51st state?

[GoodOlBoy]

Room for One More?

Monday, February 21, 2005

By Neil Cavuto



I was in Puerto Rico at a business conference this past weekend and off-hand, one of the attendees mentioned how Puerto Rico is at a crossroads.

It's got to decide: Either become a state of this country, or a self-sustaining republic. Nothing in-between, which is kind of what this commonwealth enjoys now — all the benefits of statehood, without the taxes.

But I started thinking that might be a lot easier said than done. For one thing, there's the issue of the star.

Let's say Puerto Rico becomes our 51st state. Where do we put that 51st star on our flag? Go ahead, figure that out.

Then there's the other issue of representation in Washington. With four million-plus residents, by my math, Puerto Rico would not only have the two obligatory senators — there goes you're nice, round 100 — but at least eight representatives in Congress (search). It would leapfrog right past states like Delaware, Rhode Island, North Dakota, South Dakota, and several others.

I imagine they might not be too pleased.

And could you imagine how residents of the District of Columbia would feel? They're already out in our national body, save a non-voting member. How would they feel about this island nation just coming into the Capitol, wham-bam-thank-you-ma’m?

Which raises the issue of those 10 extra seats: Do we physically have them in Congress, or would we squeeze everybody in for one of those State of the Union addresses? I've been there —ain't too much room to spare there. It’s sort of like my family reunions. Someone's going to have to sit at the kids' table. But who?!

I began thinking Puerto Rico might very well want to become a state. And I think they'd make a great state. The Puerto Ricans I talked to sure thought so. I'm just not sure everyone here would feel the same way.

So Puerto Rico, keep debating the battle for statehood there. It's nothing compared to the battle you'll likely face ... here.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148279,00.html



hrmmm I think we should let them in why the heck not, we already pay for alot of what is going on over there, and if they are a state and not a territory then we have some benefits from them being under wing.

My 2 cents.

GoodOlBoy

[gregarat]

Besides most of the Puerto Ricans are already in the U.S. anyhow. Atleast we could bomb Vieques Island all we want

Too bad Puerto Ricans dont have political loyilty, They could be another Ohio, or Florida in an election. Who sayes it would be hard for them to squeeze in 10 of their representitives?

[Hawkeye6]

Its not that we'd add 10 more seats to Congress. Under current law, only the Senate would be additive. We'd end up with 102 Senators. As to the HOuse of Representitives, its membership is capped. We ould not add 8 new reps for Puerto Rico. We'd have to redistrict and take reps away from some of the less populated states.

I don't think this would not really be a good thing for the conservative parts of the country. I think this owudl lead to fewer reps in the more conservative/Republican states and 8 more in the pocket of the Democrats. (This, or course, presumes that Puerto rico would basically fall into the Democrat camp. While this may not necessarily be so, given the political bent that I see from most PR politicians today ...)

[LoneWolf]

I think it IS time for them to decide. Do you realize that with their current status, they get nearly all of the benefits that a US citizen does, while no one there pays a single tax $ to off set it?
As for their political leanings, not sure which way they go. I would almost have to think that it is more conservative than we imagine. Else, the Democrats would be doing everything in their power to get the statehood done for the new "dependent" voting base.

[gregarat]

I would almost have to think that it is more conservative than we imagine.

I think so too, all the Puerto Ricans I know are conservative.

[kt]

this is true, most of them are here, as for the loyalty i heard last election that they were for W. I guess a large percentage of them are Pentocostal which is a religion that disaproves of abortion big time. Soooooooooo, that being said they might be a red state
kt

[Hawkeye6]

Guys, we're talking about the Puerto Ricans on the island. Not the ones you know here in the states. Most of them are Catholic (which is also a non-abortion-friendly religon), but I suspect most of them will be in favor of big government and its handouts.

[Cal Sibley]

It seems to me this issue has come before Peurto Ricans before, as far back as the early 70s, and they've always refused statehood. They've got the best of both worlds now. I doubt they'd want to change their current status. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

[GoodOlBoy]

Well Cal that is the problem. From what I understand there is some sort of time limit comming to an end soon. When it does the Puerto Ricans must decide to either become a state, or become an independant nation that stands on their own, and recieves no benifits or support from the US. . . . .

GoodOlBoy

[Rocky Raab]

I hope this doesn't come across as prejudiced or selfish or even "old-fartish" because it isn't meant that way. But I'm going to say it anyway.

No. No. Absofrigginlutely no.

As much as it might burn some folks to hear it, the reason the US invites places to become states is because that action benefits the US as a whole. Having PR as a state offers no benefits to the US at all. None.

Quite the opposite in fact. It'll be a welfare money/government grant/program sinkhole. We'd end up shovelling money into it with no effect. Hell, we'd be bulldozing mounds of money into it.

With no benefit whatsoever to the nation.

The people there are wonderful. It's a lovely island. It'll be a friend to the US forever. And all three of those things will remain true whether it's a state or not.

I vote "not."

[Aim to maim]

Ditto to Mr. Raab's post. Unfortunately, we're already shoveling vast quantities of money into it. Statehood would likely serve to make that situation even worse. In any event, it's likely to remain an interminable burden to us. It's interesting what consequences having won a war with Spain nearly 107 years ago have wrought.

[jon lynn]

Rocky, JFYI, PR is a welfare/social security pit for us US taxpayers. Although PR is not a state but a "US Possession" they make Social Security and welfare claims, AND do get US unemployment benifits.

ALL OF THIS WITH OUT PAYING A DIME

We shovel heaps and heaps of US Green Backs to them...............only to have them want to close the US Naval base (NAS), and the small Army post there! And in the same sentance they are using to cuss America, they gripe about us wanting to cut off their benifits.

I served in the Amry with excellent Peurto Ricans soldiers, who almost all claimed they were Puerto Rican Americans. But a small few admit they use the military as a ticket, and hold no loiality to any of us.....................hmmmph.

[Rocky Raab]

My comment was intended to show that the situation would only get WORSE if statehood were granted. If -as has been suggested- there is a mandatory decision on the issue upcoming, then I'd recommend to my elected folks to say "no" to the idea of statehood.

[jon lynn]

ROCKY,

I totally agree with the NO VOTE, and agree with your post.....................I just wanted to be sure you know PR is already a huge money pit of Uncle Sugar freebies.

[skeet]

Rocky had it right...absofigginlutely not!!! And cut off the welfare stuff too. Let 'em join up with the Bahamas or somethin