According to wise Latino elder Cisneros:

“Today’s mobile technology allows teachers to teach their children about the Seven Wonders of the World in a way never before experienced by kids who came before. Learning comes to life with the Internet; it allows kids to experience almost firsthand what the teacher is teaching. This added dimension in the classroom backed up by access at home or on a teenager’s smartphone will add to the sentiment that nothing is out of reach for this child.

The importance of high-speed Internet service can be seen everywhere these days. Not just in classrooms as mentioned, but also in the entrepreneurial world as small businesses continue to fuel the engine of growth and job creation. Any new business today needs instant access to customers and suppliers. President Obama has been a leader on this, calling for all Americans to have high-speed Internet access and setting a goal of covering 98 percent of Americans by 2016. The proposed ATT/T-Mobile transaction is purported to cover 97.3 percent of Americans, giving them the ability to access 4G LTE mobile technology. This is the fastest wireless Internet access available, and it’s the kind you need to take full advantage of new online opportunities in areas such as business and education. In pure numbers, the merger has the potential to bring high-speed service to an additional 55 million Americans.”

That is why I urge federal officials to approve the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger. The company has committed to spend an additional $8 billion to expand next-generation wireless Internet service if the deal is approved. Wireless service offers the best, fastest hope to reach President Obama’s dream of universal Internet access. This is quite literally an investment in our future competitiveness. It means more students will graduate prepared for college. It means more businessmen and women will open more businesses in their communities which will in turn create jobs. And so forth.”

Plainly, this opinion piece by Cisneros was written to push the momentum that many Latino organizations have helped propel in support of this planned merger. Improving educational outcomes has more to do with promoting literacy, persistence, creating better learning environments at home and in our communities. While I love the internet and online learning, it is only one piece of the pie or rather one tool to help a student achieve success. Some may even argue that the internet creates distractions for students (time spent on social media, online games, and other time sink activities that are now online or available via cell phone).

Dodd’s political troubles have been attributed in part to his connection with the Countrywide VIP mortgage program, which gave sweetheart deals to important politicos. The fallout from the mortgage and foreclosure crisis and the corruption within those companies is something that even tarnished Latino leaders. It is worth reminding everyone in light of Dodd’s pending retirement that Henry Cisneros, former cabinet secretary and Latino honcho, was on the Countrywide Board and also profited handsomely from his own ties to this toxic and now defunct company.

If y’all want a reminder of how some in the Latino political establishment was tied to the mortgage mess. I encourage you to read these two blog posts that I wrote early last year: The Great American Mortgage Scam & the Latino Community and The Great American Mortgage Scam & the Latino  Community, Part II.

In concluding, I do give Dodd credit for trying to mend the banking fiasco by trying to reform the industry. When Dodd’s bill was unveiled back in November, it was said:

“the bill would create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate such things as credit cards and home mortgages. Banks that are “too big to fail” would, as a final resort, be required to reduce their size and consequently the risk they pose to the financial structure if regulators demanded it. A single banking regulator would be created from the patchwork system that currently allows banks to shop for the fattest and laziest cop.”

It will be interesting to see how the bank reform bill will evolve. Perhaps without having anything to lose, Dodd will push more aggressively…we can hope.

Updated 1/6/10: The Washington Post has a piece about how Dodd’s retirement may boost the chances for financial regulatory reform. Consumer advocates are hopeful that he will focus on policy that will benefit the citizens instead of the banks.

Different Mexican Administrations since President Echeverria in the 1970s have openly sought to court the ‘Mexicans Abroad’ and the longer established US residents and citizens of Mexican heritage in the US. Plainly, the driving motive has been to create a pro-Mexico constituency in the US.

This idea is certainly not alien to the US political landscape. Ethnic lobbies have abounded in the US since before the Civil War. Besides the English and the Scott–Irish, the Germans in the Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania were the only other European population living in the original colonies that made up the US, along with thousands of slaves and Native American tribes. So, it was in the 1840s that the great European migration to the US began with the Irish and several of other nationalities. Many came from Middle Europe including Poles, Austrians, Czech, Slovaks and Hungarians. Scandinavians and southern Europeans also began to arrive. Southern Europeans, such as Italians and Greeks, continued to migrate to the US throughout the rest of the 1800s and into the 1900s. Several of these groups formed ethnic societies and organizations reflecting their country of origin; most were initially formed around their churches and religious affiliation. Some developed into political organizations representing the ethnic group’s domestic political agenda within the US political process. These groups often sided with their country of origin’s squabbles or conflicts in Europe. Financial aid and political support were usually forthcoming from the expatriate populations living in the US. Ireland, which did not achieve independence from Britain until 1921, had scores of Irish American groups openly supporting the independence struggle against the English occupation and repression. Financial assistance to the insurgent groups back home was one example of the expatriate’s support. As soon as the Irish Americans were politically enfranchised to vote in the US they began to ‘lobby’ the US government and public for support for Ireland’s cause. This political effort lasted late into the 1900s with the support for the IRA in Northern Ireland. In the late 1800s, the Italian-Americans clamored for political support of Italian unification and recognition of Italy. Later the Italian American groups became more domestic focused and ceased to seek political support for the political process or government of Italy. With time, these movements became mostly cultural affinity groups centered on the Catholic Churches in the old Italian urban areas of the US. 

By the latter half of the 1900s, the most significant ethnic lobbies included:  the Jewish groups helping Holocaust survivors and other humanitarian needs. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) emerged during this period as part of the pro-Israel Lobby to galvanize support in the US for the survival of the State of Israel. The motivation here is that Israel has continuously been under ‘siege’ by its Middle East neighbors. AIPAC is generally agreed to be the best financed and most influential ethnic lobbying effort in the US. The China Lobby existed prominently in the 1950s composed by a mix of prominent Chinese exiles from Communist China and influential Americans seeking to restore the old guard of Chang Kai Chek who had been displaced in 1949 by the Communist victory led by Mao Tse Tung. The fall of China to Communism was a rallying call for this lobby. These lobbying efforts also engendered an odious internal political witch hunt in the US known as McCarthyism. However, when Nixon went to China in 1972, the remnants of this lobby had ceased to exist. The Armenian-Americans’ lobbying group appears to advocate primarily support against anything that benefits Turkey. The Turks’ slaughter of millions of Armenians in the early 1900s is the driving force behind this lobby. The Greek lobby, one of the best funded groups, seeks also to deny Turkey any positive political benefit from the US. On the Cyprus division between Turks and Greeks, this lobby readily obtains effective support for the Greek Cypriots. The remarkable aspect of this lobby is the rather small number of Greek Americans (less than one million). Still another lobby, the Tibet, is primarily focused on the restoration of the Dalai Lama to his religious supremacy in Tibet, as well as liberating Tibet from Communist China. This lobby is made up of a few Tibetans but many American followers of the Dalai Lama.

The only Latin American group to have established an effective lobby in the US has been the Cuban Americans. Yet, their numbers are quite small in comparison to Mexican Americans. There are about 1.3 million Cubans in the US as opposed to 28 million Mexican Americans (out of 45 million Latinos). The reasons for the Cuban Americans’ success in organizing are varied. They fled a Communist take over of Cuba during the height of the Cold War. Hence, they were readily embraced by the US, especially among the politically conservative movement. The Cuban Americans have behaved politically like an ‘exile’ or ‘irredentist’ group, not as a traditional immigrant group. The driving force for the Cuban émigrés has been liberating Cuba from the Communist Castro regime. The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) became the most effective vehicle for keeping the heat on Castro’s Cuba. The late Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Foundation was readily recognized by many pundits, political groups, senior government employees, and members of Congress as the most effective and successful Latino power broker in the 80’s and 90’s. No other Latino group has produced such a leader. When he visited Washington the white establishment of both parties eagerly sought him out. It was humorously described in Miami that CANF was the inverse of the AIPAC: it bought Republicans and rented Democrats. Mas Canosa reportedly noted that he wanted his Foundation to be as effective as the Israeli lobby. He reportedly admitted that he had hired two lawyers who helped the AIPAC to set up the CANF. Though their numbers were small overall, The Foundation delivered bloc votes in a key Presidential swing state, Florida, and raised significant amounts of money for politicians of both parties. The hard-fought 2000 election contest between Gore and W. Bush was the most critical. The Cuban Americans laid claim to the victory. The Cuban Americans have traditionally voted in-block for the GOP, but enough voted for Clinton and Obama to help swing a Florida victory for each of them. Hence, the strength of the Cuban American lobby has been to deliver a vital swing state in hotly contested Presidential elections. When both Clinton and Obama won the Presidency, the Cuban American Foundation in an almost bi-partisan way appears to have tilted to the winner. In 1992, it tacked to Clinton’s side and even more egregious in 1994 from a GOP point of view it backed the Democratic incumbent Governor of Florida Lawton Chiles’ successful re-election campaign against Jeb Bush, President George W. Bush’s brother. By 1998 when Governor Jeb Bush came to power, Mas Canosa had disappeared as leader because of an untimely death in 1997. The Foundation fractured and weakened with Jeb’s and GOP Congressman Cuban American Lincoln Diaz Balart’s influence. Since then, the political strength of the Cuban Americans in both domestic and foreign policy is beginning to wane.

Mexico’s attempts to help foster a Mexican American interest group or lobby in the US have met with disappointment by and large. First, any attempt to emulate the Cuban or Israeli lobby is not doable because Mexico is neither under ‘siege’ like Israel nor a ‘captive’ nation like Cuba. Yet Mexico’s current plight with organized crime and its enormous threat to the stability and well-being of the country is perhaps a good reason to explore the possibility of engaging the Mexican Americans. However, to galvanize Mexican Americans around a Mexico cause would be a monumental task.

The variety of US citizens and residents of Mexican descent makes this goal particularly onerous. The oldest established Mexican Americans are divided into those whose ancestors were here before the gringo conquest of 1848 (Tejanos, Californios and Hispanos from New Mexico and Colorado) along with those whose grand or great-grandparents came during the Mexican Revolution (1910-20). A second group came primarily in the 1940s during WWII up through the 1960s. The third group began arriving in massive numbers from the 1970s to the present. The members of the first group have largely assimilated into US society and speak English primarily. Those that belong to the second group are considered to be in transition but fairly assimilated. Whereas the more recent arrivals are less integrated and do not fully participate in the US political process. Clearly, the bounds keeping the Mexican American population’s identity together are tangled in history, language, ethnicity, religion, folklore, cuisine, music and the arts as well as being able to trace national origin to Mexico.

The descendants of many in the first group and some from the second spawned the social-civil–political activism of the 1960s and 70s called the “Chicano” movement. These Chicanos, self-identified as such, after concluding that they neither belonged to the dominant gringo culture nor to the prevailing culture of Mexico. They felt alienated by the Anglo-American ethno-centric society and the inability to relate to the country of origin of their ancestors. However, recently arrived Mexicans do not regard themselves as Chicanos but refer to the older established ones as Chicanos. Increasingly, these newer arrivals are becoming the majority.

The first two groups are the ones that are overwhelmingly US citizens and have potential political power at the ballot box. Recent studies suggest that well over twenty million Hispanics are eligible to vote, but only about 12 to 13 million are registered and well under ten million vote. These figures include all Latinos not just Mexicans. Latinos of Mexican descent comprise about 28 million of the 45 million Latinos in the US. Mexico’s political leadership in recent years has sought to reach out to the ‘brothers’ living in the north. Echeverria’s presidency openly courted the Chicano or La Raza Unida insurgent types of the 1970s. Up to this time only established Mexican American politicians like Henry B Gonzalez, Ed Roybal and Kika de La Garza had been recognized and invited to Mexico to be honored. Later, Raul Yzaguirre of the National Council of La Raza was honored as was Henry Cisneros and numerous other ‘prominent sons of Mexico’ living in the US.

Organizing a lobby-force Mexican American group that can influence the US public and the US Congress and other movers and shakers to favor or be sympathetic to Mexico’s agenda has been illusive. This would yield a more sympathetic Congressional Hispanic Caucus and more of Mexico’s agenda in the Latino advocacy groups’ efforts The recent contentious issue of immigration along with the vast numbers of undocumented Mexican citizens residing in the US has revived Mexico’s interest in helping foster pro-Mexico groups or entities in the US. Nonetheless, Mexico must be extra careful not to antagonize the American public at large by seeming to recruit Mexican Americans in a disloyal way. This will avoid a US backlash and minimize the sentiment against the lawlessness of illegal entry into the US from becoming an anti-Latino or anti Mexican expression. Moreover, the lack of passion among the targeted groups of Mexican descent derives from the fact that the Mexican political and judicial systems are largely held in contempt or disdain by these recent Mexican immigrants, as well as among the older established groups.  Mexico is largely viewed as ‘corrupt’ or ‘inept’ or ‘insensitive to its poor masses’. Moreover, many of the US Mexican descent groups feel ‘dismissed’ or ‘disdained’ by an elitist attitude detected among many in Mexico. The use of the pejorative ‘Pocho’ describes a Mexican who has abandoned the patria (the Homeland) for el Norte and no longer holds any loyalty to Mexico. This is an example of the divisiveness that exists between those who remain in Mexico and those of Mexican descent who now reside in the US. Furthermore, Mexican Americans feel that Mexico’s elite manifests gratuitous contempt in class and racial terms. In Mexico, the derogatory word “Naco” is used to describe a fellow Mexican (usually with apparent mixed white and Indian ancestry) as socially inferior. The connotation is that he or she is attempting to behave more ‘cultured’ (white) but invariably betrays his origins. Too often this word is used to describe Mexican Americans. This further undermines the less than successful attempts by Mexico to garner support in the US among its émigré population.

Yet, in many parts of the US, especially in the Chicago area, Mexico has enjoyed success in promoting links between the Mexicans abroad and their former local municipalities or states in Mexico by having people-to-people exchanges, promoting investment in the Mexican municipalities or states’ development opportunities. Many Mexican Americans were exceptionally proud to see Mexico respond with direct assistance to the Americans affected by Hurricane Katrina. Sports exchanges and Spanish language television have also helped preserve cultural links with Mexico. Mariachi music, norteño music contests, salsa replacing ketchup, art exhibits, Mexican cuisine and Corona beer have all helped improve the cultural cohesiveness in the Mexican descent community abroad.

Mexico‘s efforts to reach out to the ‘Mexicans abroad’ and those of Mexican ancestry must be approached primarily through cultural endeavors like art, music, literature, folklore studies, language, historical writings, tourism  and perhaps best of all through Mexican cuisine. Any attempt to promote political interest or support of the Mexican government will be Sisyphean. The Italian American experience should be studied as an effective example. The influential National Italian American Foundation promotes and extols the history, music, cuisine, language and general culture of Italy. It annually celebrates Cristofo Colombo day in October with a large gala event honoring all successful Italian Americans in film, music, sports, business, journalism, academia, medicine, law, politics, government and the military. The US President, his Cabinet members and scores of Congressional members, usually attend. The Italian government is always present and additionally helps to promote Italian culture and language through its Casa Dante cultural centers found in large metropolitan areas.

Mexico, as the most populous Spanish speaking country in the world, comprises the largest portion of the Hispanic population in the US. Moreover, its close proximity to the US and its NAFTA partnership nurtures an ever-growing relationship with the US. Yet, Mexico must carefully formulate a plan or strategy to reach the Mexican Americans in a more effective manner. The treatment of the immigration conundrum in the US and the building of ‘the fence’ along the border will become key issues that could engender as note above, either friction or closeness between the two countries. Mexico has ample opportunity to appeal to the Mexican Americans by approaching them as an equals and convincing these ‘Mexicans Abroad’ to help ameliorate the potential conflicts that arise between the two countries. But it must be a truly Mexican effort without the unrealistic expectation to become either an Israeli American lobby or even a Cuban American Foundation. Mexico stands to gain influence in the US political discourse, but it must first attract the cooperation and understanding of the large Mexican American community. Some of the more positive outcomes will be a more internationally aware Congressional Hispanic Caucus and more educated Latino advocacy groups.

We already know that Washington Mutual has been sold to Chase, and of course, that Fannie and Freddie both were seized by the federal government back in September of 2008. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are important entities in the Mortgage Scam because they retained a Republican Consulting firm, DCI, to put the kibosh on a regulatory bill that was sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) back in 2005.

Senators who supported this regulatory bill wrote a letter to then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, stating, “If effective regulatory reform legislation … is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.”

DCI’s effort proved to be effective, and one noted Latina, who was working to stop the regulatory bill, was former Treasurer Rosario Marin, who just recently resigned her position as the head of the California State and Consumer Services Agency. Marin visited some states in her capacity as a consultant for DCI to speak out against Hagel’s regulatory bill, which could have trimmed both Fannie and Freddie. Remember that both Fannie and Freddie were sponsors of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Hogar Program.

Former HUD Secretary and CEO of American City Vista, Henry Cisneros, also had a key role in the mortgage fiasco and continues to be a force in the real estate industry. Last February, MySanAntonio.com reported that Cisneros’s tenure on the Countrywide Board coincided with the company’s rise and subsequent fall. From 2001 to October 2007, just days before Countrywide reported a $1.2 billion quarterly loss, Cisneros still served on the board, where he collected a base salary of $70K, received extra compensation for meetings, and received health insurance. He was granted and sold more than $5 million in Countrywide stock. Countrywide was also a Hogar program sponsor, and Cisneros was a Hogar Advisory Committee Member. Back in February of last year, MySanAntonio.com asked Cisneros for an interview, and he declined, but it gets better…Mr. Cisneros was asked about his role with Countrywide on a call sponsored by the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) a month ago on Latinos and the Economy.

Mr. Cisneros revealed the following when asked if he would do anything differently while serving on the Countrywide Board pertaining to the company’s alleged predatory lending practices:

“…I joined the Board of Countrywide at a time when it was the largest producer of mortgages in the United States and growing.  It was – it developed more mortgages for Latinos and African-Americans than any other company in the history of the United States, was given awards in every form including as a best employer, as a best company, etc.  And I, frankly, as a Board member, did not see the effects of anything that you might even call abusive. Countrywide was not involved in predatory – you used the word “predatory” lending – that is a particular term of art that describes particularly egregious mortgages. They did have a subprime ARM, but at the time, subprime was viewed as a way to price risk. The higher the risk a premium was placed on pricing, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the government and everyone else acknowledged a role for subprime in making credit available to people.

Now, did Countrywide go too far?  In retrospect, probably so. Did they ever engage in the practices of other companies that no longer exist, that came into existence to do a predatory?  No, they never went that far, and we never established that they were involved in that kind of abusive lending.  So, to close and answer your question specifically, I can’t say I would have done anything differently as Secretary of HUD except perhaps put in place safeguards that would prevent companies from hijacking the Home Ownership push.”

What Cisneros failed to state is that Counrywide has been settling lawsuits with states across the country resulting from complaints that the company engaged in deceptive trade practices that ultimately put borrowers at risk. In February of this year, the Colorado Attorney General’s office reached a $6 million settlement with Countrywide for violating the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Regarding this settlement, the Colorado Attorney General said, “We felt that there was enough misleading information in the presentation of these loans that Countrywide had violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. In this instance, borrowers were victimized by loans that were predatory.”

In October of 2008, Bank of America, the company who bought Countrywide last summer, reached an $8.6 billion settlement with attorney generals representing 11 states. This was considered the largest predatory lending settlement in history. In commenting on this settlement, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said, “Countrywide’s lending practices turned the American dream into a nightmare for tens of thousands of families by putting them into loans they couldn’t understand and ultimately couldn’t afford.” How could Henry Cisneros tell the Latino community that Countrywide was not involved in predatory lending after these settlements had been splashed all over the news? Perhaps he was drunk on the profits from his stock sales, or quite possibly, he ignored what was happening to families across the country.

For me, what is troubling about Henry Cisneros’s involvement in Countrywide, is that he is now speaking to Latino issue organizations about Latinos and the economy, after having enriched himself in a company that was one of the biggest offenders in the mortgage fiasco. His connections to the banking industry also include being a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Edmundo of XicanoPwr put together a diagram detailing some of these relationships that Henry Cisneros has/had to the banking and real estate industry.

Why is this important and how does it relate to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Hogar Program? To conclude, some of the Hogar Advisory Committee Members and program sponsors were the very ones who helped promote risky mortgages, questionable lending practices, and less regulatory reform (Fannie and Freddie vis-a-vis Rosario Marin’s lobbying).

My thought is that our community needs to take a closer look at the corporate sponsorships and involvement of initiatives promoted by our leaders. A balance needs to be achieved between promoting business and selling products that we can afford without becoming massively indebted to the banks. And furthermore, we need to more closely scrutinize our leadership’s activities as it pertains to lobbying and influence peddling. Why do we allow people like Henry Cisneros and Rosario Marin to reinsert themselves in discussions about our well being after they have been compromised and their credibility lessened?

(Note: Henry Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and lying to the FBI in relation to an affair with a mistress. He was eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Rosario Marin’s protégé was convicted of grand theft. While on the Huntington Park City council, she had a travel budget of $10,000 to $20,000 per year, one of the highest travel budgets for a small city, which was funded by the public.)

The US has sent Latinos/Hispanics as envoys to Mexico. The first one was John Jova in the 1970′s, a career diplomat born in Long Island of Cuban-Spanish descent. His aristocratic bearing made him most acceptable. The second one was not so fortunate. Julian Nava was chosen by Jimmy Carter towards the end of his Presidential term. Nava, a Mexican-born California college professor, became among the Mexican elites the caricature of the Pocho/Naco coming home. At times his mangled Spanish, sprinkled with Spanglish, and his sometimes maladroit demeanor made him a reason for many Mexicans to insist that sending a Gringo envoy with such a background and behavior is a manifestly insensitive effort by gringos to insult the Mexicans. Plainly, it suggests an insecurity of the Mexicans’ identity conundrum. The third one Reagan sent. John Gavin, the glamorously handsome movie star of yester-year whose mother was a high-born Mexican from Sonora cut his swath. He spoke impeccable Spanish, manifested a self-possessed élan and almost recklessly proceeded to alienate all Mexicans with a sniffy contempt not seen since Lane Wilson the execrable US envoy of the early twentieth century. Most recently W. Bush sent his Texas friend, Tony Garza, a Mexican-American from Brownsville. Garza has no patrician airs, but looked and behaved like a regular gringo. He was not revered like Jova nor disdained like Nava nor loathed like Gavin, but viewed as a light-weight but amiable friend of the First Family and who managed to romance and marry the richest woman in Latin America, a Mexican beer heiress. However, it is known in some Washington circles that Garza did deliver in the end for the Mexicans. When the Plan Merida appeared to be headed for the budget chop at OMB, Garza readily called the White House and successfully persuaded President Bush to restore the Plan Merida funding. This is the kind of envoy the Mexicans hoped that Obama would name. Instead Carlos Pascual, a former career foreign service officer (with a zen-like demeanor) has been selected but not yet given agreement  (approval or acceptance) by the Mexican Government. Pascual, a Cuban-born, Stanford/Harvard educated Hispanic achieved recognition mostly during the Clinton Presidency. He was sent to the CIS countries (former part of the Soviet Union) in the early ’90′s. He apparently has an academic concentration in Russian and related fields. Strobe Talbott, initially the State Department’s CIS head and later Deputy Secretary became aware of Pascual’s linguistic and programmatic accomplishments as a USAID development officer.  Pascual was subsequently detailed to the National Security Council to manage the Russian and CIS portfolio.

In 2000 before the Clinton Administration ended, Pascual was made Ambassador to the Ukraine. After a successful stint there, he returned in the first term of the George W. Bush Administration, and Colin Powell selected him as the first Director of the State Department’s Reconstruction Office. This office primarily focused on strengthening emerging democracies and faltering states. He later left State and the Foreign Service to replace Jim Steinberg at the Brookings Institute as Vice President International Affairs when Steinberg became head of the LBJ School at the University of Texas. Strobe Talbott had become Brookings’s President. Now in the Obama Administration Steinberg is Deputy Secretary of State (the old Talbott position). Susan Rice, also formerly at Brookings and an Obama confidante, is US Ambassador to the UN. Pascual is seen by his Brookings colleagues as a perfect fit for Mexico with his programmatic talents and his glowing accomplishments. Yet he has no Mexico or Latin American experience or connection except for being born in Cuba and may speak Spanish as good as Ukrainian. Clearly, the Brookings group promoted him into this job as a fellow member of the Institute’s guild. However, it is generally perceived that both Hillary and the White House leaped like trouts when Pascual’s name came before them with hefty recommendations from Brookings along with a Hispanic last name to boot. But the Obamites failed to appreciate the significance of a recent dust up in senior Mexican official circles caused by the public assertion or suggestion  by some high ranking US officials that Mexico was either a ‘failed state’ or fast headed towards that status. Now the selection of the former head of the ‘failed states’ bureau at State Department as the US Ambassador caused the Mexicans to scratch their heads or recoil in frustration. Hence, why did Hillary not make the scheduled announcement after she met with President Calderon? Moreover, Pascual does not have any notable direct links to President Obama. Adding to the Mexican concern is their natural distrust of Cuban Americans because of the Miami crowd’s animosity over the years towards Mexico for being the only Latin country to preserve continuously diplomatic relations with Fidel Castro. Certainly, Pascual does not appear to share the Miami Calle Ocho syndrome. Any President reserves the right to send whomever he desires to be his envoy. But the acceptance (agreement) by the receiving country has to be manifested. In this case, the US did not think this carefully through. Moreover, the Latino political leadership in Washington was either unaware of the appointment or equally ignorant of the consequences. Now the challenge for the talented Pascual, assuming he gets Mexican approval, will be to manage the disjointed Plan Merida program and be as successful as in the Ukraine. The problem will be that the Mexicans, unlike the Ukrainians, will not drop to their knees or kiss up to the US. The Ukrainians had good reason: they sought US protection from the Russians next door. Hence, their servility to the Americans was evident. The Mexicans with their historical and morbid suspicion of American intentions and actions will be harder to read, distant at times, unrelentingly independent, reluctant to be led or guided by the US…the question arises, ‘Is Pascual really a fit or a misjudgment by the Obamites and the Brookings crowd?’ He may have to choose between trying to conduct the bilateral relationship or just managing the US Plan Merida programmatic cast of thousands who will appear throughout Mexico. Sarukhan, who is already conducting the basic thrust of the bilateral relationship in Washington, will ultimately prefer having Pascual do the programmatic drudgery and he (Sarukhan) carry out the more glamorous weight of the bilateral relationship fraught with diplomatic sensitivity, sovereignty issues, political suspicions, the treatment of Mexican illegals in the US and the NAFTA political and bureaucratic thickets. Sarukhan has quickly mastered that a country knows when its relationship with the US is equal and mature. This is discernible when the bilateral relationship is conducted in Washington by the foreign country’s ambassador and not in the capital of his country with the American would-be pro-consul. The US can send as envoys retired politicians, used car salesmen, fat cat businessmen, and political party donors to countries like France, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the Scandinavian countries, Japan, Spain and sometimes even to Russia and China. These countries in return send the US their top professional diplomats or statesmen to conduct the bilateral relationship directly with the White House, State Department and the myriad of US agencies in Washington. The US sends normally career diplomats as chief of mission generally to weaker, less significant countries to conduct the bilateral relationship in those countries. Mexico has joined the ranks of these more mature relationships. Hence, the US Embassy in Mexico is not as influential as in the past, but it remains a huge job.
 
Where were the Latino advocacy wags and politicos in Washington on this critical selection process? It was noted that several Latino advocacy groups were included in the pre-trip briefing dinner held for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before she set out for Mexico. Apparently, neither the State Department’s talking heads and analysts nor the domestic Latino groups present like the National Council of La Raza added any value to the expected substantive discussion. Plainly, Mexico appears to be treated as an appendage of the domestic Latino concerns not as a foreign policy priority. The appointments of Dan Restrepo, a Colombian American to the National Security Council, Frank Mora, a Cuban American to the Defense Department’s Office on Latin America, Pascual to Mexico and the pending appointment of Arturo Valenzuela, a Chilean American to be the Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere appear to be solidifying. These selections have the Latin Americans already wondering if the Obama team is trying to address Latin America or the domestic Latino/Hispanic agenda. If it is the latter: what has been the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ role? And the advocacy groups’ input into such selections would be most interesting to examine. This zany selection process demonstrates that the Obama team has to be more surefooted in vetting not only for qualifications and ethnicity but for political sensitivity.  Moreover, it needs to distinguish better the domestic from the foreign policy concerns. This is a classic case where a perfectly sound and qualified Latino is selected but stumbles for more nuanced and complex reasons.

Photos: Secretary Clinton in Mexico, Mexican Ambassador to US Arturo Sarukhan, and Carlos Pascual

Obama’s minority status did not move Latinos to vote for him as overwhelming as the African-American voters did. One must ask if these GOP Latinos are sensitive to the immigration debate and do they side with general Republican sentiment on the issue. Then again, the Democrats are not breaking down doors to address the immigration conundrum either.  In sum, the Latinos will probably continue not to be monolithic in inclination to the Democratic Party, but will be a significant and increasingly powerful actor in Democratic Party activities. Meanwhile, the GOP will continue to reach out to the Latino community in a determined way— as it has in the past– by being the first of the two parties to appoint the first Latino White House Fellow Henry Cisneros, first Assistant Secretary Al Zapanta by President Ford, the first two Latinos (Cavazos and Lujan), to the Cabinet by Reagan and Bush 41. Bush 43 later attempted to name the first Latino to the federal Court of Appeals (Miguel Estrada); plus many other visible appointments. Similarly, the Democrats have also found the need to appoint Latinos to the Cabinet and sub Cabinet like Federico Pena, Henry Cisneros and Bill Richardson.

In the end, the GOP understands that the growing Latino population will certainly be an even more important element in national, state and local elections and must seriously examine how to keep the Latino base of 30% within the party and make it grow. The Democrats must demonstrate that they do not take the Latinos for granted (two thirds of the group’s voters) and involve them even more in the party process and in the governing and policy-making process. The three significant Latino voting groups currently are Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans. Soon they will be joined by millions of other recent Latino immigrant groups like the Central Americans, the Caribbean and South Americans. The race will be on for their political loyalties. The looming debate on immigration will smoke out many of the hidden sentiments among the American body politic. If one of the national parties allows the debate to become one of being anti-Latino/Hispanic versus being just anti-illegal entry into the US, then the Latino population will react accordingly and move solidly to the non-offending party. The case of California in the 1990s is instructive. When the GOP sitting governor (Pete Wilson) attempted to garner votes by assailing illegal immigrants, the political target was designated to be the medical and school costs inflicted on California. Sadly, the upshot became a fiercely anti-Latino sentiment which was readily palpable. This resulted in a more activist and pro-Democrat Latino constituency. The GOP cannot afford to have this repeated at the national level. The only continuous and reliable Democrat state in national elections and where the Latinos reside in sizable numbers is New York. California is increasingly considered a loyal Democrat state with its growing Latino population. New Mexico tends to have a more independent Latino constituency which can tack Republican or Democrat, but usually it votes Democrat. Texas Latinos are largely Democrat in orientation, tradition and behavior. All six Latino Congressmen are Democrats as they are in California, but the Republicans have become the dominant party in Texas at virtually every level. Many Texas Latinos vote for the GOP on national and state-wide elections. But the majority remains Democrat. All demographic studies reveal that the Latino population in Texas will be preponderant in the not too distant future and the GOP will be the big loser given its current insufficient or indifferent outreach to the Hispanic community.

In the last thirty years, the Hispanic community in Florida has been dominated by the effective Cuban-American political efforts in favor of the Republican Party. However, the election of 2008 revealed that the majority of Latino voters in the state are no longer Cubans. Moreover, the GOP hold on the Cuban-Americans is no longer the case. Recent arrivals of Cubans along with third generation Cuban-Americans tend not to automatically affiliate with the GOP. Additionally, the arrival into Florida of significant numbers of Central Americans, South Americans, Mexicans and the movement of Puerto Ricans from the Northeast indicates that they are not following the traditional Cuban lead on voting Republican. Again, the GOP has an enormous challenge in how to attract Latinos into its big tent. Just electing the National Chair of the Party like Senator Mel Martinez is insufficient. The party must have a serious outreach with a welcoming fervor. Latinos have to feel comfortable with a party’s philosophy on race and ethnicity, treatment of their social and economic issues and concerns and be made to feel an integral part of the membership. In sum, some Latinos have found some solace with the GOP for economic, social, fiscal, national security, and other philosophical reasons. But their allegiance is tentative if the Party’s discourse becomes pervasively unwelcoming.

The Latino community has been one of the hardest hit by the recent foreclosure crisis. A recent Pew Center report indicated that nearly one in ten Hispanic homeowners say that they have missed a mortgage payment or were unable to make a full payment in the last year. In addition, 3% say that they have received a foreclosure notice according to the Pew Center survey, and over a third of those surveyed are worried that their home may go into foreclosure.

Back when credit was easy just a few years ago, many Latinos along with other Americans were lured into the American Dream of homeownership by easy mortgages and the notion that real estate and home prices were only headed up. Sure, many people were misinformed and did not fully comprehend what exactly they were buying or signing their life away for, but some groups were aggressively targeted by slick marketing and other tactics designed to encourage home purchases. And some people were just careless with their finances assuming that they would be able to make payments on mortgages that would eventually readjust.

One obvious indicator that should have tipped off policy makers about the impending housing bubble and mortgage crisis was the national average wage. Since about 1973, median home prices have risen more quickly than have wages, and since Latinos typically earn less than their white counterparts, the prospect of homeownership became even more risky. In the five years from 2000-2005, the median American family’s income slid by 2.9% in contrast to a gain of 11.3% experienced by American families in the second half of the 1990s. During that same period, wages in Hispanic and black families fell by even more. However, corporate profits rose from 17.7% in 2000 to 20.9% in 2003.

Early in George W. Bush’s first administration, a home ownership initiative was introduced, sometimes referred to as the Blueprint for the American Dream, to close the homeownership gap by 5.5 million minority families. Along with this homeownership initiative, there were other policies implemented to dismantle barriers to homeownership in minority communities. In December of 2003, President Bush signed into law, the American Dream Downpayment Act, which incorporated three steps to broaden the homeownership. The first rule was to warn buyers about mortgage costs up front so that they could make informed decisions about their purchase. Funds for home counseling services were doubled (some funds went to faith based groups to provide such counseling). The second rule was supposed to make it easier for home buyers to decipher closing costs, and the third rule was to make the paperwork for home loans easier to read.

Around the same time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increased lending efforts to minority families. For instance, Fannie Mae changed loan underwriting guidelines to remove some of the barriers that immigrants encounter such as “denial of credit because of inadequate or short credit histories, reliance on communal funds for downpayment money, and language and cultural issues.” Fannie also pledged to reach out to faith based groups and minority churches to fund mortgages for their congregations. Freddie sought to implement “cross-border credit” where credit histories from banks in borrower’s home countries could be submitted as valid documentation for home loans. It’s odd that Freddie would honor credit histories from other countries, especially those that might have higher levels of fraud than here in the US.

In the fall of 2003, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute was launching its own homeownership program, the Hogar Housing initiative. If you try to find information about Hogar on the CHCI website, you will notice that they have removed most references to this program. Just visit Xicanopwr.com, and note the links that are now broken referenced in this article. The Hogar initiative had three components: a fellowship program to increase Latino leadership in the housing sector, housing community events to increase consumer literacy and understanding of the mortgage process, and research and analysis addressing homeownership barriers that Latinos face.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute‘s Hogar Advisory Committee included some high profile people of the banking and housing sector including representatives from Washington Mutual, the National Council of La Raza, the Executive Director of NALEO, Congresswomen Ros-Lehtinen and Velazquez, and former HUD Secretary and CEO of American City Vista, Henry Cisneros. Hogar Sponsors included the following entities: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Citigroup, HSBC, Countrywide Home Loans, PMI Mortgage Insurance Company, State Farm, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Chase Home Finance, New Century Financial, G.E. Consumer Finance, and Ameriquest.

Two months ago, The Wall Street Journal reported on Hogar’s ties to the subprime industry. Specifically, companies that donated $150,000 could place a research fellow to conduct Hogar’s studies to be used by the mortgage and housing industry lobbyists. For donations of $100,000 per year, Hogar would provide press releases from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to promote a particular lender’s products to the Latino community.

Some of the sponsors of the Hogar Initiative are no longer in business. One sponsor, Ameriquest, had a history of being sued for predatory lending practices as far back as 1996 and even paid $3 million into an educational fund to settle a Justice Department law suit. In 2005, Ameriquest announced that it has set aside $325 million to settle attorney-general investigations in 30 states. Some of the allegations against Ameriquest included preying on borrowers with hidden fees and ballooning payments. In May 2006, Ameriquest announced that it would close all of its retail offices.

New Century and its related entities filed for bankruptcy in the spring of 2007 seeking relief under Chapter 11. About a year ago, a report by a bankruptcy court examiner found “significant improper and imprudent practices related to its loan originations, operations, accounting and financial reporting processes.”

Chart credit: Forbes.com

To be continued…

The Latino community, like most communities, is largely intolerant of any such violation of the public trust. Many fellow Latinos who have immigrated to the US are very familiar with official conduct mired with impropriety or corruption back in the society they left behind. This issue often plays into the decision to leave their country, after losing hope of ever getting the opportunity to improve their lot due to the corruption of the groups that exercise power. Hence, the concern over public graft is not new to our newly arrived fellow Latinos or to those who have been here for generations. Many are the incidents where public figures have committed an indiscretion or an act which suggests that the public trust has been violated, in our society at large, including all ethnic groups: Whites, Black, Latinos, and Asian. Yet, the most disturbing trend is the constituency support enjoyed by this type of public figure despite specific accusations and/or criminal charges. It is almost common these days to witness public officials and government workers become not just the interest but, even more seriously, the subject or target of a grand jury investigation, of a prosecuting attorney’s investigation, of a formal indictment, of a conviction, or of a Presidential Pardon. Too often the official being investigated or accused tends to seek public support, first by declaring that he or she is innocent (which well may be the case). But, even more importantly, when the evidence of wrong doing becomes most apparent through a conviction or a pardon instead of the community censuring or ostracizing the public figure, they extend their support, even at the voting booth.

In the past, the Latino Community has experienced the trial and conviction of at least two federal representatives, the grand jury and prosecutor investigations of: mayors (some even pardoned before any trial was held), several local officials, including state representatives, county and municipal functionaries and even corrupt police officers. Admittedly everyone, including public officials, has a right to a day in court with the best attorney and PR that money can make possible. The citizenry has a responsibility not to readily condemn its public officials at the drop of a hat, it must be discerning to detect betrayal of the public trust. Impunity before the law is common place in many parts of Latin America, but any attempt by elements or members of the Hispanic/Latino community to harbor or espouse acts or thoughts of impunity must be swiftly condemned. The fact is that too often we see disgraced public figures continue to be re-elected or welcomed back into the community with virtual approbation of their conduct. This denotes that the practice of ‘honoring virtue’ perhaps has ceased to exist in contemporary society. More specifically, society and/or its sectors should not overlook the destruction of the public trust nor should they accept such behavior as proper and acceptable. Recently, the news has been filled with images of the impeachment and removal of the Governor of the State of Illinois over improper practices (even if no legal process such as a trial has occurred). Other questionable concerns have arisen over Cabinet designees who are being scrutinized for not having paid taxes when due. Violation of the public trust is clearly grounds for censure and reprimand. Yet when the laws have not been broken and the question lies in an ethical dilemma is when society as a whole must decide the right course for addressing impropriety on the part of our public officials, for example in the case of personal indiscretions, such as marital infidelity. The easiest way to send a clear signal of disapproval is at the polls, denying these officials our support. Tasteless and disagreeable actions may suggest bad judgment, questionable ethical values and other such deficiencies. One prominent Washington public figure once noted that: “… getting elected to office or getting appointed to a lofty position is like climbing a tree: the higher you go the more your ass will show…”

Public officials in our day and age often do not seem capable of making the distinction between wanting to be a celebrity and being a public official. Both invariably attract scrutiny and attention. Celebrities often appear ready to cultivate ‘scandal and flamboyant behavior’. It seems to add a certain patina to their image. But scandal and outrageous behavior among public officials is not a value-added. It is plainly a disgrace and deserving of the public’s rebuke. The Latino community must avoid the perception that somehow it is ready to disregard behavior which is repugnant to common propriety. We must ensure that the Latino community does not accept or tolerate unethical behavior. Conflicts of interest are another concern in the public place which must also be taken seriously in order to safeguard the values, as well as the image, of the Latino community. Again, in these times of Governors getting impeached and removed from office, Cabinet Designees either being asked to withdraw or undergoing a most exacting scrutiny by members of Congress, Mayors tangled in sordid impropriety issues related to personal integrity, judgment and plainly unethical practices in appointments and contracting suggest that, ethical consideration should always be a factor among Latinos when choosing its heroes and/or leaders. Our role-models, the national political and the corporate business professional leadership, as well as the ordinary public civil servant class should all be chosen from within the framework of a society that honors virtue instead of extolling the foibles of the human condition. Washington DC is, as one public wag once remarked: “…a place where all of America’s former high school student council presidents come to do ‘good’ but invariably do ‘well’. Unfortunately, the point is that wealth accumulation tends to overtake the commitment to serving the public good at the end of the day.

Photo Credit: University of Delaware photo by Duane Perry of former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, who was indicted for conspiracy, giving false statements, and obstruction of Justice, in a scheme involving payments to a former mistress.

Pictured Second, former Congressman Bob Garcia of NY, who was implicated in a financial scandal.

And finally, Dr. Antonia Novello, former Surgeon General under Bush I, who is making news for being investigated for abuse of power (using state employees to do her personal shopping).

At the UN, Richardson had a rap for not really preparing for his brief and winging it. This may have been the career foreign service just grousing over his style since there was never any egregious act or omission cited as evidence of deficiency or neglect. In fact, he was well-liked and viewed as being effective by the other member countries’ diplomats. The betting is that there is probably nothing substantively gone awry in this latest development, but the optic of conflict of interest in the wake of Governor Blagojevich’s scandal is enough to have forced him to withdraw his name for nomination to be Secretary of Commerce.

The fact remains that Bill Richardson has been one of seven Hispanics to have ever been named to the Cabinet in history. He was both UN Ambassador and Energy Secretary under Clinton, yet this does not minimize the deep regret felt among many Latino circles. Richardson has been the numero uno among national Latino political leaders in recent years. His anticipated presence in Washington was widely regarded as him becoming the official Alpha-dog in the Latino community. This now has been snuffed out and reminds one of Henry Cisneros’ political demise, which in his case was riven with high-drama personal scandal. Cisneros too greatly disappointed the Latino community. The new Latino cabinet members Ken Salazar and Hilda Solis come with regional or local stature, not the national one that Richardson represents. Therefore, it remains to be seen if either or both will acquire national presence and more importantly have the ‘power of convocation’ (poder de convocatoria as we say in Spanish).

With no Mexican American in the Senate now that Salazar is going to Interior and the only Latino Governor (Richardson) seriously wounded, the need for more activist Latino leadership would be most welcome. GOP Senator Mel Martinez announced that he is not running for re-election, and this has rendered him less than effective. This leaves Bob Menendez of New Jersey as the principal Latino torch bearer in the Senate, a role he can handle extremely well. In the House, Nydia Velazquez of New York will be the new  Congressional Hispanic Caucus honcho. However, she lacks national presence but is viewed as a ‘live firecracker’ in political circles and potentially an ‘unguided missile.’ Let us see how seriously she is taken. Silvestre Reyes will again be the only Latino in Congress chairing a full committee, a most influential one at that: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

In terms of the Latino agenda, specifically the possibility (remote) of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) legislation, the obvious Latino lead on this has been interestingly enough not a Mexican American, but the Puerto Rican Congressman from Chicago, Luis Gutierrez. Congressman Gutierrez has been the most vocal advocate in the House on this issue. The interesting fact with Gutierrez is that immigration is not a driving issue among Puerto Ricans, as a whole, since they are born US citizens. Lastly and again, the latest Latino star, Bill Richardson, a truly affable human being, with a brilliant and astute political nose, and the self-confidence and demeanor of a world statesman, has had to remove himself from further national public office. As the Latino community prepares to welcome the Obama Administration, it will sorely feel the absence of Governor Richardson. One can already sense the hurt among the Latino community’s enthusiastic young aspiring leadership. It now remains to be seen where and how many and who of the young Latino Obamistas will get second and third tier or even fourth tier (assistant secretary level) appointments. This will help institutionalize the Latino presence in the federal bureaucracy as well as recast its prior focus, yet the absence of the Gran Jefe Bill Richardson as a guide and mentor will definitely be felt, a political tragedy for the Latino community.

Photo Credit: AP, Bill Richardson meeting with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

Bill Richardson appears to have committed a big blooper. In a recorded video being bicycled around the internet, he states in Spanish that President Elect Obama is “un inmigrante.” Plainly, this feeds the anti-Obama bloggers, pundits, critics, bigots and other enemies of the newly elected President that want to believe he is ‘ineligible’ to become President because he is not “native born.” Of course, Richardson may have merely committed a gaffe (note the Supreme Court will not review Obama’s citizenship, as the Hawaii Health Department Director has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii).

It became clear that Obama will have so far at least two Asian Americans on Cabinet. Shinseki at Veterans Affairs and Chu at Energy, two African Americans: Holder at Justice as AG and Susan Rice at the UN, three white males Daschle at HHS, Geithner at Treasury and Gates remains at Defense, and one Latino to Commerce – Richardson. Still being speculated for Interior is Grijalva and Manny Diaz for HUD or Transportation. Talk of Xavier Becerra to USTR (the Trade Representative) died down this week, but no other name has surfaced and talk is that Becerra wants to stay in the House to be the third or fourth ranking Dem. Still the trade establishment is trying to recover from the shock of learning that Becerra is a serious contender for the USTR job. Becerra is not  regarded as a genuine friend of trade agreements unless they address blue/green issues (labor/environmental) — both anathema to the corporate and trade mandarins. Frank Sanchez is still being toted as probably the new Presidential Envoy to Latin America. He will probably need to get Hillary Clinton, the new Secretary of State, designee’s buy in.

The NSC Director for Latin America appears to be on track for Colombian American Dan Restrepo. Luis Lauredo (Cuban American), former Clinton Ambassador to the OAS, is promoting himself as the possible new Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America as is Arturo Valenzuela (Chilean American), a Georgetown Professor who was Clinton’s last NSC Director for Latin America. Both have keen competition from Mark Schneider, a former Senator Ted Kennedy confidante and former Clinton Asst Administrator of AID for Latin America and Julia Schweig, a leading Latin expert on Cuba at the white bread Council on Foreign Relations.

Joe Garcia, the Dems’ recent unsuccessful challenger to Congressman Mario Diaz Balart, is being talked about as a possible and most viable candidate for the of the powerful FCC or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Garcia (Cuban American) was formerly head of the Florida Public Utilities Board under the late Gov Lawton Chiles. Another Washington bagatelle has it that Henry Cisneros is strongly plugging for the recently defeated Texas Dems’ candidate for the US Senate, Rick Noriega to be the head of FEMA, which is not a job most people are rushing to embrace or seek. Word from Europe is that former Clinton Ambassador to Spain Ed Romero was seen visiting Madrid with Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez in tow. It seems that Romero is openly and brazenly supporting Chavez’ candidacy for Obama’s envoy to King Juan Carlos. Romero, along with Chavez, was assumed to be measuring the curtains at the sumptuous Ambassadorial digs. The question remains: Is Richardson also standing tall for Chavez? Being ambassador to Spain opens plenty of business opportunities after you leave office, and Romero knows this well. Next we might see a Latino measuring the drapes at the Ambassador’s abode in Mexico City…