Today marks the completion of the second week of the DREAM Now series. I am sorry I was not able to get a letter out on Wednesday.  Too much travel and not enough sleep led me to come down with a soar throat and a fever on Tuesday.  Thankfully, I’m starting to recover, today.  If you’re not getting enough of your DREAM Now fix I recommend reading Matias Ramos’ post on why he stood up during Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) speech at Netroots Nation.

Thanks in part to the supporters of the DREAM Now Series,  Reid is now on board with pushing DREAM Act this year.  Most of the credit for turning Reid, of course, should go to courageous undocumented youth activists for their civil disobedience in Reid’s office and making their presence known during his appearance at Netroots Nation.  While Reid still needs to be pushed, most of our efforts to get the DREAM Act enacted, this year, should now shift towards securing the last few mostly Republican Senate votes we need.  The National Council of La Raza has a list of Senators who have not yet publicly committed to voting for the DREAM Act.  If your Senator is on that list, you better start getting to work.

Before all of our efforts move towards securing mostly Republican votes for the DREAM Act in the Senate, however, there is one last set of important supposed “allies” that have yet to voice their support for passing the DREAM Act this year and, according to Congressional leadership, are actually obstructing it from happening: the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).

Those of us in the migrant youth movement have long known that the CHC has been a barrier to passing the DREAM Act on its own.  The supposed defenders of migrant rights in Congress can, in fact, be an enemy of migrant youth.  This uncomfortable fact was spotlighted for the entire progressive blogosphere to see during Nancy Pelosi’s remarks on the DREAM Act to Netroots Nation:

You mentioned the DREAM Act…There is a difference of opinion about how we go forward on that.  In our House we are committed to comprehensive immigration reform.  Our Congressional Hispanic Caucus doesn’t want us taking one piece, you know, taking a piece that might be appealing and leaving the undocumented behind.

So we–our principles are secure our border, enforce our laws, protect our workers, don’t exploit workers coming in, but have a path to legalization for those who are here, not fully documented.  And if we take off some of the rosier pieces of it, the thought is that it would diminish the prospect for comprehensive immigration reform.

Others have a different view, “let’s just run with it if we can get it passed.”  That’s a debate we have.  But our Hispanic Caucus is of the comp–[rehensive view?]–and I support that…That’s why we haven’t, while we’re all co-sponsors and all support the DREAM Act don’t want it to diminish our prospects for dealing with the undocumenteds in our country.

Nancy Pelosi – Netroots Nation (24 July 2010)

Every time someone says the whole thing cannot pass, only part of it, it weakens us, it divides us, it confuses us, it scatters us all over the place. we once had a united movement for comprehensive immigration reform, now we don’t have a united movement, and that is causing, that is detrimental to the movement for all of us.

Luis Gutierrez – The DREAM Is Coming (20 July 2010)

There is a lot to dissect here but the most important points are the following.

First of all, to force another generation of unauthorized migrant youth to give up their lives for the broader movement is exploitation, pure and simple.  This is especially true when undocumented youth themselves and many of their undocumented family members are against it.  Politicians using undocumented youth as the engines for comprehensive immigration reform are no better than the exploitative employers of undocumented workers.

Second, not only is it exploitative to make this argument, but it is strategically wrong.  Getting the DREAM Act passed this year will not weaken the fight for immigration reform, it will strengthen it.  No one questions the fact that undocumented youth are the strongest and most sympathetic leaders of the migrant rights movement.  Why not allow them to earn legal status so that they can fight even harder for their family members and communities?  I know I’m not leaving this fight after the DREAM Act is passed and I can say that for just about everyone that I know whom I consider a leader of the undocumented youth movement.

Finally, and this is a point that no one else talks about, everyday that we wait to pass the DREAM Act is another day where potential migrant youth leaders are being deported, lost to “attrition”, or even to death or suicide.  Anyone who stands in the way of some sort of relief from this violence, now, is not an ally, but an enemy.

Within those three simple truths there is a lot of complexity, part of which I will try to address here.

First, I will address Luis Gutierrez, specifically, since I quoted him as being representative of the CHC, and on immigration, for the most, part he is.  While I believe the CHC can be an enemy of migrant youth, as a whole, I don’t yet consider Luis Gutierrez, personally, an enemy of migrant youth.  I say this because there is no politician currently in U.S. Congress that has done more to advance the cause of migrant rights.  When he introduced CIRASAP he also co-sponsored the DREAM Act, a major nod to the migrant youth movement which I was appreciative of.  After some pressure, he also ended up doing the right thing by saying he’ll inclue LGBT families in CIR.  Many undocumented youth leaders also identify as queer.

Because of these extremely important steps, I’m willing to give Gutierrez some leeway, but I have to say that he was wrong in trying to talk down undocumented youth in the middle of a historic action.  His implication that undocumented youth are dividing the movement is also wrong.  Mohammad Abdollahi said it best:

Congressman Gutierrez, my name is Mohammad, I was one of the youth that was in the sit-in in Senator McCain’s office, on May 17 in AZ, as a result I have been placed in deportation proceedings so for you to sit here and talk to these 5, 6 youth that are sitting in this office, and to put them down, and to constantly tell them instead of supporting them, is a shame. You need to stand up for this community, this is going to continue to happen, and you need to be their ally.

Mohammad Abdollahi – The DREAM is Coming (20 July 2010)

Just because I am willing to give Gutierrez some leeway, however, does not mean that the rest of the CHC is off the hook.  This is especially true of Nydia Velasquez, the current chairwoman of the CHC who has refused to co-sponsor the DREAM Act.  It is absolutely ridiculous that the migrant youth movement has had to expend energy over this past year and a half trying to get CHC members to co-sponsor the DREAM Act when that energy could have been much better spent elsewhere.

I would like the CHC, as a whole, to come out with a statement in support of moving the DREAM Act on it’s own this year, but with all the egos involved, I doubt that is going to happen.  What we can do, as migrant advocates, though, is make very clear that the CHC does not stand for us when it comes to this issue.  Contrary to Gutierrez’s and Pelosi’s statements, much of the migrant rights movement has already united around pushing the DREAM Act this year.

While asking for a statement from the CHC as a whole might not be the best use of our energy in the short window we have to push the DREAM Act, I do not think it is too much to ask for the chairwoman of the CHC, Nydia Velasquez, to co-sponsor the DREAM Act.  Many CHC members who were previously slow to do so like Joe Baca, Loretta Sanchez and Henry Cuellar, are now co-sponsors of the DREAM Act.  If Nydia Velasquez were to do the same, it would be a huge signal to the migrant youth movement and the public at large that the CHC is ready to allow for the DREAM Act to move on it’s own.

If you haven’t signed the petition, yet, ask Nydia Velasquez to co-sponsor the DREAM Act.

UPDATE: While writing this I asked for a statement from Gutierrez’s office and received the following

From Gutierrez:

It is the whole immigration system that needs fixing, so I will keep fighting for the ten things that need to happen to fix it because I think they fit together and solve things in a holistic manner.  If the Senate or the Speaker tells me we can only get one, I will fight hard for that one thing, but continue to ask for ten because that is what is needed.

Luis Gutierrez (30 July 2010)

From Douglas Rivlin, Press Secretary to Gutierrez (D-IL-04):

The way the Speaker’s remarks were interpreted — that Members of the CHC don’t want DREAM to pass because it would take away power from CIR in the future — doesn’t ring true. I don’t think I have met anyone on the Hill or in the CHC that thinks passing a clean DREAM Act this year hurts CIR significantly.  Maybe a few worry that after any victory, the Democrats will say to the rest of the immigrant community, “okay, come back for more in about 5-10 years.” But that is not a huge concern.

Winning DREAM would not significantly diminish the chances of winning CIR in the future or necessarily help them either.  Losing a vote for the DREAM Act is a different matter.  Losing a vote by a big margin would hurt CIR, especially if Democrats defect, and only a narrow loss in, say, the Senate, would cause no harm and may even help.

Douglas Rivlin (30 July 2010)

This statement from Rivlin is extremely important because it directly contradicts what Nancy Pelosi said at Netroots Nation.  As Rivlin said, passing the DREAM Act will not hurt our chances at passing CIR.  I disagree with Rivlin on other counts, such as the fact that passing the DREAM Act would not help immigration reform in the future, but the statement is still helpful.

It would be even more helpful if the CHC as a whole were to come out with a statement saying that they wouldn’t oppose passing the DREAM Act on it’s own this year.  That way we’re not playing games with politicians intent on passing the blame to one another.  Still, this statement is a good start.

The “DREAM Now” letter series is inspired by a similar campaign started by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Every Monday and Wednesday DREAM-eligible youth will publish letters to the President, and each Friday there will be a DREAM wrap-up.  If you’re interested in getting involved or posting these stories on your site, please email Kyle de Beausset at kyle at citizenorange dot com.

Approximately 65,000 undocumented youth graduate from U.S. high schools every year, who could benefit from passage of the DREAM Act.  Many undocumented youth are brought to the United States before they can even remember much else, and some don’t even realize their undocumented status until they have to get a driver’s license, want to join the military, or apply to college.  DREAM Act youth are American in every sense of the word — except on paper.  It’s been nearly a decade since the DREAM Act was first introduced.  If Congress does not act now, another generation of promising young graduates will be relegated to the shadows and blocked from giving back fully to our great nation.

This is what you can do right now to pass the DREAM Act:

1. Sign the DREAM Act Petition
2. Join the DREAM Act Facebook Cause
3. Send a fax in support of the DREAM Act
4. Call your Senator and ask them to pass the DREAM Act now.
5. Email kyle at citizenorange dot com to get more involved

Below is a list of previous entries in the DREAM Now Series:

Mohammad Abdollahi (19 July 2010)
Yahaira Carrillo (21 July 2010)
Weekly Recap – Tell Harry Reid You Want the DREAM Act Now (23 July 2010)
Wendy (26 July 2010)
Matias Ramos (28 July 2010)

Most observers in Washington and for that matter the whole country too often lack clarity in noting that the Federal Reserve truly is the ultimate policy entity to modify, adjust, and re-define key elements of the world’s richest and most powerful economy. Moreover, the Fed’s board is independent of the Executive branch and is supposed to be free of political influence. The US Congress has oversight responsibility over its actions. The Federal Reserve Board like so many of the regulatory boards in Washington is safeguarded by this independence.

The stated reason for the creation of the federal reserve in 1913 just as Woodrow Wilson took over the presidency: to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible and more stable monetary/financial system. The four duties (areas) of the federal reserve are commonly known as the following:

• conducting the nation’s monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
• supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation’s banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
• maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
• providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation’s payments system

The Federal Reserve System with Washington as its headquarters has twelve (12) regional banks. Interestingly enough, these regional banks are privately owned but are members of the Federal Reserve System. These include the first among equals (primus inter pares) New York, then Boston, Richmond, Cleveland, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, Kansas City, Dallas, Minneapolis, San Francisco and St. Louis. Many of these cities or regions have vast numbers of Latinos. Out west, San Francisco is the only regional Federal Reserve Bank west of the Rockies. The next three mid-western regions are Minneapolis, Kansas City and Dallas. The numbers of Latinos in these western states is most impressive and growing. Certainly Dallas, New York, Chicago, and Atlanta have also huge portions of the 46 million Hispanics nationwide. The current census being conducted and analyzed will help provide a clearer picture of the numbers and where they are living. But it can be argued that as of now out west with San Francisco as the only geographically western Federal Reserve Bank, the Hispanic congressional representation breaks down this way: the west has the majority with six in California (Roybal-Allard, Baca, Becerra, Napolitano, the two Sanchez sisters); one each in Colorado (Salazar) and New Mexico (Lujan) and two in Arizona (Grijalva and Pastor) and Dallas region has six (Ortiz, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Cuellar, Hinojosa and Reyes) all in Texas. Chicago region has one Latino congressman (Gutierrez) and the New York region has two (Serrano and Velazquez) plus one congressman (Sires) from Northern New Jersey and the only Latino senator (Menendez) in the country (NJ). Atlanta has three from Florida (two Diaz-Balart brothers and Ros-Lehtinen). Therefore, the San Francisco and Dallas Federal Reserve Regions have over 15 Latino congressmen. Salazar in Colorado belongs to the Kansas City region; Atlanta is the third region to have Latino congressional representation. A closer look at these regional/sub-regional Federal Reserve Banks reveals few if any Latino representation on the regional bank boards.

In examining the composition of the scores of directors of these regional Federal Reserve Boards, only Dallas appears to have more than one Latino director. At the regional level, there is one (Roberto Estrada) of the main Dallas bank and at its sub-regional level San Antonio has four: Jorge Bermudez, Ricardo Romo, Ygnacio Garza and C. Treviño. Atlanta has one, Carol Tome at the regional director level. In the Atlanta region, Miami is touted as the banking center for Latin America, yet only one, Latino director is detected (Carol Tome). San Francisco has none at the regional or sub-regional level. Boston has one Luso-American (Portuguese: Cunha) on the board. Richmond, Cleveland, St. Louis, Minneapolis and Philadelphia don’t have any Latino sounding names on their boards. Interestingly enough, the leader of the regional pack, New York has one at the substantive level of director, Richard Carrion from Puerto Rico’s Banco Popular, but alas no other…More revealing is Kansas City with Lu Cordova from Boulder, Colorado as a key director, but uncertain that this board member is considered to be Hispanic. The sum of Latino representation in the Federal Reserve System’s decision-making circles is at best bleak.

As for the Fed’s board in Washington, the most powerful and key tool in the US economy, there is no Latino and never has been one. Yet, the Hispanic population is estimated now at least to be over 15% of the US overall population. The contribution by the Latino community to the US multi-trillion dollar economy is increasingly significant. It is rarely heard among the Hispanic congressional and Civic leadership on how the Fed affects the community in its operations or implementation of public economic policy. Plainly, the Fed’s actions affecting the money supply, credit, the cost of money, interest rates and how remittances are affected by supervising the flow of money transfers or exchange fluctuations have an increasingly important impact on the Latino community. Perhaps, the Obama administration will discover or find a qualified high-flyer Latino economist or financial type to serve on the Fed’s board. If we continue to wait for the nominal Hispanic leadership or self-styled Latino advocacy groups to discover the wondrous powers of the Federal Reserve, we could be in for a long wait. The growing awareness of the functions of the US economy in the context of the recent financial crisis and housing bubble along with high unemployment rates behooves the Latino community to seek greater representation and participation at the highest levels of the decision-making process.

But to get to the substantive parts of President Obama’s speech, overall I thought it was ok. He did what we were expecting him to do, address the middle class and their needs, while focusing on jobs.

I liked that he addressed last week’s Supreme Court decision, especially stating that elections should not be controlled by corporations or foreign entities. You will notice that Justice Alito, who sided with the majority, seemed to be mouthing “not true.”

I also liked that the President urged the Congress to finish up health care reform, but he did not give any details or lay out a path for finishing it up. I hope that he doesn’t let the Congress abandon the effort, and even if a less desirable bill gets passed in the end, I’m hopeful that we can work to build upon it to improve it.

I thought that the short nod to immigration reform didn’t offer anything concrete, and Obama pointed toward the usual securing the borders and enforcing the immigration laws spiel that he usually says. I sense that many people feel that he could have come out more forcefully for immigration reform that restores justice and humanity to the process. But in light of the last outburst by Rep. Wilson last time “immigrants” were mentioned in a Presidential address before Congress, we should not be surprised that Obama didn’t offer more on the subject. As with health care, I think that Obama is going to let the Congress take the lead and see what kind of bill ends up coming out of the Senate.

On education, I was pleasantly encouraged. President Obama wants to pump $3 billion more into education and wants to expand Pell Grants and would like to limit the amount that people pay back in student loans, tying it to a percentage of their income earned after graduation.

Overall, I will say that President Obama knows how to give a great speech, but he’s at a point now where he has to show some results on his policy agenda. Undoubtedly, people are frustrated with this economy, but the American public, for all its frustration, will not remember that it took eight years of the previous administration’s policies that brought us to the brink of disaster. Instead, the public will look towards Obama and the solutions he offers when they head to the polls this November. We have a short memory in this country and forget our historical references. And finally, I’m inclined to believe that this proposed spending freeze won’t necessarily help people’s bottom line (check book), so in my view, it’s another gimmick for the public.

This piece from the Huffington Post caught my attention about Villar (as many like to call him) or Mayor V. It speculates that Villar may be holding out to run for the Senate in 2012 to take the seat occupied by Senator Diane Feinstein, who will be nearly 80 years old:

“The key to the mayor’s political future, as is often the case in politics, is being held not by Villaraigosa, but by someone else.

This could prove to be the perfect timing for Villaraigosa to make his move.”

In my view, Villaraigosa may be plotting to do this, but he is going to have to accomplish something noteworthy in Los Angeles to be taken seriously. As the LA Weekly has pointed out, he has been rather mediocre as mayor, and of course, he has proven to be more interested in globe trotting and photo ops than in hands on governing. And skimming through the comments in the Huffington Post piece reveals that many share similar views about Villaraigosa’s limitations, while a substantial portion aren’t entirely thrilled with Senator Feinstein either.

In other news, Congressman Joe Baca will no longer pursue legislation to bestow the Congressional Gold Medal award to golfer Tiger Woods in light of recent developments surrounding Woods’ familial issues. According to the LA Times, Joe Baca has been trying for several years to give Woods this highest civilian honor from Congress.

I should note that Joe Baca is a golf fan and has worked successfully to give the same award to golfer Arnold Palmer. Frankly, with the high foreclosure rate in Baca’s district, I think that he should cease with this honors for wealthy golfers and concentrate on more substantive problems, but like regular citizens, sometimes our politicos are starstruck. I’m glad that Baca has the decency to stop pursuing an award for Woods, and I hope that this dissuades him from trying to honor other celebs like this. Instead, Baca can look for the unsung heroes in his community and try to do something for them. I find Woods appalling to say the least, but count me as one who was never a fan.

Finally, Justice Sotomayor issued her first opinion from the high court and used to term “undocumented immigrant” instead of “illegal immigrant.” As Jennifer McFadyen states, “Although the opinion itself had little to do with immigration, Justice Sotomayor’s choice of terminology is being applauded by immigration advocates and supporters. It may seem like a small thing–using one word instead of another–but with comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon, the deliberate choice of one word over another in the nation’s highest court does not go unnoticed.” I would have to agree — undocumented is more accurate than illegal, even from a grammatical and stylistic point of view. I’m glad that Justice Sotomayor chose to use more humanizing language.

I have been of the opinion for the past year, ever since we witnessed the economic meltdown last fall that immigration reform would occur more incrementally, not comprehensively, as so many people have proposed. My view is that Obama’s initial movements and statements about immigration reform were made before he and those around him had taken full stock of the economic situation. No matter how much you may want immigration reform, arguing for it when unemployment is still rising in many states is certainly challenging.

Admittedly, I’m disappointed in Obama’s recent actions and statements on immigration, but as this piece in The Economist points out, his administration ”has been tinkering with immigration policy all year.” The Department of Homeland Security has made movements to expand the controversial 287 (g) program of training local law authorities to enforce immigration laws. This is what has given us the Sheriff Joe situation in Maricopa County, Arizona.

My view is that Latinos, collectively, aren’t pushing Obama and their representatives hard enough on immigration reform and its related issues to force the issue in the next year or so. While I do see glimmers of hope among the more activist base within the Latino and pro-migrant community, I still see so many who are unengaged within our communities. Let’s face it, although President Obama and his wife can certainly attend CHCI galas with us and make proclamations that “todos somos Americanos,” at the end of the day, it is going to be those calls to our representatives’ offices, along with letters to the White House, that are going to get the immigration train moving. We can’t even get Joe Baca and Loretta Sanchez to formally back the DREAM Act with co-sponsorship, which would be a great first step in reforming immigration laws by giving young people who are already here and contributing to our society legal status. To conclude, I suggest that those of you who are pro-immigration reform minded make those calls and send those letters. The framing of the immigration issue will be key, and we cannot afford to have it hijacked like we have seen with the health care debate. Rep. Gutierrez has signaled that he will introduce an immigration reform bill next month, so we already have a heads up.

Rep. Sanchez is already beginning to feel the heat for supporting health care reform, as evidenced by protests outside of the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach. I should note that the Bay Club is not in her district, but she goes there to raise money. She should not be phased so much by these protesters since they likely aren’t the ones in her district living without access to medical care. However, it is my hope that Rep. Sanchez does not cave in on health care and supports something comprehensive that will widen access to affordable care for more Americans. A lot of these health care protesters are saying that the government will ration care, but guess what? The insurers already do that quite successfully when they refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions or promote certain treatments over others.

The issue that I think could prove to be more problematic with Rep. Sanchez is not so much health care or the perception that she’s going along with President Obama, but rather the allegations about a conflict of interest tryst that she has refused to address. These allegations are not the only red flags that have been raised regarding Loretta Sanchez, but also the House Ethics Committee Investigation of the staffing situation with her sister, Rep. Linda Sanchez and the thousands of dollars she has received from the infamous PMA lobbying group.

In my view, Orange County, where Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s district sits, is becoming more diverse and progressive. More articulate voices and legislatively adept leaders could have probably solidified the 47th Congressional seat after 10+ years in the House. Rep. Sanchez is known more for her holiday cards and her spat with Rep. Joe Baca than for anything substantive. So this tells me that she could be doing a better job or surrounding herself with people who will help hold herself accountable regarding ethics and her level of productivity.

In my view, Baca and Sanchez’s actions reveal a pattern of incompetence that we have seen with some members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Earlier this week, I read how the Congressional Black Caucus pushed back against the Blue Dog coalition of Democrats who are jeopardizing the public option with health care reform, but I did not hear of any similar action by the Hispanic Caucus. The DREAM Act is a piece of legislation that would help so many young Latinos, who would likely turn into voters and supporters of the politicians who support such an effort, but some of our electeds obviously don’t see the long term benefit. Without further commentary on my end, here are Sorjuana’s thoughts:

The problem with out of touch members of Congress is that they forget why they chose a life of public service.

Take for example, Congressman Joe Baca (D-CA) representing the 43rd Congressional District. As a Hispanic leader, Joe (can we call you Joe, Joe?), has chaired the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and has received numerous awards.

A quick Wiki search of him reveals a different side of Joe, one that alleges misuse of campaign funds and a gambit of other not so flattering tidbits, including the time Joe called the very colorful Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) a “whore.”

That being said, Joe is at it again. Just a few weeks ago, Joe introduced the People Resolved to Obtain an Understanding of Democracy (PROUD) Act (H.R. 2681). According to his own press release, the bill “mandates that any high school graduate who can furnish transcripts proving completion of grades 6 through 12, displays an understanding of United States history, government and civics, and can prove they are of good moral character be allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship.”

Sounds all fine and dandy with the exception of one thing, the PROUD Act does nothing, if not hurt the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, a bill that was introduced to both the House and U.S Senate on March 26, 2009, and has the support of thousands of students and hundreds of organizations.

The Dream Act, in its many revisions, would allow a pathway to citizenship for undocumented students of any race, ethnicity or background, that have met the specific criteria as outlined in the bill and that will continue to their commitment to becoming full members of American society by either going to college or joining the nation’s military.

Most urgently, it allows for an age grace period, whereby students currently working to get the DREAM Act passed, can still benefit from it’s passing if they are between the ages of 12 – 35.

The PROUD Act, with its age and grade limitations up to high school, limits the inclusion of thousands of eager young people who have already graduated from American high schools and are currently attending college under the radar or are wishing to enroll in the military.

Instead of writing a new piece of legislation that is limited and age discriminatory, why doesn’t Congressman Joe Baca simply co-sponsor the current DREAM Act?

Why start from scratch? Is it because he is seeking name recognition for his upcoming re-election? Is it because he cares so deeply about undocumented students? Or is it because he wants to leave a legacy behind that is bigger in his head than in real life?

Joe – get it together. Co-sponsor the DREAM Act (and ask Loretta to join you while you are at it).  Trust me when I say this song is not about you. You were elected by the people, it’s time you represented their needs.

So much for Congressman Baca telling us, “It’s a Hispanic seat. We should not lose that seat.” It’s nice to know that Joe Baca has designated California’s 32nd Congressional District as a “Hispanic seat,” never-mind that we can be effectively represented by people other than our own kind. I wonder what he would say about a Latino running in a white or some other ethnicity dominant district.

And those Sanchez sisters are at it again. This time Reps. Linda and Loretta Sanchez face questions by the House ethics committee over payroll and staff sharing. It looks like Linda Sanchez put three of her sisters aides on her own payroll because of budget shortfalls in Loretta’s office. I’m sure that her staff didn’t mind as long as they continued to get paid, but one of the rules in business is to keep whomever is responsible for cutting your checks happy or satisfied. I could see how this little staff shuffle could create some confusion in terms of loyalties and even performance, especially in areas where the two sisters differ.

Now Congressman Baca has introduced a bill that is considered friendly to the payday lending industry in that it will open the door for these usury charging entities to do business in states that currently make payday lending practices difficult or impossible. Baca’s proposal would also allow online lenders to charge higher fees than those in fixed locations.

Rep. Gutierrez has also been in the news for now wanting to regulate payday lenders. At one point, he was in favor of banning them altogether, but even he has been bought to a certain extent by the intense lobbying efforts of these lenders. According to the AP:

“Indeed, the payday lending industry is strenuously resisting Gutierrez’s measure, which it says would devastate its business. The measure would cap the annual interest rate for a payday loan at 391 percent, ban so-called “rollovers” — where a borrower who can’t afford to pay off the loan essentially renews it and pays large fees — and prevent lenders from suing borrowers or docking their wages to collect the debt.”

Some consumer advocates feel that Gutierrez’s plan won’t do much, as it would give federal legitimacy to the practice.

I wish that our leaders would focus more on financial education and working to create jobs that pay livable wages so that we don’t have to live paycheck to paycheck instead of providing access to our already vulnerable financial situation. The Center for Responsible Lending reports that predatory payday lending costs American families $4.2 billion annually. We know from experience that payday lending outlets tend to be in poor, minority neighborhoods.  The Center for Responsible Lending is also opposed to key provisions of HR 1214, the Payday Loan Reform Act, because:

“they do not address the fundamental problems with payday lending that trap borrowers in debt: the high cost of the short-term credit and the requirement that the borrower pay back the loan with a single paycheck. Instead, HR 1214 lets payday lenders continue to charge annual interest rates of 391 percent for a typical payday loan, and includes measures that have proven to be ineffective in numerous states in stopping the debt trap caused by the terms of payday loans.”

As long as our leaders like Joe Baca and Luis Gutierrez accept donations from this predatory industry, we can expect them to create loopholes for their lending friends. Gutierrez has accepted $4,600 from the Online Lenders Alliance, and the group has also hosted a fundraiser for Baca. We can exercise our opinion about these practices by calling Baca and Gutierrez‘s offices. If we hold them accountable and offer alternatives to fund them (i.e. through grassroots efforts), we can more reasonably expect these Congressmen to better represent our interests.

Photo Credit: Portrait Joe Baca from his website

Tomorrow former California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez’s son, Esteban, is scheduled to have a preliminary hearing. He’s being charged with murder. Remember that Mayor Villaraigosa said that Esteban is a “good boy.”

One of Congressman Joe Baca’s former aides, Sam Clauder, has been charged with felony child porn possession.  Clauder was just fired on Monday of this week from his job with Rep. Baca.

In the land of enchantment (NM), the former state Senate Leader, Manny Aragon, was sentenced in a corruption case. He will have to serve five years in prison and pay some $2 million in fines. He pleaded guilty to felony counts of conspiracy and mail fraud to defraud the state of nearly $4.4 million.

On Sunday, El Salvador elected Mauricio Funes to lead its country. He comes from the left side of the political spectrum, but he’s considered to be more moderate. The new President pledges to govern in the “spirit of national unity.”