Opinion Editorial | |
| Wednesday, March 4, 1998 | |
Puerto Rico a Legacy of Colonialism |
Today, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a bill that
may lead to statehood for Puerto Rico, a Spanish colony that became a U.S.
territory 100 years ago as a result of the Spanish-American War. The war
came about because Spain was weak and its colonies were viewed as ripe for
the picking. Colonies, in turn, were seen as great sources of wealth. War
with Spain, therefore, presented itself as an easy way to acquire colonies
and enrich the U.S. Spain's defeat gave American imperialists what they
wanted and Cuba, the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico became de facto U.S.
colonies. Cuba and the Philippines eventually were given their freedom, but to
this day Guam and Puerto Rico still have effective colonial status. In
fact, when Great Britain gave up control of Hong Kong last year, the U.S.
became the greatest colonial power on earth. In addition to Guam and Puerto
Rico, other de facto U.S. colonies include American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and the Northern Marianas islands. Economists have long criticized imperialism and colonialism. Economist
William Graham Sumner of Yale was among the strongest critics of the Spanish-American
War. He strenuously argued that our colonies were likely to cost us far
more than we would ever gain. American taxpayers would have to finance
large military expenditures for protection of the new possessions from other
powers and to suppress rebellion. Indeed, as early as 1900, American troops
were forced into a long and bloody campaign to control the Philippines.
The brutality of that campaign differed little from Spain's actions in
Cuba that helped ignite the Spanish-American War. From an economic point of view, Sumner thought there was nothing to be
gained from holding a colony that could not be achieved through free trade.
"Conquests can do nothing for trade except to remove the political
obstacles which the conquered could not, or would not, remove," he
wrote in 1899. "From this it follows that the only justification for
territorial extension is the extension of free and enlightened policies
in regard to commerce." A similar view was expressed by the great economist Joseph Schumpeter
of Harvard in his 1919 essay on imperialism. He argued that "where
free trade prevails no class has an interest in forcible expansion."
The reason is because "the citizens and goods of every nation can
move in foreign countries as freely as though those countries were politically
their own." Thus Schumpeter believed, contrary to Lenin, that "capitalism
is by nature anti-imperialist." (Lenin said imperialism is the highest
stage of capitalism.) Puerto Rico probably will vote to continue the status quo, under which
it has all the benefits of statehood without any of the costs. Puerto Ricans
are U.S. citizens and receive many welfare and other benefits from the federal
government, but pay no taxes to the U.S. Treasury. Although they would
pay taxes under statehood, Puerto Ricans would also become eligible for
additional benefits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. On balance,
it would clearly cost the U.S. Treasury dearly if Puerto Rico becomes a
state. A 1990 Congressional Budget Office report estimated $3 billion in
additional welfare benefits alone. The debate over Puerto Rico is just further evidence that colonialism
and imperialism are not paying propositions. Even Britain's great colonial
empire was a money-losing enterprise, according to economists Lance Davis
and Robert Huttenback. Puerto Rico has clearly cost American taxpayers far
more than they have ever gotten in return. From their point of view, independence
for Puerto Rico, not statehood, is the preferred option. Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |