Washington.- El comisionado residente de Puerto Rico, Pedro Pierluisi, se mostró “dolido” por no haber podido sumar su voto a la reforma de salubridad del presidente estadounidense Barack Obama, aprobada en la noche del domingo en la Cámara de Representantes federal 220-211.

“Me siento profundamente honrado de haber participado activamente en la elaboración de esta legislación histórica, pero tengo que reconocer que me dolió el no poder votar en representación de mi pueblo y espero que llegue el día en que podamos corregir esta obvia injusticia”, manifestó Pierluisi, quien permaneció en el hemiciclo de la Cámara durante el debate, que se extendió por más de 10 horas.

To the editors:

I read with interest your coverage on the article that appeared in the Harvard Political Review (HPR) entitled “Manipulating Self-Determination,” which criticizes the Pierluisi bill. I was surprised to see Professor Kenneth Shepsle quoted in the article, however, since I did not recall coming across his work on Puerto Rico. But it turns out Professor Shepsle was even more surprised. He tells me his words were quoted out of context, and he disclaims any expertise on the matter of Puerto Rico’s status—which is reasonable, since he knows nothing about the subject. It would appear that the author of the HPR piece was a freshman in a course taught by Professor Shepsle, who met with the professor to discuss his term paper, because he was writing an article for the HPR on the same subject. The student incorporated into the article comments made by the professor in the course of a general discussion of voting systems. It did not occur to Professor Shepsle that his words were going to be quoted, much less as an “expert” taking a position in a complicated, delicate, and controversial debate. And he’s not amused.

Presumably your readers are aware that the student in question is the son of José Alfredo Hernández Mayoral? Or maybe not, since your coverage neglected to mention it.

There is something genuinely sad about the mainstream newspaper on the island writing news stories about undergraduate editorials in student publications on the mainland. Worse still that your reporting exaggerated the errors of the original. Has it really come to this?

Christina Duffy Burnett
Associate Professor of Law
Columbia Law School

First, the use of Professor Kenneth Shepsle’s comments as authority to support the article’s conclusion must be called into question. This week, a Puerto Rico blogger emailed Professor Shepsle twice on this matter and whether he had shed the opinion attributed to him here. On his response to the first question Professor Shepsle expressed the following: “I am not an expert on Puerto Rico, its history, or its politics”. He also stated: “I have no position on the issue under discussion. I am chagrined by being represented as an expert on this topic or that I have taken sides”. As his response to the second email he said: “I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the bill to form an opinion.” See http://paisciego.blogspot.com/

Second, to put this writing into context, it is important to note that Pablo José Hernández is the grandson of the former Puerto Rico Governor Rafael Hernández Colón. He is also the son of José Alfredo Hernández Mayoral, who has flirted with running for Puerto Rico’s governorship in the past and is doing so now. Both politicians are members of the minoritary Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) that in 2008 suffered the worst loss of its history at the hands of the pro-statehood Partido Nuevo Progresista and that since 1972 has failed to get a majority of votes in any Puerto Rican election. Given what has happened in recent elections, and because of the fact that since the early 1970s the only political movement that has gained followers in Puerto Rico has been the statehood movement, the PPD fears that a pro-51st state majority already exists in that Caribbean archipelago.

Hence, in a desperate attempt at preserving its colonial ruling-class status and to try to stop a plebiscite that they fear will confirm that the a majority of Puerto Ricans want the territory to become a state of the Union (as several recent polls have suggested), the PPD and their big interest allies (the tax shelter loving kind) have shifted their strategy to running a campaign aimed at denigrating Puerto Ricans and their government. To do so, they have teamed-up with the most anti-Latino and reactionary sectors of the American political sphere. This is why their leaders constantly reach out to politicians like Trent Lott and Steve King, groups like English-Only and the Lexington Institute, and editorials in their favor as well as their member’s articles are more likely to published in the Washington Times than in the New York Times (which in 1998 supported a status bill that was also opposed by the PPD).

Likewise, the PPD seems to have lost any hope of convincing a majority of Puerto Ricans, Thus, their political strategy—as with this article—is mostly aimed at the residents of the states, in the hopes of being able to block statehood even if a plebiscite results in a majority vote in favor of statehood. And their new stance on the status issue is that the US should deny a statehood petition from Puerto Rico even if the majority of Puerto Ricans vote in favor of that option. Even though they claim to have “won” more-than-a-decade-old local plebiscites (in which they called to vote against the incumbent governor rather than on the status issue) with 48% and 50% of the votes (many of which come from coalitions rather than actual “commonwealth” supporters), they now claim the right to “win” any future plebiscite unless the other side gets more than 60% of the votes. That position is so ridiculous that it would have also keep New York out of the Union in 1789.

Finally, it must be stated that the reason why HR-2499 is written in the way is it is, to a great extent, a byproduct of the PPD’s internal politics. The all three branches of the federal government have unequivocally stated that under the current status Puerto Rico is subjected to Congress’s plenary powers. The PPD, however, says that the archipelago’s status should be modified (or “improved”) in a manner that changes that reality. But, it is a well-known fact in Puerto Rico that, for decades, the PPD’s leadership has been unable to come up with a definition of the “improved commonwealth” and provide the Puerto Rican electorate as well as the US government with a definition of the proposal that the PPD supports. After years of discussion on the matter, the PPD comes up empty every time they are confronted with the question. The PPD’s internal division has become so virulent that, for example, Hernández Mayoral (Pablo’s father) has suggested that party members that oppose his position (which is itself very murky) should be expelled and vice versa. Under those conditions, the PPD claims that an option that they have long been unable to define should be placed on the ballot, simply by name and without a definition. It is because of the PPD’s old identity crisis that HR-2499 calls on Puerto Ricans to vote “yes” or “no” on the “status quo”, since there is very little doubt about what the current status is.

One last thing, it should be noted that this bill has been endorsed by an unusually high number of members of the House; ranging from conservatives like Ron Paul to the House’s more liberal members like Dennis Kucinich.

And, at that precise moment is when I step in and say, va te faire foutre! After that, the conversation usually goes for a nice spin and everyone gets real comfortable. Very much like the remarkable debate on the issue at hand, resulting from the enlighten writing of a Mr. Pablo Hernández. Let’s see:

“Private profit was [and still is] the main object of most colonial economic activity. . . The more self sufficient a country is, the less it has to import from foreign countries. Acquiring colonies can make a country self sufficient if they are able to produce things the mother country cannot. They also provide a market for the mother country’s exports.” Puerto Rico is a tax heaven for hundreds of American companies that expatriate their earnings each year without paying taxes to the Puerto Rican people. Each year these companies make over $33,000 million in profits. Moreover, Puerto Rico subsidizes the American economy, importing anything from cars, ammunition, guns (“officially” there were close to 900 homicides in PR in 2009 and millions of bullets of all calibers were sold!)), women’s cosmetics, food, gasoline, all the way to sugar!! PR is the most profitable business partner of the US regime in the western hemisphere. Additionally, skilled laborers – professionals – are stolen by the thousands each year to supplement the lack of capable professionals in the metropolis. Sure, the US regime probably funnels close to six (6) thousand billions in various types of federal money into the Puerto Rican economy but keep in mind – my awesome Ivy League intellectuals, including the heart bleeding liberals and Blackwater extremist Republicans – that included in this amount are earned monies from military pensions as well as social security benefits that have already been paid for. And that’s about 40 to 50% of the so-called federal aid Uncle Sam gives Puerto Rico each year. In addition, as a colony we can only use EXCLUSIVELY the US regime Merchant Marine, by far the most onerous one in the world. This cost us about $550 to $600 millions annually. The US regime doesn’t pay a cent for the real estate its numerous military installations in Puerto Rican territory. Ah, American are so extremely ignorant of all this. I can on endlessly about the truth of colonialism but should I? Are the Yankees in Capitol Hill willing to listen? How about the average Joe driving an F150 out on the street, would he care at all? At best, “educated suburban” professionals in the USA all they may know is that Puerto Rico got boxers, a Miss Universe, some good beaches, rum (that will shortly have a new home in the US Virgin Islands) and some kid of referendums in which the SLAVES have – under the oppressive conditions of slavery/colonialism – allegedly chosen “freely” to remain just that, despicable SLAVES of America the great and beautiful! Just imagine, 112 years of slavery and that is what most “intelligent” and “highly” educated Americans know about Puerto Rico and our colonial plight! I mean, there were hundreds of thousands of slaves in American plantations that upon abolition, they just wouldn’t dare cross that threshold onto emancipation. These poor “children” just stayed with Master, ever so compliant, docile and submissive!

I think it would help to let the readers get a bit more concrete information about the exploitation of PR at the hands of the US regime and why – at the end – all of this debate about legislative projects to decolonize PR is fundamentally inconsequential. Historically, lots of funds are spent on the masquerade of a so-called debate on the issue of colonization but nothing ever comes of it because, to put it in simple terms, the colony is to darn profitable to the Uncle Sam. So begging is not going to change anything. Thus, we, Puerto Ricans, have only one option left: to take power from the oppressor and this, we shall do, by any means necessary. I know lots of good liberal peace loving folks don’t appreciate this kind of tone, but, hmmm, after 112 years of slavery, ahh, what else do you suggest? Maybe, turn the other cheek, be patient, tolerant, maybe do hunger strikes or sit inns, or maybe a letter campaign? I don’t think so! The American Empire is so viciously violent prone and bullies only seem to understand and respect, in the eternity of time, one language only, violent behavior. Remember Vietnam and how you were literally forced to learn to respect the Vietnamese? No Rosa Parks there, no sir! You just got to say no to bullying! It’s just a matter of time and getting enough Uncle Toms to do away with their mental chains of oppression! That way we, Puerto Ricans, can have not one but hundreds, thousands, of Tea Parties! Ain’t that nostalgic?

Well, anyway, here it is – opps – in Spanish, my mother tongue, for all you educated folks that are fluent in at least two languages:

“La saga tributaria de las “corporaciones de posesiones” corporaciones de Estados Unidos ubicadas en sus posesiones comenzó en el año 1921 con la aprobación de la Sección 262. Las exenciones tributarias que ésta disponía fueron adoptadas para ayudar a las corporaciones estadounidenses a competir con otras empresas, sobre todo británicas, en las Filipinas, entonces posesión de Estados Unidos. Puesto que las competidoras europeas podían remitir sus ganancias desde el extranjero hasta la casa matriz en la metrópoli bajo la cobija de exenciones o créditos, las empresas de Estados Unidos cabildearon para obtener un trato similar. La Sección 262 se hizo extensiva a todas las posesiones de Estados Unidos. Se podría decir que Puerto Rico, como posesión, ingresó a tal juego tributario como consecuencia de una carambola iniciada en las Filipinas. . .

Las corporaciones foráneas controladas no son, ni aquí ni fuera de aquí, hermanas de la caridad. En estos momentos la administración del presidente Barack Obama está proponiendo tres medidas para intentar lidiar con los viejos vicios de estos entes corporativos. La primera es acabar con la práctica de deducir gastos de inversiones realizadas fuera de Estados Unidos a la misma vez que posponen indefinidamente la repatriación de ganancias; la segunda intenta ponerle trabas al juego contable de transferencias de ganancias entre subsidiarias; la tercera supone una revisión de los créditos que se pueden deducir por concepto de las contribuciones pagadas en las jurisdicciones foráneas. Todas estas medidas se orientan hacia el aumento de recaudos.
Mientras tanto, en Puerto Rico se actúa como si estas empresas fueran intocables. Para colmo, ya se ha comenzado con el juego de buscar trato privilegiado sin antes exigirle a estas empresas, y a todas las demás formas corporativas, la responsabilidad social y fiscal que este país merece. No se puede ser cómplice de malas prácticas, incluyendo la costumbre de operar aquí e incorporarse en las Islas Caimán y en otros paraísos tributarios, lo que también está bajo la mirilla de la administración del presidente Obama.
Es extremadamente irónico que ahora el gobierno de Estados Unidos exija la responsabilidad fiscal allá que hace años se ha debido exigir acá. Pasó con la Sección 936. Ahora pasa con las corporaciones foráneas controladas. No se aprende.”

* El autor es catedrático jubilado de economía de la Universidad de Puerto Rico y miembro de la Junta Directiva de Claridad.
===================

En 1977, por ejemplo, la farmacéutica GD Searle declaraba en Puerto Rico el 150 por ciento de sus ganancias globales y la Pepsi Cola reclamaba en la isla el 21 por ciento de éstas.

No es que los puertorriqueños consumiéramos más medicinas producidas por GD Searle que el resto de la humanidad, ni que tomáramos ¡una quinta parte! de la Pepsi Cola del mundo. Las altas tasas de ganancias reportadas por las corporaciones 936 se debían a que las empresas matrices en Estados Unidos vendían por un precio nominal o transferían a sus subsidiarias en Puerto Rico sus patentes y marcas registradas reclamando para éstas una porción importante del ingreso de licencias, patentes y productos de marca registrada, como el sirop de refrescos o drogas patentizadas para las cuales no se produce bio-equivalentes o genéricos. Aunque en 1982 esta práctica fue limitada por la ley conocida como TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act), la misma se continuó con modificaciones. En 1986 Puerto Rico era el país que más ganancias le producía a las transnacionales norteamericanas sobre su inversión directa fuera de Estados Unidos, 5,866 millones de dólares. Canadá le seguía a la isla con 5,180 millones de dólares, a pesar de que el producto bruto de la economía puertorriqueña equivalía a 5.8 por ciento del producto bruto canadiense.
===========================

Informacion y datos suministrados por el Ptdo. Independentista Puertorriqueño:

• En el año fiscal 2006 las ganancias enviadas al exterior desde Puerto Rico totalizaron $33,300 millones. La cifra representa un aumento de $1,169 millones con relación al año fiscal 2005.

• A pesar del aumento sustancial en las ganancias que se sustrajeron de Puerto Rico durante ese periodo, el impuesto sobre tales repatriaciones continuó su tendencia declinante. De hecho, aún tomando en cuenta el pago de contribución sobre ingresos de las corporaciones y sociedades que operan en Puerto Rico (incluyendo las locales), las cifras más recientes revelan la decreciente aportación de las corporaciones foráneas frente a la creciente responsabilidad contributiva de los individuos.

• Al contrastar la magnitud de las ganancias que salen de Puerto Rico hacia el exterior, con el pago de contribución sobre ingresos de las corporaciones, se revela de forma más clara aún la poca responsabilidad contributiva de las empresas foráneas. En el año fiscal 2006 el pago de impuestos sobre ingresos del sector corporativo no superó los $1,900 millones, mientras la aportación de los individuos excedió los $3,000 millones.

• Si a la contribución sobre ingresos de corporaciones se le añade el impuesto sobre la repatriación de ganancias que éstas han pagado, y el resultado se expresa como porcentaje del monto de las ganancias enviadas al exterior, se revela nuevamente la reducción en la responsabilidad contributiva de estas empresas, la cual disminuyó a 5.8% en el 2006 (de 8.6% en el 2000). Ese porcentaje incluye las corporaciones y sociedades locales. El gobierno de Puerto Rico reconoce que la tasa efectiva que pagan las corporaciones foráneas no supera el 4.5% anual.
• En contraste, los individuos asalariados y de clase media pagan entre 15% y 29%, esto sin tomar en cuenta el impuesto sobre las ventas y uso (IVU).

• Tanto las exportaciones manufactureras totales como las exportaciones de las empresas químicas-farmacéuticas han experimentado una tendencia de crecimiento durante los pasados diez años. En otras palabras, no hay duda de que a pesar de la recesión por la que atraviesa la economía de Puerto Rico durante los pasados 18 meses, las exportaciones manufactureras, así como las ganancias que sacan del País las corporaciones foráneas, continúan su rumbo ascendente.

• Sin embargo, la realidad es que esas mismas empresas que históricamente han aumentado su tajada del total de ingresos que se generan en Puerto Rico, crean cada vez menos empleos. Durante los pasados diez años el sector manufacturero ha perdido alrededor de 44,200 puestos de trabajo directos.

• Esto confirma lo señalado tanto en el Informe de Brookings Institution como en el Informe del GAO: las empresas estadounidenses que operan en Puerto Rico se benefician excesivamente en términos de ganancias obtenidas, pero aportan muy pocos empleos y contribuyen sólo marginalmente a los recaudos del gobierno.

• La delegación del PIP en el Senado y en la Cámara de Representantes ha insistido en que, de existir la voluntad para cobrarle a las corporaciones foráneas un poco más de impuestos (entre 3% y 5% adicional), el País no solamente recibiría cientos de millones de dólares anuales (sobre $1,600 millones en cada uno de los pasados dos años fiscales), sino que resolvería su déficit fiscal sin tener que haber aprobado un régimen de “sales tax”. Aun con este aumento las corporaciones foráneas pagarían menos en Puerto Rico que en otras jurisdicciones.

• No perdamos de vista que lo que estas empresas paguen adicionalmente en Puerto Rico lo pueden deducir como un crédito por el impuesto pagado en el exterior, al repatriar sus ganancias a Estados Unidos según se dispone en el Código de Rentas Internas federal. Por consiguiente, los recaudos adicionales para el gobierno de Puerto Rico no representan penalidad alguna para estas corporaciones.