In the administration of its colony, Puerto Rico-or rather. what was really the enclave colony of San Juan-was maintained by an administrative subsidy provided by the Vice royalty of Mexico from the middle of the 17th century until 1810 when Mexico began achieving its independence from Spain. While the Spanish enclave in San Juan was maintained on a subsidy from Mexico City, there were other developments taking place on the Island similar to those occurring on other islands. However, the isolation of the enclave in San Juan was notorious for the particular way in which life was divorced from reality. It was also notorious-despite Spanish exclusivism-that the inhabitants of Puerto Rico continued to trade with other islands as well as maintain contact with foreign merchant ships, receiving them in the many ports around Puerto Rico where they paid no duties to the metropolitan government. Also, slaves escaping from other islands immediately became free upon arriving in Puerto Rico! Thus, we must place in proper perspective that which from the Spanish viewpoint, is branded "piracy" or "contraband", which, from the Island's perspective is nothing less than trade, liberation, and the survival of a people. This situation lasted until the first quarter of the 1800's, most predominently in the Western part of the Island. The situation was exposed repeatedly by Spanish commissioners sent to implement reforms and administrative modifications. This type of modification presupposes the relief of the situation created by the cessation of the Mexican Subsidy. In every case the information decries the great impoverishment of the colony. Once again, it is to be asked, from whose point of view? That of the Spanish Enclave or that of the Puerto Ricans? The Spanish administrators drew attention to the industry and prosperity of French and English colonies on the other islands, overlooking, no doubt, that these imported almost all their food, exported almost all of their produce— which was the product of slave labour and which obviated a cash flow. They may also have failed to emphasize that those "prosperous" islands were comprised of discreet productive units, which can be likened to concentration camps or reservations. The type of export handled by the contraband trade on the island of Puerto Rico naturally responded to the demand for such products from the other islands. That is, the Puerto Ricans bypassed the administrative fiat of the government using the sea to their best advantage, trading with the French, English or Dutch, and later with the Americans of the United States, to become part of what was known as the "Triangle Trade." The trade of the rest of the Island was the port of San Juan was limited. being uninviting and unprofitable. In reality, it was San Juan which was impoverished and not the Island. It was San Juan that was needy or parasitic, or both, and not Puerto Rico! The hacienda system and the plantation system, which made the Caribbean one of the foremost and progressive export zones in the world at one time, was not to be highly developed in Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic. Nor was the institution of slavery to have such a great impact on the society. For one thing, during the time that San Juan precariously subsisted on the Mexican Subsidy, we find the growth of a wage-earning, free working class. We must remember that these were the years in which the same economic revolution was creating a free-working, wage-earning class of citizenry during the Industrial Revolution in Europe which depended on the Caribbean market in order to provide itself with the products of a complex manufacture, such as could only be produced in a tropical area. Europe obtained cheap carbohydrates and preservatives from the Caribbean as well as the raw material for other European-based industries, as its own labour settled into urban areas and Europe's self-sufficiency in food production dropped off. Part of the Revolution consisted in the creation of the agroindustrial complex which typified the plantation and hacienda, built by a nonskilled (slave) labour force drawing on sophisticated mass production methods and technology, supplied by the monoculture (such as sugar cane) of a nondietary commodity. The plantations produced a "food-substitute" at the end of its process of manufacture, sugar, actually a chemical compound with easily transportable qualities, and which, when submitted to fermentation, produced a further product, rum. Both sugar and rum were dietary substitutes, not staples. Boosters, not nutrients. In the case of Puerto Rico, the land itself did not yield a commodity of great value, and the existence of a free working class made slavery neither profitable nor extensive. The case was the same even in those parts of the Island where slavery predominated since the economy did not respond to the European crisis. AN AUTONOMOUS ECONOMY After the Napoleonic Wars, Spain fell under English domination. By dividing the world markets the English were primarily responsible for the break-up of the Spanish Empire. At the same time the English were the most progressive nation in their opposition to slavery; this institution proved contrary to its trading interests in Africa as well as to the maturation of capitalism. Slavery was alien to capitalism and prejudicia] to development in Latin America and elsewhere. The Spanish Constitution of 1812 was profoundly influenced-if not imposedby the English Allies, and it was applied throughout the Spanish Empirę, including Puerto Rico and Cuba, by the colonial administration. The reforms which it brought about corresponded to a type of "economic gerrymandering" through zones of direct and indirect taxation, which naturally extended to the island "districts". At the same time a breakdown of free shipping in the Caribbean area resulted in a guerrilla struggle in our waters between the native merchant fleet and the trade monopolists. In Puerto Rico the leadership of this struggle fell to Roberto Cofresi, who was eventually captured by the United States squadron in the Caribbean in 1825 and handed over to the Spanish for execution. The policy of establishing colonial enclaves elsewhere on the coasts, and of building forts to protect those on river mouths, laid the groundwork for completing the encirclement and occupation of the central and western region of the Island. These regions had never been conquered especially since the 1511 war when the Puerto Rico people, called "Jibaro", rebelled against the Spanish and sent them scurrying into their castles. None of the Spaniards "coastal" defenses faced the sea. On the contrary, they faced inland. Finally free of the French occupation, and no longer in possession of a vast empire, Spain slowly completed the occupation of the Island districts called "indieras". By 1828 all the coasts had fallen and the interior river valleys had frontier garrisons. In the Western Central region, an autonomous economy based on native tropical agricultural technology still maintained itself. Here, the native methods produced some commodities profitably, as can be seen from the impact of the contraband trade. Coffee and sugar did not represent the only crops as these drug-food supplements did in the "European" zones where almost all of their foods were imported. In the Western Central region the subversion used by the Spanish was much less successful. In 1828, a commercial plaza was created (perforce constituted as a municipality, Lares) which forty years later was to be the cradle of resistance to the Spanish colony. Land ownership through judicial title to land was foreign to the ethnic communities. This had traditionally fallen to that particular caste which grew up over the long period of isolation within the walls of the enclave, where the only form of employment was a military career, frosted over by a civil-administrative post compounded into a parasitic bureaucracy headed by the Spanish-appointed Governor. It was this caste that most heartily favored slavery and the destruction of the national native economy. It was this caste that favored the cultivation of exclusively export commodities and the development of what literally amounted to concentration camps of labourers following the plantation systems of the French and English islands. This plan, however, would reach its fruition only after 1898, with the expulsion of the Spanish administration and the imposition of the rule of the North American governor. In order to achieve what it viewed as "prosperity" on the Island and the expansion of the plantation system, the colonial administration created in 1814 a sort of "public corporation”—semi-officially called "Friends of the Economy of the Country"-which held sessions approximately every five years. This was composed of members of the governing bureaucracy who were also the most prominent land owners. Skirmishes and battles were taking place all around the periphery of the native "Indieras" due to the Spanish insistence of imposing duties on products en route to the coasts. In 1868 a revolution took place in Lares in which independence was proclaimed and a government bureau set up. The revolutionary forces evacuated the plaza and initiated a thirty year guerrilla struggle, which, in its course, did not occupy towns or positions. At the end of the struggle in 1898, the invading United States forces were greeted by the guerrilla forces all over the island, who occupied the positions abandoned by the retreating Spanish. The period from 1868 to 1898, when the United States invaded Puerto Rico, was characterized by guerrilla war, great repressions and cruel massacres on the part of the Spanish, comparable to what the Nazis did to the Jews in Europe during the second World War. This was called the Era of the Compontes (from the verb "componer": to castrate). This term should be taken in its most literal sense. At that time it was prohibited to speak the native language, which was extirpated. Previous to this period, almost throughout the island a system of "coupons" as passport and identification papers were used. These were filled out by the person's employer and stated his salary, a datum which had no monetary significance since it was used to guarantee the consumption, forceably loyal, of Spanish products, secured through the employer's account in his or another Spaniard's store. So. even though the revolutionary demands to abolish slavery were met in 1871, it had no relevance because a free working class no longer existed in the country. On the political front, an interesting shift had taken place. Those who had favored the destruction of the autonomous economy were now agitating for their own autonomy because they had been replaced as the chief landowning class by Spanish immigrants who were established by the authorities on confiscated lands! The Spanish who had once abrogated the constitution of 1812, now insisted on its revival because it was a guarantee to their civil rights! On the island no civil rights existed. Everyone had become a prey to the monopolistic determination of administrative fiat. On the other side, the Jíbaro opposed Spain because its new "model" economy and its reliance on quasi-slave labour had obliterated his progress and excluded his capital and participation in the economy. His labour and effort, which was expressed in the physical product of his land, was to become, through the "libreta" (identification) system, non-salaried; as if his workdays were to be paid in foodstamps, mere "I.O.U." 's. This represented a vast system whereby every individual who ever came in contact with a worker became that worker's master, since he was placed by legal obligation in a position to administer that individual's property, which was his work. Even the most humble store attendant who signed the "libreta" of a worker became that man's perpetual guarantor. At the same time, the import monopolists were guaranteed the continued and loyal consumerism of Spanish commodities. Of these the worker was allowed a subsistence. In no way was he able to avoid falling into debt, losing whatever property or capital remained to him and becoming, in effect, a slave. At the same time, he participated in extensive black-marketeering in order to survive, for which he was branded thief, criminal or bandit. The blackmarket was exclusively in the hands of the rich and economically solvent, or in the hands of those power ful enough-and prosperous enough—to direct the illicit trade. That is, the black market was controlled by those same individuals who passed as authorities and representatives of “law and order", from the governor down to the policeman on the beat, all as corrupt as the benefits that could be derived from his position would allow him to be. Political means became "formalities", vested interests patronized as like to like, the worst rising to the top. The genocidal componte system, which was the violent means of control, kept the population, no less than the corruption, in a state of virtual political terrorism, called "criminality". The United States invasion of Puerto Rico, propagandized as a "liberating operation" quickly assumed the position vacated by the Spanish. The Americans imposed a military regime which, from 1903 to 1906, re-initiated the componte, jailed the liberal leadership during "elections", and consolidated the power of the same aristocratic caste which had plunged the country into the circumstances already described. This caste had first betrayed the native people and then the Spanish for their own parasitic ends. Those same people who had complained to the Spanish commissioners of their great poverty and of the "natural" laziness and lack of industry of the native population, later joined the authoritarian governors and brought the whole population to such miserable straits. Having been "autonomists", under the Spanish, this collaborationist caste now turned to the service of the North American invaders and betrayed the people in order to arrive at their present profitable and historically consistent circumstances. At present, under the guise of a "more American than thou" policy, they once again threaten to rip our tongues out of our mouths, terrorize the population with officially condoned acts of violence, and finally destroy any confidence in democratic means. Furthermore, they promise, by economic subterfuge, (1) to exile the discontented population by exporting their wage earners; (2) impose such programs as massive sterilization to limit population control; (3) use Food Stamps as a form of economic blackmail and eventually to create work-fare programs which would imply virtually a return to Spanish slavery and a concentration camp morality. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, MS. SAMMIE LYNN PUETT, DEAR COMMISSIONER PUETT: Chairman Helms mentioned during the food stamp hearing on March 16, 1981 that witnesses might be asked additional questions for the record by Committee members and staff. We would very much appreciate your providing written answers to the following questions by April 3, 1981. Question No. 1. In your testimony you recommend that the food stamp program “recognize regional differences in family income, in shelter deductions, and in utility costs." Can we assume from this statement that you oppose the President's proposal to freeze the maximum allowable shelter deduction at its current level? Answer. No. Question No. 2. The President has also proposed to freeze the standard deduction at its current level of $85 a month. The standard deduction was instituted by the 1977 Act to replace a variety of itemized deductions. It is currently adjusted annually for inflation to reflect rising living costs. Do you favor freezing the standard deduction at its current level? Answer. Yes. But let me elaborate. Question No. 3. In answer to a question at the March 16 hearing, you stated that the proposal to count school lunches against food stamps "could be an administrative nightmare." In addition to your administrative concerns, could you please state whether you would favor this proposal on a policy basis? Since Tennessee has one of the lowest AFDC payment standards in the nation, the school lunch-food stamp proposal could have a significant effect on the incomes of low-income Tennesseans. For instance, the maximum AFDC payment for a family of four with no other income in Tennessee is $148 a month. A mother with three schoolchildren can currently receive the $148 in AFDC and about $225 (assuming a small shelter deduction) in food stamps, for a total monthly income of about $373. This equals about 53 percent of the poverty line. If the school lunch-food stamp proposal were to pass, this family's income would be reduced by about $35 a month to 48 percent of the poverty line. Do you believe that lowincome Tennesseans could afford to lose this purchasing power? Would the state step in to offset some of this loss? Answer. In my March 16 testimony I contrasted food stamp assistance to an elderly recipient whose allotment was decreased because of a Social Security increase with assistance to an able-bodied country music aspirant who expected the government to underwrite his musical aspirations by providing him with food stamps. I concluded by stating that "I would like to see that country music aspirant come off the food stamp rolls so we could increase the allotment of the elderly recipient who had no other options." It is apparent from the research you have done in preparation of your third question that you appreciate part of the problem I attempted to bring to the committee's attention-that certain individuals and families are in desperate need of increased food stamp benefits while others could provide for their own needs if they would make the effort. The other part of the problem, however, is that such adjustments will never be possible so long as we tolerate the kind of laxity that permeates the food stamp eligibility and administrative processes. The separate household concept and the school lunch concept are costly and inherently inequitable ways of expanding program benefits to some, but not all, recipients. For example, one four-member family which "purchases and prepares" meals as a unit should not receive less benefits than the same four-member family which alleges that they "purchase and prepare" meals separately from the eighteen-year-old. At the same time, families with school age children receive both food stamps and school lunch supplements while the Social Security recipient receives only stamps, no meals supplement. Another inequity is produced by the boarder policy that requires the issuance of food stamps to persons whose meals are being provided through a room-and-board payment. The boarder gets the same allotment as another person who does not get meals with rent payments To insure that the same type of inequities cited above are not also present in the food stamp exemption and deduction process, I heartily endorse the President's proposal to freeze the maximum shelter allowance and standard deduction amounts. As you are no doubt aware, this entire area was the subject of much debate even prior to enactment of the 1977 Act. It is through the respective deductions and allowances that equity can be maintained in the program; and while much work has been done in this area, even more must be done to insure the program's integrity. I am confident that the President made his proposal to stop the process in place so that the very concept of excess shelter allowance, in view of the existing standard deduction, could be thoughtfully explored before benefits are increased again. No, the State of Tennessee does not have funds to replace lost federal dollars in any program. However, removal of certain persons from the food stamp rolls could make current food stamp funds go further in meeting the needs of persons who are totally dependent on support programs. Thank you in advance for your prompt response to these questions. I would add that I did find your written testimony very helpful. I am hopeful that the Committee will take action on some of your recommendations Sincerely yours, Hon. JESSE HELMS, ROBERT J. FERSH, Professional Staff Member. STATE OF TENNESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Nashville, Tenn., April 27, 1981. Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HELMS: As a follow-up to your request for additional information for use by the Agriculture Committee in considering the Farm Bill, I am submitting the following comments: (1) COMPARABILITY BETWEEN FOOD STAMPS AND AFDC The Food Stamp Act of 1977 required the states to move toward consolidation of the two programs. The single interview concept required caseworkers and supervisors to be knowledgeable in both AFDC and Food Stamp policies. The benefits were obvious to the recipient population, who were required to deal with but one individual. The benefits to program administration were substantial but incomplete because staff were required to deal with two separate branches of policy. I believe Tennessee and other states moving toward the consolidated or generic caseload approach are adopting the right approach. What is needed now is a strong commitment to this course from the Committee and the respective federal agencies. Perhaps the first step in this process is a common language between the respective programs. I am submitting for your review an excerpt from a recently completed study on simplification of client eligibility requirements for human services and income maintenance programs conducted by Mountain Plains Federal Regional Council in conjunction with four states and seven federal agencies. The full report including EDP impact data compiled by the four participating states (Colorado, South Dakota, Massachusetts and Michigan) has been forwarded to Mr. Tom Boney under separate cover. Tennessee's Food Stamp, Medicaid and AFDC staff have reviewed the report and believe the uniformity of definition and treatment of income and resources provided by the document would significantly simplify the administration of these programs in our State. |