Republican Congressmen John Culberson and Kevin Brady are among 139 Republicans who voted AYE on H.R. 5278, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act that puts in a framework for an unelected, unaccountable board to manage the economy of Puerto Rico—and once again, a local Harris-Montgomery County area TEA Party “recommended” Republican primary voters cast their ballot for these two Congressmen in the recent March 2016 primary.
Here’s my question— where in the bill is there a provision for the Puerto Rican people to consent to this oversight board comprised of a bunch of D.C. insiders?
Section 101 of PROMESA outlines the membership of the unelected “Oversight Board” shall be comprised over seven members appointed by the President and selected from a list submitted by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Yup, sounds like a bunch of D.C insiders will be appointed to the Oversight Board—if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck.
And how long will the Puerto Rican people be required to live under this unelected, unaccountable board?
Section 106 of the bill stipulates there is no jurisdiction in any United States District Court to review any challenges of decisions made by the Oversight Board—and Section 209 reads the Oversight Board will terminate when Puerto Rico can demonstrate it can borrow at reasonable interest rates and balance its budget over a four-year period—-which basically means the Oversight Board will live in perpetuity.
Congressman Dave Brat wrote Congress can’t get their own house in order –but this bill will address all of Puerto Rico’s problems? Yeesh.
Perhaps the next time you attend a Kingwood TEA Party meeting you can ask them why an unelected, unaccountable board of D.C. insiders should manage the Puerto Rican economy?
After all, KWTP “recommended” Republican primary voters cast their ballot for Congressmen Brady & Culberson—
The folks over at the Kingwood TEA Party have demonstrated they hypocritically describe themselves as supporting limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets all the while “recommending” Republican primary voters cast their ballot for two Congressmen who voted YESSIRREE! on a bill forcing the people of Puerto Rico to abandon the principle of consent of the governed—a bill that grows the fist of government, not limits it—and a bill that could result in the Puerto Rican people living under this fiefdom for a lifetime.
Dan Lan says
“…hypocritically…” is a strong word. You talked to them about why they endorsed Culberson and bear witness to their perfidy? Of course not, for if you did you would not have posted this.
57{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the Republican primary voters agreed with them, BTW.
Obviously you’re new to following Culberson so you find this vote surprising. It’s not. Most of his precinct chairs did not support him, despite his opponents being – “not ready for prime time”.
It would be more productive, if you would elucidate the bills that shall arise and inform the slates as to how Culberson will vote, thus avoiding such future embarssments.
BTW, this bill is of course horrible, and probably illegal as “offices established by law” require the “Advice and Consent of the Senate”.
Adrian Heath says
Hey Yvonne,
Dan Lan writes a brilliant and illuminating blog that far outdoes your paltry attempts at journalism – said nobody ever!
Foolme says
The big question looms: Are these supposed “Tea Parties” now guilty of what they are accusing others of being “bought off?” Have they fallen compromised to the “Power” of always trying to pick the winner and sacrifice principles for access and power? The patterns of logic of these “alledged” Tea Party groups is rather disheartening…..
Dan Lan says
Maybe they were the best candidates.
Maybe they are persuasive and charming.
Maybe there’s nothing more to this than one bad vote doesn’t negate the other reasons that they got voted in.
Anyhow, if one is upset that Culberson and Brady vote a certain way,
contrary to what one thinks was their campaign platform,
then why not go after them and the issues directly?
Steve says
Yvonne, some points for consideration:
Americans for Tax Reform, headed by President Reagan’s chosen person, was in support of the bill. Posting this, among other things:
“The bottom line is that PROMESA addresses the Puerto Rico debt crisis in a responsible, pro-taxpayer way by avoiding a federal bailout, ensuring property rights are protected, and forcing San Juan to get its fiscal house back in order. Members of Congress should have no hesitation supporting this important legislation.”
Speaker Ryan’s office provided some insights about PROMESA here:
Which included the support of these conservative groups (among others):
Americans for Limited Government
Americans for Tax Reform
Conservative Reform Network
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
James Madison Institute
National Taxpayers Union
National Review
Patriot Update
R Street Institute
Tea Party Forward
Wall Street Journal editorial board
Full list, and other facts, found here:
Finally, this was one vote. How many votes will a Congressman cast in a two-year term? Are you always going to agree with each and every vote? And when one “good guy” votes the wrong way (in your eyes), is it time to throw them out of office? In the two instances you cited of Culberson and Brady, neither one was in a race that was close enough for the endorsements you’re talking about to have really mattered.
Ed Hubbard says
We are always criticizing our representatives in Washington for exercising powers they do not have under the Constitution, but we should support them when they correctly and effectively exercise a power they are delegated under the Constitution.
The law in question is an exercise of two powers vested in the federal government: the power to administer territories of the U.S.; and the power to provide for a process of bankruptcy (remember, bankruptcy courts are not part of the judicial branch of government, but agencies created to carry-out Congress’ Article I authority over bankruptcy–in this instance it created a board, rather than a bankruptcy court or trustee to exercise that authority). A similar law was passed pertaining to the District of Columbia, and it worked to help D.C. dig itself out of financial difficulties under Congressional oversight.
I support Culberson and Brady in this proper exercise of Congressional responsibility.
Cypress Texas Tea Party says
Maybe sometime in the distant past Congressman Culberson was a fiscal conservative, but he has voted for appropriations bills that were MORE than what was in Obama’s latest proposed budget. He has voted for the Omnibus spending bill that fully funded Planned Parenthood. I see nothing in his voting record that suggests he is anything but a RINO establishment rubber stamp that needs to go.
Jim Lennon says
Yvonne, Although Puerto Rico’s decades of economic malignancy and impending bond defaults did not come up in our 2 hour interviews with John Culberson and Kevin Brady I am relatively OK with PROMESA. This article in National Review is a decent summary of the pro PROMESA position.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435875/puerto-rico-debt-crisis-promesa-best-solution
The cause of limited government and fiscal responsibility will not be served by allowing Puerto Rico and its bankrupt dysfunctional government to continue on its current path. A perfect conservative and effective bill would not get President Obama’s signature. Leaving us with PROMESA.
.