US Representative Doesn’t Want To Give Puerto Rican “Foreigners” A Tax Rebate

The Whistler • January 31, 2008

Note to U.S. Representative Ginny Browne-Waite: Puerto Ricans aren’t exactly “foreign.”

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite touched a nerve with Puerto Ricans on Tuesday when she called them “foreign citizens” in a news release.
Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, was complaining about parts of an economic-stimulus package when she referred to residents of Puerto Rico and Guam as “foreign citizens.”
“. . . The bill sends hundreds of millions of dollars to people who do not pay federal income taxes, including residents of Puerto Rico and territories like Guam. I do not believe American taxpayer funds should be sent to foreign citizens who do not pay taxes. Americans want an economic stimulus for Dunnellon, Brooksville and Clermont, not for San Juan or Hagatna. As the legislation moves forward, it must be changed to ensure that only federal taxpaying American citizens receive rebate checks.”

First, it’s worth noting that even among American citizens a lot of these tax rebates aren’t going to the people who actually paid the taxes. The richest Americans, who paid the overwhelming majority of those taxes in, aren’t getting rebates even as the poorest Americans, who paid next to nothing in taxes, are. So if Brown-Waite is concerned about Puerto Ricans getting tax rebates, maybe she should be concerned about the wealth distribution that’s going on among citizens with this rebate.
Second, this entire rebate fiasco is a waste of everyone’s time. It’s a one-time check that’s unlikely to make much of an impact on our economy. If we want long term economic stimulus we need long term tax relief. That means a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and b) going above and beyond those cuts to further lower the tax burden Americans feel.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Economy, Politics

http://Array robert108

That’s what we’ve had

Not true; we have had a modest marginal tax rate reduction, with no reduction in spending, and very little reduction in investment tax rates, which should be close to zero. We have a long way to go in reducing tax rates, and also in spending reductions, especially in non-productive spending, like social programs and entitlements. Interest rates can’t go much lower, though, so we’ll have to start doing the real work soon, which is reducing spending by the govt.
The notion that the govt can “stimulate” our economy is entirely false; all it can do is to do the least possible damage. Govt is an expense to the productive citizen.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

robert108 – I guess you don’t know that the stock market is reactive, not proactive, Sparkie.

Speculation is proactive. The stock market is a machine that feeds this speculation. The stock market is also a reflection of reactive market forces, so I’m not sure that it could be said to be one or the other.
robert108

i blame the stock market.

I guess you don’t know that the stock market is reactive, not proactive, Sparkie.
robert108

He also left out the Eisenhower numbers…wonder why?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

WOOF,Your figures are correct, but of course totally meaningless as they are totally out of context.

B1: You feign surprise better than anyone I know!
Bat One

if I get a check… then I’ll probably give it to charity and/or put it in savings.

kbiel,

WTF!? Why do you hate America? What business do yo have giving money to charity, anyway? Don’t you understand that giving to those in need, and to those who have not earned it is the sole province of the federal government? Its the reason we have government in the first place…to take from those who ARE productive and redistribute to those who are not. What are you… some sort of rightwing, reactionary, free market, Christian neanderthal?

As for savings, that’s even worse! How the hell do expect the government to lower everyone’s standard of living to a fair (read: lowest common denominator) level, when guys like you defeat the entire purpose of the program by putting money aside in savings? What’s the matter… the freezer not good enough for you?
robert108

kbeil: Very good!
carrick

Two notes: It’s % average annual growth rate of real GDP to be more precise, and it’s the geometric average in case somebody wants to repeat this. The data I used are from here.

As I mentioned, I took the election year +2 for the year to start for each president. Otherwise, I’m not sure the point of the measurement, unless you like magical thinking.
kbiel

What are you… some sort of rightwing, reactionary, free market, Christian neanderthal?

The neanderthals died before Christ was even born. Close though

As for savings, that’s even worse!

Eh, you may be right about that one. My money market account is getting just under 3 and 3/4 APY, but the inflation this “rebate” could cause may swamp that. I may have to use it on the currency market to buy some euros or GB pounds.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Puerto Ricans never voted for statehood into this great union of ours. That makes them foreigners to Americans.

I would say I agree, but it’s rather redundant to agree with facts. The man is right.
kbiel

There is one thing congress and Bush could do to get fiscal conservatives on board for the “rebate” checks. If they defund a few departments and programs like the Department of Education any project with Robert Byrd’s name on it, I would relish taking the check and blowing it on something on completely useless. As it is, if I get a check (and I’m sure hoping that doesn’t happen) then I’ll probably give it to charity and/or put it in savings.
carrick

Rob, I agree that the overarching problem of terrorism would be there regardless, at least until the root causes have all been addressed.

However, Clinton’s failures involved both a failure to act on actionable intelligence, and well as institute ill-thought-out legal policies that greatly hampered the sharing of information between the intelligence services and the law enforcement agencies.

And that combination is pretty much unforgivable, in my opinion.
Bat One

WOOF,

Your figures are correct, but of course totally meaningless as they are totally out of context.

Kennedy’s first, and only economic policy action was to reduce taxes (the last Democrat to fulfill such a campaign promise), but Johnson spent all the additional revenues, plus what he picked up by going to “unified budgeting”, leaving the country with a decade and more worth of inflation.

Carter oversaw a 3.4% average GDP growth, but inflation was nearly 3 times that, and interest rates spiked at over 6 times GDP growth, making the GDP numbers little more than a statistical irrelevance.

Clinton’s GDP numbers were good, but that had more to do with the fiscal discipline of the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress than anything that your “Big Dog” actually did during his tenure.

Lack of context aside, it should also be noted that various economic measures respond to policy changes and other events at differing speeds and levels of intensity. Markets tend to anticipate some events and while viewing others in a proverbial rear mirror.
Alicia Delva

Mrs. Brown-Waite, here is a little history of how Puerto Ricans became American Citizens.
On April 25 to August 12, 1898 there was a Spanish-American War. The United State of America was able to defeat Spain and took control of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
In 1900 the United State pass the Foraker Act, which allow Puerto Rico to establish a civil government but were not consider American Citizens. This cause unrest on the island. In 1917, Congress passes the Jones Act, which granted Puerto Ricans, United State Citizenship.
Puerto Ricans have fought as member of the United State armed forces in every conflict in which the United States has been involved since World War I.
Please, Ginny Brown-Waite study your history before you offend a group of people that have fought bravely for their country. Puerto Ricans are proud people who love their country and are willing to stand up and fight for it.
robert108

kbiel: I think it’s obvious that Bat was being sarcastic.
carrick

I’m not sure where WOOF got his numbers, but the better way to do it is to use the real GDP, then to start with the first year after the implementation of the President’s fiscal policy. To illustrate, Bush II was elected in 2000. His first fiscal policies were implemented in 2001. Hence we need to use the year 2002 as the first year where we would expect to see a result of Bush’s policies. Anything before that is trying the measure the effect before its cause. Similarly, Clinton should be from 1994-2002 and so forth.

Anyway here are the correct numbers for average annual growth rate in GDP:

Eisenhower 3.6
Kennedy-Johnson 4.0
Nixon 3.4
Carter 0.9
Reagan 4.0
Bush I 2.4
Clinton 3.2
Bush II 3.0

Not surprisingly, Carter’s numbers are in the toilet.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Puerto Ricans never voted for statehood into this great union of ours.

That makes them foreigners to Americans.

If they voted for statehood, they would have to start paying taxes for all of that welfare they get.

As it is now, Puerto Ricans are foreigners sucking on the welfare tit of the American taxpayer. Those are the worst kind of foreigners.
carrick

It goes beyond that Rob. In spite of the warnings he was given about Osama, and the opportunities we had to apprehend him, Clinton failed to act. One also has to factor in the effect of the “Gorelick wall”.

These are pretty serious errors and failures in judgement.

Typical in my opinion of how things went under Clinton.
robert108

Rob: Speculation about what HW or Dole would have done are pure speculation, but Clinton’s failure to act on the WTC attack in 1993(other than to treat it like a law enforcement issue), his refusal to take OBL when offered, and his general refusal to act against the multiple instances of Islamic terrorism during his administration are a matter of history, and are indisputable.
http://ewebsmith.com/ ews48

Don’t worry. After convincing people that they are all a bunch of regular Robin Hoods, things will return to the way they were after the election.
carrick

Rob:

Of course, there’s also 9/11 in there, the economic impact from which shouldn’t be blamed on any of the Presidents.

I blame Clinton for his failure to address the growth of world terrorism. So that ball falls in his lap.
robert108

likwid: Gotta disagree. The purpose of the stock market is to auction stock in such a way as to make money for those involved in each transaction. As such, it is reactive to every possible market force, including speculation, rumor, fantasy, actual information and what the MSM says on any particular day, but markets in general are reactive to the forces that comprise them.
robert108

I blame Clinton for his failure to address the growth of world terrorism. So that ball falls in his lap.

I blame Clinton for enabling 9/11 as well, but the hit on the GDP fell during the Bush admin. So much for justice.
kbiel

r108,

Please explain this sarcasm you speak of.
WOOFX

To spare you the pain.
WOOFX

If we want long term economic stimulus we need long term tax relief.

That’s what we’ve had
yet here we are here.
The President begging
for stimulus and the Fed dropping the interest rate 50 basis points today.
That should stabilize the equities markets for awhile.

Here the ranking of the presidential terms since 1960 by average annual GDP growth:

Kennedy-Johnson — 5.2%
Clinton — 3.6%
Reagan — 3.4%
Carter — 3.4%
Nixon-Ford — 2.7%
Bush II –2.6%
Bush I –1.9%
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

Rob
I agree that the counterfactual speculations are useless… unless you want hollow reasons to hate on Clinton! Woohoo!
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Look at the trend in growth there and line it up with tax policy.

JFK: Significant tax cuts.

Reagan: Significant tax cuts.

Bush II: Significant tax cuts.

The only aberration is Clinton, but I wonder how much of his domestic growth can be attributed to the “dot com” bubble.

Of course, there’s also 9/11 in there, the economic impact from which shouldn’t be blamed on any of the Presidents.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

there’s also 9/11 in there

i blame the stock market. which makes me wonder… if we won’t have another ‘significant security lapse’ anytime soon. i predict we will BEFORE APRIL. who’s got the odds/spread on that one?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Carrick, I’m not disagreeing. Just not perhaps as willing to indict Clinton for 9/11.

Certainly his unwillingness to do the hard things on national security (things that might have jeopardized his oh-so-important approval numbers) like stay the course in Somalia contributed to 9/11, but the roots of 9/11 go far beyond his administration.

What I’m trying to say is that it was more than just Clinton.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Well, Clinton’s gutting of our foreign intelligence agencies certainly didn’t help matters, but I’m not sure 9/11 wouldn’t have still happened even if Bush the Elder had be re-elected in 1992. Or if Dole had won in 1996.

SayAnythingBlog.com

US Representative Doesn’t Want To Give Puerto Rican “Foreigners” A Tax Rebate

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments