Wednesday, January 23, 2013

En respuesta al articulo de Eduardo Reina "la ultraderecha dividida y el centro camaleonico"

Mi respuesta al articulo del Sr. Eduardo Enrique Reina Garcia, publicado en la Tribuna de hoy (23/1/2013) en

Como que este es el nuevo mantra de LIBRE y de algunos de los partidos tradicionales... o están con nosotros o están con los otros y si no, son parte del "centro camaleónico". Bueno, esto ha sido la forma de hacer política en Honduras o sea que no es una posición nueva. A esta aseveración del Sr. Reina le respondo contundentemente y sin ningún vacilamiento:

Señor Reina, no somos camaleones, simple y sencillamente no estamos de acuerdo con los políticos y las ideas medios cocidas que están promoviendo ahorita mismo para cambiar el país en el discurso electorero. Ya estamos cansados de lo mismo en la política, porque todos nos conocemos y sabemos que LIBRE, el Partido Nacional y el Liberal, hasta ahora no han cambiado nada ni representan un cambio. No son mas que una sombra de ideas y actitudes que ya sabemos no funcionan.

Ya no queremos mas robos y corrupción, inoperancia, incapacidad y compadrazgo. No queremos mas nepotismo (no mas bebesaurios...) en la política y mucho menos corrupción. No queremos mas maletinazos, lechazos, lapizasos, medicinazos, pasaportazos y libretazos. 

Si queremos un respeto absoluto al estado de derecho, al imperio de la ley y a constitución, el culto a la excelencia y a la meritocracia, mas aun queremos hombres y mujeres decentes y honradas al mando del país. Queremos un país libre de las ataduras y cadenas que nos mantienen como esclavos con futuros empeñados al ALBA, USAID, Cooperación Española o quien fuese, y si dueños de nuestro destino. Un país independiente económicamente y libre para escoger su destino. 

Queremos trabajo, seguridad, la oportunidad de prosperar y salir adelante para nuestros hijos y sus hijos. Lo que he visto hasta ahora no me convence para nada que son un cambio, quizás hayan un par de opciones pero no participaron en las elecciones primarias. 

Los del centro hemos hablado.

Monday, December 19, 2011

The new airport tax increase

Sitio Futuro Aeropuerto en Palmerola?
I believe we need to put the issue of the increase in the Honduras airport tax into perspective. Certainly I can understand the personal impact of the tax on travel, especially those who travel to do volunteer work which benefits a lot of people in my country. Yet, the tax does not apply only to tourists, missionaries, or volunteers. The departure tax applies to everybody including us Hondurans who travel to and from the country.

Certainly an increase in airport taxes has a negative impact on the flows of persons in and out of a country. The magnitude of this impact will depend on who reactive are people to increases in transportation costs – how elastic the demand for travel is in economic terms. In those situations, where the increase in user fees is paid separately from the ticket, as is the case in Honduras, then we can speculate the impact may be larger.

In those countries, like the USA, where the user fees and taxes are included in the cost of the ticket – that is billed jointly with airline fares- then the impact may be smaller. In the USA, all travel and airport related fees are included in the ticket cost directly under the rubric US Domestic transportation tax, US international arrival and departure tax, Airport facility fees, US customs fee, APHIS custom fee, Federal flight segment tax, and so on.

In fact, for a Honduran travelling to the USA, user fee can be much higher than the $60 charged by Honduras for airport use fees. As an example, for a Honduran travelling to the USA, let’s say traveling from San Pedro Sula with one stop in the USA, and a second domestic destination such as New York, the total fare of $589 would be $518 for the airline fare and $71 in taxes and user fees. The domestic federal segment fee is a fixed percent (around 6.29%) of the domestic share of the ticket, so if somebody pays more than the base fare shown here, taxes will climb rapidly. USA Fees will also climb significantly if the person is travelling to a third country as these fees are billed per segment or entry/exit to the country.

The most important questions are: What will the impact be on overall travel and by user segment? And What is the rationale behind the increase in airport tax cost? Under the newly approved Interairports extension to the airport concession to 10 more years, the construction of the airport in Palmerola seem to be financed by that company to be later recovered through user fees and other sources of income. Yet, this increase seems to be signaling that user fees will start financing the airport construction now, and this to me signals the need to discuss in a more open manner the agreement with Interairports to figure out if this is indeed the best deal for the country. 

Let’s not kid ourselves. All users will have to pay for any new airport and expansion or improvements of the old ones. The challenge at this point is finding the best way to do these investments that will benefit the country in the end and which make economic sense.

Using emotional appeals and arguments seem to be counterproductive for advancing the discussion on the appropriateness of this increase, which should have started from asking if there was any serious study which has examined the potential impact of such measure, compared to the potential benefits of expanding or building a new airport. That is surely the way to conduct serious policy analysis.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

La justicia en Honduras solo pica a los descalzos...

Frase celebre de un Ex-Embajador de Estados Unidos en Honduras.

El comentario de Armando Villanueva en Hondudiario es muy cierto:

"CHACHAS. Lo que es la vida... Pareciera que en los tribunales de La Granja quieren hacer todo lo que no han podido hacer con los ex funcionarios (as) del recién llegado. A la pobre Bélgica Suárez -que solo glorias le ha dado a Honduras- la volvieron a exhibir ayer con grilletes y chachas solo porque andaba 33 mil euros... ¿Y los 40 millones de las carretillas?..."

No se si la Señorita Suárez es culpable de algo, pero se nota que la trataron de una forma muy diferente a la que trataron a Flores Lanza, Jiménez Puerto y a Mejía cuando se presentaron a los tribunales por una razón u otra. En ningún momento les pusieron grilletes en los pies....Ojala aprendamos algo este incidente.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Cierran La Clinica La Esperanza en las Islas de la Bahia


 Del blog de Elena Toledo

El link a la Clinica la Esperanza

 EL video la extraordinaria obra de la enfermera Peggy

Esta historia tristemente no es la primera ni sera la ultima respecto a iniciativas privadas que pueden ayudarle a alguien en nuestro país...hasta cuando cambiaran las cosas en nuestro país?

On illegal/undocumented and legal immigration in the United States of America

I am a temporary legal resident of the United States of America. As long as I am employed with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) I am allowed to stay in this country. As such, I will not criticize the actions and policies of the US government and its agencies and the people in the country, unless invited to do so by them. This note is really directed at opening the discussion about legal/illegal/undocumented immigration in the United States and to the many statements both in favor and against, which in many cases are off-base or reflect a perception built by the media and/or political commentators, pundits or activist/grassroots organizations.

The major problem I see with this growing perception about immigration  is attempting to generalize about us immigrants and about the issues at hand. For me as a Honduran citizen, in many cases, illegal/undocumented immigration into the USA it is a matter of shame, as my country could not provide the opportunities to the people who decided to immigrate to the USA and Europe, so that they could prosper in our own country. This is a failure of us as a country, nobody else. This reflects on the motivations behind immigration movements to another country since humanity began.

Most people come to the USA or Europe, to earn a living and to be able to send remittances back to the country. In fact, up to recently, most stayed until they earned enough money to go back home. This was the usual behavior of most immigrants until recently. Some commentators proposed that the change towards “staying until I’m kicked-off” has been due to the crack down on immigration and the subsequent increase in the cost of entering the USA, both legally and illegally.

Certainly, most illegal/undocumented immigrants are not thugs, common criminals, nor members of the MS or other gangs. Most people are hard workers who are routinely underpaid and/or abused by employers as they have very little bargaining power…after all people can always make a call to “the migra”. We are not all maids or yard keepers, although people in those jobs contribute to society, so much so that Texas even considered a bill exempting them from deportation (

I personally do not want to get into the debate of whether legal and illegal/undocumented immigrants into the United States of America have a net positive or negative impact unto this society. Most, if not all, estimates have considerable issues with regard to assumptions used, methods, conflicts of interest, and perhaps the reality that there may not be a conclusive answer, as there are many tangible and intangible benefit from immigration into a country.  

In fact, parts of the polarizing views that have risen in recent years have been the results of such attempts at quantifying immigration into the US. Examining the range of reports can illustrate the fact that the debate needs to move on to a comprehensive immigration policy that will provide net benefits to US society, and for us as Hondurans, to finally come to grips with the failed policies, corruption, mis-management and overall debacle of our economy and our society.

A report produced by the Heritage Foundation (see the their testimony in Congress at , representative of the opinions of conservative and/or so called “nativist” groups opposed to illegal and in some cases even legal immigration, state that each “low-skilled immigrant household” generates a negative fiscal deficit of US$19,588. This is the result of each household paying US$10,573 in taxes (including federal, state, and local income and property taxes as well as sales and excise taxes), while consuming an average of $30,160 of government expenditures in the form of welfare benefits, education and public safety expenses. A really good critique of the assumptions, methods and conclusions of this study is one authored by Harrell and Franklin

The results of the Heritage Foundation study contrasts with those of perhaps organizations with less obvious stated agenda, including one by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the other done by Prof. Hanson of UC-San Diego. The NAS study ( , although a bit dated, showed that In the NAS Study, the net effect of benefits consumed and the taxes paid at both the federal and local levels is that immigrants generate a total fiscal benefit of $23.5 billion (approximately $581 per capita).Although the NAS analysis reveals a net fiscal deficit attributable to immigrants at the state and local level, there is net positive fiscal effect at the federal level. 

On the other hand, Prof. Hanson’s study, a Council of Foreign Relations Special Report, concludes that stemming illegal immigration would likely lead to a net drain on the U.S. economy, a finding that calls into question many of the proposals to increase funding for border protection.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Pronunciamiento de la Alianza Democratica Nacional

La Alianza Democrática Nacional (ADN), organización que agrupa a la Sociedad Civil de la zona norte de la República, al pueblo hondureño en general y al Presidente de la República, don Porfirio Lobo Sosa en particular, hace saber:

Que consideramos que ningún acuerdo político está más arriba de la independencia de poderes, de nuestras instituciones democráticas y mucho menos de la autodeterminación de nuestro pueblo para solventar por nosotros mismos los problemas internos que nos aquejan. So pena de nulidad, ningún acuerdo puede estar por encima de la observancia de las leyes internas de nuestro país, de manera que la presencia de personeros extranjeros para revisar nuestro accionar judicial, no hace más que debilitar la independencia de poderes, el cual cuenta con el apoyo del pueblo hondureño quien mira su presencia en nuestro país, como un pueril intento de intimidación, sin mencionar el socavamiento de las bases del Poder Judicial como tal.

Que consideramos el protocolo de su reunión secreta con personeros de la Embajada de Venezuela en Honduras, como una preocupante sumisión de nuestro gobierno, ante las intenciones de establecer en Honduras el Socialismo del Siglo XXI, el cual consideramos que no vendrá a paliar los problemas que aquejan a nuestro pueblo y que por el contrario, por la experiencia vista en las naciones donde ha sido implantado, en nuestro país se convertirá en otro agente que nos hundirá más en el subdesarrollo y la pobreza.

Que la Alianza Democrática Nacional expresa su rechazo a la nueva tasa de seguridad en su forma pero no en su fondo. Que comprende y acepta que la seguridad nacional es tema de todos, sin embargo cree que para que nuestra Policía Nacional sea recipiente del sacrificio económico del pueblo hondureño, deberá pasar primero como una condición "sine qua non", por una profunda transformación y depuración que la convierta en una institución limpia, transparente y merecedora de un esfuerzo de tal magnitud, de lo contrario se estará sacrificando al pueblo sin avizorar resultados a corto, mediano o a largo plazo.

Que condenamos cualquier agenda secreta que violente nuestra soberanía o que pretenda subyugar la libertad de los hondureños a través de engaños sobre una consulta popular con la intención de derogar la Constitución de la República, pues ésta establece claramente los mecanismos a través de los cuales deben realizarse las reformas y claramente establece que cualquier intención de derogarla, por el medio que se pretenda utilizar, no sólo es por sí misma nula sino que también constituye un acto de TRAICIÓN A LA PATRIA.

Que rechazamos rotundamente el lenguaje populista y divisionista con que el Presidente de la República don Porfirio Lobo Sosa se refiere en sus intervenciones, a cualquiera que se oponga a las medidas por él dispuestas, sobre todo viniendo de un gobierno que llego al poder mediante una campaña proselitista que pregonaba no la división, sino la reconciliación del pueblo Hondureño.

Reiteramos al Señor Presidente de la República, nuestra intención de apoyo incondicional en los cambios sociales que tiendan a mejorar las condiciones de vida del pueblo hondureño y el fortalecimiento y no el detrimento, de nuestro sistema social y democrático.

San Pedro Sula, Junio 25, 2011.