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.

So the upshot of the conversation is that Wilkes and LULAC oppose this tax because it is regressive, meaning that the poorer populations end up bearing the burden with a larger portion of their incomes being spent on a junk food assessment than would wealthier individuals. Furthermore, there isn’t much evidence that taxes, as proposed, would be enough to curb the bad habits. A few cents on a can of soda is not likely to be at a level where people would be discouraged from buying it. Wilkes also mentioned to me that we really haven’t had a trial somewhere to determine at what level the tax would have to be to show positive health outcomes. Perhaps, some municipality should do a trial tax on soft drinks and fast food to really test it and determine if enough money can be raised for health awareness and possibly health care.

I still maintain that we need to consume less fast food, soda and processed foods in general. I think that taxing junk food at a level where it would influence our purchases is probably a good thing. Whereas taxes on fuel, which are also regressive, typically don’t leave poor drivers with any other alternative, especially in cities without decent public transportation, we all can make better choices about what we consume and put into our mouths every day. Taxing soda so that it doubles the price would certainly give me reason to pause and to possibly never buy it again. Then again, I’m perfectly content to drink water out of my Klean Kanteen, which is BPA free, reusable, and typically filled with water from the tap. My point is that nobody needs soft drinks and/or fast food, and we Latinos who are prone to diabetes and other ailments especially don’t need these empty calories. The rising cost of health care should be in the back of our minds when it comes to our eating choices. We may not pay immediately for our choices, but a steady diet of soft drinks and convenience food will come with costs at a later point.

Additionally, Wilkes also mentioned to me that the beverage companies and companies like McDonalds also have healthier options. For instance, many soft drink manufacturers also sell water or low calorie fruit juice, and of course, McDonalds sells salads. This may be the case, and I can commend these companies for offering healthier options. However, I would imagine that the big draw for McDonalds is still the fat laden meal of a burger and fries. And Coca Cola and Pepsi are still better known for their soft drinks than any sort of healthy alternative in my view. Just because these companies offer an alternative does not necessarily make them socially responsible.

As for LULAC being bought off or tainted by corporate sponsorship, Wilkes felt that this notion was unfair because there have been times that his organization has taken a position that is contrary to their sponsors. For instance, some years ago LULAC expressed solidarity with the workers of PictSweet Mushrooms, which was a major supplier of mushrooms for Pizza Hut (Pizza Hut’s parent corporation was Pepsi). I felt that what Wilkes was trying to convey was they his organization doesn’t necessarily condone the all of the business practices of its partners, but that they do use their corporate sponsorships for program development that benefits the public. Right now, money from Pepsi and Coca Cola helps fund LULAC scholarships for college students. Perhaps companies with better track records of producing healthy products will be encouraged to partner with organizations like LULAC instead of the same large corporate entities we always see.

Wilkes and I also discussed the corn subsidies, which I think really get to the root of our problems because we have given big agriculture an incentive to produce corn that in turn is used to produce that high fructose corn syrup that is sweetening our food. Researchers are already linking the high percentage of corn in our diets to obesity. I think LULAC could really make an impact here lobbying to eliminate or reform these subsidies, but I don’t see that as an issue on its legislative platform.

To conclude, I think that we need to bring back some self determination with our diets and the choices we make as consumers. Just because LULAC may have relationships with McDonalds, Pepsi, and Coca Cola, that doesn’t mean that we need to be cultivating those relationships on our own by enriching them with our dollars. We can start to return to our agrarian roots and plant gardens. Even in urban areas, people are learning how to grow vegetables on their porches or in community gardens. Furthermore, we can start to frequent our local farmers’ markets. Most cities and rural communities have farmers’ markets, where you can buy fruits and vegetables and even organic meats and cheeses for reasonable prices. Local Harvest has a great website to find a market near you, so that you can buy locally grown produce, which is actually better for the environment because the food doesn’t have to travel as far to get to your kitchen. The food actually tastes better from these markets. I shop at one almost every week. We simply don’t have to accept that the fast food and beverage industry wants to protect their investments in our community, as we have the power to purchase, grow, and cook for ourselves. Many of us are not too far removed from the farming and ranching lifestyles of our ancestors, so we can rightfully reclaim those practices in honoring our heritage and health.

For more reading on childhood obesity and related problems, just this week some additional studies came out:

Child Obesity Risks Death at Early Age

Strong ‘Sweet Tooth’ in Kids Tied to Family’s Mental Health

The Latino community has been impacted by the obesity epidemic, and Hispanic preschool children are at a higher risk of being overweight or obese. Back in 2006, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health found the following:

“Thirty-two percent of the white and black tots were either overweight or obese, vs. 44% of the Hispanics.

Children were particularly at risk if their mothers were obese. So were those who still took a bottle to bed at age 3, as did 14% of the Hispanic youngsters, 6% of the whites and 4% of the blacks.”

So given the state of our community’s fat issues that start hindering us from the get-go, it was a little surprising for me to learn that Latino organizations such as the Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity, the National Hispana Leadership Institute, and the League of United Latin American Citizens, along with the National Hispanic Medical Organization have been recruited by a coalition, Americans Against Food Taxes, to oppose taxes on sugary and fast foods. These organizations are arguing that taxes on these foods would disproportionately affect the poor.

I wasn’t the only one surprised:

“Public health analysts were surprised to find that the list included the National Hispanic Medical Association, which represents 36,000 Latino doctors and focuses on health issues such as obesity-related diabetes that’s hitting Latino youth especially hard.

Nearly all the Hispanic groups, including the Medical Association, had received beverage industry money in the past or have industry representatives on their governing boards.”

Once again, our advocacy groups have been tainted by the money coming from industries that contribute to our health problems. We have seen this with the alcohol industry and their continued sponsorship of organizations like MALDEF and NCLR.

I’m neither for or against a fast food or soft-drink tax, but I do think that it is worth exploring, as a way to offset the costs of health care. The evidence that such a tax would help curb unhealthy habits is not very conclusive, but continuing to accept money from food companies that produce goods that aren’t of much nutritional value muddles the messages of organizations like Hispanic Alliance for Prosperty and LULAC.

My thought is that the food and soft-drink industry is salivating at our growing population and growing hunger and thirst for their products. They want to make sure that we have been effectively bought off so that we will oppose taxes on sodas and convenience foods. Frankly, all of us would be better off eating more unprocessed foods, which can actually be cheaper when purchased at local farmer’s markets and produce stands. I just don’t see a benefit to promoting the “crap food” industry any more than is already done. This issue is particularly timely given First Lady Michelle Obama’s kick off of the “Let’s Move” campaign to conquer childhood obesity. But what are your thoughts?

Fear in public discourse is as ancient as political competition. While man was in the caves, he became fearful of fire, the shadows it created, lightening, thunder, the wind or snow storms, the swollen sea, the flooding streams, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the sun, the moon, an eclipse, shooting stars, the movement of clouds, the howling of wild animals in the night and many other phenomenon. One ancient protagonist among our ancestors who became most important was not the leader of the pack but the ‘medicine man’ or better known as the ‘warlock’, the ‘sorcerer’, the ‘brujo‘ or simply the person who practiced the ‘black’ or supernatural arts and purported to be a healer as well. This manipulator of the human spirit in most races, tribes, clans and extended family became often associated with the idea of a ‘priest’, ‘rabbi’, or a ‘holy man’ and gradually a significant political influence. The politics enter when this brujo is able to not only use the natural fears of man but also to become the chief counselor or advisor to the pack or clan leader, king, prince, nobleman, or simple chieftain. His use of fear over the pack or clan helped him control the extended family or clan for the ‘leader’. This clever or artful individual becomes key to the organization especially as Plato described the tribe leaving the cave and out into the foreboding world. This demonstrated man’s urge to discover the world and confront the perilous challenges of an untamed one. A world of superstition (evil eye, spells, curses, disease, death…) made for a terrifying world existence. This struck at man’s most primal instinct: survival. The threats and fears have been a staple throughout human history.

In modern day public discourse, the politicians and the men or the persons of the cloth invariably use some sort of fear. The smite and wrath of God is one of the most ancient invocations of fear. The politicians, who became the managers of the city or nation-state, invariably invoked the power of the prince or head of state or nation to control the masses. Civil law seems to have codified the nobility’s claim to wealth especially land. Penal law as it developed was to control the peasantry, the lumpen, or the simply the lower orders. The penalties in violating penal law were obvious (in ancient times usually considered a threat to the governing class’ position in society). In autocratic societies or dictatorships, these legal ukases or decrees are enough to put most people on notice. The fear of the prince or king seeking retribution is enough on how to scare the populus into submission. Stalin did this most effectively in the 1930s with his wholesale slaughter of about 30 million Russian peasants (Kulaks) and millions of others. Hitler was another feared character. His totalitarian state created fear of the Jews and then sowed the hatred and monstrous destruction of the European Jewish population. But in democracy the use of fear is implicitly suppose to recede. Why? Because man has learned how to speak for himself, cheerfully groups up with like-minded people and seeks the best leadership. Man in the current democratic process has become more subtle in the manipulation of a more modern social being. Yet, the shameless use of ‘fear-mongering’ has risen to surging and commanding heights in recent decades in the Western World, especially the United States.

Fear-mongering in wars is quite common. We must not forget Winston Churchill’s cynical but true comment when asked how he could justify the lies and distortions Britain carried out against the Third Reich: he retorted with typical wit and bemusement: “…the truth is so precious that it must be safeguarded with a bodyguard of lies…” In today’s modern world of political discussion, we should be so lucky to have Churchillian wit or dazzle! Instead we have mostly mortifying demonstration of vituperative, lacerating, wicked inferences, slander and fear-mongering at its most evil. Talk show radio has become the medium of choice in the fear-mongering attempts. The political right with its nationalistic, ethnocentric penchants is in the forefront. Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Anne Coulter, and some would include Lou Dobbs. The thundering sound of these prophets of doom and gloom certainly captivate a large segment of the American body politic. They readily resort to using ‘wedge’ issues like abortion, gun control, anti-gay sentiment to garner support for the Republican Party. Just like the Iranians call their political party, Hezbollah (Party of God), some wags call the GOP the ‘Party of God’ since it thrives in its core attraction to the religious fundamentalists. The right appears to have a much more defined array of issues that they invoke in fear-mongering: raising taxes, budget deficits, soft on commies or enemies of American people, gun control , pro-life (anti-abortion), use of busing for school integration, welfare, health care system, environmental issues, feminist rights, affirmative action and host of other themes. The liberal left lamely creates fear by pointing out that the right is excessive and dangerous and will eventually seek a higher cost. The left is often inclined to target capitalism as being ‘savage capitalism’: “the rich get richer and the poor get kids.”

Among the Latino community, fear-mongering has been constant. The Latinos before World War II were fearful of being arrested, lynched, detained or merely question by white authorities. The fear inherently was one of being targeted as a non-white or alien and therefore no basic rights could save you. The courageous work of the LULACS and other pioneering groups helped stem the fear. Fear was used by white political bosses to get the Latino vote. Staying on your side of town was a time honored approach to keep the Mexicans in their place. Sometime after the Civil Rights of 1964 with public accommodations fully attempting to integrate American society, the northern part or non-segregated portion of the US began to react to busing of school children in particular. The North, which earlier had been seen as tolerant of integration, now felt threatened. Concurrently, the Hispanics for the first time began to distance themselves from the Black American community, which previously had been a faithful partner in fighting discrimination. Cubans and Puerto Ricans came from island nations with a long history and presence of Afro-Caribe people. Hence, they showed no threat in general with working or living with non-white or non-Hispanics, though, a discernible patronizing feeling was commonly detected. Yet, Latino communities, especially Mexican-Americans who had rarely lived alongside African Americans, were targeted for fear-mongering by racists, intolerant individuals, hate-purveyors etc. The black communities were also whipped up to fear the ‘hordes’ of newly arrived Latino immigrants, who would displace them and take their jobs. Plainly, fear was the instrument of use in most cases.

The present day challenge for Latinos lies in the current immigration discussion. It is riven with fear of the newly arrived immigrants will bring down wages, take their jobs, create more negative image of Latinos, ruin neighborhoods, cause more discrimination against Latinos with a backlash from both the white and the African American communities. Fear has accompanied man since he left the caves and will continue to be used by the powerful or would be powerful to control groups, especially the poor, dispossessed, the undocumented, people of color, the less educated and the insecure middle class or working classes. Fear is the preferred instrument of control especially in politics and social interchange. The Latino leadership must be vigilant that they do not follow the already present example often demonstrated in contemporary US society. As FDR eloquently said ‘…there is nothing to fear but fear itself…’

Every year right before 5 de Mayo, I find that I cannot turn on the radio without hearing about a celebration at a local club or bar, where people will be getting on their drinko for the cinco. Last year, I wrote a blog post about my experiences with this holiday as pertaining to some advocacy work I had been involved in with a group called Cinco de Mayo con Orgullo. Each year, I hope that the holiday will evolve away from the St. Patrick’s Day drunk fest that has become the tradition, but it seems less likely that will be happening, in part because of our community’s ties to the spirits and beer industry.

Last fall, a study from UT Austin’s School of Education and the University of Florida’s College of Medicine found that Latino students are exposed to more alcoholic beverage advertising than other students. Students attending schools with 20% or more Hispanic students see an average of seven times more alcoholic beverage  ads than students at schools with smaller Hispanic populations.

One of the study’s authors, Dr. Keryn Pasch stated, “According to previous studies, Hispanic youth are at higher risk for alcohol use than either white or African American youth. Exposure to alcohol advertising has been shown to increase alcohol use and intention to use alcohol, and marketers are aggressively capitalizing on the rapidly growing Hispanic population, targeting their marketing efforts at this group.”

Additionally, the study found that alcohol advertising is uniquely catered to specific ethnic groups. Alcohol consumption advertising near schools with 20% or more Hispanic students tends to use the culture of the neighborhood. So with Latino communities, you see more ads incorporating Mexican flags, sports heroes, and celebrities. These carefully crafted ads build brand recognition with young people, putting them at an increased risk for substance abuse from an early age.

According to the US Health and Human Services for people 12 years and older, Hispanics have a 10% rate of substance abuse, which is lower than Native Americans (19%), but higher than the rate for whites (9.2%) and African-Americans (9%). Substance abuse care providers have historically seen more substance abuse in acculturated Latinos than in those who are recent immigrants. However, they are now seeing more immigrants turning to alcohol and substance abuse in coping with difficult immigrant experiences. We have already seen an increase in violent crime targeting Latinos, and often alcohol accompanies these incidences.

So why do Latino civil rights organizations continue to take money from the alcohol industry given these dismal statistics? In large part, organizations like MALDEF, NCLR, and even LULAC are not grassroots in terms of their donor databases. In Los Angeles, the MALDEF office is in a building sponsored by Anheuser-Busch, as is evidenced by its wall signage. NCLR is corporate partner with Coors Brewing Company and Miller Brewing Company. LULAC’s corporate alliance partners include both Anheuser-Busch and Coors. These organizations have been built and bolstered by donations from the very companies who cleverly target our young people. MALDEF, NCLR, and LULAC provide a portal into our community and give tacit approval to sell to our captive and growing market. On its Corporate Relationship Opportunities page, NCLR even boasts of Latino buying power and growing disposable income, citing that we have more than $736 billion in purchasing power, and then explaining how corporations can help ensure the American Dream for Hispanic Americans by partnering with the organization. Oddly enough, NCLR has a health policy section on its website, which deals primarily with obesity and nutrition, but noticeably absent is any information about alcoholism.

While I’m hopeful that with enough awareness, people will start questioning the conventional wisdom of letting spirits and beer companies underwrite so many community events and programs, especially given the prevalence of alcohol advertising in our community. It certainly sends a mixed message to our youth about substance abuse when our civil rights organizations have to utilize ‘liquor loot’. This 5 de Mayo I will pause before I consume any alcoholic beverages or perhaps I won’t have any to more clearly commemorate the Battle of Puebla.

Photo Credit: MALDEF Los Angeles Offices lobby sign, Wendy Carrillo

One of the most troubling indicators is the rapid rise in the unemployment rates. In some states, like Michigan, Rhode Island, and California, it is already over 10% unemployment. Many of the country’s top economic analysts predict that the worst is yet to come. President Obama is using a lot of political capital in the so-called ‘stimulus bills’. Yet many economic pundits are noting that the new Administration must try every means to stem the increasing economic threats. Hence, stimulus bills may be a shot in the dark, but most reasonable people submit that it is better than doing nothing.

When one begins to consider the Latino plight in this dire economic situation, it becomes clear that both US Latino citizens and immigrant Latinos are feeling the pangs of this crisis like all other groups. But the real challenge is that even when the times were good, our socio-economic indicators demonstrated that we were fast becoming the underclass in many categories. These indicators included: highest school drop-out rates, higher than average unemployment rates and suggestions of a definite high under-employment rate (informal economy), poverty levels, increasing teenage pregnancies, other health concerns have become alarming with growing obesity and diabetes rates. Yet it can be easily demonstrated that the Latino community has progressed notably in the last two generations: home-ownership increased, two family incomes are increasingly common, vastly increased numbers of college and university graduates, many more small Latino businesses have flourished, infinitely more Latino elected officials at every level and infant mortality figures have dropped. Now this current economic crisis will be equally devastating to both poor and more affluent Latinos. The challenge is how to get our Latino community engaged in the serious discussion of actionable proposals that affect directly the livelihood of the Hispanic population.

The fact that three trillion dollars may be spent on rescuing our economic well-being is almost unfathomable; yet the Latino community needs its Washington leadership in Congress and the Administration to engage full force to make certain that these gargantuan spending bills provide some cover to the Latino community. This must become the primordial concern on the national Latino agenda.

Hispanic Congress-persons on the Appropriations Committee like Jose Serrano, Ed Pastor, Lucille Roybal-Allard and Ciro Rodriguez are in strategic positions to lead the dialogue within the community. Senators like Bob Menendez and Mel Martinez, who are both on the Banking and the Energy Committees, are also key to any effort for Latinos. Senator Menendez is also on Budget Committee. Nydia Velazquez is well-positioned as Chair of the Small Business Committee; and like Luis Gutierrez, Joe Baca, Ruben Hinojosa and Albio Sires, Velazquez is also a member of the Financial Services Committee. Loretta Sanchez has notably served in the powerful Joint Economic Committee of Congress as the only Hispanic and hopefully continues to be an active member. Mario Diaz-Balart even though a minority member serves on three powerful committees: Budget, Science and Technology and Transportation and Infrastructure. Xavier Becerra’s membership on the Budget Committee and the powerful Ways and Means Committee suggest perhaps that he is the lead on this urgent economic discussion affecting the Latino community. Taking up Hispanic educational challenges on Committee on Education and Labor would include Hinojosa, Raul Grijalva and Linda Sanchez. Charlie Gonzalez remains on the influential Committee on Energy and Commerce which oversees the Health care coverage, telecommunications and trade issues. Lastly, the Hispanic members of the important Agriculture Committee taking up the national nutrition issues in the country include Joe Baca (chair of Sub-Committee on Nutrition,) John Salazar and Henry Cuellar. These Congress people mentioned are key in this massive stimulus spending process.

Moreover, Hilda Solis, as Labor Secretary, should take up the mantle as the lead Hispanic in the Administration to ensure that our community gets a fair shake in the recovery efforts being put forth. Solis along with Cecilia Munoz, the Assistant to President Obama for Inter-Governmental Affairs must quickly master the intricacies of the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) process in the White House. OMB is the spending  or allocating traffic cop in any administration and has powerful authorities to determine the amounts and who gets the monies and  how they should be spent within the legislative language provided.

The Hispanic advocacy groups like National Council of La Raza, LULAC, the Cuban National Council, the National Puerto Rican Foundation and other Latino national and regional or local advocacy organizations must insist on action. The Hispanic Caucus should immediately form if it has not yet a structured working group within its organization to identify the Latino community needs in this economic crisis, the monies available, the mechanisms involved, and communicating the intricacies of the processes to the local governmental level. Nydia Velazquez the new Caucus Chair should move swiftly to ensure that the Latino representation is effectively felt and that the constituencies’ needs be addressed. A multi-trillion dollar spending program must include the basic and necessary resources for the Latino community to alleviate the impending hardships. A national discussion and consultation process among the Latino community is imperative to provide a better understanding of the deepening recession (for some) and depression (for others). These are extraordinary times, and the Latino leadership must step up to the challenge in an organized and effective manner.

I was glad that the documentary pointed out how land that was owned by Mexicans and descendants of Spanish explorers was taken, which expedited their slide into a lower status. Their way of life changed within a few generations and with the implementation of Jim Crow style segregation. Even today when visiting where my family comes from in the Southwest, I notice that the cemeteries are segregated by looking at the names in burial plots.

In viewing the film, I also reflected on how much more progress we still need to make as a community. Here we had this legal team, who was willing to put their livelihoods and personal lives on the line, yet as Seneca has pointed out, we are still rather reluctant to engage in litigation to advance our rights. And this legal team was truly grassroots, funded by the local LULAC chapters and community. I did not notice any corporate sponsors funding their fight, which you see a lot of today with our civil rights organizations.

Please share your thoughts in this blog post.

For Latinos, Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been bandied around as the primordial theme in the Latino agenda as noted in the Latino State of the Union yesterday, which is expected to be positively addressed by President Obama. The fact remains that during the rugged campaign, immigration was patently avoided by both candidates. Hence, there is no electoral mandate to obtain comprehensive immigration reform legislation. However, among some Latino advocacy circles like the National Council of La Raza, the LULAC and MALDEF, immigration reform is being pronounced as a top priority and signaling the Obama team that they must resolve or seek legislation to alleviate the undocumented peoples’ plight . It should be pointed out that the two other significant and somewhat empowered groups of Latinos: the Puerto Ricans and the Cuban-Americans do not have an immigration issue as such. Both groups view immigration not an immediate concern: the Puerto Ricans are born U.S. citizens and the Cubans are paroled into the U.S. once they touch dry land. Hence, both have no employment issue for their newly arrived migrants or exiles. Mexican nationals in the US, along with numerous Central Americans, are the most anxious to see some movement on the immigration reform front. Mexican-Americans also are sensitive to the issue, but no overwhelming consensus on immigration exists among these Mexican Americans. They, along with other Latinos, often fret over the immigration debate becoming an anti-immigrant and ultimately anti-Latino. The California Latinos saw this happen in 1994 with the propositions to limit or deny services to the undocumented. Thus, it can be readily concluded that the Latino community as a whole may hold different views and priorities in the Latino agenda.

Most voting Latinos appear to be more interested in Obama tackling the current economic crisis, as evidenced by the most recent Pew Hispanic Center survey. It is considered the most menacing crisis since the Great Depression. Jobs, housing, education and health services are all being affected significantly by the crisis. The immigration reform goal is also on the radar, but according to several surveys, it is not the primary issue that is viewed as indispensable for immediate consideration. There is in fact a reasonable national consensus among all sectors of American society that immigration reform must be addressed and resolved. No one who is rational in thinking about or discussing the issue can seek to ignore or obstruct reform, but it is most difficult to see it as a top national priority in the first year of the new Administration. Obama, who during the transition period after the election, has amply demonstrated his pragmatic and middle of the road approach to national problem solving will not commit the same error the Clintons did in attempting early on to pass health reform. Health care, like immigration, is indeed a fundamental goal for this administration. But both involve and require enormous political capital, which will have to be safe guarded to ensure that it is available for addressing the burgeoning budget, massive economic infrastructure programs, jobs creation, and bailing out the automotive and banking sectors. Immigration, as vividly demonstrated almost three years ago in the last round of attempts to get legislation passed, evoked a glandular reaction from the ‘racist nativists’ and an enormous discomfort in many other areas of the economy. Now with the dire economic conditions of the country it suggests that any reform effort to address effectively the almost 12 million undocumented residents in the U.S will provoke a boisterous, sectarian, anti-immigrant backlash in the country. Regularizing (granting permission to work and reside in the US) these hopeful would-be-immigrants will be tantamount to some perceptions of amnesty. Admittedly, to introduce or officially recognize several million new workers under the circumstances would be politically harrowing. This involves officially welcoming several million new workers into an economy which at best is ailing. Therefore, one would require extraordinary political bravery or recklessness if it means jeopardizing other priorities on the Obama agenda.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Latino Advocacy groups like LULAC, MALDEF and NCLR must quickly strategize and meet with the Congressional and administrative leadership to determine the timelines, evaluate the political costs, the horse-trading involved, and be certain that before launching an all out national political effort there is a preliminary nose-count to ascertain the viability of legislative approval of any reform proposal. The Obama Administration will correctly address the economic priority, simultaneously the burning foreign policy issues like extricating ourselves from Iraq and continuing the efforts in Afghanistan will require enormous blood, sweat, tears and toil. In sum, Obama and his team will be most circumspect on when and how to introduce the immigration reform proposals. It will behoove the Latino leadership to assess and gauge the immigration reform efforts. Other items in the Latino agenda like housing, education, health, job opportunity and basic human needs will be included in the overall treatment of the economy. Latin America, as a foreign policy issue and a Latino priority, does not appear to be evident. Opportunities for Latinos in federal employment (civilan or military) also are not readily perceived. It remains to be seen who among the Latinos in Congress who will bear the torch on these issues. Luis Gutierrez, a Puerto Rican legislator from Illinois, has been the standard bearer on immigration. Senator Bob Menendez (a Cuban-American Democrat) has invariably sought to ensure that the State Department recruits and promotes Latinos.

Will someone like Silvestre Reyes, Loretta Sanchez or Solomon Ortiz, all senior members of the House Armed Services Committee, seek to lead the efforts to have more Latino general officers selected and promoted? Does Nydia Velazquez, as Chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, become an all encompassing and forceful factor in driving or leading Latino efforts to guide Latino small businessmen to more attractive government help in grants and loans? Also will Nydia Velazquez, as head of the Hispanic Caucus, organize and strategize the Hispanic/Latino Agenda with other Congresspersons to ensure that the Administration does not forsake its Latino constituency? Perhaps more interesting does Congressman Jose Serrano from his perch as Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Services of the Appropriations Committee lookout for the Latino agenda in terms of lending or mortgages? Does Loretta Sanchez, as second ranking majority member of the Homeland Security Committee, oversee and moderate the heavy-handed behavior of DHS/ICE’s persecution of illegal foreign workers in job-sites? Will Joe Baca, as chair of the Agriculture Committee’s Sub-committee on Oversight and Nutrition, use his position to advance the Latino agenda’s possible concern with adequate nutrition? Do Hinojosa, Grijalva and Linda Sanchez all members of the Committee on Education and Labor dwell on the pending Latino concerns on education and perhaps take the lead on the Dream Act? And will they regularly meet with new Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to advance Latino labor issues? Perhaps Representative Nydia Velazquez can set up periodic (monthly) meetings with both Labor Secretary Solis and Interior Secretary Salazar to review the bidding on the Latino Agenda and help identify up-and-coming young Latinos among the political and career ranks of the federal bureaucracy. Does the Congressional Hispanic Caucus schedule quarterly meetings with the Latin American diplomatic corps to learn about the region’s problems, needs and desires? Does the Caucus get an initial meeting with Secretary of State Clinton and DoD Secretary Bob Gates to raise issues of policy concern not just in Latin America? Personnel issues should be on the agenda in these meetings. Formulating talking points ahead of time by the appropriate staffers for these meetings would demonstrate seriousness of purpose. Perhaps in the spirit of bi-partisanship, the Caucus should invite and meet with the Republican Latino members like Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking minority member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, the ranking minority member on Rules Committee. Moving the over-all Latino Agenda will be challenging but focus, unity of purpose and excellent organization are imperative to success. The focus of this and several other blogs is to keep tabs and make our elected representatives more accountable.

Only Manny Diaz, Mayor of Miami and Mayor Villaraigosa of L.A. have been mentioned in passing as possible candidates for HUD. When one digs deeply into the Transition Teams, it becomes quite clear that it is not promising for Latinos. There is a smidgen of a smattering of a handful of names. On National Security and International Economics, virtually none. On social and domestic economics issues, less than a half dozen appear to be Hispanic out of the list of scores of senior and working level transition team members already named.

The speculation is that the Obama Latin American team for foreign policy, security, and trade will include the long-expected Latino list. Then you will have the usual grousing from Latin America that in appointing Latinos to ‘handle’ Latin American, it is supposed to focus on assuaging the Latin Americans on US policy ramifications in the region…perhaps…but the challenge facing any US policy-maker for Latin America is that ‘benign neglect’ is the coin of the realm at best or merely any effort to combat illicit drugs or illegal immigration must be fought in the lands south of the border. Hence the DEA, Border Patrol, and border enforcement personnel are replete with Latinos. It seems Latinos are seen as the ideal handlers for applying US law to these Latin masses trying to reach the US border. It’s page from the colonial Spanish playbook on overseeing indigenous people has been borrowed: always place as an overseer ‘one of  them’ to handle or manage these ‘menacing’ masses. Therefore, it should not surprise us when appointments come for Latinos they appear to be geared to dealing exclusively with Latinos… especially law enforcement …a brazen example of pigeon-holing us.

Then again it may be easy to blame the White and the African-American establishments for not including us in the upper echelons of appointments, but alas! — the fault lies primarily with the Latino community for not providing  ’top cover’ for its possible appointees under any administration. This ‘top cover’ comes from Latino Congressional members (CHC), the Latino civil society groups like NCLR, MALDEF, Cuban American National Council, LULAC, Cuban American National Foundation and the various Puerto Rican groups.  Add to this mix the increasing emergence of Central American associations seeking a ‘regularization’ or ‘legalization’ of its diaspora. Lastly, the ultimate realization that the Latino agenda may be jettisoned is that a ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform‘ will continue to elude us in the coming years. The recent election plainly did not provide a mandate for it. Since it was never or barely discussed in the campaign, we can expect it to to go nowhere.