Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta USA. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta USA. Mostrar todas las entradas
jueves, 20 de septiembre de 2012
sábado, 10 de septiembre de 2011
Vice President Biden's 9-11 remarks at Shanksville, PA
REMARKS BY VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN
AT DEDICATION OF FLIGHT 93 MEMORIAL
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
2:25 P.M. EDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, I’m honored to be standing here today, standing with two former Presidents.
President Clinton, as he said, the passengers on Flight 93 knew that our common humanity is what united us most. Well, Mr. President, the same can be said of you. You spent your time as President, and the years since, deeply committed to embracing and strengthening our common humanity. (Applause.) And, Mr. President, we all thank you for what you’ve done and what you continue to do.
Let me also recognize a man responsible for bringing our country together at a time when it could have been torn apart, for making it clear that America could not be brought to her knees, and helping us stand tall and strike back -- President George W. Bush. (Applause.) In the darkest hour of our generation, your voice and leadership, Mr. President, helped us find our way. And for that, you deserve our gratitude for a long, long time. (Applause.)
And I say now to the families that are gathered here today, I know what it’s like to receive that call out of the blue, like a bolt out of the blue. And I know this is a bittersweet moment for you. And I want to tell you, you have a lot more courage than I had. You have a lot more courage just by being here today, because I know, and many others know, how hard it is to relive these moments, because it brings everything back in stark, stark relief and stark detail.
But I also know, like your loved ones, what you probably don’t know, that you are literally an inspiration to the thousands of people across this country who right now are feeling the loss of an intense tragedy that they’re suffering. They know, looking at you, watching you on television today, that there’s hope to be found after tragedy, that there’s rebirth in the face of death. You, in a sense, are as courageous as your family members were. And we owe you all for being here today, just the act of being here. (Applause.)
We’re here today to remember and honor 40 men and women who gave their lives so others could live theirs -- decent, honorable women and men who never imagined 10 years ago tomorrow that when they said goodbye to their children, when they kissed their loved ones goodbye and walked through that door, that they were doing it for the very last time.
They didn’t know the horror that awaited them, but they confronted unimaginable fear and terror with a courage that has been summoned only by the truest and the rarest of American heroes -- 40 names etched on each of those panels on the wall, the Wall of Names. But, more than that, their names are going to be, as President Bush said, etched forever into American history. They join an incredibly elite list of women and men, and a long history filled with ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things -- men and women of undaunted courage, uncommon resolve, and a stubborn perseverance in the face of unfathomable challenge.
We teach our children that these are qualities ingrained into our national character as Americans. And I believe they are. They animate our national identity. And I believe they will continue to define America, because of the example of the men and women who we pay tribute today, the passengers and the crew of Flight 93.
None of them asked for what happened. They didn’t go on that plane -- they didn’t board that plane to fight a war. But when they heard the news, when they found out what happened in New York, they knew that they were going through, it was something more than a hijacking. They knew it was the opening shot in a new war.
And so, they acted. They acted as citizen patriots have acted since the beginning of our country. They stood up and they stood their ground. They thought, like Captain Parker said at Lexington, and I quote him, “If they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
As many times as I recall, and all of you who are not family members like me, have recalled this incident time and again over the last 10 years, I never fail to be astonished, literally astonished by the courage they demonstrated.
And so, we stand where it began. We think of them. We think of our nation. We think of our history and we think of the future. And we think of it, because of them, with a confidence knowing that ordinary citizens will continue to stare down fear, overwhelm evil, and bring forth hope from what seems to be none. And although it will continue to amaze us and inspire us when it happens, it should not surprise us. For that heroism is who we are. And that courage lies deepest and beats loudest in the heart of this nation.
We know that these 40 men and women were more than ordinary Americans to all of you sitting in front of me. They were more than passengers and crews. They were already heroes. They were already heroes to you.
They were the father that tucked you in bed at night. They were the wife who knew your fears before you even expressed them. They were the brother who lifted you up. They were the daughter who made you laugh. They were the son who made you proud. They are irreplaceable. I know that. We know that.
And we know, and I know, that no memorial -- no words, no acts -- can fill the void that they left in your hearts. My prayer for you is that 10 years later, their memory is able to bring a smile to your lips before it brings a tear to your eye. And I hope you take comfort in knowing that a grateful nation understands that your loved ones gave their lives in pursuit of the noblest of earthly goals: defending their country, defending their families, sacrificing their lives so we could live ours. Those of us who were in Washington that day, without knowing it for sure at the time, now know we owe them an overwhelming special, personal debt of gratitude.
The collective spirit of your mother, your father, your brother, your husband, your wife, your sister, your best friend -- that spirit lives on not only in you, but in your country. It lives on in the Cross of Steel made from the World Trade Center beams, placed on a Pentagon-shaped platform that rests proudly outside the Shanksville Volunteer Fire Department. (Applause.) That Cross of Steel is an enduring symbol of the steel and the spine of this region, and the spine of this country.
And it definitely lives on in a new generation of warriors -- the 9/11 Generation, inspired by what happened here, 2.8 million young Americans since 9/11, that 9/11 generation, have joined the United States Armed Forces -- thousands giving their lives and tens of thousands being wounded to finish the war that began right here.
Maya Angelou wrote, and I quote, “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived. However, if faced with courage, need not be lived again.”
Ladies and gentlemen -- we are not here to unlive history. We are here to honor those whose courage made history and is going to inspire generations of Americans to come.
So, I say to you, even as we struggle with this tragedy, even as we grapple with the profound loss and devastating grief, we can look up at the heavens and think of these heroes and know, know with certitude that there is not a single, solitary tragedy that America cannot overcome. There is not a single moment of hardship that cannot be transformed into one of national strength. The seeds of doubt, planted by those who wish to harm us, will instead grow into flowering meadows like this one where we stand in today, for they cannot defeat the American spirit. We know this with certainty. We know it with certainty, because it’s the history of the journey of this country at every stage of our history. (Applause.)
As President Clinton knows, my mother used to say, “Courage lies in every heart.” And she would go on to say, “And the expectation is that, Joey, one day it will be summoned.” “Courage lies in every heart, and one day it will be summoned.” On September 11, 2001, at 9:57 a.m., it was summoned and 40 incredible men and women answered the call. They gave their lives and, in doing so, gave this country a new life.
We owe them. We owe you a debt we can never repay. Thank you all. Thank you, family members. And may God bless you. And may God protect our troops. (Applause.)
END 2:40 P.M. EDT
sábado, 13 de agosto de 2011
Puerto Rico Fires Up Housing Market
By WESLEY LOWERY
TOP STORIES IN U.S.
The Wall Street Journal
Home sales are sizzling.
In Puerto Rico.
A stimulus program on the island, long ripe with vacant houses and condos, has sent sales of new homes surging 80% and sales of existing homes up 24% in the past 10 months from a year earlier, even as the market in much of the U.S. mainland is dead.
The incentive plan, juiciest for new homes, has played a part in $2.6 billion worth of sales from its launch in September through July, according to the Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority. The program, which includes a variety of tax breaks for both buyers and sellers of residential and commercial properties, was rolled out by Gov. Luis Fortuño as part of his effort to revive the commonwealth's economy.
"This program could provide a road map for the rest of the country if the U.S. wants to get out of this recession," said Mr. Fortuño, who took office in 2009 and is seeking re-election next year.
But Puerto Rico's efforts aren't likely to be matched on a broad scale by the states, whose governments are slashing budgets. Puerto Rico, for its part, has already done a lot of budget cutting and is currently running a deficit of about $605 million, compared to $3.3 billion when Mr. Fortuño took office.
And it was home-buying incentives, used heavily during the housing boom by buyers short on cash, that helped trigger the national mortgage crisis, as many borrowers defaulted. Puerto Rican housing officials say each borrower is evaluated to assess the loan's risk.
Puerto Rico experienced many of the same boom-to-bust and overbuilding problems as the rest of the nation and currently has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the U.S. The rate in the first quarter was 10.2% of all mortgages, higher than the national average of 8.1%, though not as high as Florida's, which at 18.97% was the highest in the U.S.
Few of the major U.S. mortgage lenders have a significant presence in Puerto Rico, where lending is dominated by banks such as San Juan-based Banco Popular, the island's largest lender. The bank originated nearly half of all new-home mortgages that qualified for the incentive program, according to Gilbert Monzon, director of Banco Popular's mortgage-lending division.
One of the incentive program's popular provisions offers qualified buyers down-payment assistance for homes purchased with a mortgage, as well as a second mortgage of as much as $25,000 that can be used to make down payments and pay closing costs. Buyers of new homes also pay no transfer taxes when a property changes hands, escape paying property taxes for five years and future capital-gains taxes, and pay no taxes on rental income for 10 years. Sellers don't have to pay capital-gains taxes on profits.
One major goal of the program is to boost demand for the nearly 10,000 vacant homes scattered across the island. Some are foreclosures; others are new condominiums left over from the nation's construction boom. The program was set to expire June 30, but in July Mr. Fortuño said he would extend it through Oct. 31.
Puerto Rico says the infusion of government funds into the housing market is starting to trickle down to its population of about four million. For the first time since 2006, the commonwealth closed its fiscal year, which ends June 30, with a net gain in jobs. The unemployment rate edged down to 16% in May from 16.7% a year earlier.
"It's too soon for an official declaration, but the economic indicators say we've bottomed out and the recession has ended," said Juan Lara, an economist at the University of Puerto Rico. He said the housing incentives deserved some of the credit.
As for the second mortgages, they are "silent seconds," held by the government rather than by banks. The government has dished out $60 million of funding for more than 4,500 silent seconds so far. More than a quarter of the mortgages would have to be foreclosed on for the government to incur losses, said George Joyner, executive director of the Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority.
The tax incentives forgo a portion of future revenue. But "these are sales that wouldn't be happening otherwise. We'd rather take 50% of the revenue than not get anything at all," said Edward Calvesbert, deputy secretary of the Economic Development and Commerce Department. The silent seconds and down-payment assistance are financed largely by a $500 million economic-stimulus program passed in March 2009 and the Housing Finance Authority's annual budget. "Everybody realized the importance of restarting the real estate market after the crash," Mr. Calvesbert said.
Carmenchi Garcia, a San Juan real-estate agent, said sales had picked up at Ciudadela Nordeste, a new five-story condo building in Guaynabo, where prices range from $275,000 to $355,000. She sold three of the building's 19 units in the six months after the building opened in July of last year. So far this year, she has sold seven units, and credits the pickup in sales to the incentives. Ms. Garcia described buyers as "a mix of people returning to Puerto Rico from the states as well as locals with a steady income who have been holding out for a deal."
Real-estate agents say some existing homes and condos in older buildings, which appeal mainly to the local population, are selling more slowly. Sergio Marxuach, policy director at the Center for the New Economy, a Puerto Rican economic think tank, said one reason was that the targeted consumers—who still need steady employment and good credit—couldn't get mortgages. "A large number of potential buyers don't qualify," Mr. Marxuach said.
Jeff Kruse, an engineer, said that had made it difficult for him to sell his four-bedroom house in San German, which has an asking price of $224,000. He said banks had refused to grant a loan to his preferred buyer. "The incentives may be the reason we found a buyer," Mr. Kruse said. "But even then the banks are doing their best to spoil the deal."
TOP STORIES IN U.S.
The Wall Street Journal
Home sales are sizzling.
In Puerto Rico.
A stimulus program on the island, long ripe with vacant houses and condos, has sent sales of new homes surging 80% and sales of existing homes up 24% in the past 10 months from a year earlier, even as the market in much of the U.S. mainland is dead.
The incentive plan, juiciest for new homes, has played a part in $2.6 billion worth of sales from its launch in September through July, according to the Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority. The program, which includes a variety of tax breaks for both buyers and sellers of residential and commercial properties, was rolled out by Gov. Luis Fortuño as part of his effort to revive the commonwealth's economy.
"This program could provide a road map for the rest of the country if the U.S. wants to get out of this recession," said Mr. Fortuño, who took office in 2009 and is seeking re-election next year.
But Puerto Rico's efforts aren't likely to be matched on a broad scale by the states, whose governments are slashing budgets. Puerto Rico, for its part, has already done a lot of budget cutting and is currently running a deficit of about $605 million, compared to $3.3 billion when Mr. Fortuño took office.
And it was home-buying incentives, used heavily during the housing boom by buyers short on cash, that helped trigger the national mortgage crisis, as many borrowers defaulted. Puerto Rican housing officials say each borrower is evaluated to assess the loan's risk.
Puerto Rico experienced many of the same boom-to-bust and overbuilding problems as the rest of the nation and currently has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the U.S. The rate in the first quarter was 10.2% of all mortgages, higher than the national average of 8.1%, though not as high as Florida's, which at 18.97% was the highest in the U.S.
Few of the major U.S. mortgage lenders have a significant presence in Puerto Rico, where lending is dominated by banks such as San Juan-based Banco Popular, the island's largest lender. The bank originated nearly half of all new-home mortgages that qualified for the incentive program, according to Gilbert Monzon, director of Banco Popular's mortgage-lending division.
One of the incentive program's popular provisions offers qualified buyers down-payment assistance for homes purchased with a mortgage, as well as a second mortgage of as much as $25,000 that can be used to make down payments and pay closing costs. Buyers of new homes also pay no transfer taxes when a property changes hands, escape paying property taxes for five years and future capital-gains taxes, and pay no taxes on rental income for 10 years. Sellers don't have to pay capital-gains taxes on profits.
One major goal of the program is to boost demand for the nearly 10,000 vacant homes scattered across the island. Some are foreclosures; others are new condominiums left over from the nation's construction boom. The program was set to expire June 30, but in July Mr. Fortuño said he would extend it through Oct. 31.
Puerto Rico says the infusion of government funds into the housing market is starting to trickle down to its population of about four million. For the first time since 2006, the commonwealth closed its fiscal year, which ends June 30, with a net gain in jobs. The unemployment rate edged down to 16% in May from 16.7% a year earlier.
"It's too soon for an official declaration, but the economic indicators say we've bottomed out and the recession has ended," said Juan Lara, an economist at the University of Puerto Rico. He said the housing incentives deserved some of the credit.
As for the second mortgages, they are "silent seconds," held by the government rather than by banks. The government has dished out $60 million of funding for more than 4,500 silent seconds so far. More than a quarter of the mortgages would have to be foreclosed on for the government to incur losses, said George Joyner, executive director of the Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority.
The tax incentives forgo a portion of future revenue. But "these are sales that wouldn't be happening otherwise. We'd rather take 50% of the revenue than not get anything at all," said Edward Calvesbert, deputy secretary of the Economic Development and Commerce Department. The silent seconds and down-payment assistance are financed largely by a $500 million economic-stimulus program passed in March 2009 and the Housing Finance Authority's annual budget. "Everybody realized the importance of restarting the real estate market after the crash," Mr. Calvesbert said.
Carmenchi Garcia, a San Juan real-estate agent, said sales had picked up at Ciudadela Nordeste, a new five-story condo building in Guaynabo, where prices range from $275,000 to $355,000. She sold three of the building's 19 units in the six months after the building opened in July of last year. So far this year, she has sold seven units, and credits the pickup in sales to the incentives. Ms. Garcia described buyers as "a mix of people returning to Puerto Rico from the states as well as locals with a steady income who have been holding out for a deal."
Real-estate agents say some existing homes and condos in older buildings, which appeal mainly to the local population, are selling more slowly. Sergio Marxuach, policy director at the Center for the New Economy, a Puerto Rican economic think tank, said one reason was that the targeted consumers—who still need steady employment and good credit—couldn't get mortgages. "A large number of potential buyers don't qualify," Mr. Marxuach said.
Jeff Kruse, an engineer, said that had made it difficult for him to sell his four-bedroom house in San German, which has an asking price of $224,000. He said banks had refused to grant a loan to his preferred buyer. "The incentives may be the reason we found a buyer," Mr. Kruse said. "But even then the banks are doing their best to spoil the deal."
martes, 9 de agosto de 2011
El Plebiscito: La gran oportunidad del 2012
Por José F. Rovira
Ex- Presidente PRSSA- UPR-RP
Despierta Estadista, Inc
En el 2012 se pronostica que se celebrara un plebiscito de status en la isla de Puerto Rico el primero desde el 1998. Esto no solo debemos verlo como el cumplimiento de una promesa de campaña debemos verlo como una gran oportunidad en donde se está en el momento adecuado. Todo parece caer al pie de la letra y hasta les diría que la oportunidad de celebrar este plebiscito lo mas tardar en el 2012 me recuerda un suceso parecido hace unas décadas donde 2 territorios se veían en la misma situación. Les hablo de Hawaii y Alaska. ¿Se preguntaran porque nuestra situación se parece a esta del pasado? Sencillo: no somos los únicos que probablemente celebremos un plebiscito de status en el 2012.
El territorio de Guam que en 1898 también se convirtió en posesión de los Estados Unidos como Puerto Rico tiene pautado decidir su futuro político en el 2012. Según encuestas llevadas a cabo por la Universidad de Guam el 57% de los nativos creen en la estadidad y el 76% en la ciudadanía americana, así que podríamos ya pronosticar el resultado de este proceso para Guam. Nosotros no nos quedamos atrás. En la última encuesta donde se pregunta a los puertorriqueños que opción favorecería los números son casi parecidos a esos en Guam. Podemos decir que para el 2012 los Estados Unidos se verá con la situación de tener que rechazar o aceptar como estado no a uno sino a dos de sus territorios. La historia parece repetirse nuevamente para la gran nación.
En los 40 ocurrieron tres cosas. Al igual que hoy la nación se encontraba en guerra, crisis económica y tanto Hawaii como Alaska llevaron a cabo plebiscitos en donde en ambos casos, como ya sabemos, prevaleció la Estadidad. No fue hasta el 1959 que el Congreso lo hizo oficial. ¿Por que tardaron tanto? Todo fue por un “issue” de poder en el Congreso. Hawaii era muy republicano para los demócratas y Alaska muy demócrata para los republicanos así que individualmente para estos territorios el asunto no iba a resolverse mientras ambos partidos temieran perder poder. La gran solución al problema fue sencilla. Se creó lo que llamaríamos un “package” en donde para balancear el poder se le otorgo simultáneamente la estadidad a ambos territorios.
Este debe ser el ejemplo a seguir tanto para Guam como Puerto Rico. Guam es considerado republicano y Puerto Rico en su mayoría demócrata y digo mayoría porque sabemos que en nuestra isla una buena cantidad de personas son conservadoras y estoy seguro votarían republicano. Además tengan presente que las raíces del PNP son republicanas. Tanto Fortuño, Jennifer, Aponte y Santini son republicanos. Dicho esto entiendo que podemos llevar al Congreso una oferta de estadidad balanceada al Congreso. 2 senadores para cada partido y de 6 congresistas me atrevo a decir que serán 3 para cada uno además de se le dará la oportunidad a unos 3.9 millones de ciudadanos americanos entre ambos territorios a poder acabar con el coloniaje y disfrutar de su ciudadanía plena. Por eso le sugiero al gobierno de Puerto Rico que decida la fecha para el plebiscito lo más pronto posible y que dentro de dicha propuesta extendamos una mano aliada al territorio de Guam para que juntos luchemos por lo que ambos queremos: Dignidad e igualdad.
Ex- Presidente PRSSA- UPR-RP
Despierta Estadista, Inc
En el 2012 se pronostica que se celebrara un plebiscito de status en la isla de Puerto Rico el primero desde el 1998. Esto no solo debemos verlo como el cumplimiento de una promesa de campaña debemos verlo como una gran oportunidad en donde se está en el momento adecuado. Todo parece caer al pie de la letra y hasta les diría que la oportunidad de celebrar este plebiscito lo mas tardar en el 2012 me recuerda un suceso parecido hace unas décadas donde 2 territorios se veían en la misma situación. Les hablo de Hawaii y Alaska. ¿Se preguntaran porque nuestra situación se parece a esta del pasado? Sencillo: no somos los únicos que probablemente celebremos un plebiscito de status en el 2012.
El territorio de Guam que en 1898 también se convirtió en posesión de los Estados Unidos como Puerto Rico tiene pautado decidir su futuro político en el 2012. Según encuestas llevadas a cabo por la Universidad de Guam el 57% de los nativos creen en la estadidad y el 76% en la ciudadanía americana, así que podríamos ya pronosticar el resultado de este proceso para Guam. Nosotros no nos quedamos atrás. En la última encuesta donde se pregunta a los puertorriqueños que opción favorecería los números son casi parecidos a esos en Guam. Podemos decir que para el 2012 los Estados Unidos se verá con la situación de tener que rechazar o aceptar como estado no a uno sino a dos de sus territorios. La historia parece repetirse nuevamente para la gran nación.
En los 40 ocurrieron tres cosas. Al igual que hoy la nación se encontraba en guerra, crisis económica y tanto Hawaii como Alaska llevaron a cabo plebiscitos en donde en ambos casos, como ya sabemos, prevaleció la Estadidad. No fue hasta el 1959 que el Congreso lo hizo oficial. ¿Por que tardaron tanto? Todo fue por un “issue” de poder en el Congreso. Hawaii era muy republicano para los demócratas y Alaska muy demócrata para los republicanos así que individualmente para estos territorios el asunto no iba a resolverse mientras ambos partidos temieran perder poder. La gran solución al problema fue sencilla. Se creó lo que llamaríamos un “package” en donde para balancear el poder se le otorgo simultáneamente la estadidad a ambos territorios.
Este debe ser el ejemplo a seguir tanto para Guam como Puerto Rico. Guam es considerado republicano y Puerto Rico en su mayoría demócrata y digo mayoría porque sabemos que en nuestra isla una buena cantidad de personas son conservadoras y estoy seguro votarían republicano. Además tengan presente que las raíces del PNP son republicanas. Tanto Fortuño, Jennifer, Aponte y Santini son republicanos. Dicho esto entiendo que podemos llevar al Congreso una oferta de estadidad balanceada al Congreso. 2 senadores para cada partido y de 6 congresistas me atrevo a decir que serán 3 para cada uno además de se le dará la oportunidad a unos 3.9 millones de ciudadanos americanos entre ambos territorios a poder acabar con el coloniaje y disfrutar de su ciudadanía plena. Por eso le sugiero al gobierno de Puerto Rico que decida la fecha para el plebiscito lo más pronto posible y que dentro de dicha propuesta extendamos una mano aliada al territorio de Guam para que juntos luchemos por lo que ambos queremos: Dignidad e igualdad.
domingo, 31 de julio de 2011
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
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
jueves, 28 de julio de 2011
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.
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!
domingo, 29 de mayo de 2011
The vicious circle of tornadoes
By Kenneth D. McClintock
This spring, a record number of tornadoes has killed a record number of victims, not only in the traditional tornado-alley of the midwest, but in the south and eastern seaboard of the United States, as well. As always, the President shows up to view the damage and hug a few victims and FEMA provides not only immediate assistance but billions of dollars to reconstruct that which has been lost.
In Puerto Rico, FEMA doesn't allow flood victims to reconstruct in floodable, low-lying areas. The federal agency also requires that destroyed wooden homes be rebuilt in concrete. However, those common-sensical rules in Puerto Rico are lost when FEMA alllows wooden homes to be reconstructed in wood back in the tornado-alleys of the nation. As a result, property insurance policy-holders throughout the nation pay for that mistake.
This year's record-high toll---in damages and deaths---should lead FEMA and the Federal government to do away with penny-wise, pound-fooloish building codes and start requiring rebuilding in concrete and steel, rather than wood, unsupported brick, cardboard roof shingles, superficial stucco and cardboard.
While it is more costly initially to build in weather-insulated concrete and steel, in the long-run, lower insurance premium rates and lower FEMA expenditures will save money, and the sturdier construction will save lives.
In Puerto Rico, every meteorological disaster has strengthened Puerto Rico against future disasters, and that strengthening is resulting in lower FEMA expenditures, lower insurance premiums and fewer lives lost in hurricanes and other weather-related events. In Puerto Rico, we don't use wood; we use concrete. In Puerto Rico we don't use unsupported brick, but concrete-reinforced walls that may be decorated with brick. In Puerto Rico, we don't use decorative stucco to hide the fact that there's only wood and cardboard behind; we use concrete plaster to hide reinforced concrete bricks or poured concrete walls. In Puerto Rico, we don't replace wooden roofs every ten or twenty years nor replace cardboard shingles every few years; we build concrete roofs that never require replacing.
The richest nation in the world should start investing as much in structurally-sound construction as its poorest territory invests.
This spring, a record number of tornadoes has killed a record number of victims, not only in the traditional tornado-alley of the midwest, but in the south and eastern seaboard of the United States, as well. As always, the President shows up to view the damage and hug a few victims and FEMA provides not only immediate assistance but billions of dollars to reconstruct that which has been lost.
In Puerto Rico, FEMA doesn't allow flood victims to reconstruct in floodable, low-lying areas. The federal agency also requires that destroyed wooden homes be rebuilt in concrete. However, those common-sensical rules in Puerto Rico are lost when FEMA alllows wooden homes to be reconstructed in wood back in the tornado-alleys of the nation. As a result, property insurance policy-holders throughout the nation pay for that mistake.
This year's record-high toll---in damages and deaths---should lead FEMA and the Federal government to do away with penny-wise, pound-fooloish building codes and start requiring rebuilding in concrete and steel, rather than wood, unsupported brick, cardboard roof shingles, superficial stucco and cardboard.
While it is more costly initially to build in weather-insulated concrete and steel, in the long-run, lower insurance premium rates and lower FEMA expenditures will save money, and the sturdier construction will save lives.
In Puerto Rico, every meteorological disaster has strengthened Puerto Rico against future disasters, and that strengthening is resulting in lower FEMA expenditures, lower insurance premiums and fewer lives lost in hurricanes and other weather-related events. In Puerto Rico, we don't use wood; we use concrete. In Puerto Rico we don't use unsupported brick, but concrete-reinforced walls that may be decorated with brick. In Puerto Rico, we don't use decorative stucco to hide the fact that there's only wood and cardboard behind; we use concrete plaster to hide reinforced concrete bricks or poured concrete walls. In Puerto Rico, we don't replace wooden roofs every ten or twenty years nor replace cardboard shingles every few years; we build concrete roofs that never require replacing.
The richest nation in the world should start investing as much in structurally-sound construction as its poorest territory invests.
lunes, 9 de mayo de 2011
El ELA No Tiene Zapata Jurídica
Por Hernan Padilla, MD.
El Informe aprobado por el Comité de Recursos Naturales del Congreso sobre el status de Puerto Rico llega a la conclusión inescapable, el ELA carece de zapata jurídica constitucional. Así lo entiende el Congresista Serrano, puertorriqueño serio y valiente.
Aquellos que creen en la mentira del “pacto bilateral”, entiendan que un plebiscito ordenado por el Congreso seria regido por las Leyes Federales. Los Tribunales Federales tendrán jurisdicción exclusiva para resolver controversias. Cual “pacto bilateral”?
La Constitución de Los Estados Unidos define solo cuatro formas de status políticos: Estados, el Distrito Federal, las Tribus Indígenas, y los Territorios.
La Cláusula Territorial cede al Congreso el poder de gobernar los territorios, como Puerto Rico, en asuntos locales y Nacionales. El Tribunal Supremo decidió que los Estados Unidos pueden ejercer soberanía y gobernar los territorios no incorporados, como Puerto Rico. Los derechos Constitucionales no aplican automáticamente a los Territorios.
La Ciudadanía Americana, que apreciamos los puertorriqueños, la concedió el Congreso mediante una ley, no la Constitución. La Ciudadanía Americana la cobija la “soberanía” del la Nación Americana.
La Ley 600 autorizo a Puerto Rico a tener nuestra propia Constitución para un gobierno puramente insular. La relación Territorial continua bajo el “Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act”. El alegado “pacto” nunca existió.
Muñoz Marín acepto públicamente que la Ley 600 no elimino el poder plenario y exclusivo del Congreso sobre Puerto Rico. La historia legislativa reitera que la autoridad del Congreso sobre Puerto Rico es absoluta y plenaria. El Congreso administra la Cláusula Territorial y provee las condiciones para la eventual incorporación a la Nación como Estado Federado.
La Constitución de Puerto Rico no define un cambio político. Las Leyes del 1950 y 1952 no autorizaron “libre asociación” con los Estados Unidos. Los Populares se inventaron la “gran mentira” del pacto bilateral. El pacto bilateral nunca existió. El Congreso nunca cedió su autoridad sobre Puerto Rico. Esta es la cruda realidad de la colonia.
El “Commonwealth” no es un “status político y no implica un status diferente. Puerto Rico es un Territorio; no es una Nación soberana en libre asociación con los Estados Unidos. Esta es la gran mentira. Su nombre es ELA, su apellido colonia.
El Tribunal Supremo Federal dictamino que la Cláusula Territorial opera en PR. El Congreso tiene el poder para aprobar todas las reglas y reglamentos sobre el Territorio. (Harris vs. Rosario, 1980). La Cláusula Territorial y todas las leyes federales son la Ley Suprema en Puerto Rico (Rodríguez vs. PPD, 1982).
La nueva propuesta del ELA culminado contiene principios que fueron “rechazados” y no aceptables para al Congreso.
La Administración del Presidente Clinton determino que la propuesta del PPD de un ELA culminado (Enhanced Commonwealth) viola la Constitución y no es aceptable. La propuesta de “consentimiento mutuo” (pacto bilateral) no es aceptable. El Congreso no puede obligar a futuros Congresos. La soberanía que ellos reclaman convertiría a Puerto Rico en una Nación Independiente. La Nación de Puerto Rico no puede ser parte de los Estados Unidos.
Estados Unidos sostiene que Puerto Rico es un Territorio no incorporado y tajantemente rechaza el ELA culminado. Esta patraña política no encaja dentro del marco constitucional Americano.
Un futuro plebiscito o Convención Constituyente solo puede considerar y escoger entre Independencia, Estadidad, y una Nación Independiente asociada con los Estados Unidos. En otras palabras, Puerto Rico tiene que pedir la Independencia y luego solicitar un acuerdo con los Estados Unidos. Acuerdo que es revocable unilateralmente.
Amigo lector, la Republica Asociada es una de las únicas tres alternativas aceptables bajo la Constitución Americana y el derecho Internacional. Puerto Rico solo puede considerar un status que sea compatible con la Constitución, las leyes básicas y la política publica de los Estados Unidos.
El ELA Culminado (enhanced Commonwealth) no es un status viable y no puede aceptarse bajo ninguna circunstancia.
Bajo la “soberanía” que reclaman los lideres de la colonia, crearían una Nación Independiente sin votar por la independencia, y asociarla a Estados Unidos antes de ser una Republica, como en “Republica Asociada”. Las nuevas generaciones no serian Ciudadanos Americanos.
El ELA no tiene zapata. No existen cimientos para sostenerla. La solución final es inaplazable. El Congreso Americano tiene que actuar AHORA.
El Informe aprobado por el Comité de Recursos Naturales del Congreso sobre el status de Puerto Rico llega a la conclusión inescapable, el ELA carece de zapata jurídica constitucional. Así lo entiende el Congresista Serrano, puertorriqueño serio y valiente.
Aquellos que creen en la mentira del “pacto bilateral”, entiendan que un plebiscito ordenado por el Congreso seria regido por las Leyes Federales. Los Tribunales Federales tendrán jurisdicción exclusiva para resolver controversias. Cual “pacto bilateral”?
La Constitución de Los Estados Unidos define solo cuatro formas de status políticos: Estados, el Distrito Federal, las Tribus Indígenas, y los Territorios.
La Cláusula Territorial cede al Congreso el poder de gobernar los territorios, como Puerto Rico, en asuntos locales y Nacionales. El Tribunal Supremo decidió que los Estados Unidos pueden ejercer soberanía y gobernar los territorios no incorporados, como Puerto Rico. Los derechos Constitucionales no aplican automáticamente a los Territorios.
La Ciudadanía Americana, que apreciamos los puertorriqueños, la concedió el Congreso mediante una ley, no la Constitución. La Ciudadanía Americana la cobija la “soberanía” del la Nación Americana.
La Ley 600 autorizo a Puerto Rico a tener nuestra propia Constitución para un gobierno puramente insular. La relación Territorial continua bajo el “Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act”. El alegado “pacto” nunca existió.
Muñoz Marín acepto públicamente que la Ley 600 no elimino el poder plenario y exclusivo del Congreso sobre Puerto Rico. La historia legislativa reitera que la autoridad del Congreso sobre Puerto Rico es absoluta y plenaria. El Congreso administra la Cláusula Territorial y provee las condiciones para la eventual incorporación a la Nación como Estado Federado.
La Constitución de Puerto Rico no define un cambio político. Las Leyes del 1950 y 1952 no autorizaron “libre asociación” con los Estados Unidos. Los Populares se inventaron la “gran mentira” del pacto bilateral. El pacto bilateral nunca existió. El Congreso nunca cedió su autoridad sobre Puerto Rico. Esta es la cruda realidad de la colonia.
El “Commonwealth” no es un “status político y no implica un status diferente. Puerto Rico es un Territorio; no es una Nación soberana en libre asociación con los Estados Unidos. Esta es la gran mentira. Su nombre es ELA, su apellido colonia.
El Tribunal Supremo Federal dictamino que la Cláusula Territorial opera en PR. El Congreso tiene el poder para aprobar todas las reglas y reglamentos sobre el Territorio. (Harris vs. Rosario, 1980). La Cláusula Territorial y todas las leyes federales son la Ley Suprema en Puerto Rico (Rodríguez vs. PPD, 1982).
La nueva propuesta del ELA culminado contiene principios que fueron “rechazados” y no aceptables para al Congreso.
La Administración del Presidente Clinton determino que la propuesta del PPD de un ELA culminado (Enhanced Commonwealth) viola la Constitución y no es aceptable. La propuesta de “consentimiento mutuo” (pacto bilateral) no es aceptable. El Congreso no puede obligar a futuros Congresos. La soberanía que ellos reclaman convertiría a Puerto Rico en una Nación Independiente. La Nación de Puerto Rico no puede ser parte de los Estados Unidos.
Estados Unidos sostiene que Puerto Rico es un Territorio no incorporado y tajantemente rechaza el ELA culminado. Esta patraña política no encaja dentro del marco constitucional Americano.
Un futuro plebiscito o Convención Constituyente solo puede considerar y escoger entre Independencia, Estadidad, y una Nación Independiente asociada con los Estados Unidos. En otras palabras, Puerto Rico tiene que pedir la Independencia y luego solicitar un acuerdo con los Estados Unidos. Acuerdo que es revocable unilateralmente.
Amigo lector, la Republica Asociada es una de las únicas tres alternativas aceptables bajo la Constitución Americana y el derecho Internacional. Puerto Rico solo puede considerar un status que sea compatible con la Constitución, las leyes básicas y la política publica de los Estados Unidos.
El ELA Culminado (enhanced Commonwealth) no es un status viable y no puede aceptarse bajo ninguna circunstancia.
Bajo la “soberanía” que reclaman los lideres de la colonia, crearían una Nación Independiente sin votar por la independencia, y asociarla a Estados Unidos antes de ser una Republica, como en “Republica Asociada”. Las nuevas generaciones no serian Ciudadanos Americanos.
El ELA no tiene zapata. No existen cimientos para sostenerla. La solución final es inaplazable. El Congreso Americano tiene que actuar AHORA.
miércoles, 2 de marzo de 2011
Ciudadanía: aspiración democrática que nos une como pueblo
Por Luis G. Fortuño
Gobernador de Puerto Rico
Un día como hoy, hace 94 años, la historia de nuestro pueblo cambió para siempre. Ese día, los puertorriqueños adquirimos la ciudadanía de los Estados Unidos de América.
El liderato en Puerto Rico la había solicitado al unísono, al efectuarse el cambio de soberanía en el 1898. Casi 20 años más tarde, con la aprobación del Congreso y la firma del presidente Woodrow Wilson, el sueño se convirtió en realidad.
Tal como la declaramos en nuestra Constitución local, la ciudadanía americana es un factor determinante en nuestra vida, tanto individual como colectiva. Nuestra Constitución estatal recoge ese consenso claro, contundente y duradero de nuestro pueblo. No sólo consideramos la ciudadanía americana un factor determinante en nuestra vida, sino también todo lo que ella representa, incluyendo—en las palabras de nuestra Constitución—“nuestra aspiración a continuamente enriquecer nuestro acervo democrático en el disfrute individual y colectivo de sus prerrogativas”.
Nuestra ciudadanía es lo que nos garantiza el derecho a vivir en una sociedad que nos ofrece una extraordinaria combinación de oportunidad, estabilidad, seguridad y bienestar. De hecho, la genialidad del sistema constitucional americano ha hecho posible algunos de los avances más grandes en derechos humanos, innovación, progreso económico y bienestar social, no sólo para sus ciudadanos, sino para toda la humanidad.
Como Comisionado Residente y Gobernador, a través de los años he participado en la ceremonia de juramentación de cientos de nuevos ciudadanos americanos. Compartir ese momento tan especial en la vida de tantos inmigrantes, me ha llevado a menudo a reflexionar sobre el hecho de que los que nacimos automáticamente al amparo de los privilegios de la ciudadanía americana muchas veces no apreciamos plenamente su valor, ni sacamos tanto provecho de sus beneficios, ni nos sentimos tan motivados a exigir por derecho las prerrogativas que ella nos confiere. En contraste, los inmigrantes—muchos de los cuales han sufrido en sus países de origen las dificultades e injusticias que siempre se manifiestan en sociedades que carecen de los pilares democráticos de seguridad, igualdad, estabilidad y oportunidad—dan testimonio viviente de la bendición que representa para ellos ser ciudadano de los Estados Unidos de América.
Un principio central del sistema americano de gobierno, del cual somos parte integral, es que el gobierno está para servirle al pueblo, y no al revés. El individuo y la familia son las unidades básicas de nuestra sociedad. Por lo tanto, es a ellos a quienes tenemos que apoderar, poniendo en sus manos el poder y las oportunidades. Esta filosofía fundamenta todo el programa de buen gobierno que hemos implantado en nuestra administración.
El gobierno está para apoyar al individuo y las familias, no para ahogarles hipotecando el futuro de generaciones venideras. El gobierno tiene la obligación de ofrecer servicios básicos de excelencia, y servicios de apoyo y ayuda, sobre todo a aquellos con menos recursos.
Pero cuando el gobierno excede esa función esencial y limitada, y se convierte en un gobierno paternalista y todo proveedor, crea un ciclo vicioso de dependencia que castiga el éxito y ahoga la capacidad de superación del individuo.
Los principios de nuestra ciudadanía…de igualdad de oportunidades, iniciativa individual y gobierno responsable que aseguran nuestra estabilidad, seguridad y progreso…son precisamente los principios que nos apoderan y nos permiten alcanzar todo nuestro potencial, como individuos y como sociedad. Una sociedad en la cual los individuos y las familias no puedan alcanzar su mayor potencial jamás podrá ser una sociedad sana y próspera.
Nuestro desarrollo económico también debe estar basado en la capacidad de innovación y superación del individuo. El motor básico de nuestra economía es y debe ser el sector privado que, con su vigor, crea un círculo expansivo de progreso. En una sociedad sana y próspera, son nuestras empresas—sobre todo nuestros pequeños y medianos negocios—no el gobierno, los que crean mejores empleos y oportunidades.
Por eso, en este aniversario de la ciudadanía americana, hago un llamado a que renovemos nuestro compromiso individual y colectivo con los principios más básicos de nuestra gloriosa ciudadanía. Y mucho ojo con los que a veces hablan de la ciudadanía, pero no hacen nada en concreto para defenderla. Sus palabras son huecas. No sólo no quieren levantar ni un dedo para aportar a nuestra Nación, sino a todas luces su agenda no tiene otro norte que la de socavar nuestra ciudadanía y nuestra unión a la gran nación de la que somos ciudadanos.
Como dice nuestra Constitución estatal, nuestra aspiración es continuar enriqueciendo nuestro acervo democrático en el disfrute de las prerrogativas de nuestra ciudadanía americana. Para la mayoría de nosotros, esa aspiración no culminará hasta que no alcancemos la estadidad para Puerto Rico. Pero aún aquellos de nuestros conciudadanos que aún no comparten esa visión, sí comparten con nosotros la aspiración de alcanzar mucho más progreso y nuevas conquistas democráticas que emanan de nuestra ciudadanía americana.
Asimismo, les exhorto a todos a honrar con un merecido agradecimiento—como lo haré yo hoy en el Hospital de Veteranos—a aquellos que han cumplido con el sagrado compromiso de defender nuestra ciudadanía. Su sacrificio, el de los que los precedieron, y el de aquellos que siguen defendiéndola hoy como miembros activos de las Fuerzas Armadas de nuestra nación, es lo que ha garantizado que todos podamos seguir disfrutando de los beneficios de la ciudadanía americana que tanto atesoramos.
Gobernador de Puerto Rico
Un día como hoy, hace 94 años, la historia de nuestro pueblo cambió para siempre. Ese día, los puertorriqueños adquirimos la ciudadanía de los Estados Unidos de América.
El liderato en Puerto Rico la había solicitado al unísono, al efectuarse el cambio de soberanía en el 1898. Casi 20 años más tarde, con la aprobación del Congreso y la firma del presidente Woodrow Wilson, el sueño se convirtió en realidad.
Tal como la declaramos en nuestra Constitución local, la ciudadanía americana es un factor determinante en nuestra vida, tanto individual como colectiva. Nuestra Constitución estatal recoge ese consenso claro, contundente y duradero de nuestro pueblo. No sólo consideramos la ciudadanía americana un factor determinante en nuestra vida, sino también todo lo que ella representa, incluyendo—en las palabras de nuestra Constitución—“nuestra aspiración a continuamente enriquecer nuestro acervo democrático en el disfrute individual y colectivo de sus prerrogativas”.
Nuestra ciudadanía es lo que nos garantiza el derecho a vivir en una sociedad que nos ofrece una extraordinaria combinación de oportunidad, estabilidad, seguridad y bienestar. De hecho, la genialidad del sistema constitucional americano ha hecho posible algunos de los avances más grandes en derechos humanos, innovación, progreso económico y bienestar social, no sólo para sus ciudadanos, sino para toda la humanidad.
Como Comisionado Residente y Gobernador, a través de los años he participado en la ceremonia de juramentación de cientos de nuevos ciudadanos americanos. Compartir ese momento tan especial en la vida de tantos inmigrantes, me ha llevado a menudo a reflexionar sobre el hecho de que los que nacimos automáticamente al amparo de los privilegios de la ciudadanía americana muchas veces no apreciamos plenamente su valor, ni sacamos tanto provecho de sus beneficios, ni nos sentimos tan motivados a exigir por derecho las prerrogativas que ella nos confiere. En contraste, los inmigrantes—muchos de los cuales han sufrido en sus países de origen las dificultades e injusticias que siempre se manifiestan en sociedades que carecen de los pilares democráticos de seguridad, igualdad, estabilidad y oportunidad—dan testimonio viviente de la bendición que representa para ellos ser ciudadano de los Estados Unidos de América.
Un principio central del sistema americano de gobierno, del cual somos parte integral, es que el gobierno está para servirle al pueblo, y no al revés. El individuo y la familia son las unidades básicas de nuestra sociedad. Por lo tanto, es a ellos a quienes tenemos que apoderar, poniendo en sus manos el poder y las oportunidades. Esta filosofía fundamenta todo el programa de buen gobierno que hemos implantado en nuestra administración.
El gobierno está para apoyar al individuo y las familias, no para ahogarles hipotecando el futuro de generaciones venideras. El gobierno tiene la obligación de ofrecer servicios básicos de excelencia, y servicios de apoyo y ayuda, sobre todo a aquellos con menos recursos.
Pero cuando el gobierno excede esa función esencial y limitada, y se convierte en un gobierno paternalista y todo proveedor, crea un ciclo vicioso de dependencia que castiga el éxito y ahoga la capacidad de superación del individuo.
Los principios de nuestra ciudadanía…de igualdad de oportunidades, iniciativa individual y gobierno responsable que aseguran nuestra estabilidad, seguridad y progreso…son precisamente los principios que nos apoderan y nos permiten alcanzar todo nuestro potencial, como individuos y como sociedad. Una sociedad en la cual los individuos y las familias no puedan alcanzar su mayor potencial jamás podrá ser una sociedad sana y próspera.
Nuestro desarrollo económico también debe estar basado en la capacidad de innovación y superación del individuo. El motor básico de nuestra economía es y debe ser el sector privado que, con su vigor, crea un círculo expansivo de progreso. En una sociedad sana y próspera, son nuestras empresas—sobre todo nuestros pequeños y medianos negocios—no el gobierno, los que crean mejores empleos y oportunidades.
Por eso, en este aniversario de la ciudadanía americana, hago un llamado a que renovemos nuestro compromiso individual y colectivo con los principios más básicos de nuestra gloriosa ciudadanía. Y mucho ojo con los que a veces hablan de la ciudadanía, pero no hacen nada en concreto para defenderla. Sus palabras son huecas. No sólo no quieren levantar ni un dedo para aportar a nuestra Nación, sino a todas luces su agenda no tiene otro norte que la de socavar nuestra ciudadanía y nuestra unión a la gran nación de la que somos ciudadanos.
Como dice nuestra Constitución estatal, nuestra aspiración es continuar enriqueciendo nuestro acervo democrático en el disfrute de las prerrogativas de nuestra ciudadanía americana. Para la mayoría de nosotros, esa aspiración no culminará hasta que no alcancemos la estadidad para Puerto Rico. Pero aún aquellos de nuestros conciudadanos que aún no comparten esa visión, sí comparten con nosotros la aspiración de alcanzar mucho más progreso y nuevas conquistas democráticas que emanan de nuestra ciudadanía americana.
Asimismo, les exhorto a todos a honrar con un merecido agradecimiento—como lo haré yo hoy en el Hospital de Veteranos—a aquellos que han cumplido con el sagrado compromiso de defender nuestra ciudadanía. Su sacrificio, el de los que los precedieron, y el de aquellos que siguen defendiéndola hoy como miembros activos de las Fuerzas Armadas de nuestra nación, es lo que ha garantizado que todos podamos seguir disfrutando de los beneficios de la ciudadanía americana que tanto atesoramos.
jueves, 17 de febrero de 2011
Floor Statement in Response to Remarks of Congressman Luis Gutierrez Regarding Puerto Rico
Mr./Madame Speaker:
I rise to address the chamber this morning with disappointment, sadness, and a deep resolve to set the record straight. I am compelled to respond to remarks delivered yesterday on this floor by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, in which he harshly criticized the duly-elected government of Puerto Rico, the officers who serve honorably in its police force, and the chief judge of the U.S. district court for the District of Puerto Rico. The speech was inappropriate and insulting to the people of Puerto Rico. I hope such action will not be repeated. But if it is, make no mistake: I will return to this floor again to defend my constituents—and the government they chose in free and fair elections—from all unwarranted attacks. I will rise then in the same capacity that I rise now: as Puerto Rico’s only elected representative in Congress and the only member of this chamber who can make any claim to speak on behalf of the Island’s nearly four million American citizens. I will fight for my people because it is my privilege, my honor, and my duty to do so.
To compare Puerto Rico to an authoritarian country is beyond the pale. It demeans not merely my constituents, but also the millions of men and women around the world who suffer under real dictatorships, who are truly oppressed, and who lack the dignity that comes only with genuine freedom. Puerto Rico is a rich and vibrant democracy, with strong institutions, governed by the rule of law. Fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution—including the right to free speech, free assembly and due process of law—apply fully in Puerto Rico. So does federal civil rights law. This is not to suggest that violations of individual liberties never take place in Puerto Rico. On occasion they may, just as they do in every jurisdiction. And I would be the first person to condemn such conduct if it occurs. But, in Puerto Rico, unlike in a dictatorship, there are legal remedies available to citizens who claim to have been deprived of their rights. Those who fail to grasp this basic distinction do not understand Puerto Rico or appreciate its strengths.
Moreover, I believe it is wrong for a member of this body to insult a federal judge simply because that judge ruled in a way the member finds objectionable. To use an enlarged photo of that judge as a prop is, in my view, particularly unfortunate. Such theatrics undermine, rather than strengthen, the argument being made. Judge Fusté, a man who has devoted over 25 years of his life to public service, does not deserve such treatment.
Yesterday, a great disservice was done to the good name and reputation of the people of Puerto Rico. I regret that it occurred. I hope—and expect—that it will not happen again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
I rise to address the chamber this morning with disappointment, sadness, and a deep resolve to set the record straight. I am compelled to respond to remarks delivered yesterday on this floor by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, in which he harshly criticized the duly-elected government of Puerto Rico, the officers who serve honorably in its police force, and the chief judge of the U.S. district court for the District of Puerto Rico. The speech was inappropriate and insulting to the people of Puerto Rico. I hope such action will not be repeated. But if it is, make no mistake: I will return to this floor again to defend my constituents—and the government they chose in free and fair elections—from all unwarranted attacks. I will rise then in the same capacity that I rise now: as Puerto Rico’s only elected representative in Congress and the only member of this chamber who can make any claim to speak on behalf of the Island’s nearly four million American citizens. I will fight for my people because it is my privilege, my honor, and my duty to do so.
To compare Puerto Rico to an authoritarian country is beyond the pale. It demeans not merely my constituents, but also the millions of men and women around the world who suffer under real dictatorships, who are truly oppressed, and who lack the dignity that comes only with genuine freedom. Puerto Rico is a rich and vibrant democracy, with strong institutions, governed by the rule of law. Fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution—including the right to free speech, free assembly and due process of law—apply fully in Puerto Rico. So does federal civil rights law. This is not to suggest that violations of individual liberties never take place in Puerto Rico. On occasion they may, just as they do in every jurisdiction. And I would be the first person to condemn such conduct if it occurs. But, in Puerto Rico, unlike in a dictatorship, there are legal remedies available to citizens who claim to have been deprived of their rights. Those who fail to grasp this basic distinction do not understand Puerto Rico or appreciate its strengths.
Moreover, I believe it is wrong for a member of this body to insult a federal judge simply because that judge ruled in a way the member finds objectionable. To use an enlarged photo of that judge as a prop is, in my view, particularly unfortunate. Such theatrics undermine, rather than strengthen, the argument being made. Judge Fusté, a man who has devoted over 25 years of his life to public service, does not deserve such treatment.
Yesterday, a great disservice was done to the good name and reputation of the people of Puerto Rico. I regret that it occurred. I hope—and expect—that it will not happen again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
sábado, 12 de febrero de 2011
Governor of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuño at CPAC 2011
Remarks for Governor Luis Fortuño
CPAC Washington D.C. Conference
11 a.m. EST, Marriott Ballroom
February 11, 2011
Good morning. Thank you, Don, for that kind introduction.
It is great to be with you all today, and to have the opportunity to talk about the exciting, new path that the American people have chosen for this country.
Our country voted to change the way Washington is working and it is our responsibility to provide that change.
Two years ago in Puerto Rico, we similarly voted to change the way our government was working because it was also spending beyond what the people could afford.
Some have asked if those of us who cherish freedom and individual liberty can win the Hispanic vote while upholding our principles? Well, in Puerto Rico, we’ve done it.
As a Conservative Republican, I’ve been elected island-wide twice in the last 5 years. In 2008, I was elected by the biggest margin of electoral victory in 44 years.
We also had victories that included two-thirds of the seats in both houses of the State Legislature.
Why did we prevail when the votes were counted? Because when government is growing its own economy at the expense of the real economy - the people’s economy - Americans will choose freedom, opportunity and growth.
We must act now through steady leadership and bold action to take on the big challenges we face with honesty and courage. We must show that our brightest days are ahead and that we can reignite America’s engine of growth.
We need to put our faith in the hopes and dreams and plans of the citizens of this country, because they can out-think,out-dream, out-work and out-produce anybody in the world, as long as they are rewarded fairly when they do it.
That’s exactly what we are doing in Puerto Rico.
Through the tough decisions we made early in my Administration, we are addressing an inherited fiscal crisis that was the worst in the nation.
When I took office two years ago, we had been experiencing the deepest recession since the 1930s, a recession that began two full years before it commenced in the rest of the country.
I inherited a $3.3 billion budget deficit - proportionally speaking, the largest state budget deficit in the country, representing 44 percent of revenues.
Puerto Rico’s credit rating was on the verge of junk status, and I actually had to fly up to meet with the rating agencies before I was sworn in to avoid a downgrade of our bonds.
And after I was sworn in, we didn’t even have money to meet our first payroll. We had to take out a loan to pay it.
We immediately enacted fiscal emergency legislation, with the support of our Legislature, requiring serious spending cuts.
Encouraged by a clear mandate from taxpayers, in just two years, we have cut government expenses by 20 percent. Here’s what we did:
-I took a 10 percent pay cut and agency heads took a 5 percent cut;
-We froze all salaries for two fiscal years;
-We cut government services contracts by 15 percent;
-We cut government operating expenses 10 percent, including official vehicles, cell phones, and credit cards;
-We reduced political appointments by 30 percent;
-We shrank the government employee ranks by 17,000 through a combination of voluntary and mandatory measures. Another voluntary early retirement window enabled us to trim an additional 4,000 last month.
-We reduced the number of government agencies through consolidation;
-And we closed-out our defined benefit pension plan and moved to a performance based defined
contribution plan for future government employees.
We didn’t shy away from the tough decisions. In just two years, our progress is clear and compelling on both, the fiscal and economic side.
We have cut expenses and brought down the budget deficit from 44 percent to 11 percent of revenues. That includes cutting 17 percent of total payroll. And we are on course to balance our budget before the end of my first term.
We’ve reduced our deficit proportionally more than any other state or territory. In a ranking of all the states by budget deficit, as a percentage of revenues, we started of dead last. Now, we are ranked 20th in the country and closing in.
The rating agencies have noticed. They all increased our bond rating to its highest level in 35 years and granted us a “positive” outlook for the first time since 1983.
Now that we have stabilized the economy, we have turned our full focus to restoring growth, and creating the best business climate in the country. We turned to a model where entrepreneurship and innovation are the drivers of economic growth and opportunity, not government.
The debate has already begun at the national level on fundamental tax reform and addressing a tax regime that puts American business at a competitive disadvantage around the globe.
Puerto Rico, as a U.S. territory, has a code that is a mirror image of the Internal Revenue Code. We faced the same challenge in that high taxes – especially on the corporate side – have hindered our competitiveness.
I am convinced that $1 dollar in our taxpayers’ hands will be used more effectively that if that same dollar remains in the government’s hands. Thus, we just approved the largest across-the-board tax cuts at the individual and corporate level in our history.
Starting January of this year, we cut the top corporate rate from 41 percent to 30 percent. The previous seven-tier corporate bracket has been flattened, and in three years, the top corporate rate will drop to 25 percent.
For individuals, tax rates will drop an average of 25 percent this year, increasing to a nearly 50 percent reduction over six years.
To ensure that we sustain fiscal responsibility, individual tax reductions for years 2014 through 2016 will be contingent on the government meeting targeted goals to guarantee that we continue to balance our budget.
Thus, we are making the taxpayer the watchdog for fiscal discipline, and ensuring government keeps that discipline. In addition to the tax reform plan, we have instituted other significant planks in our reform agenda to promote growth and create jobs.
We enacted one of the most advanced and aggressive Public-Private Partnership laws in the country to encourage greater private investment and bring competition and efficiencies to schools, roads, airports, energy, water facilities and other public infrastructure.
We launched a new housing initiative that cuts property and capital gains taxes for buyers and sellers. During the first four months of the program, housing sales increased over 20 percent.
We have some of the highest energy costs in the nation and rely on imported oil for almost 70 percent of our power generation. So we have begun a comprehensive energy program to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, in favor of natural gas and renewable energy.
We are also merging government agencies to cut duplications, and streamlining operations to be quick, agile and efficient so that government red tape doesn’t get in the way of entrepreneurship and job creation.
A perfect example is the government permitting process. We had government agencies issuing 28 different permits. Now we have 1 permit to do business.
With these reforms, we are convinced that job creation will be spurred, consumers will be stronger, and the economy will be more competitive and prosperous.
I was fortunate in that I had the support of the Legislature and we were able to work as partners to address our challenges comprehensively.
So I think that with big pick-ups in November in Congress, Governors o"ces and state legislatures around the nation, bold leadership is possible. And as you know, the mandate from voters is that bold action in Washington is a must.
So my advice is: Don’t wait and don’t blink. Make the tough decisions early and stick to them with courage.
People are expecting leadership. At the beginning of my term, I went to the Legislature and on TV to tell the public exactly what we faced and what we needed to do to fix it.
Some may not like every decision, but they will respect you for doing what is right and what you said you would do.
The long practice of allowing debt and deficits to grow unchecked has made our country less competitive. It’s time for Government to put its finances on the path of fiscal responsibility.
I am confident that through clear and steady leadership, we will be able to address these challenges, just like many of us are doing around our Nation.
And that brings me back to the important topic I touched upon at the start – reaching out to Hispanics – because this is our time and our opportunity to elevate our pro-growth, pro-family policies and make huge inroads with our Hispanic community around the country.
The late President Reagan said that: “Hispanics are Republicans, they just don’t know it yet.” And he was so right. Actually, I started in the Republican Party as a student in D.C. stuffing envelopes in his campaign.
He brought many of us into the party. And the bottom line here is we are socially conservative, fiscally conservative, we have a natural distrust of government, we want lower taxes, education is key to us, and we want our small and medium-size businesses to flourish. Those are Republican values.
It is clear that Republicans must reach out to Hispanics to build trust. I strongly agree and leave you with this belief. We don’t have to run away from our values and our principles to attract their support. On the contrary, we have to proudly underscore them.
Let’s show America what we can accomplish if we protect individual freedom, promote growth and strengthen our values!
Thank you and God bless you.
Download the Speech in PDF Format.
CPAC Washington D.C. Conference
11 a.m. EST, Marriott Ballroom
February 11, 2011
Good morning. Thank you, Don, for that kind introduction.
It is great to be with you all today, and to have the opportunity to talk about the exciting, new path that the American people have chosen for this country.
Our country voted to change the way Washington is working and it is our responsibility to provide that change.
Two years ago in Puerto Rico, we similarly voted to change the way our government was working because it was also spending beyond what the people could afford.
Some have asked if those of us who cherish freedom and individual liberty can win the Hispanic vote while upholding our principles? Well, in Puerto Rico, we’ve done it.
As a Conservative Republican, I’ve been elected island-wide twice in the last 5 years. In 2008, I was elected by the biggest margin of electoral victory in 44 years.
We also had victories that included two-thirds of the seats in both houses of the State Legislature.
Why did we prevail when the votes were counted? Because when government is growing its own economy at the expense of the real economy - the people’s economy - Americans will choose freedom, opportunity and growth.
We must act now through steady leadership and bold action to take on the big challenges we face with honesty and courage. We must show that our brightest days are ahead and that we can reignite America’s engine of growth.
We need to put our faith in the hopes and dreams and plans of the citizens of this country, because they can out-think,out-dream, out-work and out-produce anybody in the world, as long as they are rewarded fairly when they do it.
That’s exactly what we are doing in Puerto Rico.
Through the tough decisions we made early in my Administration, we are addressing an inherited fiscal crisis that was the worst in the nation.
When I took office two years ago, we had been experiencing the deepest recession since the 1930s, a recession that began two full years before it commenced in the rest of the country.
I inherited a $3.3 billion budget deficit - proportionally speaking, the largest state budget deficit in the country, representing 44 percent of revenues.
Puerto Rico’s credit rating was on the verge of junk status, and I actually had to fly up to meet with the rating agencies before I was sworn in to avoid a downgrade of our bonds.
And after I was sworn in, we didn’t even have money to meet our first payroll. We had to take out a loan to pay it.
We immediately enacted fiscal emergency legislation, with the support of our Legislature, requiring serious spending cuts.
Encouraged by a clear mandate from taxpayers, in just two years, we have cut government expenses by 20 percent. Here’s what we did:
-I took a 10 percent pay cut and agency heads took a 5 percent cut;
-We froze all salaries for two fiscal years;
-We cut government services contracts by 15 percent;
-We cut government operating expenses 10 percent, including official vehicles, cell phones, and credit cards;
-We reduced political appointments by 30 percent;
-We shrank the government employee ranks by 17,000 through a combination of voluntary and mandatory measures. Another voluntary early retirement window enabled us to trim an additional 4,000 last month.
-We reduced the number of government agencies through consolidation;
-And we closed-out our defined benefit pension plan and moved to a performance based defined
contribution plan for future government employees.
We didn’t shy away from the tough decisions. In just two years, our progress is clear and compelling on both, the fiscal and economic side.
We have cut expenses and brought down the budget deficit from 44 percent to 11 percent of revenues. That includes cutting 17 percent of total payroll. And we are on course to balance our budget before the end of my first term.
We’ve reduced our deficit proportionally more than any other state or territory. In a ranking of all the states by budget deficit, as a percentage of revenues, we started of dead last. Now, we are ranked 20th in the country and closing in.
The rating agencies have noticed. They all increased our bond rating to its highest level in 35 years and granted us a “positive” outlook for the first time since 1983.
Now that we have stabilized the economy, we have turned our full focus to restoring growth, and creating the best business climate in the country. We turned to a model where entrepreneurship and innovation are the drivers of economic growth and opportunity, not government.
The debate has already begun at the national level on fundamental tax reform and addressing a tax regime that puts American business at a competitive disadvantage around the globe.
Puerto Rico, as a U.S. territory, has a code that is a mirror image of the Internal Revenue Code. We faced the same challenge in that high taxes – especially on the corporate side – have hindered our competitiveness.
I am convinced that $1 dollar in our taxpayers’ hands will be used more effectively that if that same dollar remains in the government’s hands. Thus, we just approved the largest across-the-board tax cuts at the individual and corporate level in our history.
Starting January of this year, we cut the top corporate rate from 41 percent to 30 percent. The previous seven-tier corporate bracket has been flattened, and in three years, the top corporate rate will drop to 25 percent.
For individuals, tax rates will drop an average of 25 percent this year, increasing to a nearly 50 percent reduction over six years.
To ensure that we sustain fiscal responsibility, individual tax reductions for years 2014 through 2016 will be contingent on the government meeting targeted goals to guarantee that we continue to balance our budget.
Thus, we are making the taxpayer the watchdog for fiscal discipline, and ensuring government keeps that discipline. In addition to the tax reform plan, we have instituted other significant planks in our reform agenda to promote growth and create jobs.
We enacted one of the most advanced and aggressive Public-Private Partnership laws in the country to encourage greater private investment and bring competition and efficiencies to schools, roads, airports, energy, water facilities and other public infrastructure.
We launched a new housing initiative that cuts property and capital gains taxes for buyers and sellers. During the first four months of the program, housing sales increased over 20 percent.
We have some of the highest energy costs in the nation and rely on imported oil for almost 70 percent of our power generation. So we have begun a comprehensive energy program to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, in favor of natural gas and renewable energy.
We are also merging government agencies to cut duplications, and streamlining operations to be quick, agile and efficient so that government red tape doesn’t get in the way of entrepreneurship and job creation.
A perfect example is the government permitting process. We had government agencies issuing 28 different permits. Now we have 1 permit to do business.
With these reforms, we are convinced that job creation will be spurred, consumers will be stronger, and the economy will be more competitive and prosperous.
I was fortunate in that I had the support of the Legislature and we were able to work as partners to address our challenges comprehensively.
So I think that with big pick-ups in November in Congress, Governors o"ces and state legislatures around the nation, bold leadership is possible. And as you know, the mandate from voters is that bold action in Washington is a must.
So my advice is: Don’t wait and don’t blink. Make the tough decisions early and stick to them with courage.
People are expecting leadership. At the beginning of my term, I went to the Legislature and on TV to tell the public exactly what we faced and what we needed to do to fix it.
Some may not like every decision, but they will respect you for doing what is right and what you said you would do.
The long practice of allowing debt and deficits to grow unchecked has made our country less competitive. It’s time for Government to put its finances on the path of fiscal responsibility.
I am confident that through clear and steady leadership, we will be able to address these challenges, just like many of us are doing around our Nation.
And that brings me back to the important topic I touched upon at the start – reaching out to Hispanics – because this is our time and our opportunity to elevate our pro-growth, pro-family policies and make huge inroads with our Hispanic community around the country.
The late President Reagan said that: “Hispanics are Republicans, they just don’t know it yet.” And he was so right. Actually, I started in the Republican Party as a student in D.C. stuffing envelopes in his campaign.
He brought many of us into the party. And the bottom line here is we are socially conservative, fiscally conservative, we have a natural distrust of government, we want lower taxes, education is key to us, and we want our small and medium-size businesses to flourish. Those are Republican values.
It is clear that Republicans must reach out to Hispanics to build trust. I strongly agree and leave you with this belief. We don’t have to run away from our values and our principles to attract their support. On the contrary, we have to proudly underscore them.
Let’s show America what we can accomplish if we protect individual freedom, promote growth and strengthen our values!
Thank you and God bless you.
Download the Speech in PDF Format.
viernes, 11 de febrero de 2011
"There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom"
MLK: "There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom..."
By Kenneth D. McClintock
Those words spoken many decades ago by Martin Luther King as the people of Ghana acquired freedom as they unshackled themselves from colonialism are words that President Obama has used* to describe the change taking place in Egypt.
It is a spirit that must develop in Puerto Rico to unshackle America's citizens in Puerto Rico from the lack of freedoms that prevent them from participating in the election of their national government, be it that of an independent nation, or the United States national government, ruled by a President in whose election residents of Puerto Rico do not participate, governed by a Congress in which they lack voting representation, and whose laws are interpreted by a Judiciary whose members are nominated and confirmed with no say from Puerto Rico.
After the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, passed by a solid bipartisan margin in the House, died in the United States Senate, the burial ground of so many of Puerto Rico's past hopes, our best hope now is what President Obama's upcoming Puerto Rico report may say about status and what action our local government will take to allow 3.7 million American citizens to express themselves about their future.
A process must be put in place for our people's cry for freedom to be channeled through the ballot box and not in the streets, as the lack of democracy in Egypt forced that people to do.
By Kenneth D. McClintock
Those words spoken many decades ago by Martin Luther King as the people of Ghana acquired freedom as they unshackled themselves from colonialism are words that President Obama has used* to describe the change taking place in Egypt.
It is a spirit that must develop in Puerto Rico to unshackle America's citizens in Puerto Rico from the lack of freedoms that prevent them from participating in the election of their national government, be it that of an independent nation, or the United States national government, ruled by a President in whose election residents of Puerto Rico do not participate, governed by a Congress in which they lack voting representation, and whose laws are interpreted by a Judiciary whose members are nominated and confirmed with no say from Puerto Rico.
After the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, passed by a solid bipartisan margin in the House, died in the United States Senate, the burial ground of so many of Puerto Rico's past hopes, our best hope now is what President Obama's upcoming Puerto Rico report may say about status and what action our local government will take to allow 3.7 million American citizens to express themselves about their future.
A process must be put in place for our people's cry for freedom to be channeled through the ballot box and not in the streets, as the lack of democracy in Egypt forced that people to do.
viernes, 7 de enero de 2011
CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act
CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act
The House of Representatives is planning to consider a bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the major health care legislation enacted last March—that is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 that are related to health care. CBO has not yet developed a detailed estimate of the budgetary impact of repealing that legislation, although it is working with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to complete such an estimate in the near future. Because Congressional deliberations on H.R. 2 are beginning, CBO today issued a less-detailed preliminary analysis of that legislation.
Because CBO and JCT estimated that the March 2010 health care legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period and in subsequent years, we expect that repealing that legislation would increase budget deficits. The resulting increase in deficits projected for fiscal years 2012 through 2019 is likely to be similar in size to—but not exactly the same as—the reduction in deficits that was originally estimated to result from the enacted legislation.
The forthcoming detailed estimate will reflect a number of developments that have occurred since CBO and JCT produced the cost estimate for the March 2010 legislation, including changes in the economic outlook, technical revisions to CBO’s projections of program spending, the initial steps that have been taken to implement the new laws, and enactment of legislation that modified those laws. Those developments will probably not have a major effect on the overall budgetary impact of repealing the legislation. In addition, CBO has seen no evidence to date that the steps that will be taken to implement the March legislation—or the ways in which participants in the health care and health financing systems will respond to that legislation—will yield overall budgetary effects that differ significantly from the ones that CBO and JCT projected earlier. We cannot predict whether the various changes that will be incorporated in the detailed estimate will increase or decrease the estimated impact of H.R. 2 on federal deficits through 2019.
The estimate for H.R. 2 will differ in one significant way from the estimate for the enacted health care legislation. The original estimate covered the period from 2010 through 2019, the period used for Congressional budget enforcement procedures when the legislation was being considered; new estimates will span the period from 2012 to 2021.
Today’s letter describes—in broad terms and on a preliminary basis—CBO’s assessment of the effects that repealing PPACA and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act would have on federal budget deficits, the federal government’s budgetary commitment to health care, the number of people with health insurance, and health insurance premiums in the private market. (Repealing the provisions of that legislation would also have a variety of other effects on the health care and health insurance systems that this letter, like previous CBO cost estimates, does not address.)
Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade
As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes.
Those projections do not include any potential savings in discretionary spending, which is governed by annual appropriation acts. By CBO’s estimates, repeal of the health care legislation would probably reduce the appropriations needed by the Internal Revenue Service by between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years. Similar savings would accrue to the Department of Health and Human Services.
There is no clear basis for projecting other effects of H.R. 2 on discretionary spending. PPACA contained a number of authorizations for future appropriations, which, if left in place, might or might not result in additional appropriations. For example, most of the authorizations were for activities that were already being carried out under current law or that were previously authorized and that PPACA authorized for future years. Thus, repeal of the PPACA authorizations might or might not result in discretionary savings associated with those authorizations.
Impact on the Federal Budget Beyond the First 10 Years
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger.
As with all of CBO’s cost estimates, these estimates—both for the first 10 years and beyond—reflect an assumption that the provisions of current law would otherwise remain unchanged throughout the projection period and that the legislation being considered would be enacted and implemented in its current form. CBO’s responsibility to the Congress is to estimate the effects of proposals as written and not to forecast future legislation. However, current law now includes a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. If those policies or other key aspects of the original legislation would have subsequently been modified or implemented incompletely, then the budgetary effects of repealing PPACA and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act could be quite different—but CBO cannot forecast future changes in law or assume such changes in its estimates.
Effects on the Federal Budgetary Commitment to Health Care
CBO uses the term “federal budgetary commitment to health care” to describe the sum of net federal outlays for health programs and tax preferences for health care. H.R. 2 would roughly reverse the outcome projected for the original legislation, diminishing the federal budgetary commitment to health care over the next decade and increasing it in subsequent years.
Effects on the Number of People with Health Insurance
Under H.R. 2, about 32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).
Effects on Health Insurance Premiums
If H.R. 2 was enacted, premiums for health insurance in the individual market would be somewhat lower than under current law, mostly because the average insurance policy in this market would cover a smaller share of enrollees’ costs for health care and a slightly narrower range of benefits. Although premiums in the individual market would be lower, on average, under H.R. 2 than under current law, many people would end up paying more for health insurance—because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and H.R. 2 would eliminate those subsidies.
Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers would be slightly higher under H.R. 2 than under current law. Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through small employers might be slightly higher or slightly lower (reflecting uncertainty about the impact of the enacted legislation on premiums in that market).
Letter to Speaker of House Hon. John Boehner
Originally posted on CBO Director's Blog.
The House of Representatives is planning to consider a bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the major health care legislation enacted last March—that is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 that are related to health care. CBO has not yet developed a detailed estimate of the budgetary impact of repealing that legislation, although it is working with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to complete such an estimate in the near future. Because Congressional deliberations on H.R. 2 are beginning, CBO today issued a less-detailed preliminary analysis of that legislation.
Because CBO and JCT estimated that the March 2010 health care legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period and in subsequent years, we expect that repealing that legislation would increase budget deficits. The resulting increase in deficits projected for fiscal years 2012 through 2019 is likely to be similar in size to—but not exactly the same as—the reduction in deficits that was originally estimated to result from the enacted legislation.
The forthcoming detailed estimate will reflect a number of developments that have occurred since CBO and JCT produced the cost estimate for the March 2010 legislation, including changes in the economic outlook, technical revisions to CBO’s projections of program spending, the initial steps that have been taken to implement the new laws, and enactment of legislation that modified those laws. Those developments will probably not have a major effect on the overall budgetary impact of repealing the legislation. In addition, CBO has seen no evidence to date that the steps that will be taken to implement the March legislation—or the ways in which participants in the health care and health financing systems will respond to that legislation—will yield overall budgetary effects that differ significantly from the ones that CBO and JCT projected earlier. We cannot predict whether the various changes that will be incorporated in the detailed estimate will increase or decrease the estimated impact of H.R. 2 on federal deficits through 2019.
The estimate for H.R. 2 will differ in one significant way from the estimate for the enacted health care legislation. The original estimate covered the period from 2010 through 2019, the period used for Congressional budget enforcement procedures when the legislation was being considered; new estimates will span the period from 2012 to 2021.
Today’s letter describes—in broad terms and on a preliminary basis—CBO’s assessment of the effects that repealing PPACA and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act would have on federal budget deficits, the federal government’s budgetary commitment to health care, the number of people with health insurance, and health insurance premiums in the private market. (Repealing the provisions of that legislation would also have a variety of other effects on the health care and health insurance systems that this letter, like previous CBO cost estimates, does not address.)
Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade
As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes.
Those projections do not include any potential savings in discretionary spending, which is governed by annual appropriation acts. By CBO’s estimates, repeal of the health care legislation would probably reduce the appropriations needed by the Internal Revenue Service by between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years. Similar savings would accrue to the Department of Health and Human Services.
There is no clear basis for projecting other effects of H.R. 2 on discretionary spending. PPACA contained a number of authorizations for future appropriations, which, if left in place, might or might not result in additional appropriations. For example, most of the authorizations were for activities that were already being carried out under current law or that were previously authorized and that PPACA authorized for future years. Thus, repeal of the PPACA authorizations might or might not result in discretionary savings associated with those authorizations.
Impact on the Federal Budget Beyond the First 10 Years
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger.
As with all of CBO’s cost estimates, these estimates—both for the first 10 years and beyond—reflect an assumption that the provisions of current law would otherwise remain unchanged throughout the projection period and that the legislation being considered would be enacted and implemented in its current form. CBO’s responsibility to the Congress is to estimate the effects of proposals as written and not to forecast future legislation. However, current law now includes a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. If those policies or other key aspects of the original legislation would have subsequently been modified or implemented incompletely, then the budgetary effects of repealing PPACA and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act could be quite different—but CBO cannot forecast future changes in law or assume such changes in its estimates.
Effects on the Federal Budgetary Commitment to Health Care
CBO uses the term “federal budgetary commitment to health care” to describe the sum of net federal outlays for health programs and tax preferences for health care. H.R. 2 would roughly reverse the outcome projected for the original legislation, diminishing the federal budgetary commitment to health care over the next decade and increasing it in subsequent years.
Effects on the Number of People with Health Insurance
Under H.R. 2, about 32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).
Effects on Health Insurance Premiums
If H.R. 2 was enacted, premiums for health insurance in the individual market would be somewhat lower than under current law, mostly because the average insurance policy in this market would cover a smaller share of enrollees’ costs for health care and a slightly narrower range of benefits. Although premiums in the individual market would be lower, on average, under H.R. 2 than under current law, many people would end up paying more for health insurance—because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and H.R. 2 would eliminate those subsidies.
Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers would be slightly higher under H.R. 2 than under current law. Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through small employers might be slightly higher or slightly lower (reflecting uncertainty about the impact of the enacted legislation on premiums in that market).
Letter to Speaker of House Hon. John Boehner
Originally posted on CBO Director's Blog.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)