President announces Debt-Limit Deal

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 31, 2011

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
8:40 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. There are still some very important votes to be taken by members of Congress, but I want to announce that the leaders of both parties, in both chambers, have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default -- a default that would have had a devastating effect on our economy.

The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years -- cuts that both parties had agreed to early on in this process. The result would be the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President -- but at a level that still allows us to make job-creating investments in things like education and research. We also made sure that these cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on a fragile economy.

Now, I've said from the beginning that the ultimate solution to our deficit problem must be balanced. Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they’re still around for future generations.

That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act. And over the next few months, I’ll continue to make a detailed case to these lawmakers about why I believe a balanced approach is necessary to finish the job.

Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months. And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.

Now, this process has been messy; it’s taken far too long. I've been concerned about the impact that it has had on business confidence and consumer confidence and the economy as a whole over the last month. Nevertheless, ultimately, the leaders of both parties have found their way toward compromise. And I want to thank them for that.

Most of all, I want to thank the American people. It’s been your voices -- your letters, your emails, your tweets, your phone calls -- that have compelled Washington to act in the final days. And the American people's voice is a very, very powerful thing.

We’re not done yet. I want to urge members of both parties to do the right thing and support this deal with your votes over the next few days. It will allow us to avoid default. It will allow us to pay our bills. It will allow us to start reducing our deficit in a responsible way. And it will allow us to turn to the very important business of doing everything we can to create jobs, boost wages, and grow this economy faster than it's currently growing.

That’s what the American people sent us here to do, and that’s what we should be devoting all of our time to accomplishing in the months ahead.

Thank you very much, everybody.

END 8:44 P.M. EDT

Intransigence of the Senate Democrats

Diego Sanchez Gallardo

PRSSA National Treasurer

Has anyone seen/heard these questions asked of any Democrat during the debt limit kerfuffle?

1. “Explain your vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006.”

Gallardo (left)

2. “Explain why the unanimous Democrat Senate vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 did not constitute a crisis, as you have repeatedly declared this issue to be.”

3. “Explain why tax-and-spend leftist Obama’s florid rhetoric against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 earned him the Presidency, but conservative House members who ran on fiscal reform and now oppose borrowing more money are ‘acting like children’”.

4. “Explain why you Democrats are on television declaring that it is ‘extreme’ to oppose raising the debt ceiling and that the only reasonable and responsible solution is for House Republicans to negotiate with Democrat Senators and abandon certain positions ‘because this issue is so important’, but you yourself voted to pass socialized healthcare on a straight party-line vote with the entire GOP shut out of the development of the legislation and even prevented from seeing the bill before the vote.”

Of course not, everyone is too busy demonizing the Tea Party and the freshmen Republicans in the House. They’re accused of being purists. What does that mean? They stick to principles unlike the Democrats and the GOP Leadership? The Democrats, who failed to produce a bill in 800 days until last week, are now touting themselves as the warriors of fiscal responsibility. The problem is both Reid’s and Boehner’s plans are a joke for the American people. Reid’s plan supposedly reduces the debt by 1.1 trillion dollars by scaling back military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody in the media mentions, however, that those savings were already slated to occur even if this budget plan hadn’t existed. And to add more dissatisfaction to the bill the irresponsible Senate Democrats are rallying behind, this plan doesn’t even touch entitlements. The unsustainable Medicare and Social Security are ignored completely.

The Speaker’s plan isn’t any better. The Boehner plan merely plans to cut a $100 billion in a span of a decade, meaning a total of $1 billion in cuts per year. To say that’s a dent to the national debt is an insult to dents. At the tune this federal government is spending, we owe $100 billion per month in just interest payments.

This unserious approach to cut spending met fierce opposition from members of the Republican Study Committee and grassroots across the country. The CBO even estimated that the cuts would be lower than expected. Boehner then proceeded to amend the plan by establishing a committee to decide $1.1 trillion in cuts the next ten years. A committee comprised by 12 members, 6 elected by the Democrats and 6 elected by Republicans. But as Sen. Reid said, “this plan is dead on arrival on the Senate.” And with House GOP surely to rally to block Reid’s plan we are left with no serious approach. “Cut, Cap, and Balance” passed the House with even some Democrats voting for it, only to be stopped in the Senate without any debate. And the President has been sitting on the sidelines most of the debate, only attacking corporate jets and the wealthy. Give me a break.

And so that’s how this story ends. With the party of endless spending and entitlements unto death lecturing fiscal conservatives on how they’re leading the country into a credit downgrade. Yesterday all 53 Senate Dems signed a letter to Boehner essentially saying: your bill will never pass. If this is how Washington will behave, default is imminent.

------

The author is the newly elected National Treasurer for the Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. Gallardo is a student in American University and works for Popular Inc. 

Carlos Beltrán: ¿Será ún Verdadero Gigante?

Por Tony Menéndez

Hace 35 calendarios atras un 29 de Julio nunca olvidaré fué mi primer juego en un estadio en las Grandes Ligas. Aquel partido fué grandioso para mí al ver mi conjunto favorito los Piratas de Pittsburgh en choque frente a los Mets de Nueva York en el desaparecido Shea Stadium.

Como todo boricua de la época y seguidor de Roberto Clemente los Bucaneros era la franquicia a seguir. Mis Piratas favoritos en el momento eran Willie Stargell, Manny Sanguillen y Dave Parker. Su lanzador favorito obviamente un borincano el zurdo John Candelaria.

Aquel partido lo ganaron los Piratas 2 carreras por 1 y quien diria el amor por el béisbol siempre se quedó en mí.

A estas lineas casí de cierre del mes de Julio el afecto y la pasión siguen ahí y más para estas fechas que todos los juegos de itinerario se ponen de verdura en rumbo a la post-temporada. Ademas todos los conjuntos que tienen oportunidad de otoño andan pertrechandose como entiendo el mejor canje del momento lo es el de Carlos Beltrán a los Gigantes de San Francisco dandole posiblemente una gran coyuntura para volver a repetir como campeones mundiales.

El caso de Carlos Beltrán es realmente interesante porque quien diria que el Todo Estrella a principios de campaña muchos lo daban descartado de la pelota por sus problemas en las rodillas. Y a la verdad equivocó a mucha gente con su gran regreso. Tan así que comenzará su carrera como Gigante dejando atras el liderato de cuadrangulares, carreras impulsadas y dobles de su ahora antiguo equipo de los Mets.

Para los Gigantes y su Dirigente Bruce Bochy sí Beltrán demuestra estar completamente saludable y su tremendo madero el veterano de 34 años de edad puede ser la clave de muchas buenas en la bahía californiana. Ya su nuevo manda más anunció que será su jardinero derecho y tercer bate en su alineación ofensiva. Y más quiere que sea el hombre clave del equipo tal como hizo siete años atras con los tejanos.

En el 2004 el Guante de Oro puertorriqueño fue canjeado de los Reales de Kansas City a los Astros de Houston y estuvo a nada en aquel entonces de llevarlos a su primera Serie Mundial. Beltrán conectó 23 cuadrangulares en 90 partidos y tuvo una de las más impresionantes post-temporada por un latinoaméricano en las Mayores conectando para .435 de promedio con ocho vuelacercas.

Nadie olvide que esa actuación fue la que le ganó en aquel momento su actual contrato original con los Mets de siete años por $119 millones. El resto es historia.

Los Gigantes saben que en su circuito la tarea no está facil de repetir con los aguerridos Phillies de Philadelphia; mucho ojo en su banderín con los cascabeles de Arizona y cuidado con todos esos batalladores del gallardete central con los Cerveceros de Milwaukee, Rojos de Cincinnati y los Piratas de Pittsburgh.

Sín duda Carlos Beltrán es la figura cimera en este momento de Puerto Rico y una vez más está en su instante de demostrar que le queda mucho más tiempo en el deporte del guante y el bate y es un verdadero gigante en todo el sentido de la palabra y por el acrónimo de su nuevo equipo. Estoy seguro dos grandes Gigantes Juan Marichal y Orlando “Peruchín” Cepeda le daran sus consejitos. El tiempo dirá.

Tony Menéndez es un cronista deportivo de Puerto Rico, especializado en el béisbol de las Grandes Ligas, las ligas de invierno del Caribe y las Series del Caribe. Desde Miami escribe para The Puerto Rico Daily Sun y Revista Zona Sports de Puerto Rico y varias paginas de internet de beisbol en América Latina y los Estados Unidos. Es talento de ESPNDeportes Radio Miami y actualmente es el narrador de béisbol y baloncesto de los Huracanes de la Universidad de Miami. Cubrió los Clasicos Mundial de Béisbol 2006 y 2009 y cubre desde 1995 los Marlins de Florida en Miami. Ademas, cubre desde su base en Florida a los Rays de Tampa Bay.

http://MenendezTony.MLBlogs.com/

Pierluisi’s Statement on Legislation to Reauthorize the Marine Turtle Conservation Act

Hon. Pedro R. Pierluisi
Statement on Hearing on H.R. 1761, Marine Turtle Conservation Reauthorization Act
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
July 28, 2011

Thank you, Chairman Fleming. First, I want to express my sincere gratitude to you and Ranking Member Sablan for scheduling this hearing today on the three multinational species conservation bills, including my bipartisan bill, H.R. 1761, the Marine Turtle Conservation Reauthorization Act. I also thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting as a witness my constituent, Carlos Diez, a biologist with the Government of Puerto Rico’s Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. And I thank the other witnesses for appearing today, including Teiko Saito, for representing the dedicated employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Ian Somerhalder, who is a great champion for wildlife conservation.

Having survived for nearly 110 million years, marine turtles are among the world’s oldest species. Marine turtles—like other majestic wildlife species that capture our hearts and imaginations—are imperiled. Once plentiful, six of the seven documented species of marine turtles are listed today as endangered, their survival threatened by various factors, including human exploitation and encroachment into their natural habitat.

Fortunately, we have in place a program at the Department of the Interior that supports partnerships and projects around the world to protect these species. This is because in 2004, in the face of declining marine turtle populations worldwide, Congress enacted—and President George W. Bush signed into law—the Marine Turtle Conservation Act. This Act, which expired at the end of 2009, authorized the Fish and Wildlife Service to use a small amount of federal funding to support conservation efforts aimed at saving these magnificent species.

Since 2005, the program has been highly successful. Hundreds of applications have competed for $5.9 million in appropriated funds, which in turn helped secure an additional $8.6 million in non-federal funds—a remarkable return on investment. This program has served to position the United States as the world’s leader in marine turtle conservation.

As Puerto Rico’s representative in Congress, I have a particularly keen interest in—and special appreciation for—marine turtles. At least four of the seven species of marine turtles are found in Puerto Rico’s waters or nest on our beaches. Those turtle species are: the Leatherback, the Hawksbill, the Green Turtle, and the Loggerhead. Indeed, all of the coastal waters surrounding Culebra Island and Mona Island in Puerto Rico are designated as “critical habitats” by the federal government.

Mindful of the difficult fiscal environment, the bill I have introduced would reauthorize this program from 2012 to 2017 at current funding levels. Importantly, the bill would amend existing law to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to award grants for conservation projects within the United States and its territories, a power the agency does not presently possess. This approach would ensure that federal support is available to conserve the six species of marine turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act, all of which nest on U.S. beaches or are found in U.S. waters. I believe the survival of these species is important for its own sake, and also because they are instrumental in ensuring the health of the ocean ecosystem.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Temptations of Power is Broader Power

BY ANTHONY MELE
Publish by Rockland County Times

Political power can test the most temperate of people, but when those temptations remain unsatisfied it leads to a need for more of it. The media ignored President Obama when he told the room hosted by The Council of La Raza he felt "tempted” to bypass the US Congress. When the President of the USA expresses his contempt for the US Congress as a co-equal branch of government, he is simultaneously expressing the separation of powers built into the US Constitution is a constraint that frustrates his exercise of power. That is precisely what the founders in their wisdom intended. When he says he is "tempted to go it alone," he is expressing a desire to rule by dictat. That is precisely what the founder’s intended to constrain.

As a former soldier, it disturbed me to my core for the first time in my life to actually hear the Commander in Chief announce he wanted to suspend the separation of powers clause. As an American of Latin heritage, it embarrassed me to hear Latinos chant "yes, you can.” Especially when you take into consideration most of these immigrants and their parents fled from Latin American dictatorships to partake in the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

What rose from simmering incredulousness to furious objection was the pure outlandish lie that if the president had dictatorial powers granted to him by those cheering him on in that room, he would be a beneficent dictator. He would grant them all they wished, like immigration reform, which is left-wing code word for a borderless America. Like balance and fairness from a dictator who would seize the wealth from those who earned it and redistribute to those he says should have it instead.

What became downright frightening was the mob mentality in that room, who would, if they could, at that moment abolish the presidency as a public office in a co-equal branch of government, constrained by the US Constitution, restrained by the Bill of Rights and sustained by the equal protection under the law. They would have anointed him an American Dictator before my very eyes. When I observed his reaction to that possibility, there was no Chris Mathews warm feel up my leg, but a very cold chill ran down my spine.

It is my intention to warn every American why the founders swore an oath to pledge their life, their wealth and sacred honor to declare to a world of Kings, we shall have no Monarchs over a free people. I can do no less than they. Mr. President, the US Constitution is not White House toilet tissue. That is the contempt he expressed for it on this day in July 2011. It is my goal to persuade every voter I can to return the favor come Election Day 2012.

Economic Impact of a U.S. Default

By Julio A. Cabral Corrada
Cornell '13 - PRSSA

"Pathetic”. This is the word James Gorman, CEO of Morgan Stanley, used yesterday during his remarks at a firmwide forum to describe the lack of common sense in Washington. As one of the World’s best financial minds, Mr. Gorman questioned with disappointment the capacity of our “leaders” to truly understand the economic consequences of their inability to compromise. Following the conference meeting, I went straight to my desk in the trading floor.

As I watched in my Bloomberg Terminal all the World markets (which are the engine and best indices of our economy) plummet, I acknowledged there were immediate consequences far more pivotal than a default, tax issues, and election concerns (the three topics emphasized by the politicians and the media). Thus, I decided to challenge on the subject one of my bosses and mentor, Matt Berke, who happens to be a Cornell guy and the Global Head of Equity Risk Management. His response was simple: “You do it. Research, Analyze and Facts. It should be by 10:00 pm on the desk.”

Thus, after completing a full detailed report last night by 8:33pm, I thought I could share a brief abstract of my analysis, which delineates the economic impact a default on our debt could have on our financial system. As many of you have read, President Barack Obama’s administration, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been locked in a standoff for months over what kind of deficit-cutting measures should be tied to an increase in the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Tim Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, has said the U.S. exhausts its borrowing authority on August 2 (which is next Tuesday!) and risks going into default.

This senseless political wrangling may cost the U.S. its AAA rating, adding $100 billion a year to government costs while dragging down our economic growth. A U.S. credit-rating cut would likely raise the nation’s borrowing costs by increasing Treasury yields by 60 to 70 basis points over the medium term. "Standard & Poor’s, which has given the U.S. a solid ranking since 1941, reiterated exactly one week ago that the chance of a downgrade is 50 percent in the next three months and may happen as soon as August", mentioned the credit agency.

If this were to occur, it will have a critical impact on treasury rates. Those $100 billion a year I mentioned before are capital being used for higher interest rates, and that’s money being taken away from other goods and services of the nation. Also,Treasury yields indicate that investors are favoring bank or company debt over treasuries, raising concerns of the credibility of government debt.

The short-term effect on treasuries of a downgrade would be about 5 to 10 basis points, because few asset managers would be forced to sell these treasuries. "Yields on benchmark 10-year notes fell five basis points, or 0.05 percentage points, to 2.95 percent today. That compares with an average of 4.03 percent since 2001", according to a Morgan Stanley report. The TED spread, the difference between what lenders and the U.S. government pay to borrow for three months, narrowed to 18.7 basis points yesterday, the least since March.

Therefore, as we make borrowing more expensive we are diverting tax dollars to interest payments. In other words, there is less money out there! Since it is more expensive to borrow money, then our economy does not grow (that is why the Federal Reserve has kept interest so low since the financial crisis using quantitative easing—so people can cheaply borrow money and spend more, ultimately stimulating our economy). THEN, if interest rates pick up too much then everyone will suffer. From the homeowner with a mortgage to the student with a college loan, interest rates will rise for everyone. This will hurt the pocket of all families!

Furthermore, and to top it off, I should state that the U.S. unemployment rate rose for a third straight month in June to 9.2 percent, pointing to an economy lacking momentum entering the second half of the year. Employers added 18,000 workers to payrolls, the fewest in nine months.

This is the picture which politicians, the media, and many across America are missing. I hope this helps clarify some doubts about the impact a default will have on our economy. Hopefully, in a near future we will have more intellectually prepared public servers that can make responsible legislation and public policy. This nation needs people with a common sense, not those who want to play partisan politics. The people deserve better. Tomorrow (Thursday) will shall see if a bill is passed.
Have a good one!

Remarks of President Barack Obama/ Debt Speech

Monday, July 25, 2011
Washington, DC

Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt – a debate that directly affects the lives of every single American.

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more – on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money – the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?

That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country – things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach – an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling – a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, and mortgages, car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis – one caused almost entirely by Washington.

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.

I think that’s a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress – a compromise I can sign. And I am confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth – not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Constitución, territorio/colonia o estadidad

POR: HERNÁN PADILLA

Hoy, 25 de julio, día de la Constitución de Puerto Rico, celebramos 113 años del inicio de la ocupación militar de Puerto Rico como colonia antillana de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica.

La Ley 600 autorizó a Puerto Rico a tener nuestra propia Constitución para administrar asuntos locales. La historia legislativa reitera y el propio Muñoz Marín aceptó públicamente que la autoridad del Congreso sobre Puerto Rico es absoluta y plenaria. El “Commonwealth” no implica un status diferente; jurídicamente no existe.

Resulta oportuno señalar que la Constitución de Puerto Rico sostiene que:

“Consideramos factores determinantes en nuestra vida la ciudadanía de los Estados Unidos de América”, “la lealtad a los postulados de la Constitución Federal” y “la convivencia en Puerto Rico de las dos grandes culturas del hemisferio americano”.

Como en otros capítulos en la historia de la humanidad, el contacto de la cultura anglosajona americana y la colonial española-puertorriqueña ha provocado cambios sociales, académicos, políticos, gubernamentales, jurídicos, económicos y culturales que se han convertido en la nueva realidad puertorriqueña.

Procede reflexionar sobre el experimento político y traer un poco de historia a un pueblo que clama por que le pongan fin al status colonial y le abran las puertas a la igualdad dentro de la federación de estados de la nación americana o que le den la independencia para forjar su propio futuro.

Theodore Roosevelt, hijo del presidente Teddy Roosevelt, luego de finalizar su término como gobernador de Puerto Rico en el 1932, publicó su libro “Colonial Policies of the United States” (Archivo Nacional de los Estados Unidos, 1937 #E-713-R-66). Roosevelt se interesó en el concepto de Puerto Rico como un “dominio” con gobierno propio en el futuro. Pronosticó que la Isla tendría su propia Constitución para administrar los asuntos locales en el futuro.

El ex gobernador Roosevelt dijo que el sueño imperialista del 1898 había probado ser irrealizable y reconoce que una “democracia como la de Estados Unidos” no puede administrar un imperio-colonial. Sentenció que la administración colonial en Puerto Rico chocaba contra las tradiciones democráticas americanas y su pragmatismo gubernamental lo convenció que Puerto Rico era y siempre sería una carga económica para los Estados Unidos.

La Constitución para un gobierno propio colonial del 1952 es un instrumento político que en nada cambia el status territorial y cuyo nombre de Estado Libre Asociado solo tenía el propósito de engañar a la población insular y la opinión internacional. La intención era hacer creer que la Isla no era una colonia dentro del marco jurídico constitucional y el Artículo 3, que reglamenta los territorios y posesiones americanas en ultramar.

Ese fue el gran mito político-jurídico producto de mentes brillantes como el juez del Supremo Abe Fortas, el gobernador Tugwell y José Trías Monje, defendido y difundido por Luis Muñoz Marín, el gran maestro político. Muñoz reconoció que Puerto Rico era una colonia americana bajo la tutela exclusiva del Congreso de los Estados Unidos de América.

Los populares inventaron la “gran mentira” del pacto bilateral, un pacto que nunca existió. Ahora quieren presentar la colonia como un territorio autónomo y soberano, un concepto jurídico ajeno a la Constitución americana.

El Congreso nunca cedió su autoridad sobre Puerto Rico.

Tampoco podemos ignorar que la Tercera Sección del Artículo IV de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos establece que el Congreso podrá admitir nuevos estados a la unión.

La Constitución nos garantiza el derecho a exigir al Congreso que tome en cuenta la voluntad del pueblo de Puerto Rico.

Cuando la mayoría de los puertorriqueños se exprese en contra de la colonia, en contra de una república independiente y a favor de la estadidad convocaremos la Asamblea Constituyente para redactar la Constitución del Estado de Puerto Rico.

Vía Verde y la Tasa de Inflación

Por Kenneth D. McClintock

Un servicio de noticias de negocios por internet ha reportado que el índice de precios bajó 0.1% entre mayo y junio del 2011, pero que la tasa de inflación interanual de 3.3% se mantiene alta debido al precio de productos derivados del petróleo.

Las tasas de inflación reducen el valor adquisitivo del dólar en Puerto Rico. Con una tasa de 3.3%, Si alguien se gana $1,000 en enero y compra $1,000 en bienes y servicios, para diciembre, con los mismos $1,000 solo puede comprar bienes y servicios que le costaban $967 en enero. Se quedó sin poder adquirir $33 de los bienes y servicios que pudo haber comprado en enero.

Una de las razones es que los aumentos en el precio del petróleo impactan al consumidor puertorriqueño más severamente que a nuestros conciudadanos del norte. Cuando el precio del barril sube, en los estados aumenta el precio de la gasolina pero no aumenta necesariamente el precio de la electricidad.

En Puerto Rico, cuando el precio del barril del petróleo sube, no tan solo sube el precio de la gasolina sino que sube también el precio de la electricidad.

A nivel nacional, solo dos tercios del uno por ciento (0.68%) de la electricidad se genera mediante la quema de petróleo. En Puerto Rico, el 70% de la electricidad que consumimos se genera con la quema de petróleo.

El proyecto Vía Verde propone reducir de 70% a 15% la proporción de electricidad en Puerto Rico que se genera mediante la quema de petróleo, y elevar de 15% a 70% la cantidad de electricidad generada por el uso de gas natural. Además de todos los beneficios que Vía Verde representa en términos de reducir en dos terceras partes la contaminación atmosférica que genera la AEE, reducir la dependencia en los países productores de petróleo, reducir el monto de nuestras facturas mensuales, entre otros, Vía Verde ayudará a reducir la tasa de inflación en Puerto Rico.

Al reducir dramáticamente el petróleo que Puerto Rico consume en generación eléctrica, se reducirá dramáticamente el impacto que las continuas alzas en el precio del barril de petróleo tienen sobre la tasa de inflación y el bolsillo del consumidor boruca.

Más aún, eventualmente, através de Vía Verde, podrán proliferar los vehículos que, en vez de usar gasolina derivada del petróleo, puedan discurrir por nuestras calles y carreteras usando gas natural, a un costo menor, generando menos contaminación atmosférica, y reduciendo aún más nuestra dependencia en el petróleo.

A corto plazo, Vía Verde reduce nuestra factura eléctrica. A mediano y largo plazo, esa iniciativa de la Administración Fortuño nos ayudará a reducir a un mínimo nuestra dependencia en el petróleo, sea para electrificarnos o para transportarnos. Cuando ese día llegue, el precio del barril de petróleo será un factor mínimo en la tasa de inflación y en el Indice de Precios al Consumidor.

LAS 7 MENTIRAS DE ALEJANDRO GARCÍA PADILLA

SAN JUAN, PR: La Asociación de Estudiantes Estadistas de Puerto Rico (PRSSA por sus siglas en Inglés) anunció una nueva campaña de educación llamada “Las 7 Mentiras del Estado Libre Asociado” en respuesta a los alegados principios mencionados por el candidato del Partido Popular Democrático a la gobernación Alejandro García Padilla sobre el Estado Libre Asociado.

En la convención del PPD, García expuso 7 mentiras disfrazadas como principios. “Es un insulto a la inteligencia del pueblo, que entiende en su mayoría la situación territorial y la importancia de atenderla,” expresó Eduardo Soto, Presidente de PRSSA. “Cada principio es un intento más del PPD por engañar al pueblo de Puerto Rico en el asunto del status.”

“Una vez mas, Alejandro García Padilla niega la condición territorial de Puerto Rico, cuando hace unas semanas admitió que somos una colonia en televisión nacional. El pueblo merece la verdad, por lo que nos damos a la tarea de desmentir al PPD” indicó William-José Vélez, Vicepresidente Ejecutivo de la organización.

Los estudiantes añadieron que la campaña estará basada en las redes sociales de Facebook, Twitter, YouTube así como MyStatehoodPR. “Estaremos publicando los datos que demuestran la realidad del ELA, comprobando como falsos a cada uno de los 7 mitos que el PPD promueve” indicaron los directivos de la asociación estudiantil. La campaña estará disponible en el portal de PRSSA accediendo a  www.statehoodpr.org/7mentiras.

PRSSA es una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a promover la discusión sobre la libre determinación de Puerto Rico en mayores foros y representar a estudiantes estadistas en los Estados Unidos continentales y Puerto Rico.

"ELA Territorial"

Por Rep. José Aponte Hernández, Ex- Presidente de la Cámara

¿Y cuál es el ELA que Ferrer defenderá? “El Estado Libre Asociado que cuando usted salga a la número tres y puede doblar a San Juan, cuando mire al frente, al lado va a ver carreteras, puentes, escuelas, todo lo que se construye en este país porque todo lo que está construido está construido bajo el Estado Libre Asociado, no la estadidad ni la independencia”, contestó Ferrer.

O sea, es el ELA Territorial (sujeto a la Claúsula Territorial del Congreso) que AGP aceptó en enttrevista que somos.

O sea, es el ELA Territorial bajo el cual RHC dijo lo siguiente: Democracia: "Dada nuestra extrana relacion con los Estados Unidos, Puerto Rico no tiene ninguna participacion en preparar las leyes que nos rigen. La falta de legitimidad democratica en la aplicacion de esas leyes es un problema basico de la estructura politica del Estado Libre Asociado, de lo cual hemos estado conciente desde 1952." Definicion segun Rafael Hernandez Colon; San Juan Star, Sunday 26 Feb 1989.

O sea, que se volvió a destapar la verdad: Ellos, los "líderes" del PPD no quieren ni van a hacer nada por resolver la condición colonial que reconocen vivimos desde el mismo comienzo. Está en nuestras manos resolverlo...

"La IGUALDAD requiere Acción".

National Politics and the Road to Equality

By Phillip Arroyo, President of the Young Democrats Association of America- Puerto Rico Chapter


Last week, The Young Republican Federation of America held their 2011 National Convention right here in the crossroads of the caribbean San Juan, Puerto Rico. As a young Puerto Rican - American I must say that I was pleased when I first learned that hundreds of young people from across our nation would be visiting our island, where they would enjoy our beaches, learn our culture, and stimulate our economy.

A day after the convention concluded, As Chairman of the PR Young Democrats, I publicly denounced and expressed how dismayed I was with the Republican Party for having turned their backs on the Puerto Rican people when they opposed the PR Democracy Act H.R. 2499 when it came down for a final vote last year. The bill would have facilitated a self determination process for the four million American citizens of the island. I also expressed the need for the drastic cuts to the Pell grant by the current Republican Congress to be reverted and support for comprehensive Immigration Reform be supported.

Now, I know many may be asking yourselves, wait a minute...Didn’t he just say that he was pleased with the Young Republicans convention taking place on the island? Of course I was; although the chairman of the Young Republicans, Mr. Daniel Ballori and I have very strong political differences at the national level where we have in more than one occasion clashed heads, we do have one common belief that unites us unconditionally..... political Equality.

This brings me to the main topic of this article; which is the importance of Puerto Ricans participating in the national political process. Although, we cannot vote for President of the United States and our sole member of Congress cannot vote on the floor of the US House of Representatives, it is my strong belief that our island's political status dilemma solution rests with increasing political activism within both the Republican and Democratic parties, lobbying issues that are of true importance to our constituents congruent with the respective national parties’ stances and courting Republican and Democratic candidates; only then will those of us who believe in a permanent relationship with the United States will be acting as what we truly are, an integral part of the United States of America.

How many times have we all been confronted with the following question from a fellow friend from the mainland United States: " So, are Republicans or Democrats a majority on the island?" The usual answer from us is, " Um..Well.... In Puerto Rico the political parties are not divided between Republicans and Democrats, it's complicated. Sit down , let me explain.." This will commonly open up to a long and thorough PR history and politics 101 briefing that usually causes more confusion than clarity to the curious person who asked.

Frankly, there should never be any consfusion in anybody's mind, much less any difficulty in explaining the political ambiensce on the island.

In Puerto Rico, the two major political parties are divided between the "New Progressive Party" which advocates for the island to become the 51st state of the union and the "Popular Democratic Party" which advocates for the continuation of the current territorial political status of Puerto Rico. Now, within the "statehood" party there Democrats and Republicans, whereas within the PDP, a significant majority identifies themselves with the Democratic Party.

Notable democratic figures within the statehood movement are Pedro Rossello former Governor of PR (1992-2000), current Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock and current Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi.

Current Governor Luis Fortuño, current Senate President Tomas Rivera Shatz and current House Speaker Jenniffer Gonzalez are all members of the Republican Party. On the PDP side, former Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila, current Senator Eduardo Bhatia and PR Democratic Party Chairman Roberto Prats are democrats. The sole issue that separates NPP and PDP democrats is the century long status debate; yep, you heard correctly, only one issue!

This political reality on the island has created severe divisiveness among the people of Puerto Rico, soley generated by that one issue, which has caused many people to complain that leaders of both the NPP and PDP concentrate too much on the PR political status issue and do not attend to the issues and problems that affect our quality of life. Issues like crime, health, the economy, education, etc. don’t seem to be as important as Puerto Rico’s colonial dilemma. As a statehooder, I am of those that is convinced that the vast majority, if not all political, social and economic problems of PR share one common denominator : Estado Libre Asociado; the current territorial and colonial relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico.

Nonetheless, the common problems that face the American citizens of Puerto Rico do not discriminate in regards to being a statehooder or a pro territory follower. We all have to put up with elevated crime, poor education, limited employment opportunities and a mediocre healthcare system regardless of who or what party is in power. As I always like to say, "There is only so much you can do under the current status quo".

Puerto Rico’s status resolution will be solved when the people of the island begin to participate in the national political process through the Democratic and Republican parties in genuine fashion and in accordance with the liberal or conservative agenda. This way, we will not only be generating a sense of inclusion of the people in the national debate, but we will also generate a true interest of the national parties in courting candidates on the island and expanding their powers. Congressional distribution is based on population, therefore, the island would have the right to at least five (5) members of Congress and two (2) U.S. senators. That’s more than close to twenty five (25) states! This may explain why the Democratic Party consistently supports self determination bills for the island as evidenced in 1998 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll037.xml) and 2010 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll242.xml).

To reinforce my argument it is important to see the history of the political parties in Hawaii and Alaska before entering the union as the 49th and 50th state respectively. The Republican and Democratic parties were the two (2) major parties of the territories of Hawaii and Alaska prior to entering the union. This fact shoots down the theories of those who say "national politics is not important until we become a state" or " la politica de alla, es la de alla y la de aqui es la de aqui".

As a matter of fact, the premier political parties of the U.S. territories of Guam and Virgin islands are the Republican and Democratic parties. None of the before mentioned territories possess a strong statehood movement. Only in Puerto Rico is where resistance to participate in the national political process so apparent even among many in the pro statehood party. Unless this changes, I fear we will continue to wrestle with the political status dilemma for another century and the people will continue to divide, only adding to the island’s already precarious social and political state. In a nutshell, the pro territory democrats will have to explain their contradiction of being democrats, but at the same time opposing the presidential vote and pro statehood democrats will have to start participating more at the national level like Hawaii and Alaska did as a mechanism of entering the union.

-Phillip Arroyo is a 29 year old Democrat. Hailing proudly from the island of enchantment Puerto Rico, USA. He is President of the Young Democrats of America Puerto Rico Chapter. Mr. Arroyo is on record at the United Nations in New York having testified in favor of the decolonization of Puerto Rico and has lobbied in Congress for the same purpose. On February 25th, 2009 he was appointed by the Governor of Puerto Rico to serve as a member of the Executive Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Committee. He is a Law School Student at Catholic University of Puerto Rico.

De ganar el PPD, ¿qué?

NELSON R. TORRES/ Voces - El Nuevo Día

Ante la Convención del PPD, he escuchado a un sinnúmero de líderes populares discutir y saborear un triunfo en el 2012. Ello dicen que el PNP “va a coger una pela en el 2012”, que “este gobierno no sirve”, que “si se despidieron a 30,000 empleados” (en realidad fueron 12,502 los despidos).

No he escuchado una sola idea de qué van hacer de alcanzar el poder. No me han dicho qué van a hacer con el IVU, ¿lo dejaran cómo está? ¿Volverán al antiguo formato de cobro de aranceles en los puertos?
¿Qué harán con la Reforma de Salud? ¿Volverán al modelo anterior? ¿Irán a un pagador único como Medicare/Medicaid? Nada, no he escuchado nada. ¿Qué van a hacer con el déficit? ¿Seguirán tomando préstamos? ¿Se harán de la vista larga y engordarán la nómina gubernamental de empleados sin tener de dónde pagarles?

¿Qué harán con el desarrollo económico? ¿Qué harán para crear empleos? ¿Qué van a hacer con el Turismo? Nada, no he escuchado nada. ¿Qué harán con el problema de la criminalidad y cómo piensan disminuir los asesinatos? Se preguntan por el famoso plan anticrimen: que yo recuerde ninguno de los 5 superintendentes anteriores, todos nominados por gobernadores del PPD, había presentado plan alguno. La verdad es que me gustaría ver uno, ya sea antiguo, reciente o a futuro.

Hablan contra el gasoducto. ¿Qué alternativa proponen? Si el mismo PPD propuso uno el cuatrienio pasado. La verdad, trato de entender, pero se me hace difícil encontrar coherencia en el discurso del PPD.

Proponen un candidato, que para ellos era el más “potable” que podían presentar; sin embargo, luego de su presentación con bombos y platillos, ahora brilla por su ausencia, ya sea por táctica política, por falta de ideas o reticencia a asumir posturas. Quisiera pensar, por el bien de Puerto Rico que sea por la primera.

Después de escuchar y escuchar tengo que concluir que lo que los líderes del PPD han estado diciendo es una andanada de demagogia y ataques sin ton ni son, sin otro objetivo que no sea alcanzar el poder por el poder mismo, y no como una herramienta para elevar el nivel de vida de los ciudadanos.
PPD, dime tu propuesta concreta.

La batalla por Puerto Rico

Por Hernan Padilla, MD.

El asesinato a plena luz del día del banquero en el Expreso Las Américas, los 30 asesinatos en el fin de semana de las Fiestas de San Juan y la redada antidrogas en La Perla evidencian la descomposición del tejido social.

En mayo se reportaron 21,059 delitos; 3,845 fueron delitos de violencia. En los primeros seis meses del año informan 567 asesinatos. Los datos sugieren que los narcos se matan entre ellos para controlar sus territorios y cobrar deudas de drogas. Lamentablemente, ciudadanos inocentes caen víctimas en esta infame confrontación.

Los recursos de personal con que cuenta la Policía para cumplir con su responsabilidad son limitados. Para el 2011-12 se asignan $766 millones y en teoría cuentan con 18,986 puestos. La realidad es que 6,907 plazas están en tareas que no son de vigilancia policíaca directa y que existen más de 2,500 plazas vacantes.

La Policía no tiene suficientes efectivos para llevar a cabo un buen plan de prevención. Aunque tendrá un aumento de $29.5 millones y reclutará 536 nuevos cadetes, no le asignaron dinero adicional para llenar miles de puestos vacantes. Es imperioso asignar más fondos a la Policía.
Prevención implica implantar programas para modificar la conducta de nuestros jóvenes, un cambio social-cultural a largo alcance. Mientras tanto, es necesario aumentar la vigilancia policial en las comunidades. La presencia masiva de policías en lugares de alta incidencia criminal tiene impacto preventivo inmediato y sostenido.

Un buen programa de prevención requiere tecnología moderna para derrotar el crimen y proteger los ciudadanos. En Memphis, Tennesse, redujeron el crimen en más de 30%, incluyendo una reducción de 15% en crímenes violentos.

El modelo utilizado fue desarrollado por IBM y el Departamento de Criminología y Justicia Criminal de la Universidad de Memphis. Este programa analítico de estadísticas criminales predice los “puntos calientes” para asignar recursos, personal, patrullaje, control de tránsito, operaciones e investigaciones específicamente dirigidas a sectores de alta actividad delictiva.
El nuevo superintendente Díaz Colón merece todo el respaldo para continuar con las redadas contra el narcotráfico, el “Golpe al Punto”, el “Grupo de los 100”, acelerar la reforma de la Policía y hacer realidad el proyecto de estadísticas computarizadas (COMPSTAT) para analizar estrategias para controlar el crimen.

Apoyo la iniciativa para un Centro de Información Criminal (Crime Information Warehouse), un nuevo programa para almacenar información de la Policía, Justicia, Corrección y DTOP en un sistema integrado disponible al momento de intervenir con un sospechoso de un crimen.
Las cámaras de televisión de circuito cerrado (CCTV) en lugares públicos son un instrumento efectivo comprobado para prevenir el crimen. Son un arma silente para evitar tráfico y venta de drogas y crímenes callejeros y condenar judicialmente a los delincuentes. Con una red de cámaras que ofrece imágenes inmediatas y en tiempo real, localizadas en lugares estratégicos y conectadas a un Centro de Mando, la Policía tendría información valiosa para tomar acción preventiva contra cualquier actividad delictiva o criminal.

Las cámaras de seguridad no violan los derechos de privacidad ciudadana. Son legalmente aceptadas. Se utilizan en centros de gobierno, centros judiciales, centros comerciales, hospitales, aeropuertos, estaciones de peaje y control de tráfico entre muchos otros. Varias ciudades que tienen instalados sistemas similares reportan éxito sustancial y reducción de la actividad criminal entre 36% a 66%. El factor multiplicador de una cámara científicamente instalada equivale a asignar cuatro policías uniformados a un sector que necesita vigilancia.
El gobierno tiene la inescapable obligación primaria de proteger la vida y hacienda de todos los ciudadanos. La guerra contra los narcos y sus corruptos aliados es la gran batalla por el alma de Puerto Rico, esencia de nuestra frágil sociedad libre y democrática.
“Tirar la toalla”, no puede ser una opción.

Secretario del PNP invita a José Alfredo Hernández Mayoral a afiliarse al PNP

COMUNICADO DE PRENSA

San Juan, P.R.- (8 de julio de 2012) El Secretario General y Comisionado Electoral del Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP), Ing. Héctor Morales invitó José Alfredo Hernández Mayoral y a todos los miembros del Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) que creen en la unión permanente con los Estados Unidos a que se unan al PNP, por ser este el único partido que cree en la unión permanente.

“La misma Carmén Yulín lo dijo que la única unión permanente es la estadidad y que los que crean en la unión permanente pueden irse al PNP. Por lo tanto, exhortamos a José Alfredo Hernández Mayoral y todos aquellos que creen en la unión permanente con los Estados Unidos, a que se afilien al PNP, somos el único Partido que garantiza la única unión permanente con los Estados Unidos” aseguró el Morales Vargas.

El Secretario General del PNP también indicó que la hoja de afiliación al Partido la puede conseguir en la página de internet www.pnppr.com o llamando a las oficinas del Comité Central en Hato Rey al 787-756-2012.

Juego de Estrellas: ¿Sera Algún Día Mundial?

Por Tony Menéndez

Este próximo martes, 12 de Julio tomara escena en la casa de los Cascabeles de Arizona la edicion numero 71 del Juego de las Estrellas de las Grandes Ligas.

Nombrado por muchos como el Clásico de Verano es el partido más esperado año tras año por los asiduos del deporte de los bates y guantes a mitad de campaña.

Vuelvo una vez más en mis columnas dejar saber saber mi idea que siempre he sido fiel creyente que el béisbol desde hace mucho tiempo es un juego de carácter mundial.

Será el pasatiempo américano pero ya desde hace muchisimo tiempo es uno de sabor internacional. Es uno que debe regresar al calendario olímpico y a favor de la expansion del Clasico Mundial de Beisbol.

Exactamente 10 calendarios atrás en un congreso periodistico de cronistas de la pelota mayor como parte de las festividades del partido de las luminarias en Seattle propuse que se cambiara el formato del Juego de las Estrellas a uno igual que el partido de los novatos del Juego de las Futuras Estrellas. Estados Unidos vs.El Mundo.

Vuelvo a proponer esta idea y para esta fantasia mia propongo mi selección del equipo del mundo sí este evento pudiera ser realidad este mismo año. Si bien nota cada roster esta temporada comprende de 34 jugadores tal como en el tradicional Juego de las Estrellas entre la Liga Americana y la Liga Nacional esta temporada en el desierto en Phoenix. También tomé en cuenta que el conjunto este integrado lo más posible de tener las máximas figuras actuales de América Latina, Canadá y Japón.

Es un poco tarde para ver esta sugerencia en el diamante pero este formato debe ser considerado en un futuro cercano.

Repito una vez más. Que bueno es soñar. El tiempo dirá.

Aquí está mi roster sí este fantastico juego fuese realidad. Quien sabe si las Grandes Ligas me tomen en serio y lo realizen para el 2012.

Equipo Todos Estrellas-El Mundo

Dirigente: Fredi Gonzalez (Bravos de Atlanta)

Coaches: Manny Acta (Indios de Cleveland); Ozzie Guillen (Medias Blancas de Chicago)

LANZADORES
Jair Jurrjens, Atlanta
Michael Pineda, Seattle
Yovani Gallardo, Milwaukee
Alexi Ogando, Texas
Jaime Garcia, San Luis
Felix Hernandez, Seattle
Jhoulys Chacin, Colorado
Anibal Sanchez, Florida
Carlos Marmol. Cachorros de Chicago
Francisco Cordero, Cincinnati
Mariano Rivera, Yankees de Nueva York
José Valverde, Detroit

RECEPTORES
Yadier Molina, San Luis
Victor Martinez, Detroit
Miguel Montero, Arizona

CUADRO INTERIOR
1B Albert Pujols, San Luis
1B Miguel Cabrera, Detroit
1B Adrian Gonzalez, Boston
1B David Ortiz, Boston
2B Robinson Cano, Yankees de Nueva York
2B Orlando Cabrera, Cleveland
SS José Reyes, Mets de Nueva York
SS Asdrubal Cabrera, Cleveland
SS Starlin Castro, Cachorros de Chicago
3B Placido Polnaco, Philadelphia
3B Adrian Beltre, Texas
3B Alex Rodriguez, Yankees de Nueva York

GUARDABOSQUES
Jose Bautista, Toronto
Carlos Gonzalez, Colorado
Ichiro Suzuki, Seattle
Carlos Beltran, Mets de Nueva York
Vladimir Guerrero, Baltimore
Melky Cabrera, Kansas City
Martin Prado, Atlanta

Tony Menéndez es un cronista deportivo de Puerto Rico, especializado en el béisbol de las Grandes Ligas, las ligas de invierno del Caribe y las Series del Caribe. Desde Miami escribe para The Puerto Rico Daily Sun y Revista Zona Sports de Puerto Rico y varias paginas de internet de beisbol en América Latina y los Estados Unidos. Es talento de ESPNDeportes Radio Miami y actualmente es el narrador de béisbol y baloncesto de los Huracanes de la Universidad de Miami. Cubrió los Clasicos Mundial de Béisbol 2006 y 2009 y cubre desde 1995 los Marlins de Florida en Miami. Ademas, cubre desde su base en Florida a los Rays de Tampa Bay.

http://MenendezTony.MLBlogs.com/

Economic inequality and its negative effects on society (Part 1)

By : DR. PEDRO ROSSELLÓ / caribbeanbusiness

Edition: July 7, 2011
(This is the first of a three-part series)

"We can have a democratic society, or we can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few; but we cannot have both." -Louis Brandeis

Recently, CARIBBEAN BUSINESS presented a plan for the economic development of Puerto Rico (June 9). In considering any general plan for economic development, let me suggest a fundamental element that should be included as a pillar of any plan: the issue of inequality.

In our public discourse, we have thoroughly argued the problems that political inequality can generate. At times, we have touched upon the hardships created when social inequality arbitrarily limits citizens' mobility within a society. But we have yet to fully ascertain the threats and challenges that economic inequality could pose for our contemporary society in Puerto Rico.

Economic disparity can be considered one of the greatest impediments to achieving a fair and prosperous society. There is ample empirical evidence and two basic premises driving this theory, the first being that a more equitable society is a better society. Implicit herein is the philosophy that a market economy should be driven not only by crude economic principles, but also by considerations of fairness, justice and care for the social environment.

The second premise is that increasing material economic standards does not always translate into a better quality of life for citizens. Historically, we have equated an increase in economic standards with a "better" life, presupposing that economic growth was the engine of prosperity. But recent studies point to the reality that prosperity through economic growth has all but stopped in the richest countries, and only continues to be an important factor in poor developing countries.

There is extreme economic inequality in our world today. The 400 richest people on the planet possess as much wealth as do the 3 billion in the world with the lowest incomes, who survive on less than $2 per day, per individual. Between 1987 and 1993, the population with an income of less than $1 a day grew by 100 million, reaching a total of 1.3 billion. By the beginning of this 21st century, the concentration of wealth was so unequal that 85% of the world's population represented only 7% of the world's markets.

The most structured index to measure inequality is the Gini coefficient, employed by the United Nations, which ranks countries on a scale from zero (0) [denoting the country with the most equality] to one (1) [denoting the greatest level of inequality].

Using this system, Namibia (0.707) ranks as the country with the highest inequality, while Japan (0.249) shows the greatest level of equality. Latin American and Caribbean nations rank among those with greater inequality: Bolivia, 0.601; Paraguay, 0.589; Colombia, 0.586; Brazil, 0.590; Panama, 0.561; Haiti, 0.592; and the Dominican Republic, 0.516. There is no official metric for Cuba. On the European front, Spain (0.347) and France (0.327) run close to Canada (0.376) and Australia (0.352) in terms of equality, while the Northern European nations of Sweden (0.250), Finland (0.269) and Denmark (0.257) follow right behind Japan as the world's most egalitarian societies.

In the United States we see a significant level of inequality, with a worrisome growth trend. After 1929, when the Gini coefficient was first reported at 0.450, the nation reached its highest level of equality in 1968 (0.386). Since the 1970s, the lowest level of equality was recorded in 2006 (0.470), stabilizing in 2009 (0.468). By 1995, 1% of the U.S. population controlled 47% of the wealth. After that, the government deregulation and free-market policies that existed between 1995 and 1999 allowed 86% of market gains to go to the richest 10%. At the time, just 1% of the population (2.7 million) owned as much wealth as the 100 million Americans with the lowest incomes.

In addition, over the three decades prior to 2000, the average income of American taxpayers went down 7%, while the income of the richest 1% rose by 148%...and the top 0.1% saw their income grow by 343%!

Regarding Puerto Rico, we could be forgiven for thinking that, as the territory with the lowest income per capita and greatest level of unemployment, it would have the greatest level of equality. Not so. In 2006 and 2007, our island had the highest level of inequality under the U.S. flag, with a Gini of 0.536 and 0.544, respectively. By municipality, Mayagüez (0.599) and San Juan (0.582) showed greater inequality; while Bayamón (0.462) and Toa Baja (0.479) showed less.
What effect might these inequities have on the quality of life of our people?
There is a proven correlation between levels of illness and social problems and levels of inequality. For a given level of income, it is better to live in a more egalitarian place. Egalitarian societies tend to be healthier—there is less infant mortality, longer life expectancy and less mental illness. They also report less usage of illicit substances, less incidence of violence, fewer teenage pregnancies, and higher levels of academic achievement. On this last point, it has already been established that academic achievement depends on the equality gradient of a society—the greater the equality, the higher the general level of education.

Conversely, inequality tends to render countries and jurisdictions socially dysfunctional across an entire spectrum of indicators. A quick glance over recent local headlines reveals serious signs of social dysfunction: escalating crime and violence, decreasing academic performance and education levels, and unremitting examples of public- and private-sector corruption.
All these realities point to an undeniable fact: The optimal development of a society is achieved as its citizens become ever more equal. So equality becomes far more than a moral question regarding how to behave as a society; it becomes a practical matter of allowing the most favorable advancement of our people.

What can we do to mitigate this alarming inequality? Which public policies could drive us to achieve greater equality, and therefore greater justice and progress?
We shall address these important questions in our next column.

Rossello v. United States and the Right to Vote for Puerto Rico

By Jo McKeegan / Published July 5, 2011

During a week in which we celebrate the American colonies for seeking independence in large part due to denial of representation in the British parliament, it’s time for us to have a candid conversation about voting rights in our own present day “colonies”, starting with the American territory of Puerto Rico.

Brought in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by former governor of Puerto Rico Pedro Rossello, Rossello v. United States addresses the lack of a right to cast a ballot and have such ballots counted in national elections for president and Congress by residents of Puerto Rico. Petitioner Rossello has been disenfranchised, along with all other residents of Puerto Rico, despite his American citizenship, based solely on his area of residence within the United States. Currently, any American moving their residence to Puerto Rico would similarly be disenfranchised. This glaring discrimination against United States citizens living in Puerto Rico cannot be allowed to continue under international law and FairVote fully supports Rossello in his efforts.

The United States government is improperly denying the ability to vote to at least 3.7 million of its citizens in stating that the Resident Commission non-voting member of Congress is sufficient to address Puerto Rico’s needs. It is simply not reasonable to believe that one non-voting representative to Congress is equivalent to two senators, approximately six members of the House of Representatives, and a vote for the president and a vice president. The residents of Puerto Rico are being systematically disenfranchised and relegated to second class citizenship by their own government.

Puerto Rico’s current disenfranchised status is not acceptable. Unemployment in Puerto Rico is over 16% - grotesquely high even in an area where unemployment is always higher than that of the mainland. Residents of Puerto Rico pay the same social security and Medicaid taxes as mainlanders; however, they generally receive about 93% less in Medicaid coverage, something many believe is due to Puerto Rico’s inability to lobby for itself in Congress. Puerto Rico is hemorrhaging over 35,000 people a year and those who do leave are usually the highest educated, highly skilled, young, and Republican. In short, not having a voice at the national level is having a real effect on four million American lives.

Failing to provide basic suffrage rights to Puerto Rico is particularly ironic in a time of way when Puerto Rican Americans serve in our armed services at higher rates than most of our states. Petitioner claims that no other area of the United States suffered so many casualties of war prior to becoming a state as Puerto Rico has, or had more decorated and high ranking service members. Puerto Rican soldiers can be ordered into battle by a Commander in Chief for whom they have no power to vote.


And yet all evidence demonstrates that Puerto Ricans greatly value suffrage rights. Voter turnout in election for governor of Puerto Rico are higher than the gubernatorial election of any governor in the United States. In fact, 81% of the 2.4 million registered voters went to the polls in 2004, and Puerto Ricans make Election Day a holiday for their elections.

Voting rights in other American "colonies" differ. The phrase “the Constitution does not follow the flag” is often tossed around during this conversation to justify the varying levels of right in territories held by the United States. Additionally, “territory” is a broad term. For example, Americans living in American Samoa are U.S. nationals, but not U.S. citizens. The U.S. Virgin Islands require American citizens from the mainland to go through customs. Guam’s constitutional has never been approved by the Unites States Congress. People with residence in any territory, including Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa all have no right to vote for national representatives, in the form of a voting member of Congress or a elector vote for the U.S. President.

The political leaders of an American territory should not have to sue their own country in an international court in order to be heard as full citizens. But the series of cases controlling Puerto Rico’s status are racist (written by the same court as Plessy v. Ferguson) and a national embarrassment. Under the current system, without a right to vote in the national government, the discrimination against American citizens living in its colonies/territories will continue. For that reason, FairVote supports the efforts of Rossello on behalf the 3.7 million disenfranchised Puerto Ricans in his attempt to gain the voting right he is due as an American citizen.

President Obama’s recent visit to Puerto Rico was the first such state visit since one by President John Kennedy, and even that first-in-a-half-century visit was seen by many analysts as primarily a means to raise campaign funds and appeal to Puerto Ricans living in the continental United States. The president's pledge to support the will of Puerto Ricans should they vote on statehood again ("When the people of Puerto Rico make a clear decision, my administration will stand by you.") is welcome—but no substitute for immediately seeking means to address the broader problem of how we treat American citizens living in Puerto Rico.