1 Like
Public policy proposals are not “buying votes”, they are public policy proposals.
9 Likes
No. You’re supposed to vote for things you don’t support under a Counterintuitive Democracy.
8 Likes
2 Likes
I’ve not made any proposals, in the same sense that I don’t need to rob a liquor store to recognize when a robbery is in progress.
Since it seems I have to spell it out for everyone:
-
Forgive Puerto Rico’s debt = automatic vote buying for hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans and their supporters, family and friends, in the U.S. Anyone believing that the inability of Puerto Ricans to directly vote for U.S. congressional seats or in the Presidential elections negates the effects of vote buying resulting from forgiveness of its debt is simply politically naive.
-
Her proposal to forgive student loan debt is, admittedly, a more direct attempt at vote buying and, probably, a more successful effort, if she can make it happen. That it happens to be grossly unfair to everyone who has worked through university and afterwards to pay for their education, and simply teaches the younger generations that there are no consequences for poor decisions, is beside the point. The point is that every single person benefiting from such a misguided action will feel strongly inclined to vote for her, or for Democrat candidates.
-
I regret lowering myself to this level, but her pathetic attempt to self-identify as a Native American was nothing more than a bald-faced appeal to that population, so that she could garner support from its members. It’s not a textbook example of vote-buying but, if you consider a purchase as the exchange of one thing of value for another of equal value, it’s not a difficult stretch to view her gross misappropriation of identity politics as vote-buying.
Ms. Warren has some good ideas, as did Ms. Clinton. Unfortunately, both of them (along with the leading pack of Democrats) simply want to become President too badly and they both are/were all too willing to say or promise anything to make that happen, for its own sake. That’s not just distasteful, it’s alarming, and it’s why the country voted for a vile person like Trump instead of Clinton.
I’m guessing that’s some sort of pop culture reference? If so, I would just observe that serious political discourse deserves better than pop culture references. If not, I welcome clarification…
