Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Charlie's Interview with President Bush
- Oh, That Joe! (No. 45 in a Series): The Loquacious Blue Hen is Gracious to the Spunky Maverick
- Louis Caldera to be Director of White House Military Office
- Obama Sits Down with State Guvs to Stem Economic Slowdown
- The Spectre of a Senator Chris Matthews (D-Penn.)
- Clinton On the Case
- The Unit
- Obama's National Security Team
- The Handmaid's Employer's Tale
- 'I, Barack Hussein Obama, Do Solemnly Swear...'
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton Pledges Voting Rights to Puerto Rico, Too
May 25, 2008 9:32 AM
You may recall how Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, stumping for votes in Guam, promised residents of that territory full voting rights. Pressed for details, the Clinton campaign acknowledged this would require amending the Constitution.
Saturday in Puerto Rico, Clinton told citizens there, "I believe you should have a vote in picking the president, too," per ABC News' Eloise Harper.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but they do not pay federal income taxes and they do not vote in the presidential election. Their representative to Congress is a Delegate who votes in committee but not on the floor of the House. Giving voting rights to Puerto Ricans to vote in presidential elections would likewise require a Constitutional amendment.
Writing at the History News Network, historian Robert KC Johnson writes: "Perhaps the Constitution should be amended to allow Puerto Ricans and Guamanians to vote in presidential elections. But Clinton has been in the Senate for eight years, and she doesn’t seem to have raised the issue. There’s something off-putting about a U.S. senator first proposing constitutional amendments a few days before the targets of these amendments go to the polls…
"It appears as if the Clinton campaign is going to come up short, but perhaps Sen. Clinton can work on these amendments in the next session of Congress. Somehow, however, I doubt that she’ll be as interested in making sure that Guamanians can vote for the presidency if she’s not on the presidential ballot."
At a campaign stop in Beaverton, Oregon, earlier this month, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., claimed he had visited 57 states. (Watch HERE.) The misstatement prompted a 57-state flag lapel pin and a suggestion on the conservative Powerline blog as to where the extra states might come from (Canada, Cuba and Jamaica.)
But I'm wondering if a President Hillary Clinton would actually lead to 57 states. ... Guam, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa -- that's 55. ...
- jpt
May 25, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary | Permalink | User Comments (83)
Hillary said yesterday that she felt like she was the Senator from Puerto Rico...
I guess after getting Bill to pardon all those Puerto Rican FLAN terrorists in 1999-2000, she just has this affinity for them!
You go girl, promise everyone everything!
Posted by: Davis | May 26, 2008 3:51:03 PM
Yep, "Big Surprise" another pander to another audience she happens to be standing in front of...
I am still waiting for my $10,000 credit for buying a new hybrid car Hillary!
Posted by: Davis | May 26, 2008 3:47:29 PM
If Puerto Rico wants to be a state, all it has to do it vote for statehood, pass a state Constitution, and petition Congress. A majority vote of Congress would do the trick. But Puerto Rico hasn't come to agreement that it wants to be a state. Why would Puerto Rico want to have the right to vote for President without other rights granted to states?
The 600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia (distinct from those who come here to work in Congress and the White House, etc., long-term visitors...) have been disenfranchised for over 200 years. THey have appealed for full citizenship by asking for the passage of a Constitutional amendment and statehood - but political elites are not interested. Political elites and the states approved an amendment in 1961 giving DC the right to vote for President--a little bread crumb to quite them. But DC leans too far to the Democratic side for Congressional comfort, not to mention it is "too" poor and "too" black. (But we're not supposed to mention those things these days.) When Bill Clinton was President, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress--but they did not give DC equal rights. I don't expect more from Hillary, either for the District or other territories/colonies. It's not a priority. And I don't expect anything from Obama either. None of the political establishment - and few Americans - give a damn that the U.S. is the only constitutional democracy which openly disenfranchises its capital citizen residents. I've had other Americans say, "You can move." Very sad.
Posted by: DC colonyman | May 26, 2008 1:16:16 PM
Clinton will say anything, as has been seen, to keep from losing the Puerto Rico primary. She is already far behind in S. Dakota, and Montana. Puerto Rico is trending towards Obamas.
It is interesting to watch an old democratic coalition fade away as a new one is born.
Posted by: Richard | May 26, 2008 1:09:22 PM
Here a pander there a pander everywhere she goes a pander, pander........
Posted by: GunnyJ | May 26, 2008 12:56:45 PM
Hell, Hillary wants convicted felons
to vote, illegals to vote......ANY
group that she knows will benefit
her and the Democrats. Too bad none
of this will help HER this cycle. She'll
still be the junior senator from N.Y.
after the convention in August.
Posted by: hombre | May 26, 2008 12:34:08 PM
How can anyone believe anything Hillary says? Her campaign is so full of lies,
distortions and pandering, she is not a credible candidate for anything. And don't be so naive to believe she did not intend insinutions about the assisination remark. She calculates everything she says and does.
When she and Bill initiated the anything to win tactics, lost all respect for them both.
By the way, has she ever made excuses for Obama's slip of the tongue. No she jumped on everything with both barrels.
What a gal!!
Posted by: katiec | May 26, 2008 11:36:52 AM
Voting rights to people who do not want to become a state but want all the benifits of the American Goverment.
One more reason we should not vote for a Democrat.
Obama supports welfare for the whole world paid for by America
Posted by: asasd | May 26, 2008 7:19:48 AM
Panderer in Chief!
Hillary Clinton!
ps...GO AWAY!!
Posted by: sue | May 26, 2008 7:14:13 AM
correction: LBJ = JFK
Posted by: guamanian | May 26, 2008 4:02:41 AM
Hillary is not pandering, she's being an trailblazer on this issue. She is the only voting member in congress bring ing up this issue, candidate or not!
So I guess LBJ was pandering to African-Americans when he was assured by Martin Luther King that they will come out to help him get elected?
Reality check, people.... I thought the Obama campaign was about Hope and Change... not cynicism and name-calling.
Posted by: guamanian | May 26, 2008 3:57:40 AM
It's terrible that my fellow americans are politicizing this issue. You obviously do not know what it's like feeling like second-class citizens.
The fact is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only person, candidate or not, who has brought up this issue.
Posted by: guamanian | May 26, 2008 3:47:35 AM
Wow... Senator Clinton does not have teh power to 'amend the constitution' and even as president she would not have such power....
I hope she goes back to the senate and tries to fight for the things she 'says' are so important to her now... I've watched the senate and she has never done anything that impressed me and there are senators that do...
She is completely comfortable with manipulating people.
Posted by: lb | May 26, 2008 3:07:10 AM
Shut up about Hillary pandering. Obama sticks his foot in his mouth every time he does-pander that is. Today's Gallop Poll shows Hillary ahead of McCain and McCain ahead of Obama in the fall election. Whatever happened to the recount in Guam? Obama supporters-your candidate is slipping...slipping...slipping...
Posted by: RL in Illinois | May 25, 2008 11:22:16 PM
Hillary will say anything and i mean antthing to win this nomination.In as much as i want my daughters to achieve great things in life,she is definately not the kind of example i want because i want them to be fighters but most importantly truthful.
Posted by: babe | May 25, 2008 11:22:11 PM
S writes: "Why shouldn't US territories and possessions have a say in the government that controls them? What in the world is wrong with that?"
You, and the others who have made similar comments, are missing the point of the article.
The points are these:
1) Clinton has never voiced an interest in this issue until it became politically expedient for her to make false promises to the voters of Puerto Rico and Guam. This is called Pandering - something that Clinton excels at.
2) The President of the USA does not have the authority to grant such a thing - it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
Maybe when Clinton finally retires her losing campaign for the presidency, she can take up this issue as one of her causes though.
Posted by: Kasha | May 25, 2008 10:43:52 PM
let no gaffe go unblogged...
meanwhile, how many dead in iragmire?
Posted by: kravitz | May 25, 2008 10:39:38 PM
Clinton redefines the word "pander"
Not once has it ever been important to her to have Puerto Rico or Guam have full voting rights, until now, when she is trying to buy their votes with empty promises.
Clinton makes me ill. I am a 53 year old woman who falls within her "demographic" and I can promise you I will never vote for her. I am embarrassed by her behaviour and outright lies. She has done noting to further the cause for women in this country with her outlandish statments and lies while campaigning for the presidency of the USA.
She has shown that she will say and do anything in order to get elected. I wonder when and where she lost her soul.
Posted by: Kasha | May 25, 2008 10:32:08 PM
The way we know that she is pandering, beside the fact that her lips are moving, is that she has spent 8 years in the Senate and NOT once has she brought this issue up. Why? Because she is a panderer and a liar!
Posted by: Dave | May 25, 2008 7:14:16 PM
Puerto Rico can have full voting rights. They just have to approve statehood and they get members of 6 members of Congress, 2 Senators and 8 EVs. No need to amend the Constitution, just become a state!
PR has rejected that multiple times, so why give them a say in the White House? Territories have never had a say, so why offer it to them. Do you think that 3/4 of the states will approve such a ridiculous measure?
The President also has no role in Constitutional Amendments. A Senator can institute such an amendment. Why hasn't she done so in the past 8 years?
The obvious answer is that she is just pandering. She wants to build up her bogus "popular vote" argument with a primary that doesn't even want to become a state. Her cynicism is astounding, but the gullibility of her supporters is even more so.
Posted by: AxelDC | May 25, 2008 7:01:34 PM
Pander. Pander. Lie. Pander.
Posted by: Walden Greenwood | May 25, 2008 7:00:01 PM
jake,
the last time i was on there was a story about the obama people saying
they needed bill clinton to help them win. what happened to that story?
or did you do just what the politico article said happens with stories?
Posted by: worldcitizen | May 25, 2008 6:30:55 PM
tina from florida,
thanks,
I always thought this is the way the modern day media works.
i hope every thinking person will read the politico article from john harris
and be careful from here on out in your rush to judgement.
Posted by: worldcitizen | May 25, 2008 6:28:57 PM
tina from florida,
thanks,
I always thought this is the way the modern day media works.
i hope every thinking person will read the politico article from john harris
and be careful from here on out in your rush to judgement.
Posted by: worldcitizen | May 25, 2008 6:28:55 PM
"Jeff: Not sure where you get your 1/3rd statistic from
of those in favor of statehood in Puerto Rico but that
number is far from a 3rd. The last referendum 46.8%
voted for statehood vs 48.2% to remain a
commonwealth...that's less than a 2% difference
between the 2 and makes it almost half of the
population wanting statehood..."
Eddie | May 25, 2008 12:59:01 PM
That vote left off the third option, independence, which also has a following. If they'd been given the three-way choice the numbers likely wouldn't have come out 48% to 46% to 3%
Posted by: Lee C. ― U.S.A. | May 25, 2008 5:17:33 PM
For those who complain, "Well, they don't pay federal income tax...blah blah blah!"...may I say something? It wasn't Guam who decided the tax code as it applies to Guam residents--it was Congress who made the rules and it is, in most cases, by fiat; that is, they dictate and usually don't consult.
Even now, 8 years into the 21st Century, Guamanians are still treated like colonial subjects rather than the Americans, U.S. citizenship and all, that they are. Other than in the party nomination process, they have NO say in national elections and little to no say in Congress. The prevailing attitude in Congress (and across America, apparently), is that Guamanians are just little pipsqueaks who can give up 1/3 of the land area in their 212-square-mile island for military and other federal facilities and send their sons and daughters to fight (and sometimes die in) America's wars, but when it comes to civic equality, they just blow them off like we're in the 1700's or something.
Can anyone please explain how Guamanians (and Puerto Ricans, et al) serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and sometimes pay the price of grievous injuries or even dying in the service of their country and NOT be able to vote for their Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States???
Not that I would vote for her, but at least Hillary is on the right side on this one.
Frustrating, I tell ya.
Sincerely,
A retired U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant, originally from Guam
Posted by: Proud to be an American from the territories | May 25, 2008 5:09:35 PM
Can HRC embarrass herself anymore? Does she have no shame? How stupid does she think people are? She is an insult to my intelligence and she is a total JOKE! How can any sensible person take her seriously? She is beyond delusional and moving into the psychotic. Please can we make her go away to the paded room yet? I think she is qualified to wear a straight jacket now.
Posted by: Pete Rend | May 25, 2008 5:07:24 PM
Our flag can stand to include territories becoming states AND having every right that each state has accorded to them.
I'm with HRC doing her best to past a constitutional amendment on this issue. I will hold my breath long enough to watch her press forward this agenda.
Posted by: Genna | May 25, 2008 4:59:04 PM
Don't forget the island of Wake. I hear Hil is polling very well with the hard-working gecko population.
Posted by: Bill | May 25, 2008 3:42:57 PM
MarkieBee
Maybe you're just not looking hard enough. I think you're only interested in half the truth if any at all. Co Arthur, indeed!
Posted by: T | May 25, 2008 3:07:12 PM
Hey Help Us...you do realize that Obama has 50 percent more elected legislative experience than Hillary right? His resume is just as impressive as Hillary's in effecting change. Yes, she's 15 years older but we can discount her six years of doing nothing while on the WalMart board. So her life experience lead is just nine years. Anyway, while in the US senate, Obama has AUTHORED and had signed into law two substantive bills (Obama-Lugar non-proliferation and Obama-Coburn ethics reform and transparency) while I have yet to see one substantive bill that Hillary has AUTHORED and passed in her eight years in the senate. Can you HELP US with that?
Posted by: MarkieBee | May 25, 2008 3:04:04 PM
Puerto Rico is classified by the U.S. government as an independent taxation authority by mutual agreement with the U.S. Congress. A common misconception is that residents of Puerto Rico do not have to pay federal taxes. Residents of the island pay federal taxes (import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, etc.) and some even pay federal income taxes (Puerto Rico residents who are federal employees, or who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., etc). While most residents of the island do not pay federal income tax, they do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), as well as Puerto Rico income taxes. In addition, because the cutoff point for income taxation is lower than that of the IRS code, and because the per-capita income in Puerto Rico is much lower than the average per-capita income on the mainland, more Puerto Rico residents pay income taxes to the local taxation authority than if the IRS code were applied to the island. Puerto Rico residents are eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. Puerto Rico is excluded from Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Puerto Rico receives less than 15% of the Medicaid funding it would be allotted as a state. For Medicare, Puerto Rico pays fully but only receives partial benefits
Posted by: Surelock Homes | May 25, 2008 3:02:45 PM
Is this why she's called a pander bear. And by the way, who needs the taxes?? For what? The right to vote for the lesser of evils? Big deal.
Posted by: jeffp | May 25, 2008 3:00:05 PM
Hillary is making 'Promises' again.
Have the people of Puerto Rico requested additional voting rights or is this a manufactured controversy/demand ?
Posted by: Xavier | May 25, 2008 2:58:25 PM
Hillary i voted for in NY because I wanted to see a female president but your lies and miss-speaks and then Terry blaming them on Obama has swayed me to think you are not the right person for the job if you will lie to us who support you what kind of president would you be ? A woman yes soon I hope but Obama now has my vote he has been honest and kind to you while you have attacked him unjustly..
Hillary I am not stupid the popular vote lie you have feed us who support you is the last straw….
The truth of the popular vote :
Popular Vote Total 16,685,941 49.1% 16,227,514 47.7% Obama +458,427 +1.4%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,020,025 49.1% 16,451,376 47.5% Obama +568,649 +1.6%
Popular Vote (w/FL) 17,262,155 48.3% 17,098,500 47.8% Obama +163,655 +0.5%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,596,239 48.3% 17,322,362 47.6% Obama +273,877 +0.7%
Posted by: Kate | May 25, 2008 2:41:43 PM
for those that would like to argue the tax point in pr. the medicare and ss amounts to about 7.6%... a far cry from the income tax that we pay on top of that.
Posted by: marianne | May 25, 2008 2:41:36 PM
Hillary agreed to avoid defiant states last September, your point is mute.
Posted by: Yohomegirl | May 25, 2008 2:31:14 PM
the pr people do no want to pay taxes. they like it just the way that it is... no vote=no taxes.
Posted by: marianne | May 25, 2008 2:28:40 PM
And the pandering continues. Why would she raise this issue now at this juncture? As a senator from New york, she could have introduced a bill for this to happen. There are more Puerto Ricans in New York, than in PR. So, this new offering is just another pandering moment just to get votes.
Posted by: Maria Boggiano | May 25, 2008 2:10:44 PM
Buford writes, "Sort of seems the same for Obama. His whole campaign is for "Hope" and "Change". Is it that he "hopes" we won't figure out what it is he wants to "change"?"
==================================
Considering Hillary's supporters are the LEAST educated of the groups voting I imagine MOST have had a difficult time figuring things out period.
It's pretty funny if you ask me. When she BEGAN her campaign she had the geriatric crowd, poor Whites, uneducated Whites and 40% of the African American vote in her pocket.
Low and behold, she CONTINUES because she still has geriatric Whites, poor Whites and uneducated Whites. Tell me something, since you've decided to challenge me on this, HOW EXACTLY did she lose the 40% Black vote she had when she started? Please tell me you're not one of those "idiots" who honestly believes Black voters woke up days later (unlike all those idiots who still things Obama is a Muslim) and said "Oh my gosh, he IS a Black man. I've got to change my vote now." Pure comedy at BEST.
Again...HOW DO YOU LOSE 40%? Sorry buddy, you have NO ARGUMENT and definitely NO WAY to challenge this. You have a good day. Ya' hear!
Posted by: Dems | May 25, 2008 1:56:13 PM
Currently there are about 700,000 residents per Congressman and Electoral vote. So I do not know where that leads us except the constitution says there will be at least one congressman per state.
Posted by: Thinking | May 25, 2008 1:34:07 PM
I am not saying that they shouldn't be a State, but Hillary is not the one to say so. 2/3 of the Sates have to agree, if they don't then she can do nothing.
The problems are the same if we talk about Statehood or not as far as the vote is concerned. This being a Representative Government, how is that representation allocated? Is there enough population in Gaum to accommodated it?
State rights and the balance of power are big issues here. It is not a simple issue.
Posted by: Thinking | May 25, 2008 1:13:49 PM
All of this may be a moot issue anyway if Hillary is not chosen. It appears at this point that in this particular election year she will not make it. Perhaps in the next 8 years? But by then, she may be too old. We democrats MUST stick together to vote for the Democratic party. If the places mentioned WANT to become a state, let them start a movement to become one, and petition for a constitutional amendment. It is true that one person, (the president) can not make a promise like that and make it come true without it going through all the steps.
Posted by: ChayaFradle | May 25, 2008 1:09:43 PM
My fellow Americans,
I agree with you that our great Constitution should only be ratified for very, very deserving circumstances. We do know that the Constitution is not perfect, that since its inception in the 18th century it had to be ratified for civil rights for blacks and women, for example. The subjugation and political rights of the colonies is one such deserving issue to lead us to look at the Constitution again. I think it is only right that we put a 21st century perspective in the role our territories (like Puerto Rico or Guam) would be for the motherland. I think our Founding Fathers would see this as right.
Posted by: guamanian | May 25, 2008 1:03:40 PM
And so the pander train rolls on...
Tracy Flick - I mean, Hillary - please, for your own dignity, STOP IT! This is getting embarrassing. You have become a caricature of yourself.
Posted by: Jenny | May 25, 2008 1:03:02 PM
Jeff: Not sure where you get your 1/3rd statistic from of those in favor of statehood in Puerto Rico but that number is far from a 3rd. The last referendum 46.8% voted for statehood vs 48.2% to remain a commonwealth...that's less than a 2% difference between the 2 and makes it almost half of the population wanting statehood...yes the island is in a limbo on the issue but one thing remains the same...the overwhelming majority wants to remain a part of the US...independence? it will never happen...they are too small of a minority...Should there be a referendum listing only statehood and independence as an option we'd all be replacing our flags to add a 51st star to it...
Posted by: Eddie | May 25, 2008 12:59:01 PM
No there has to be a Consitutional Amendment to allow non states to have Congressmen and Senators. This has to pass by 2/3 of the States. The problem with Guam perhaps is the population. How does one State with a very small poulation get two Senators, and is there enough poulation to warrent a Congressman. That is does it become to powerfull for it's size. If not a state how many electoral votes does it get.
Puerto Rico has not given any indication that it want's to be a State to begin with.
Then there is the money side of the deal, what becomes the US's responsibilty as far as household income. etc. Does these States become welfare States?
No Hillary can't promise anything, it is not up to the president.
Posted by: Thinking | May 25, 2008 12:57:21 PM
The Constitution has been meddled with enough.
Posted by: Lee | May 25, 2008 12:46:47 PM
I was talking about Puerto Rico not Guam
The proximity of Puerto Rico to the US makes this possible.
And as I pointed out there are two factions in Puerto Rico, one for Statehood and one against it. There are many opposed.
Posted by: Thinking | May 25, 2008 12:43:29 PM
Thinking is not thinking... "dual citizenship" is not relevant. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens anytime and anywhere.
Paying taxes is NOT a requirement for citizenship nor should it be for voting.
Posted by: nickberry | May 25, 2008 12:37:05 PM
There is some debate that they even want to be a state. The way I read it she doesn't care, state or not she want's them to vote.
So they are citizens of the US but residents of Porto Rico, with out any of the responsibility of paying US taxes etc., and still get the right to vote for President?
Then there is the discussion of if they are Citizens then they can move to, and or set up residency in say NY then vote State senator, Governor, and President.
Infact it is like they have a dual Citizenship . Citizen of Puerto Rico, and of the US at the same time, live in
Puerto Rico, claim residency in any state and get to vote.
Posted by: Thinking | May 25, 2008 12:33:31 PM
Nitpicky on PR voting turnout. There is no dispute over the number of registered voters... and the over 80% was based on the last major election... which is what we here on the mainland use when we discuss voting turnout. So what is your problem?
This is not the first time that Hillary has come out for voting rights for PR. Unlike Obama, she is well known in PR and she has an ongoing relationship to PR since she was First Lady and came to PR after a major Hurricane.
And what in the heck does being a "Washington Insider" have to do with DC voting rights? These people indeed do pay federal income tax, yet they have no voting representation in Congress. She co-sponsored a bill (which Obama was also a cosponsor)... Does that make him a "Washington Insider" now? Before you make stupid accusations, you should find out the facts first.
Posted by: nickberry | May 25, 2008 12:32:40 PM
The Primaries are not a general election is a party trying to define itself for the election. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth. Since 1898 Puerto Rico has contributed to the National defense of our US. Most U-boats menacing the US east coast were monitored from PR, as well as Soviet ships during the cold war. Many Puerto Ricans have served in the Armed Forces, and share the same Federal Laws. Puerto Rican in the mainland do pay income taxes and do vote in the general election, that is significant. Even in Kansas there is a growing population of islanders. Hence, courting the PR vote in the island is important. Puerto Rico does not get all the earmarks, nor all the Federal Programs available to the 50 States. In many respects the island is self-sufficient. Why is Puerto Rico, not so crazy about becoming a State? Well, when election time comes everyone goes after the big states, and the little States are often ignored. So, are the islanders going to pay taxes to a government that in many respects is unresponsive to so many Americans? Islanders are very proud, and self reliant people, may be a little narcissistic if the island ever were to be the 51st State, we want to be as important as a big state, not one of the often ignored little ones.
Posted by: Willie in Kansas | May 25, 2008 12:25:57 PM
As somebody from Guam, this presidential cycle is a perfect time to bring up the issue on voting. It brings it to the national spotlight. If it was brought up during her eight years in the senate, it would have been pushed under the rug (exactly what happened to the issue of war compensation).
So to reply to your statement "Somehow, however, I doubt that she’ll be as interested in making sure that Guamanians can vote for the presidency if she’s not on the presidential ballot."... I think I speak for all or most Guamanians when I say that we'd rather that it be brought up than never at all!
Posted by: guamanian | May 25, 2008 12:22:34 PM
Puerto Rico is classified by the U.S. government as an independent taxation authority by mutual agreement with the U.S. Congress. A common misconception is that residents of Puerto Rico do not have to pay federal taxes. Residents of the island pay federal taxes (import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, etc.) and some even pay federal income taxes (Puerto Rico residents who are federal employees, or who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., etc). While most residents of the island do not pay federal income tax, they do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), as well as Puerto Rico income taxes. In addition, because the cutoff point for income taxation is lower than that of the IRS code, and because the per-capita income in Puerto Rico is much lower than the average per-capita income on the mainland, more Puerto Rico residents pay income taxes to the local taxation authority than if the IRS code were applied to the island. Puerto Rico residents are eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. Puerto Rico is excluded from Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Puerto Rico receives less than 15% of the Medicaid funding it would be allotted as a state. For Medicare, Puerto Rico pays fully but only receives partial benefits
Posted by: Surelock Homes | May 25, 2008 12:20:00 PM
Too many of you here are very ignorant about U.S. territories... including Puerto Rico. And you are further dumbed down if you think that Puerto Ricans do not understand their situation and options.
FACT: Puerto Ricans have well over 2 million registered voters with over an 80% voter turnout rate. They are very tuned in to politics and civics... unlike way too many mainlanders.
FACT: Hillary Clinton supported voting rights for Washington, D.C. who at this time has only one non-voting delegate in the United States House of Representatives and no representation in the United States Senate. The Twenty third Amendment (1961) gave them voting rights for President.
Posted by: nickberry | May 25, 2008 12:15:50 PM
Hillary won her Senate seat in 2000. Has she been steadfastly working towards getting voting rights for Guam and Puerto Rico? Any legislation introduced? Been there speaking to the massed to get them to demand such things? Did Harold Ickes and Mark Penn bring this to the DNC?
I thought so....
She would promise votes to Mexico if they would vote for her. What is that scent in the air? Is it desperation BS?
Posted by: Annoyed | May 25, 2008 12:14:50 PM
At least Hillary is saying something of SUBSTANCE when she speaks to the voters.....
At least working towards voting rights for Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, etc., is an actual ISSUE, and not some flowery talk of "Hope" and "Change."
Amusing to see the Obama maniacs are still on here trying to bring up the assassination issue, which is yesterday's news, on a blog which is supposed to be discussing voting rights for Puerto Rico......................
Posted by: SandyB | May 25, 2008 12:08:29 PM
They don't pay US taxes that is why they DON"t want to be a state....
Posted by: older person | May 25, 2008 12:05:22 PM
Oh for goodness sakes, Puerto Rico... make up your mind; statehood or independence!
Posted by: smartprimate | May 25, 2008 11:59:38 AM
I do find myself curious about one thing though…
Hillary waited to promise full voting rights to Guam until the last day, or second to last day, just before the primary was held.
This meant that the citizens of Guam didn't have time to get exposed to the counter argument--gotta have either statehood, or a constitutional amendment for this to work; ain't something that a President can promise. (In Puerto Rico's case full statehood isn't exactly such a ridiculous notion as it is in the case of Guam, but they're not exactly solidly behind the statehood idea in Puerto Rico. But, I digress…)
In the case of Puerto Rico, it seems to me an obvious mistake to make the promise with several days left in the campaign. The time will give them time to figure out they're being played.
So, why didn't she wait on this one 'til the last day, or next to last day?
Ol’ girl is slippin’.
Posted by: Lee C ― U.S.A. | May 25, 2008 11:58:17 AM
trudy
Millions of US citizens do not pay income taxes. Are you suggesting they not be allowed to vote. PS: People in Puerto Rico are indeed US citizens even to the extent that they can travel from the island to the mainland without having to have 'foreigner' papers.
Posted by: S | May 25, 2008 11:58:08 AM
I think if our country wants CHANGE THEY SHOULD BE VOTING FOR HIlLARY. I AM TIRED OF THE MAN RUNNING OUR COUNTRY.
CHANGE WILL BE VOTING FOR HILLARY.
"SI SE PUEDE"! "YES WE CAN"!!!
Posted by: Ana | May 25, 2008 11:56:39 AM
Pander, Pander, Pander. If this were a serious issue for her, why is it the first time she brings it up? Neither territory is particularly interested in statehood. neither territory has applied, nor shown and inclination to apply. Blatant and unadulterated pandering to people that won't count in the general election.
Posted by: Louis | May 25, 2008 11:55:49 AM
What they don't pay federal taxes?
Okay, now my support for voting rights has gone out the window. It's a package deal - vote/taxes.
It's already bizarre that they get all those benefits that they don't contribute to.
The current situation sounds very unfavorable to the U.S. Maybe they should be handed complete independence, despite their preferring to live off the U.S.
Posted by: trudy | May 25, 2008 11:50:50 AM
Hillary save us from Obama. If the DNC fails America then I beg you to run independent!
Posted by: Hours | May 25, 2008 11:47:45 AM
Obama is so arrogant. He is so under qualified for the job of president that it is frightening!
Posted by: Help us | May 25, 2008 11:45:25 AM
So, the Bush's "coalition of the willing" is a radical leftist group? Who knew?
Posted by: MarkH | May 25, 2008 11:35:07 AM
If Puerto Ricans want voting rights, they can become a state and start paying federal income taxes in exchange for the significant social benefits (welfare, SS, medicaid) that they now receive.
Posted by: mPCT | May 25, 2008 11:27:23 AM
I know it's been a while since my American goverment course but isn't this up to Puerto Rico? Can't they apply to statehood? Once a state wouldn't they have a right to vote for President?
Posted by: Rick | May 25, 2008 11:22:47 AM
Roundup of coverage of Obama & Clinton visit to PR, including coverage by ABC News. www.prpolitico.com
Posted by: PR Politico | May 25, 2008 11:09:01 AM
Black Americans, and many of all races are EXTREMELY disturbed by Hillary's insinuation of a possible assassination of Barack Obama. To imply that her reason for staying in the race is because anything can happen, then nonchalantly say that even Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June, meaning therefore she should stay in, is not only pitifully diobolical but incredibly dangerous.
As I read some of the comments, I sense that some do not understand the true impact of her deadly insinuation. Keep in mind, when it was first announced that Obama was running for President, the initial concern in Black America was his safety. "Would some nut sniper him"? Obama had to hire secret service security right out of the gate.....why? Because of the true possibilty of some nut doing harm to him or his family.
Also, during the last 50 years, the people who have been assassinated have ALL been leaders who were working toward equality for ALL. John F., Robert and of course Dr. King. So just the WORD assassination brings to us not only an extreme fear but is a reminder of the incredibly sad loss to America, particularly Blacks, at the hands of the sick and wicked. For Hillary Clinton, a so-called leader, to insinuate, for WHATEVER reason what she did....is beyond disgusting. It subliminally sparks the hatred, bigotry and destruction that America has worked hard to overcome.
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial Org...Dedicated To Truth !
Posted by: Greg Jones | May 25, 2008 11:08:15 AM
Why is Hillary still talking like she's still in the race?
Because after her monstrous comment Friday about RFK and its implications for Obama she should do the right thing and just end her campaign.
Posted by: Jeff | May 25, 2008 10:50:55 AM
She could pull off the same thing by completing the annexation of Puerto Rico and making it into a fully integrated 51st state, but I think that proposition is running only around ⅓ favorable in Puerto Rico, and THAT would not have gotten her a thunderous round of applause.
Want some "pander" anyone?
Posted by: Lee C ― U.S.A. | May 25, 2008 10:43:57 AM
Little Greek, George Stephanopolis: who elected Karl Rove to any public office. He is and sponsors crooked politics. Why honor that kind of action for our younger voters; I'm 81 and still open of mind and confined of body to a wheel chair but people like me can still think. Our minds are not twisted.
Posted by: Arthur Dykes | May 25, 2008 10:43:05 AM
Why shouldn't US territories and possessions have a say in the government that controls them? What in the world is wrong with that?
Posted by: S | May 25, 2008 10:17:15 AM
"Is there any wonder WHY she leads with "certain" demographics?"
Sort of seems the same for Obama. His whole campaign is for "Hope" and "Change". Is it that he "hopes" we won't figure out what it is he wants to "change"?
Posted by: Buford Gooch | May 25, 2008 10:09:50 AM
Brigiite writes, "Hillary was just expressing to the 'Ricans how she felt and they love her for it. GO HILLARY!!!!"
===================================
Sure she was....all the while KNOWING most of them wouldn't REALIZE you would have to AMEND the Constitution of the United States to FULFILL that promise. Typical.....
Posted by: Dems | May 25, 2008 10:07:40 AM
She really will do anything to get elected won't she? Why not just offer every single American a free trip to Saturn and a solid gold rocket car as well! What a joke...
Posted by: tre | May 25, 2008 9:51:56 AM
MADAME PRESIDENT!!!!!
Posted by: brigitte | May 25, 2008 9:51:41 AM
Hillary was just expressing to the 'Ricans how she fe