Honorable Kenneth D. McClintock
Secretary of State of Puerto Rico
Remarks at the
The America’s Minority Leadership Global Summit 2011
The Government of Puerto Rico’s Response
to the Financial and Economic Crisis
Key Largo, Florida
August 13, 2011
First, I would like to thank Doug Mayorga, Founder and National Director of The Minority Chamber of Commerce, for having invited me to appear before you today. I am honored by the invitation and quite pleased to have come across friends in government and business some of whom date back from the time that, as a legislator, I had roles to play in the Council of State Governments (CSG) and the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas (COPA).
Congratulations are also in order to Doug —who, by the way, grew-up in Puerto Rico. He has done a great job in developing the Chamber into an influential business and professional organization not only across the United States but also in Latin America focusing on the importance of multicultural markets.
¿Didn’t you know that Doug grew-up in Puerto Rico? Then you might be also surprised to learn that the Florida Keys were discovered by a Puerto Rican… I am speaking, of course, of Juan Ponce De León who, while being Governor of Puerto Rico, set out from the Island on an expedition in search for the Fountain of Youth.
To those of you who are looking at me in disbelief, you are right… Ponce De León was born in Spain, just as I was born in London. But… should place of birth disqualify Ponce De León or McClintock as a Puerto Rican? Of course not! He was, after all, the first Governor of Puerto Rico as I am its 22nd Secretary of State…
Not convinced? Think of California… Of the 38 governors of California, 29 were born in other states and two were born in Europe… Who would say that Arnold Schwarzenegger is not a “real citizen” of “Cahl-ifoh-nia”?
There you have it… a historical tidbit that you may not have known about the Florida Keys.
Now, seriously, let me share with you the perspective of Puerto Rico on meeting the challenges presented by a global financial crisis and a worldwide economic recession.
These are difficult times to do what is needed the most: attract investment and create jobs —and the competition is fierce among state and local governments— but we are confident about what Puerto Rico has to
offer with its unique political, geographical and cultural attributes.
Located at the crossroads of the Americas, and with bilingual and bicultural U.S. citizens, Puerto Rico is not only where the United States and Latin America meet but also where the United States becomes a Caribbean nation.
Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States since 1898 and, together with the 50 States of the Union and the District of Columbia, comprises the Customs Area of the United States —the only U.S. territory having this attribute.
I see a large representation of Colombian entrepreneurs at the Summit and before you ask… Yes, Puerto Rico is a part of the United States and investing or doing business in the Island may qualify you for an E-1 Treaty Trader Visa or E-2 Treaty Investor Visa.
Puerto Rico’s participation in the U.S. market —together with our cultural and geographic attributes— position our Islands as an ideal platform to export to Latin America and to capture the growing Hispanic market in the United States.
To reach Hispanic customers in the United States, and Latin American customers in Central and South America, one needs not only to speak Spanish but also to understand how Hispanics and Latin Americans think. Puerto Ricans are not only bilingual but also bicultural. Culturally and linguistically, Puerto Rican bankers, accountants, and other service professionals are completely comfortable doing business virtually anywhere in the Americas: from Anchorage to Antofagasta, putting Puerto Rico in an advantageous position of facilitating access to most markets in the Western Hemisphere.
Because of these attributes, no jurisdiction of the United States is better equipped than Puerto Rico to reach those markets. And we are ready to do business too… because we have managed to accomplish one of the most impressive turnarounds out of the financial crisis with which many states of the Union are just starting to handle.
Let’s take brief look back at the enormous challenges we confronted two years ago.
When Governor-elect Luis Fortuño appointed me to head his Transition Committee, we suspected we would inherit a deficit of no less than $800 million and no more than $1.2 billion. By the time we were sworn in on January 2, 2009, we had discovered that the deficit —$3.3 billion— was the largest in the Nation —far bigger proportionately than California’s. We were spending $1.45 for every dollar of revenue. As you know, there is not one business that can operate with such a deficit.
Furthermore, in January 2009, Puerto Rico had more public sector employees than any other state except for California and New York —a bloated bureaucracy that our taxpayers simply could not afford.
Even before being sworn-in, the Governor had to meet with Wall Street credit agencies to plead for some breathing space before they downgraded us into becoming the first state government in the United States to hit junk-bond status —a hole from which it would take us well over a decade to emerge. Within two days after being sworn in, Governor Fortuño began making rather painful but necessary decisions that other state governments, the Federal governments and foreign countries have later taken.
We have cut spending by $2 billion and to do that we were forced to lay off 12,656 employees —nearly 7% of our workforce.
During the past two years, we have brought down that 45% deficit to a more manageable 11%, on our way to achieve a balanced budget by next year.
However, recognizing the fiscal and economic crisis are not solved with spending cuts alone, Governor Fortuño began turning Puerto Rico in a much more attractive business location.
We have enacted the most effective Public Private Partnership Law in the Nation, if not the world. Learning from the mistakes of others, we have created a specialized Public Private Partnership Authority. We have partnered with our Legislature from day one, with two of the Authority’s board members representing that branch of government, and thus avoided the final legislative ratification process that has killed so many P3 alternatives, such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike concession. We have five ongoing P3 initiatives: a 100-school building and modernization program, water system customer service improvements, private operation of our tollway highway system, electric generating plant conversion, and the private operation and development of the Caribbean’s largest airport.
We have streamlined our red-tape laden permitting process, which now boils down to one single comprehensive permit from one single agency.
We have enacted several energy incentives laws, promoting green jobs, a new mega casino law, as well as many other pro-business initiatives.
As everywhere, our real estate market was stagnant and property values decreased —although nowhere near as South Florida’s but a decrease nonetheless. To spur housing sales in September 2010 Governor Fortuño put in place an unprecedented incentives program that has helped to reduce our unsold real estate inventory. So if you want a nice beachside Caribbean property in the U.S. at a good price, with subsidized closing costs, reduced or no property taxes for 5 years, and no capital gains you still have until October 31st to take advantage of our incentives. There's an extensive write-up on this program in today's Wall Street Journal.
Recently, Governor Fortuño enacted the biggest, most comprehensive, fairest, and most beneficial tax reform in the history of Puerto Rico which is already leaving more than $1.2 billion dollars in the taxpayer’s pockets. It includes a 7 to 15% tax cut retroactive to January 1, 2010, and future tax cuts totaling 50% for individuals and 30% for businesses in the next 5 years.
I believe I mentioned that Governor-elect Fortuño asked Wall Street for some breathing space so he could try saving Puerto Rico from falling into the abyss of junk bond status. Well… he did it!
When Governor Fortuño took office Puerto Rico’s Moody’s rating for Puerto Rico’s credit was Baa3, or one notch above junk bond status. In June 2010 Moody’s recalibrated the rating of Puerto Rico general obligation bonds by three notches to A3 —the highest level the Island had achieved in more than 35 years. The three-notch hike was also the highest improvement Moody’s gave to any of the 34 states whose ratings it upgraded, with California being the only other state to enjoy a three-notch improvement.
On December 2010, Standard and Poor’s changed its outlook on Puerto Rico’s credit to “positive” —the first time to do so in over a quarter century, since 1983. And also on December 2010 Moody’s reported that in October 2010 Puerto Rico had its best economic month in 4 years.
We have certainly rescued Puerto Rico’s credit. Through this accomplishment we have not only saved our taxpayers millions of dollars, but we have also saved the jobs and protected the homes, IRA accounts, and savings of tens of thousands of citizens the value of which would have plummeted if Puerto Rico had gone bankrupt.
In fact, I am pleased to say that in matters of managing well the taxpayer’s money, we are ahead of 31 States. At the beginning of our administration, the $3.3 billion deficit that we inherited was the worse among the 50 States and Puerto Rico. Today, we rank 20th. Thirty-one states now have deficits that are worse than ours. And for the fiscal year that began a month ago, we will rank 15th among all the states and Puerto Rico.
Why is it important that governments manage well their budgets? First, because governments should respect the taxpayer. And second, because it allows governments to do more of the things it should do such as hire special education teachers, pay overtime to police officers, provide help to single-mothers, repair highways, and so on…
As you will remember, during the first two years, due to the enormous deficit we inherited, we had to cut back government expenses. But for the fiscal year that begins next July 1st things are already doing better. Although we still have a deficit, we have slightly more resources in order to provide citizens with more and better basic services —particularly in the areas of public safety, health and education, which have the highest priority.
How is this possible? Why do we have this year a little more resources than last year? Well, it is simple. The economy is improving. We have been seeing it in all the economic indicators.
The Government Development Bank’s (GDB) Index of Economic Activity (IEA) had the second consecutive monthly increase since October 2010.
Between May 6, 2011 and June 6, 2011, a total of 1,477 new corporations were organized which means a 33% increase when compared with the same time period in 2010. As of yesterday, those numbers had doubled to over 2,900 new corporations.
Retail sales increased by nearly 2% and auto sales increased by over 17% from last year, which indicate that consumer confidence has improved.
As The Wall Street Journal reports this morning, from September 2010 to April 2010 sales of new residential properties increased by 75% and sales of existing properties increased by over 12%.
Exports increased by 14.8% and imports by 3.3% from last year which suggests an improvement in the manufacturing sector.
In April 2011 the unemployment rate showed an interannual decrease of 0.7% bringing it down to 16.2%.
From August 2010 to April 2011 non-agricultural employment increased by 9,000 jobs —the first employment increase since 2006 when the recession began.
In May 2011 we observed an interannual reduction of 14% in bankruptcy filings —the second consecutive month with a reduction.
From January to May 2011 hotel occupation increased by 3.83% to 77.08% when compared to the same period last year.
In 2010 the volume of air passengers increased 4% and the volume of homeport cruise passengers increased over 21% to 545,000 —the highest level in five years.
…and these are only some of the economic indicators.
In fact, the Planning Board’s official projections indicate that this fiscal year our economy will grow for the first time in five years, since our government was shut down in 2006, long before Minnessota.
As a result, Treasury collections will be higher. Although we have lowered taxes to leave more money in tax payers’ pockets, the General Fund net revenue projection for this fiscal year is 6.4% higher than the previous fiscal year.
Part of that revenue increase is due to a temporary excise tax on offshore companies, which now enables them to contribute a little more to our economic recovery, without affecting their operations or the jobs they create in Puerto Rico, as confirmed by a ruling recently issued by federal Department of Treasury.
We will also see a 20% increase in sales and use tax (SUT) and excise tax revenues related to commercial activity. Why? Precisely because the economy is improving… the consumer is already feeling more confident about the fact that things are getting better. And now consumers feel that they can buy a new car, purchase home appliances, or make some home repairs.
Despite all of these successes, last Monday we suffered a minor setback… Moody’s downgraded the general obligation rating of Puerto Rico one notch from A3 to Baa1 due to the severely underfunded retirement systems for government employees that we inherited from the two previous administrations —which we are now in the process of reforming. A negative outlook was also given because of the potential impact the financial situation of the government pension systems may have on the general fund and the concern that the needed reforms might be challenging for the Government of Puerto Rico —actually, any government— to undertake.
Because of this recalibration, some have questioned our unwavering commitment to reducing the government deficit, controlling spending, and adhering to conservative revenue estimation practices. But sometimes setbacks put in perspective how far we have advanced. Had we not taken the difficult decisions we took, at the time we took them, Puerto Rico’s credit rating would have now hit junk bond status with disastrous consequences. We are standing at a comfortably safe distance from the abyss that others are facing. Even with this downward adjustment our credit rating by Moody’s is still two levels or categories above what we encountered when our administration came into office.
Has Moody’s recent downward adjustment affected the confidence of investors in Puerto Rico? Absolutely not. As Ricardo Faerman, President of CEO-América mentioned earlier today, last Wednesday the Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico successfully sold more than $1 billion in bonds –$756 million for 21st Century Schools sold in the local market and $304 million of Public Buildings Authority bonds sold in the stateside market. Actually, the sale was oversubscribed by nearly $200 million because the Government Development Bank received requests for purchases of $950 million for the originally scheduled sale of $756 million. This is undoubtedly a vote of confidence.
Puerto Rico’s credit continues to be at the highest level it has been in decades thanks to the actions our administration has taken to straighten our finances and lead our economy towards a sustainable recovery.
I hope that you are already convinced that now is the time to take a look at opportunities in this U.S. miracle within Latin America and the Caribbean which is fast becoming an example on how to turn an economy around.
I could go on, but will conclude my remarks here so that we can have some time for questions and answers.
Thank you very much.
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."
jueves, 11 de agosto de 2011
¿Qué le pasó a nuestro sistema de salud?
Por Ricardo Roselló Nevares
En nuestra última columna, establecimos la importancia de que el gobierno tenga una filosofía y visión clara de los servicios de salud que recibe la ciudadanía. Vimos igualmente cómo se desarrollaron en Puerto Rico dos sistemas paralelos de prestación de servicios médicos: uno privado, con las mejores instalaciones para las personas pudientes; y otro público, pagado enteramente por el gobierno, con servicios deficientes, para la población médico indigente. El sistema público creaba dependencia, pues el gobierno tenía dominio sobre la población necesitada. También se prestaba para la manipulación política, y llegó a tal punto ¡que hasta los alcaldes dispensaban recetas!
Debido a esta condición dual, ineficiente y costosa, se dio un cambio radical de paradigma durante los años 90, cuando el gobierno deja atrás su rol de proveedor directo de servicios y se convierte en un comprador de seguros de salud para la población. Esta nueva visión logró mejorías significativas en los servicios médicos para la población médico indigente. De hecho, para el año 2000, Puerto Rico llegó a ser una de las pocas jurisdicciones en el mundo, y la única en todo Estados Unidos, donde el virtualmente el 100 por ciento de la población contaba con cobertura médica. El nuevo paradigma creó asimismo una tendencia de ahorros para el fisco, ya que adquirir seguros médicos para la población resultaba significativamente más económico que mantener hospitales y centros de tratamiento.
Pero, ¿qué ha pasado desde entonces para que nuestro sistema de salud se encuentre nuevamente en una situación precaria?
Luego del 2000, dos administraciones de gobierno subsiguientes, que esbozaban una filosofía de dependencia del pueblo en el gobierno, decidieron dar marcha atrás a los logros alcanzados. Se mantiene, en parte, la tarjeta de salud el gobierno, pero se regresa nuevamente la inversión pública (a menor escala) en proveer servicios directos al pueblo. Para sufragar esos costos, se decide recortar la cantidad de personas en el plan médico, y como resultado, sobre 400 mil puertorriqueños se quedaron sin tarjeta de salud.
Para el 2009, se implementa el plan ‘Mi Salud’, cuya filosofía es la misma que la de los años 90. No obstante, el plan está enfrentando dificultades que no había tenido antes. ¿Por qué? La debacle actual se puede resumir en tres puntos:
Presupuesto de los años 90: Se estableció el sistema con un presupuesto que no tomó en consideración el valor del dólar (ha bajado 30 por ciento) y los costos de las medicinas y tratamientos médicos (han subido 50 por ciento). (Fuente: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office)Tres aseguradoras vs. ocho en los 90: Tener varias aseguradoras crea diversificación y competencia, lo que ayuda a mantener costos bajos y servicios eficientes. Si sólo tres aseguradoras se encargan de 1.3 millones de beneficiarios, se le da demasiado poder a estas tres empresas, y se corre el riesgo de que si una cae (como sucedió), entonces queda un tercio de los beneficiarios sin cubierta médica.
Eliminación de médicos primarios como ‘gate keepers’ (porteros) del sistema: Muchas aseguradoras usan a los médicos primarios como un ‘control’ para evitar el uso abusivo de sus planes. Luego de examinar al paciente, el médico primario indica si ese paciente necesita verse con un especialista. Al eliminar el ‘gate keeper’ del plan del gobierno, se agiliza el proceso, pues el paciente va al especialista directamente. Eso en principio es bueno, pero también los especialistas son muchísimo más caros que los médicos primarios. Por ende, el costo para el sistema será mucho más alto.
Por estas razones, el plan Mi Salud, de seguir como está diseñado ahora, está destinado a fracasar. Entonces, ¿cómo evitamos que fracase?
Algunos han sugerido un modelo de ‘single payer’ o pagador único, donde el gobierno, en vez de ser comprador de un seguro médico, se convertiría en asegurador. Esto crea nuevas realidades: (1) como asegurador, el gobierno será el que carga con el riesgo total del sistema; (2) tendrá que desarrollar un aparato burocrático para substituir las aseguradoras, el cual no existe; (3) el gobierno carece de peritaje en este área; (4) se eliminaría el sector privado de seguros de salud en Puerto Rico (el sector más grande en la industria de seguros en PR), lo que significaría eliminar la competencia, junto a miles de trabajos (el sector médico completo, representa 6% de nuestra fuerza laboral); (5) el gobierno ha tenido un historial negativo manejando servicios de salud, como fue evidenciado durante los 70 y 80; (6) se le vuelve a dar demasiado poder al gobierno y se le quita al ciudadano. ¡Imagínate que no te cubran no por ser de un partido u otro!
La sugerencia del pagador único crea el mismo problema que teníamos hace 25 a 30 años: un sistema ineficiente, inefectivo, controlador y politizado.
En vez, la sugerencia es mantener la estrategia de comprador de un seguro, donde el gobierno hace lo que sabe hacer (pagar, fiscalizar), y deja el mercado privado, especializado y ágil que provea mejores servicios. También restituir al médico primario como ‘gate keeper’ para mantener los costos del sistema mucho más bajos. Y por último, inducir la participación de más aseguradoras para ampliar las redes y la competencia.
En términos del financiamiento del sistema sugerido, se requiere que todos compartamos las responsabilidades. Que el gobierno (estatal, federal) se encargue de proveer seguros a las poblaciones con menos recursos económicos y más vulnerables (ej. envejecientes). A la clase media trabajadora, que se le dé un subsidio significativo mediante mecanismos ofrecidos en la reforma nacional de Obama (Centro de Intercambio de Seguros). La empresa privada, que tenga la responsabilidad de proveer seguros para sus empleados con cierto nivel de ingreso, a cambio de incentivos contributivos. Y los individuos, tendrán que participar en los gastos, como deducibles y copagos.
Este modelo se puede implementar ya. Se necesita legislación. Y si queremos ir más lejos, se puede enmendar la Constitución a fin de proveerle el derecho a la salud a todos los puertorriqueños.
Como podemos ver, tanto la visión como el diseño integral del sistema son fundamentales para una ejecución efectiva. Los modelos donde el gobierno juega un rol que sobrepasa su capacidad de peritaje con el propósito de obtener más control sobre el pueblo reducen la calidad y eficiencia del servicio, y aumentan la dependencia del individuo. Este tipo de modelo es un microcosmo del sistema sociopolítico del ELA, y mientras sigamos con este sistema sociopolítico, tendremos terreno fértil para fomentar modelos similares de ineficiencia, control gubernamental y dependencia del pueblo, no sólo en la salud, sino en otros renglones como la economía, la educación, y demás.
Está en nosotros reconocer esta tendencia y requerir un cambio a un modelo sociopolítico que ponga el poder nuevamente en manos del pueblo.
En nuestra última columna, establecimos la importancia de que el gobierno tenga una filosofía y visión clara de los servicios de salud que recibe la ciudadanía. Vimos igualmente cómo se desarrollaron en Puerto Rico dos sistemas paralelos de prestación de servicios médicos: uno privado, con las mejores instalaciones para las personas pudientes; y otro público, pagado enteramente por el gobierno, con servicios deficientes, para la población médico indigente. El sistema público creaba dependencia, pues el gobierno tenía dominio sobre la población necesitada. También se prestaba para la manipulación política, y llegó a tal punto ¡que hasta los alcaldes dispensaban recetas!
Debido a esta condición dual, ineficiente y costosa, se dio un cambio radical de paradigma durante los años 90, cuando el gobierno deja atrás su rol de proveedor directo de servicios y se convierte en un comprador de seguros de salud para la población. Esta nueva visión logró mejorías significativas en los servicios médicos para la población médico indigente. De hecho, para el año 2000, Puerto Rico llegó a ser una de las pocas jurisdicciones en el mundo, y la única en todo Estados Unidos, donde el virtualmente el 100 por ciento de la población contaba con cobertura médica. El nuevo paradigma creó asimismo una tendencia de ahorros para el fisco, ya que adquirir seguros médicos para la población resultaba significativamente más económico que mantener hospitales y centros de tratamiento.
Pero, ¿qué ha pasado desde entonces para que nuestro sistema de salud se encuentre nuevamente en una situación precaria?
Luego del 2000, dos administraciones de gobierno subsiguientes, que esbozaban una filosofía de dependencia del pueblo en el gobierno, decidieron dar marcha atrás a los logros alcanzados. Se mantiene, en parte, la tarjeta de salud el gobierno, pero se regresa nuevamente la inversión pública (a menor escala) en proveer servicios directos al pueblo. Para sufragar esos costos, se decide recortar la cantidad de personas en el plan médico, y como resultado, sobre 400 mil puertorriqueños se quedaron sin tarjeta de salud.
Para el 2009, se implementa el plan ‘Mi Salud’, cuya filosofía es la misma que la de los años 90. No obstante, el plan está enfrentando dificultades que no había tenido antes. ¿Por qué? La debacle actual se puede resumir en tres puntos:
Presupuesto de los años 90: Se estableció el sistema con un presupuesto que no tomó en consideración el valor del dólar (ha bajado 30 por ciento) y los costos de las medicinas y tratamientos médicos (han subido 50 por ciento). (Fuente: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office)Tres aseguradoras vs. ocho en los 90: Tener varias aseguradoras crea diversificación y competencia, lo que ayuda a mantener costos bajos y servicios eficientes. Si sólo tres aseguradoras se encargan de 1.3 millones de beneficiarios, se le da demasiado poder a estas tres empresas, y se corre el riesgo de que si una cae (como sucedió), entonces queda un tercio de los beneficiarios sin cubierta médica.
Eliminación de médicos primarios como ‘gate keepers’ (porteros) del sistema: Muchas aseguradoras usan a los médicos primarios como un ‘control’ para evitar el uso abusivo de sus planes. Luego de examinar al paciente, el médico primario indica si ese paciente necesita verse con un especialista. Al eliminar el ‘gate keeper’ del plan del gobierno, se agiliza el proceso, pues el paciente va al especialista directamente. Eso en principio es bueno, pero también los especialistas son muchísimo más caros que los médicos primarios. Por ende, el costo para el sistema será mucho más alto.
Por estas razones, el plan Mi Salud, de seguir como está diseñado ahora, está destinado a fracasar. Entonces, ¿cómo evitamos que fracase?
Algunos han sugerido un modelo de ‘single payer’ o pagador único, donde el gobierno, en vez de ser comprador de un seguro médico, se convertiría en asegurador. Esto crea nuevas realidades: (1) como asegurador, el gobierno será el que carga con el riesgo total del sistema; (2) tendrá que desarrollar un aparato burocrático para substituir las aseguradoras, el cual no existe; (3) el gobierno carece de peritaje en este área; (4) se eliminaría el sector privado de seguros de salud en Puerto Rico (el sector más grande en la industria de seguros en PR), lo que significaría eliminar la competencia, junto a miles de trabajos (el sector médico completo, representa 6% de nuestra fuerza laboral); (5) el gobierno ha tenido un historial negativo manejando servicios de salud, como fue evidenciado durante los 70 y 80; (6) se le vuelve a dar demasiado poder al gobierno y se le quita al ciudadano. ¡Imagínate que no te cubran no por ser de un partido u otro!
La sugerencia del pagador único crea el mismo problema que teníamos hace 25 a 30 años: un sistema ineficiente, inefectivo, controlador y politizado.
En vez, la sugerencia es mantener la estrategia de comprador de un seguro, donde el gobierno hace lo que sabe hacer (pagar, fiscalizar), y deja el mercado privado, especializado y ágil que provea mejores servicios. También restituir al médico primario como ‘gate keeper’ para mantener los costos del sistema mucho más bajos. Y por último, inducir la participación de más aseguradoras para ampliar las redes y la competencia.
En términos del financiamiento del sistema sugerido, se requiere que todos compartamos las responsabilidades. Que el gobierno (estatal, federal) se encargue de proveer seguros a las poblaciones con menos recursos económicos y más vulnerables (ej. envejecientes). A la clase media trabajadora, que se le dé un subsidio significativo mediante mecanismos ofrecidos en la reforma nacional de Obama (Centro de Intercambio de Seguros). La empresa privada, que tenga la responsabilidad de proveer seguros para sus empleados con cierto nivel de ingreso, a cambio de incentivos contributivos. Y los individuos, tendrán que participar en los gastos, como deducibles y copagos.
Este modelo se puede implementar ya. Se necesita legislación. Y si queremos ir más lejos, se puede enmendar la Constitución a fin de proveerle el derecho a la salud a todos los puertorriqueños.
Como podemos ver, tanto la visión como el diseño integral del sistema son fundamentales para una ejecución efectiva. Los modelos donde el gobierno juega un rol que sobrepasa su capacidad de peritaje con el propósito de obtener más control sobre el pueblo reducen la calidad y eficiencia del servicio, y aumentan la dependencia del individuo. Este tipo de modelo es un microcosmo del sistema sociopolítico del ELA, y mientras sigamos con este sistema sociopolítico, tendremos terreno fértil para fomentar modelos similares de ineficiencia, control gubernamental y dependencia del pueblo, no sólo en la salud, sino en otros renglones como la economía, la educación, y demás.
Está en nosotros reconocer esta tendencia y requerir un cambio a un modelo sociopolítico que ponga el poder nuevamente en manos del pueblo.
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.
viernes, 5 de agosto de 2011
Puerto Rico: ¿Territorio, Estado, o Nación?
Por Rep. Pedro R. Pierluisi (D-PR at Large)
Comisionado Residente en Washington, D.C.
Columna El Vocero
El eterno problema del estatus de Puerto Rico domina nuestra discusión política. La razón es clara: no tenemos un estatus digno y permanente. Mientras mantengamos el estatus actual continuaremos sumidos en este dilema que nos ha abrumado por muchísimos años, que obstaculiza nuestro desarrollo socio-económico y que nos mantiene enfrascados en una lucha divisoria que en nada beneficia a nuestro pueblo.
El compromiso de ponerle punto final a este dilema tiene que comenzar con aceptar que el estatus actual es el problema y que la única forma de resolverlo es escogiendo un estatus diferente. Nuestro pueblo ha madurado mucho en las pasadas décadas y debemos estar confiados de que los puertorriqueños están preparados para decidir su futuro político con los ojos abiertos, con la verdad de frente y con la esperanza de un mejor porvenir.
Siempre que hablemos de nuestro estatus tenemos que partir de la premisa de que es nuestro pueblo el que debe decidir el destino político de la isla, pues de eso es que se trata el principio de la libre determinación. Por consiguiente, nadie debe cuestionar la validez de cualquier esfuerzo justo y razonable por consultar a nuestro pueblo sobre este trascendental asunto.
Por otro lado, al repasar nuestra historia tenemos que reconocer que desde mediados del siglo pasado hemos tenido tres sectores ideológicos en la isla: los estadolibristas, los estadistas y los independentistas. Es por eso que para que cualquier consulta de estatus sea justa y razonable, ésta debe darle plena oportunidad de expresar su parecer a estos tres sectores de nuestra población. Ahora bien, lo que no puede ser parte de una consulta justa son propuestas engañosas, alternativas irreales o movidas dirigidas a impedir que el pueblo tome su decisión.
El plebiscito propuesto por el Partido Nuevo Progresista provee para que todos en Puerto Rico puedan hacerse sentir. La consulta que proponemos le plantea dos preguntas a nuestro pueblo. Inicialmente le pregunta a nuestros electores si desean que Puerto Rico continúe en su condición política actual de un Estado Libre Asociado sujeto a la Cláusula Territorial de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos o si desean que obtenga un estatus político permanente que no sea colonial o territorial. Y en caso de que la mayoría de los votantes quiera que Puerto Rico obtenga un nuevo estatus, les pide que escojan entre las siguientes alternativas: la Estadidad, la Independencia, o el Estado Libre Asociado fuera de la Cláusula Territorial de la Constitución Federal.
El propósito obvio de la primera pregunta es determinar el nivel de aceptación que tiene en nuestro pueblo el estatus actual. Y es que conforme al principio de la libre determinación nuestro pueblo es quien tiene que decidir si Puerto Rico debe continuar bajo su presente relación con los Estados Unidos.
La segunda pregunta es igualmente pertinente, ya que en el evento de que la mayoría del electorado rechace la condición política actual de la isla es importante saber cuál de las opciones disponibles es la que prefiere nuestro pueblo.
Entonces, ¿por qué el Presidente del Partido Popular Democrático se opone al plebiscito propuesto?
-Porque no está seguro si debe apoyar que Puerto Rico continúe siendo un territorio de los Estados Unidos sujeto a los poderes del Congreso, en donde no tiene voz y voto.
-Porque no está seguro si debe favorecer que el Congreso trate a Puerto Rico como una nación y le permita tener un pacto o tratado de libre asociación con los Estados Unidos.
-Porque unos días reclama que estamos fuera de la Cláusula Territorial de la Constitución Federal y otros días admite que estamos bajo ella.
-Porque algunas veces habla de que hay que desarrollar el Estado Libre Asociado y otras celebra el pacto que supuestamente tenemos con los Estados Unidos desde los años 50.
-Porque un día dice que los Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico son “naciones hermanas” y otro afirma que somos parte de los Estados Unidos.
-Y porque tiene miedo de que la mayoría de nuestro pueblo vaya a rechazar el estatus actual y vaya a abrazar la estadidad.
Pero si algo espera nuestro pueblo de sus líderes, es firmeza y valentía a la hora de tomar decisiones. Jurídica y políticamente Puerto Rico puede continuar siendo un territorio de los Estados Unidos, puede convertirse en el estado 51 de los Estados Unidos, o puede ser una nación independiente o una nación asociada con los Estados Unidos. Ha llegado el momento de que nuestro pueblo le envíe un mensaje claro al Congreso de los Estados Unidos.
En arroz y habichuelas: ¿Qué queremos ser, un territorio, un estado, o una nación? El futuro de Puerto Rico está en nuestras manos.
Comisionado Residente en Washington, D.C.
Columna El Vocero
El eterno problema del estatus de Puerto Rico domina nuestra discusión política. La razón es clara: no tenemos un estatus digno y permanente. Mientras mantengamos el estatus actual continuaremos sumidos en este dilema que nos ha abrumado por muchísimos años, que obstaculiza nuestro desarrollo socio-económico y que nos mantiene enfrascados en una lucha divisoria que en nada beneficia a nuestro pueblo.
El compromiso de ponerle punto final a este dilema tiene que comenzar con aceptar que el estatus actual es el problema y que la única forma de resolverlo es escogiendo un estatus diferente. Nuestro pueblo ha madurado mucho en las pasadas décadas y debemos estar confiados de que los puertorriqueños están preparados para decidir su futuro político con los ojos abiertos, con la verdad de frente y con la esperanza de un mejor porvenir.
Siempre que hablemos de nuestro estatus tenemos que partir de la premisa de que es nuestro pueblo el que debe decidir el destino político de la isla, pues de eso es que se trata el principio de la libre determinación. Por consiguiente, nadie debe cuestionar la validez de cualquier esfuerzo justo y razonable por consultar a nuestro pueblo sobre este trascendental asunto.
Por otro lado, al repasar nuestra historia tenemos que reconocer que desde mediados del siglo pasado hemos tenido tres sectores ideológicos en la isla: los estadolibristas, los estadistas y los independentistas. Es por eso que para que cualquier consulta de estatus sea justa y razonable, ésta debe darle plena oportunidad de expresar su parecer a estos tres sectores de nuestra población. Ahora bien, lo que no puede ser parte de una consulta justa son propuestas engañosas, alternativas irreales o movidas dirigidas a impedir que el pueblo tome su decisión.
El plebiscito propuesto por el Partido Nuevo Progresista provee para que todos en Puerto Rico puedan hacerse sentir. La consulta que proponemos le plantea dos preguntas a nuestro pueblo. Inicialmente le pregunta a nuestros electores si desean que Puerto Rico continúe en su condición política actual de un Estado Libre Asociado sujeto a la Cláusula Territorial de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos o si desean que obtenga un estatus político permanente que no sea colonial o territorial. Y en caso de que la mayoría de los votantes quiera que Puerto Rico obtenga un nuevo estatus, les pide que escojan entre las siguientes alternativas: la Estadidad, la Independencia, o el Estado Libre Asociado fuera de la Cláusula Territorial de la Constitución Federal.
El propósito obvio de la primera pregunta es determinar el nivel de aceptación que tiene en nuestro pueblo el estatus actual. Y es que conforme al principio de la libre determinación nuestro pueblo es quien tiene que decidir si Puerto Rico debe continuar bajo su presente relación con los Estados Unidos.
La segunda pregunta es igualmente pertinente, ya que en el evento de que la mayoría del electorado rechace la condición política actual de la isla es importante saber cuál de las opciones disponibles es la que prefiere nuestro pueblo.
Entonces, ¿por qué el Presidente del Partido Popular Democrático se opone al plebiscito propuesto?
-Porque no está seguro si debe apoyar que Puerto Rico continúe siendo un territorio de los Estados Unidos sujeto a los poderes del Congreso, en donde no tiene voz y voto.
-Porque no está seguro si debe favorecer que el Congreso trate a Puerto Rico como una nación y le permita tener un pacto o tratado de libre asociación con los Estados Unidos.
-Porque unos días reclama que estamos fuera de la Cláusula Territorial de la Constitución Federal y otros días admite que estamos bajo ella.
-Porque algunas veces habla de que hay que desarrollar el Estado Libre Asociado y otras celebra el pacto que supuestamente tenemos con los Estados Unidos desde los años 50.
-Porque un día dice que los Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico son “naciones hermanas” y otro afirma que somos parte de los Estados Unidos.
-Y porque tiene miedo de que la mayoría de nuestro pueblo vaya a rechazar el estatus actual y vaya a abrazar la estadidad.
Pero si algo espera nuestro pueblo de sus líderes, es firmeza y valentía a la hora de tomar decisiones. Jurídica y políticamente Puerto Rico puede continuar siendo un territorio de los Estados Unidos, puede convertirse en el estado 51 de los Estados Unidos, o puede ser una nación independiente o una nación asociada con los Estados Unidos. Ha llegado el momento de que nuestro pueblo le envíe un mensaje claro al Congreso de los Estados Unidos.
En arroz y habichuelas: ¿Qué queremos ser, un territorio, un estado, o una nación? El futuro de Puerto Rico está en nuestras manos.
jueves, 4 de agosto de 2011
The Jones Act
By : JAIME SANTIAGO
For decades, the Jones Act has been a hot topic of public discussion in Puerto Rico. Private industry, government and social groups have all been involved, more often than not with high-pitch passion.
If Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi has his way, we finally may have one. Earlier this year, Pierluisi submitted an official request to the U.S. Congress for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study of the Jones Act and its effects on the local economy.
U.S. shipping companies have introduced a range of 45-foot, 48-foot and 53-foot containers and trailers similar in size and type as the equipment used by U.S. trucking and intermodal- transportation systems.
"Every month that goes by, it is more and more difficult for our company to secure the services of U.S.-flag bulk vessels interested in our business and can offer competitive prices. This creates a big risk for our industry, which is instrumental in keeping local agricultural production competitive in the world market.
Cabotage rights are guaranteed to all nations because a threat to national airspace can threaten national security, and therefore, countries need to be able to protect themselves by protecting their airspace. In addition to keeping themselves safer, many nations used cabotage laws to protect their economies and to promote a strong national shipping industry.
Edition: August 4, 2011 | Volume: 39 | No: 30
caribbeanbusinesspr.com
caribbeanbusinesspr.com
Is it good or bad for Puerto Rico?
For decades, the Jones Act has been a hot topic of public discussion in Puerto Rico. Private industry, government and social groups have all been involved, more often than not with high-pitch passion.
Postures related to the law are diverse and highly charged, but essentially come down to two: detractors who insist the law costs local consumers $200 million to $1 billion in higher prices because products must come to Puerto Rico on U.S.-flag ships, and supporters who argue that those numbers are wildly inflated and the real price difference is more than made up by big savings and superior service on other fronts.
The problem, as CARIBBEAN BUSINESS discovered while doing research on this controversy to finally determine the facts and costs, is that no truly independent study has ever been done that proves one point or the other. The industry did commission one study in 2003, updated earlier this year, that argues its side, which is that the Jones Act should remain in place. Detractors, by contrast, have relied primarily on speculation.
The latest example came just weeks ago, when House Minority Leader Héctor Ferrer, who will run for resident commissioner for the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) in next year's elections, argued vehemently for repeal of the Jones Act, citing a 2001 report by John Stewart, then-director of economic analysis & strategic planning at the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Co.
The report, Ferrer said, "indicates that by eliminating the cabotage laws, Puerto Rico would incur savings of 20% on all products coming to the island. This represents a $220 million capital injection to the local economy. You don't need further analysis to know that those numbers have increased by now," Ferrer concluded.
The minority leader then introduced a House resolution to order the next resident commissioner to present a bill in Congress within the first six months of being sworn in, asking for Puerto Rico's exclusion from U.S. cabotage laws—specifically the Jones Act, or Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920.
But wait. Here is what the Stewart report, obtained by CARIBBEAN BUSINESS, actually says: "I am aware of no credible studies that have focused on Puerto Rico's share in the burden created by the JonesAct. A serious study would require a detailed analysis of Puerto Rico's shipping costs by product and volume,with comparisons of other destinations not under the Jones Act."
Hmm. No credible study? So Stewart figured he would offer a one-paragraph "detailed analysis" of his own: "Maritime freight from the U.S. to Puerto Rico [southbound or incoming cargo] cost more than $900 million in 2000. Comprehensive data on northbound [outgoing cargo] shipping charges aren't available, but total tonnage is only about 36% of southbound traffic and rates are estimated to be 40% to 60% lower. Consequently, total charges for northbound traffic wouldn't exceed $194 million. Nonetheless, this means Puerto Rico's shipping costs are nearly $1.1 billion under the Jones Act. If eliminating the Jones Act created only a 20% reduction in these costs, it would result in a $220 million injection into the Puerto Rico economy at critical points that determine our competitiveness in manufacturing and as a transshipment hub. A World Bank study (1989) found deregulation of Chile's shipping industry had major benefits for that country's exporters."
Translation: By his own admission, Stewart didn't really know and had no study or evidence to prove his 20% cost-saving estimate, or his estimates comparing inbound and outbound rates and cargo volume.
As it turns out, information provided to CARIBBEAN BUSINESS by cargo carriers from a 2003 study by Reeves & Associates, a management & economic-consulting firm, shows the total revenue earned by all carriers in the U.S./Puerto Rico liner trade in 2000—actual reported revenue, not an estimate—was $767 million, or 15% lower than Stewart's estimate. Industry information also shows the 20% figure to be even more inflated.
'NO CONSENSUS'
Ferrer and other Jones Act opponents refer to yet another look at the matter, an April 2002 report by economist José Alameda Lozada of the economics department at the University of Puerto Rico's Mayagüez campus.
They claim Alameda estimated the annual cost of the Jones Act on the local economy to be $225 million to $400 million.
"That money could stay on the island to promote economic activity," Ferrer has insisted publicly.
However, here again, Alameda is first to admit his numbers are pure guesswork and shouldn't be used to set policy or change the law.
"There seems to be no consensus on the issue," says his report, also obtained by CARIBBEAN BUSINESS. "It has been estimated that the cost could fl uctuate from $300 million to $500 million," but he offers no source for these figures and agrees no definitive study has yet been done.
"The negative effects of the cabotage laws on the local economy have constantly been overestimated," said Mohinder Bhatia, president of Puerto Rico Management & Economic Consultants Inc., a firm that issued a report on the Jones Act in 1992. He added yet another twist: "Local businesspeople use the issue as an excuse to justify charging higher prices for their goods."
Economist Joaquín Villamil of Estudios Técnicos seconded the motion. "I don't think the Jones Act has the negative effects on our economy that most detractors say. It isn't an obstacle to the growth of Puerto Rico's economy." He cautions, however, that his comments come with a big question mark, since "there haven't been recent studies done on the subject that I know of," at least none that are truly independent.
GAO STUDY
If Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi has his way, we finally may have one. Earlier this year, Pierluisi submitted an official request to the U.S. Congress for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study of the Jones Act and its effects on the local economy.The resident commissioner said the proposed study should adhere to the GAO's general practices, under which all stakeholders are consulted, including Puerto Rico representatives from the manufacturing, agriculture and charter-vessel sectors.
"We see it as a very positive development," said William Riefkohl, executive vice president of the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association. "We welcome the study so, once and for all, we will know the Jones Act's impact on our economy."
Manuel Reyes, executive vice president of the Chamber of Food Marketing, Industry & Distribution (MIDA by its Spanish acronym), agreed.
"We welcome the study and hope it is comprehensive," he said. "It not only should include information on any possible direct economic costs, but also indirect factors such as future availability and quality of ocean-transportation services for the island, if Puerto Rico were to be exempted from the law."
Both associations have opposed the law in the past.
Ferrer, convinced adequate studies already have been done, objected. "The local economy doesn't need any more studies or excuses; it needs action."
BEYOND SHIPS AND CREWS
So, what might a thorough independent study reveal? CARIBBEAN BUSINESS surveyed a wide range of economists and shipping-industry leaders and found consensus on certain key points.
The Jones Act requires all goods transported over water between U.S. ports (which includes Puerto Rico) be carried in U.S.-fl ag ships built in the States, and owned and crewed by U.S. citizens and/or permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. maritime industry.
Cargo arriving at Puerto Rico from non-U.S. ports, mostly on international ships, face no such restrictions.
Given the relatively high level of U.S. seafarers' wages on an international basis, as well as the high cost of U.S. shipyards where ships are built, it isn't surprising many observers believe there is a high premium associated with Jones Act shipping.
However, those costs aren't the only variables that factor into the net cost of shipping under the cabotage laws. In the broader, and mostly overlooked, context of cargo economics, the cost premium actually becomes rather small or turns into an outright gain for end consumers.
Most importantly, the Jones Act refers mainly to ships and crews. Yet, the total cost of shipping a product from the U.S. mainland to Puerto Rico includes a whole host of other items.
Fuel, terminal-handling charges, inland transportation (trains and trucks), and other such costs would be incurred at the same levels as today if the Jones Act didn't exist and non-U.S. ships and crews were able to service U.S. mainland-Puerto Rico routes.
Taking a load sailing out of Jacksonville, Fla., for example, a non-Jones Act carrier still would need staff at both ports, would require trucking or rail service to inland destinations, and would need to use marine terminals at continental U.S. and Puerto Rico ports. These costs would be identical for a foreign- fl ag carrier as for a Jones Act shipping company.
Even vessel and crew costs apply to international carriers, although Jones Act companies pay more. Industry executives estimate about half the portion of a vessel's cost still would be incurred by a foreign-fl ag operator regardless of nationality, meaning the actual cost of Jones Act provisions on the overall movement of a container is about 10% higher than non-U.S. ships, perhaps even less.
SIZE MATTERS
So would consumers save 10% by switching to an open market and ending Jones Act protectionism? Probably not.
A foreign carrier would need to achieve the same level of efficiency as the current U.S.-based carriers in such key areas as intermodal surface transportation within the U.S. and marine-terminal operations, which are both much larger components of carriers' operating costs than either crew or vessel capital costs.
The main driver of this efficiency is the size of the containers used by U.S. carriers vs. foreign ones. The bigger the container, the more cargo a manufacturer or retailer can move for a comparable cost, and therefore, the lower the net bill.
U.S. shipping companies have introduced a range of 45-foot, 48-foot and 53-foot containers and trailers similar in size and type as the equipment used by U.S. trucking and intermodal- transportation systems.The bigger size has had an enormous impact on inland and terminal-handling efficiency. A 53-foot trailer can carry up to 67% more high-volume consumer-goods cargo than is characteristic of the trade—light cargo that can maximize equipment-space capacity without exceeding over-the-road weight limitations—at essentially the same cost for inland transportation as would be incurred by the standard 40-foot container used in international trade.
Foreign-fl ag carriers use 40-foot containers today in their international routes and would do the same if they serviced U.S. mainland-Puerto Rico routes.
That would raise the inland cost of moving products from origin to port in the mainland U.S. by up to 60%.
These savings, alone, more than compensate for the higher cost of Jones Act vessels and crews, according to industry executives interviewed by CARIBBEAN BUSINESS.
INTEGRATION
Moreover, the cost to load a 40-foot or 53-foot container or trailer is essentially the same. While a limited number of 45-foot containers are used in international trade, 48-foot and 53-foot equipment aren't used internationally since most foreign marine terminals and surface-transportation systems—mainly in Europe and Asia—are unable to accommodate them.
Consequently, international container carriers neither carry such equipment in their container fleets, nor do they design or build their vessels to those specifications.
The specialized, dedicated transportation carriers that serve the Puerto Rico trade have tightly integrated the island with the States' inland-transportation systems, allowing shipping and freight-handling companies to handle progressively higher volumes at little incremental cost.
"Unfortunately, studies emphasize rate costs, without considering other important factors such as quality of service, safety & security issues, labor laws and environmental issues," Alameda acknowledged in his 2002 report.
TRANSSHIPMENT
The same math would apply to a transshipment port on the island. Much has been said about the Jones Act being an obstacle to the development of a viable transshipment operation in Puerto Rico, whether at the Port of the Americas in Ponce or at Roosevelt Roads in Ceiba.
Unlike domestic cargo that arrives at local ports to be consumed on the island, transshipment loads arrive in big vessels, are unloaded at the port and reloaded to smaller ships that take the cargo to its final destination.
This can be done at any port with the correct geographical location, sufficient land area to stage unloaded containers, the needed operational capabilities and the correct draft and berthing space to receive ships.
Once these requirements are met, cost is the decisive factor for shipping companies deciding which port to use for transshipment.
A very important fact is that if cargo is transshipped through Puerto Rico, provisions of the Jones Act wouldn't apply to the cargo destined for foreign ports. The Jones Act only would apply to cargo unloaded locally for other U.S. domestic ports.
Contrary to public perception, if the current economics for cargo coming to and staying in Puerto Rico applied to transshipments, loads going to the mainland U.S. could move in Jones Act vessels at competitive rates.
If there is a Jones Act cost differential, then it would be evident in comparing freight rates for the Puerto Rico trade with those in similar routes, such as U.S. mainland shipments to and from the Dominican Republic and Haiti, where Jones Act provisions don't apply.
Two carriers in the Puerto Rico trade also serve the Dominican Republic and/or Haiti. In addition, a large number of carriers operating foreign-flag vessels also provide shipping services between the U.S. mainland and the Dominican Republic and/or Haiti.
The average all-inclusive southbound (incoming) port-to-port rate in 2010 for Puerto Rico actually was 1% lower than for southbound cargo carried to the Dominican Republic and Haiti.
The real difference occurs with northbound loads (outgoing cargo to the U.S. mainland), where rates from Puerto Rico are 44% less than the average northbound rate from the Dominican Republic and Haiti.
This would be the direction of transshipped loads moving to the mainland U.S. Based on this comparison, loads moving from a local transshipment port to U.S. mainland ports could move in U.S.-flag vessels at competitive rates.
Other factors prove to be bigger obstacles to transshipment operations in Puerto Rico than the Jones Act, with labor costs being the biggest. Puerto Rico's principal transshipment competition among Caribbean ports are the Dominican Republic, Panama, Jamaica, Colombia and the Bahamas. The average salary of stevedores at these ports is less than $10 an hour. In Puerto Rico, that figure is nearly $54. That labor cost contributes greatly to the cost of products locally.
Cargo-documentation transmission to the U.S. Customs & Border Patrol is another factor that increases the cost of a transshipment operation at any U.S. port, including Puerto Rico.
For security reasons, U.S. Customs requires vessels calling on U.S. ports from international locations to transmit documentation to federal authorities on all loads aboard ship 24 hours prior to departure from the port of origin, regardless of whether the loads stay at a U.S. jurisdiction or continue to another foreign port.
This procedure adds additional operating costs to the shipping lines and isn't required at nondomestic ports. However, this is a separate compliance problem that has nothing to do with the Jones Act.
A typical vessel used for transshipment in the Caribbean can carry 2,000 to 6,000 TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) and, when the Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014, new bigger post-Panamax vessels with up to 12,000 TEUs could be making transshipments in the region. Document transmission of loads that massive is a daunting additional cost—again, having nothing to do with the Jones Act.
BULK CARGO…A DIFFERENT SCENARIO
Jones Act provisions affect bulk-cargo transportation economics very differently. In containerized cargo, there is good service due to overtonnage (more space in vessels than the market requires). There are also four U.S.-flag companies dedicated to the Puerto Rico market, offering multiple weekly calls between local and various U.S. mainland ports.
By contrast, bulk-cargo service (noncontainerized cargo mostly transported via barges) to and from Puerto Rico and the mainland U.S. is a different story, given the far lower demand for bulk on the island. Containerized cargo is estimated to be 85% of the total. Only 15% is bulk.
"Container-cargo volume in this market is high," an industry source said. "On the other hand, bulk-cargo volume is much lower and sometimes seasonal. Because of this, bulk U.S.- flag vessels may not be available locally at any given time. Vessel owners can't have their equipment idle. They will take the equipment where there is business. If a local businessperson wants to have continuous availability of a vessel, the owner will ask for guarantees and a contract."
This creates problems for local users of bulk-cargo shipping services. The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (Prepa) is one such example.
"We sometimes have to transfer fuel from one of our depots to another," a Prepa executive told CARIBBEAN BUSINESS. "Barges are used for this. We use two different kinds of fuel and they can't be mixed, so any given barge can only handle one type of fuel. In Puerto Rico, there are only two barges, each handling a specific kind of fuel. If these barges aren't available when we need to transfer from one plant to another, our operations are disrupted."
The same applies to other industries. At a 2001 public hearing on the Jones Act, the president of a local fertilizer-manufacturing plant wrote to then- Sen. José Ortiz Daliot (PDP):
"Every month that goes by, it is more and more difficult for our company to secure the services of U.S.-flag bulk vessels interested in our business and can offer competitive prices. This creates a big risk for our industry, which is instrumental in keeping local agricultural production competitive in the world market."Our local manufacturing plant pays 100% more in transportation fees than our plant in Jamaica because of the need to use U.S.-flag vessels. At present, we can't secure any ship or barge to handle our required cargo volumes (12,000 tons). So, we ask that an exemption to Jones Act provisions for our industry be granted," he concluded.
Limited exemptions to provisions of the Jones Act have been granted in the past to the cruiseship industry in Puerto Rico and to various sectors in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Bulk cargo in the Puerto Rico trade lane could be next.
History, war and cabotage laws
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between its ports. Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires all goods transported over water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-fl ag ships, constructed in the States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and/or U.S. permanent residents.
The law was enacted in the wake of World War I, the bloodiest and costliest in history up to that point. Congress and the White House decided to protect industry, in part to ensure ready access to U.S. ships and crews in case of war.
Cabotage generally refers to the transport of passengers and goods. Originally, it referred specifically to shipping, but cabotage also applies to airlines, trucking and trains. Many nations have cabotage laws that dictate the terms carriers must follow when transporting people or materials within their borders. Many of these laws are designed to promote the development of domestic transport companies, and some cabotage laws have been criticized because they can restrict free trade.
The word comes from the French caboter, which means "to sail along a coast." While the word initially referred to navigation and trade in coastal waters, it also has come to refer to the right of a country to restrict its airspace.
Cabotage rights are guaranteed to all nations because a threat to national airspace can threaten national security, and therefore, countries need to be able to protect themselves by protecting their airspace. In addition to keeping themselves safer, many nations used cabotage laws to protect their economies and to promote a strong national shipping industry.Many countries give preferences to domestic carriers operating in their airspace and ports. The U.S. is one such example, with airlines operating domestic flights required to be U.S.-based, although foreign carriers may fl y into U.S. airports.
At ports, under the Jones Act, domestic cabotage must be carried out by U.S. ships, although foreign carriers are welcome in domestic ports with cargo and passengers. Foreign ships that make multiple stops, such as cruiseships, may receive special dispensation so they don't violate cabotage laws.
If you board a plane in France that is operated by a French airline, the plane can fl y to any international airport in the U.S. If the plane lands in Miami and continues on to New York City, you can choose to disembark in either city. However, the plane may not take on new passengers in Miami, because this would violate cabotage laws by transporting passengers domestically within the U.S.
There are two forms of cabotage: natural, which is trade or transport in coastal waters or airspace between two points within a country, and offshore, which treats offshore lands as if they were part of the nation's coastline. Puerto Rico fallsin the latter category.
miércoles, 3 de agosto de 2011
Luis Fortuño
Por Lincoln Díaz-Balart
Diario Las Americas
Publicado el 07-29-2011
El Gobernador de Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuño, está dando múltiples ejemplos de brillantez, carácter, y extraordinaria imaginación en su trayectoria como el más importante líder político de la isla del encanto, y uno de los más impresionantes líderes hispanos de Estados Unidos.
Las circunstancias que confrontaron a Fortuño cuando asumió la posición de Gobernador no pudieron haber sido más difíciles. Ninguna jurisdicción de Estados Unidos tenía un déficit presupuestario mayor como porcentaje de sus ingresos. En dos años, Fortuño logró reducir el déficit por un 81 por ciento y está en un claro camino a equilibrar el presupuesto del gobierno de Puerto Rico. Por primera vez en unos 30 años, las agencias de clasificación crediticia han incrementado la calidad de la deuda de Puerto Rico (Standard and Poors, por ejemplo, ha subido la clasificación de Puerto Rico de BBB- a BBB).
Fortuño ha reducido los impuestos para todos los puertorriqueños. Iniciativas de Fortuño para la venta y la construcción de viviendas también han sido verdaderamente extraordinarias. Fortuño redujo los impuestos para los compradores, los vendedores y los inversionistas en el sector inmobiliario, y eliminó los impuestos por 10 años sobre los ingresos relacionados a propiedades inmobiliarias. Durante los primeros 10 meses del programa, las ventas de viviendas nuevas subieron en un 90 por ciento y de viviendas existentes en un 20 por ciento.
El Gobernador Fortuño ha implementado un programa innovador de sociedades entre el gobierno y la libre empresa para la construcción y renovación de la infraestructura de Puerto Rico (Public-Private Partnerships, o PPPs). El mes pasado, por ejemplo, Puerto Rico anunció que casi 1500 millones de dólares han sido invertidos en proyectos privados de infraestructura solo en este año, una de las mayores cantidades de inversión en todas las jurisdicciones de Estados Unidos. Una "PPP" está invirtiendo casi $800 millones para modernizar 95 escuelas y construir 5 nuevas escuelas. Otra "PPP" modernizará el aeropuerto principal de la isla. Se proyecta que estos proyectos crearán casi 30,000 nuevos empleos.
No ha sido fácil la labor de Luis Fortuño. Los gobiernos anteriores habían dejado a Puerto Rico prácticamente en la bancarrota y, además, se habían acostumbrado a incrementar los impuestos continuamente para pagar sus cuentas, convirtiendo a Puerto Rico en una económica casi inviable e imposible de competir internacionalmente. El proceso para abrir una nueva empresa en Puerto Rico era difícil y costoso. El Gobernador Fortuño simplificó ese proceso dramáticamente. En vez de tener que obtener casi 30 permisos, en múltiples sitios, Fortuño ha reducido el proceso a una oficina, un sitio, para la obtención de todos los permisos necesarios para abrir una nueva empresa en Puerto Rico. Esa importante reforma, en mi opinión, será fundamental para la creación de cientos de miles de nuevos puestos de trabajo en el futuro para el pueblo puertorriqueño.
A mí no me ha sorprendido la brillantez y la capacidad de decisión de Luis Fortuño como Gobernador de Puerto Rico. Lo conozco desde hace muchos años. Fuimos colegas en el Congreso federal de Estados Unidos. Más que un Gobernador, Luis Fortuño es un verdadero Estadista. Lo felicito de todo corazón por sus éxitos, por su coraje, y su visión.
http://www.diariolasamericas.com/noticia/125520/contentinfusion_lis.php
Diario Las Americas
Publicado el 07-29-2011
El Gobernador de Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuño, está dando múltiples ejemplos de brillantez, carácter, y extraordinaria imaginación en su trayectoria como el más importante líder político de la isla del encanto, y uno de los más impresionantes líderes hispanos de Estados Unidos.
Las circunstancias que confrontaron a Fortuño cuando asumió la posición de Gobernador no pudieron haber sido más difíciles. Ninguna jurisdicción de Estados Unidos tenía un déficit presupuestario mayor como porcentaje de sus ingresos. En dos años, Fortuño logró reducir el déficit por un 81 por ciento y está en un claro camino a equilibrar el presupuesto del gobierno de Puerto Rico. Por primera vez en unos 30 años, las agencias de clasificación crediticia han incrementado la calidad de la deuda de Puerto Rico (Standard and Poors, por ejemplo, ha subido la clasificación de Puerto Rico de BBB- a BBB).
Fortuño ha reducido los impuestos para todos los puertorriqueños. Iniciativas de Fortuño para la venta y la construcción de viviendas también han sido verdaderamente extraordinarias. Fortuño redujo los impuestos para los compradores, los vendedores y los inversionistas en el sector inmobiliario, y eliminó los impuestos por 10 años sobre los ingresos relacionados a propiedades inmobiliarias. Durante los primeros 10 meses del programa, las ventas de viviendas nuevas subieron en un 90 por ciento y de viviendas existentes en un 20 por ciento.
El Gobernador Fortuño ha implementado un programa innovador de sociedades entre el gobierno y la libre empresa para la construcción y renovación de la infraestructura de Puerto Rico (Public-Private Partnerships, o PPPs). El mes pasado, por ejemplo, Puerto Rico anunció que casi 1500 millones de dólares han sido invertidos en proyectos privados de infraestructura solo en este año, una de las mayores cantidades de inversión en todas las jurisdicciones de Estados Unidos. Una "PPP" está invirtiendo casi $800 millones para modernizar 95 escuelas y construir 5 nuevas escuelas. Otra "PPP" modernizará el aeropuerto principal de la isla. Se proyecta que estos proyectos crearán casi 30,000 nuevos empleos.
No ha sido fácil la labor de Luis Fortuño. Los gobiernos anteriores habían dejado a Puerto Rico prácticamente en la bancarrota y, además, se habían acostumbrado a incrementar los impuestos continuamente para pagar sus cuentas, convirtiendo a Puerto Rico en una económica casi inviable e imposible de competir internacionalmente. El proceso para abrir una nueva empresa en Puerto Rico era difícil y costoso. El Gobernador Fortuño simplificó ese proceso dramáticamente. En vez de tener que obtener casi 30 permisos, en múltiples sitios, Fortuño ha reducido el proceso a una oficina, un sitio, para la obtención de todos los permisos necesarios para abrir una nueva empresa en Puerto Rico. Esa importante reforma, en mi opinión, será fundamental para la creación de cientos de miles de nuevos puestos de trabajo en el futuro para el pueblo puertorriqueño.
A mí no me ha sorprendido la brillantez y la capacidad de decisión de Luis Fortuño como Gobernador de Puerto Rico. Lo conozco desde hace muchos años. Fuimos colegas en el Congreso federal de Estados Unidos. Más que un Gobernador, Luis Fortuño es un verdadero Estadista. Lo felicito de todo corazón por sus éxitos, por su coraje, y su visión.
http://www.diariolasamericas.com/noticia/125520/contentinfusion_lis.php
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)