Today I came across this piece in Poder 360 revealing some recent polling on Latinos and climate change. It turns out that our community is more “green” or rather more  “concerned about green” than average:

“A recent Gallup poll shows 48 percent of Americans think the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated, up from 41 percent in 2009 and 31 percent in 1997, when Gallup first began asking about the issue. But as the Obama administration gears up for this debate, public opinion on the issue shows Hispanics bucking the national skepticism, according to the latest poll, commissioned by the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC). Conducted by Yale and George Mason universities, the poll found that 81 percent of Hispanics believe global warming is happening compared to only 69 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Some 62 percent of Hispanics said they thought climate change was “very bad,” while only 41 percent of non-Hispanic whites thought so. Hispanics were also more convinced about the scientific evidence of global warming, while many whites believed the science remains controversial.

When it comes to the government taking action, 66 percent of Hispanics said tackling climate change should be a “high” or “very high” priority, compared to only 48 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Some 41 percent of Hispanics said a “large scale effort” is required even if it has a big economic cost attached. An impressive 48 percent of Hispanics support the regulation of carbon emissions, compared to 28 percent of non-Hispanic whites. And an overwhelming 70 percent of Hispanics favor cap-and-trade legislation that places a limit on carbon emissions. Only 50 percent of non-Hispanic whites back the idea.”

Just last week the LA Times did a feature on Kettleman City, a town in California’s Central Valley, that has a high incidence of birth defects:

I’m definitely in the camp that believes that climate change is happening. However, how quickly it is happening and what its effects ultimately will be are subject to debate. Some may say that we should have even fewer environmental regulations because they hinder business growth, but if we cannot remain healthy or even have clean basic resources, people won’t be in a position to consume and help fuel the economy.

There are obvious growing pains in transitioning to a more environmentally healthy way of living, but many organizations are already pushing for national energy and climate change legislation that will create more jobs.

What are your thoughts? How do you see Latinos fitting into the environmental movement and current campaign for climate legislation?

Regarding Meg Whitman’s piece, I thought that the first part was particularly interesting, most notably her expressed use of the words ‘divisive’ and ‘disrespectful’:

“Too often, the rhetoric surrounding this issue has been overly divisive and disrespectful to Latino American citizens. The country needs to have a thoughtful debate about how we stop the tide of illegal immigration that strains budgets and angers taxpayers. But the immigration debate must take place in a measured way that reflects our national aspirations toward tolerance, hope and opportunity.

As a Republican, I believe it’s important to both continue our rich tradition of protecting the rule of law while diligently reaching out to the millions of Latinos who share our values.

While I am a strong proponent of legal immigration, I am 100% opposed to granting amnesty to immigrants who entered the country illegally. It is the wrong policy for California, it is the wrong policy for America, and it is grossly unfair to those immigrants who have followed the law to obtain legal status.”

And I thought this portion about her expressed opposition to Proposition 187 was somewhat ironic given the prominence of former California Governor Pete Wilson in her campaign (remember that Wilson was a big proponent of this ballot initiative, which was eventually declared unconstitutional):

“I have been criticized for opposing Proposition 187, which was on the California ballot in 1994. It is true that I am opposed to cutting off public education and healthcare services to immigrant children. I do not believe that kids should be punished for the sins of their parents.”

As for Steve Poizner, I thought that this part was particularly telling:

“Above all, California has too many policies that reward illegal aliens and act like magnets, drawing them to and keeping them in our cities and communities. We have to change those policies.

Ten other states, including neighboring Arizona, have passed laws to cut taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants. We need such legislation too. In this time of fiscal crisis, we can’t afford to subsidize the presence of illegal aliens.

One taxpayer-funded benefit for illegal aliens that should be stopped is in-state tuition at our public colleges and universities. Today, California is one of just 10 states that allow illegal immigrants access to reduced college tuition at taxpayer expense.”

For Steve Poizner, the last paragraph made me immediately think, “Forget about it DREAM Activist students — this guy is not in your corner.” One of the reasons why California has in-state tuition for undocumented students is that many of these kids have been excelling in school despite the odds and did not have a choice in how they arrived here as small children. Furthermore, many of these young people no longer have connections to their homeland, as they have been living here in California for years.

And in my quick reading of both opinion pieces, I did notice that Poizner used the term ‘illegal alien‘ while Meg Whitman did not. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) has called this term, as well as ‘illegal immigrant’ dehumanizing. While I am not as offended by the term ‘illegal immigrant,’ I know that many in our community are, and if language is power and semantics make a difference, I think that both candidates would be wise to read the NAHJ statement on terminology.

In the end, I do think that Steve Poizner has dug himself a hole with the illegal immigration issue, and he is very unlikely to emerge from it as he is trailing so far behind in the polls. Even today’s LA Times has a pretty good piece explaining why more Californians are not taking the bait regarding illegal immigration, as many people have come to the realization that there are fewer immigrants coming to the country in this global economic downturn.

Mississippi is one of the states in the US that has experienced a rapid influx of Latino residents. Many migrant workers flocked to the Gulf Coast region in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to seek work. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights notes that “In Mississippi, the Latino share of the population increased by about 50 percent in the coastal counties between 2000 and 2007, and almost doubled over that period in both Biloxi and Gulfport.” In light of the population changes and needs in Mississippi, the following blog post highlights some concerns about health reform, public health, and asbestos contamination (which is a big issue with construction workers):

Recently I wrote here that Mississippi has the worst health care in the nation. Now I want to tell the story about how desperate Mississippians, abandoned by their government, turned to Iran for help.

But first, I want to tell you about Mississippi’s infant mortality rate. The rate of infant mortality is the number of infants who are born alive but die before their first birthday, per 1,000 live births. In other words, if infant mortality is 5, that means that 5 of every 1,000 babies in that population will not survive the first year of life.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the estimated infant mortality rate in the United States for 2009 is 6.22, which is high for an industrialized democracy. But according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the infant mortality rate in Mississippi is 11.4. Only Florida is worse, at 14.1. By contrast, the infant mortality rate for Washington and Minnesota is 5.1.

Now, here’s where Iran comes in — according to the Times of London, last October “five top Iranian doctors, including a senior official at the health ministry in Tehran, were quietly brought to Mississippi” to advise Mississippians how to lower their infant mortality rate.

This exchange came about when James Miller, managing director of Oxford International Development Group, was consulting in a rural Mississippi hospital. “He was shocked to find that the state had the third highest medical expenditure per capita, but came last in terms of outcome,” the Times article said.

Miller remembered a conference presentation on how Iran radically lowered its infant mortality rates. Facing a shortage of doctors and hospitals, the government launched a program of “health houses” staffed by local people trained to be health workers. The health workers are authorized to provide basic medical services such as diabetes monitoring as well as prenatal and obstetric care. Infant and maternal mortality rates both fell dramatically as a result.

James Miller contacted Iranian doctors to find out if their program might be applied to Mississippi. So the Iranian doctors came to Mississippi to give advice. Although the idea of following an Iranian model was a hard sell in Mississippi, at least one community has begun work on an Iranian style “health house” to provide better care for pregnant women abandoned by Mississippi’s health care system.

Dr. Aaron Shirley, who worked with James Miller on the Iranian project, admitted they were staying under the radar. Mississippi government officials, including Governor Haley Barbour, were not involved or informed.

This takes us back to the issue identified in the earlier post — Mississippi has the worst health care in the nation, but as far as Gov. Barbour is concerned, this is not a problem. The governor is perfectly clear, on his website and in public pronouncements, that Mississippi fixed its health care problems by passing a comprehensive tort reform bill in 2004. The 2004 law affected all kinds of personal injury lawsuits in Mississippi.

In the U.S., state after state has passed “tort reform” laws that make it harder for citizens to file personal injury suits and also limit the amount of damages they can receive. This is a critical issue for people with asbestos-related disease such as mesothelioma cancer, who so often need damage awards to care for themselves and their families. “Tort reform” also is being pushed by conservatives nationwide as the way to fix the nation’s health care crisis.

But Mississippi reformed tort in 2004, and it still has the worst health care in the nation. What did Governor Barbour “fix,” exactly?

Today Representative Sanchez penned a piece for The Hill explaining why she voted as she did. I think that she did a pretty good job of relaying the impact that constituent comments and stories had on her decision:

“…But it was hearing the personal stories from people in my district that ultimately convinced me to support this bill. In my *fourteen* years in Congress, I have never seen my constituents reach out so intently and so persistently in support of a particular piece of legislation.

They called me with stories of children who died waiting for transplants and grandparents who couldn’t afford to pay for their medication. They wrote letters about pregnant mothers who couldn’t provide their babies with basic prenatal care and fathers who lost health insurance for their families when they lost their job. Just as touching were the calls from constituents who have health coverage, but are concerned for their neighbors who don’t. These were the people I had in mind when I cast my vote for this bill. I stand by their stories and my decision.”

* I should note that Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was sworn into office in January of 1997, so technically, she has been there a little over 13 years. But then again, this is Rep. Sanchez who is known for making little exaggerations here and there. In the end, I am glad that she listened to her constituents in making her final decision.

As their whip efforts narrow to just a handful of Members, House Democratic leaders are facing an unlikely problem vote: Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.).

Sanchez’s office did not return a request for comment Saturday evening. She cast her last vote shortly after 6 p.m. Friday and missed all seven recorded votes on Saturday, a review of the record shows.

and

Sanchez this week told the Orange County Register that she needs to be satisfied that the health care overhaul is affordable. “The Senate bill is a bad bill,” she told the paper.

Politically, the vote should be a relatively easy lift for Sanchez. The seven-term lawmaker has been re-elected with at least 60 percent of the vote since 2000, winning by a decisive 69 percent in 2008. President Barack Obama carried the district by 60 percent.

I find it absolutely appalling that Congresswoman Sanchez was not at work today, but I’m not entirely surprised. She has proven to be among the least serious legislators over the years, and she does have a knack for drawing attention to herself in the most unflattering way. She voted for health care previously in the fall when it originally passed the House, and she even came out saying that she was in favor of a single payer universal health care system this summer. Ok, we didn’t get a single payer bill, but there are some important things that take effect within six months such as:

* Insurers wouldn’t be allowed to cancel policies just because a person became sick or to place lifetime caps on care
* New insurance plans would have to pay full cost of certain preventive care and exempt such care from deductibles
* Children could stay on their parents’ insurance policies until their 26th birthday

And although it doesn’t happen until 2014, insurers would be barred from denying people of coverage due to pre-existing conditions. This is a big one for me since there are a handful of people I care about who cannot obtain insurance for this very reason.

Congresswoman Sanchez’s fundraising efforts can wait, but many in her district who are struggling for some consumer protection and access to health care can’t. While she jet sets to Florida and laughs all the way to the bank on the taxpayer’s dime and enjoys her wonderful health care, she just expressed to the constituents in California’s 47th District where they rank on her priority list. If Sanchez does vote “no” tomorrow, I can’t wait to hear the explanation. Was she canoodling with Jack Einwechter or did she take John Saylor out for another excursion courtesy of your tax dollars (perhaps she’s at The Four Seasons in Miami)? Or better yet, like Robert Cruikshank speculates, maybe she doesn’t want to be re-elected after all.

UPDATED: Representative Loretta Sanchez voted YES on the health care bill.

Recent polling shows that Latinos support health care reform overwhelmingly. Moreover, health care was identified as being more important than immigration. Actually, while immigration was ranked as an important issue in our community, health care reform still beat it by a margin of 3-1. Plainly, the unregulated insurance market has not produced more competitive prices so that more of our people can buy health coverage. People in our community are more likely to be uninsured or vulnerable of losing coverage. So when Latino congressmen in districts with substantial Latino populations decide to roll the dice with this health care reform, I think that they are effectively gambling with their seats.

See what Representative Cuellar said earlier today:

Now take a look at what Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) wrote in the Huffington Post today. This part really caught my attention:

“But last week, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus sat down with the president, and he asked us to vote for the health care reform bill — a bill that denies immigrants the opportunity to purchase health care with their own money. It was one more in a string of disappointments for the Hispanic community, and today, I no longer find myself able to confidently say “yes” when President Obama asks me for his support.”

Now I know that many of us are frustrated regarding immigration reform, but it’s going to be the Latinos who are citizens (born here or naturalized), the ones who will benefit from the passage of health care reform, who will be headed to the polls in November to vote. I am fine with the idea that immigrants should be able to pay into the health care system with their own money, but I think that this portion of health care could be handled in a subsequent bill down the line. The chief urgency is health care, as indicated by the polling in our communities.

Among the larger public, people are still largely divided on the health care issue. However, I do want to point out this piece about the popularity of Medicare when it passed in the 1960s. Essentially, the public was divided like it is now, but the program ended up being wildly popular.

If you live in Congressmen Cuellar’s and Gutierrez’s districts, and do support health care, I urge you to call the House of Representatives switchboard (202-224-3121), ask for the appropriate representative and kindly voice your concern. We may not have another opportunity to insure as many people in our communities who are struggling without this reform.

You can also read Ali Noorani’s statement about today. He is the Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum and was at the White House meeting.

Angelica Salas, the Executive Director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, offered this after the meeting with the President:

“We believe that his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is real, but we also know we want results and so that’s what we’ll be expecting within the next couple of weeks.”

And President Obama issued the following statement today via the Office of the Press Secretary:

“Today I met with Senators Schumer and Graham and was pleased to learn of their progress in forging a proposal to fix our broken immigration system. I look forward to reviewing their promising framework, and every American should applaud their efforts to reach across party lines and find commonsense answers to one of our most vexing problems. I also heard from a diverse group of grassroots leaders from around the country about the growing coalition that is working to build momentum for this critical issue. I am optimistic that their efforts will contribute to a favorable climate for moving forward. I told both the Senators and the community leaders that my commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is unwavering, and that I will continue to be their partner in this important effort.”

My thought is that the President is going to have to show some strong leadership to maneuver immigration reform in the Congress. He cannot be as ‘hands-off’ as he appeared in the initial stages of the health care debate because it stumbled and stalled, and we are still struggling to finish health care reform. I’m skeptical that we will see a comprehensive immigration reform before the summer, as it is going to take massive engagement in our communities and with our allies. Plus, the case for any immigration reform becomes more difficult to make in a recession, but we do have glimmers of hope and some very committed advocates. Certainly, if those of us who want immigration reform apply a full-court press in how we defend our positions and proposed policies, in addition to working on people who might be on the fence now, we have a better chance of making some real progress. My hope is that President Obama can do something to improve the immigration system through executive order, including remedying some of the situations with detention. And I’m still encouraged that we could see passage of the DREAM Act if the comprehensive approach does not come to fruition.

On a related note, I do like what DREAM Activist Prerna Lal has to say about the all or nothing approach to comprehensive immigration reform:

“If you believe in the one large comprehensive immigration reform bill or NOTHING, congratulations, you are a dinosaur. But you are also on your way to extinction, most likely through natural causes. So it’s not long till human beings will take over–get ready for the ‘invasion.’”

At the very least, passage of the DREAM Act would be a great beginning.

The soft drink industry spent $18 million in lobbying and millions more in direct campaign contributions to put a halt to any sort of federal level tax on sugary drinks in the last year. This doesn’t even count the money contributed to issue organizations and other charities. Next time you are in your state capitol or in DC and attend an event, note if there are any logos from Coca Cola or Pepsi on the schwag that is handed out.

The part that caught my eye in the LA Times piece was this:

“When California Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter) introduced his soda tax bill, he said one penny of tax per teaspoon of added sugar in any sweetened beverage would generate as much as $1.5 billion each year. That money would pay for parks, recreation and school health programs, Florez said.”

and this:

“In California, the state affiliate of the League of United Latin American Citizens this weekend will consider a resolution urging its national assembly to leave the coalition that opposes the tax.”

At a time when states are already cutting dental and health programs for the poor that could have broader public health implications for the society at large, I still maintain that it is worth examining and even having a trial run on a soda tax. A recent poll in New York found that over three quarters of those surveyed backed a soda tax. It even appeals to blacks and Hispanics and tax-shy Republicans:

“A Quinnipiac survey found 76 percent of voters back a tax on soft drinks.

Support for the so-called soda tax to close budget gaps was strong among black, white and Hispanic voters in every borough.”

I’m hopeful that LULAC and some of the other Latino organizations that opposed a soft drink and junk food tax will reconsider, especially if it is popular. There is already a sense in the blogosphere and in the larger Latino community that our issue organizations are out of touch. Coke and Pepsi are laughing all the way to the banks, while our communities continue down an unhealthy path toward obesity and diabetes. Imagine what kind of battles we will be facing now that we are in a post-Citizens United era where corporations like Coke, Pepsi, and McDonalds can throw even more cash to our candidates. If you want to contact LULAC to voice your opinion about the organization’s stance on the soda tax, you can reach the organization via this link.

I think that if more Latinos in the community realized that their civil rights organizations were to heavily tied to the corporate entities that produce sugar and junk food and perpetuate racial stereotypes like Disney has had a history of doing (of course, let’s not forget Disney’s labor history in regards to its hotel workers, which this blog has covered before back in the Summer of 2008), then there would be some sort of outrage about who exactly these associations serve. I have met one of the previous presidents of the Orange County Hispanic Bar Association, and I thought that she was approachable and even receptive to criticism and questions, similar to how I felt about Brent Wilkes of LULAC willingness to answer my own questions. Perhaps people in the community need to start asking the questions that Gustavo and I have been raising on the blogs. These organizations aren’t going to sever ties or consider other sponsors without more people questioning their relationships. Currently, the Walt Disney Company is listed as a sponsor of the Orange County Hispanic Bar Association.

Disney wants its hotel workers who earn around $11 per hour to enroll in a health plan with costly premiums. Currently, 2,150 hotel workers are in a plan where they only pay co-payments for doctor’s visits and prescriptions. Plainly, these hotel workers are in an income bracket where they will have to make a choice between rent and health care or perhaps forgo coverage altogether. It is my hope that the Orange County Hispanic Bar Association reconsiders celebrating at the Disney Grand Californian Hotel in a display of solidarity with the workers who are fighting to keep more affordable health benefits. To add to the irony, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis is going to be the keynote speaker at this event. I wonder if Secretary Solis would bestow the “corporate citizen award” upon Disney given its latest labor disputes. Hopefully, Secretary Solis and her people are keeping an eye on the Disney labor dispute and will consider the message that being a keynote speaker at this hotel may send to the workers who have been striking.

To read more about the Disney labor disputes, please check out this link.