Fenton communications, teaming up with Presente.org, has already been operating a site called, MoveTheGame, urging the public to get involved in the effort to relocate next year’s All-Star game out of Arizona.

Since the Arizona law pretty much sanctions racial profiling in the name of immigration enforcement, one could imagine that an event with MLB, whose league is comprised of not only a diverse group of players but immigrants as well, that there could be hostility towards players, players’ families, and fans. The Major League Baseball Players Association has already issued a statement in opposition to the Arizona law back in April.

My feeling is that it is unconscionable to put MLB players, their families and fans at risk of being stopped by the local law enforcement authorities in this state because they may appear ‘foreign’. Furthermore, Major League Baseball shouldn’t award a state that stokes the flames of hatred and fear with an event like the All-Star game that brings in millions of dollars.

The meat of Murguia and Henderson’s piece is at the end, which I will include for readers here:

Surely the “best interests of baseball” include protecting players and millions of fans of color, not allowing MLB to be perceived as condoning blatant discrimination and injustice, and taking a stand for fairness, equality and other values that Americans and baseball hold dear. Selig should stand up for these players, these fans and these values.

Such a move would not be unprecedented. The NCAA does not allow post-season events, such as the Final Four, to occur in states that fly the Confederate flag. Years ago the NFL stood up to Arizona over its refusal to recognize the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday and moved the 1993 Super Bowl. Those sports institutions defended their players and fans, even though there was no direct threat to their safety. The Arizona law, however, is a direct threat, and Selig ought to take action.

If MLB wants to maintain the right to call baseball America’s favorite pastime, and preserve the legacy of Jackie Robinson, the All-Star game should not go to Phoenix next year. Commissioner, for the sake of baseball players and millions of fans, move the game.

If you are in agreement that MLB should move next year’s All-Star game, please take action here.

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?

I was particularly struck by this part:

“If CNN hopes to win over more Latinos, they will have to do better. Do they expect Latinos to tune in more now because they’ve allowed four hours of airtime to the immigrant experience after Lou Dobbs gets more than 250 hours to denigrate them? More likely, Latinos will watch the series just to see how poorly Latinos are portrayed.

At least CNN has found a respectable model for the progression of intelligent blonds and women’s rights, right?”

Also worth noting is the continued featuring of George Lopez and Eva Longoria, both of whom are prominently featured in events that NCLR puts on, such as the Alma Awards.

Another commentary of the complete documentary in the Miami Herald further expounds:

“To the extent that Latino in America does define its subjects, it does so through the caricatures of a 1955 sociology textbook. Almost everybody in the documentary is either poor and troubled — single Chicana moms in Los Angeles, jobless Puerto Ricans in Orlando, suicidal Dominican girls in New York — or works for the government. The major exceptions are a handful of entertainment figures like Eva Longoria and George Lopez.”

So for those of you who watched it, what did you think? Was this documentary worth the time and did it in any way make up for the hours and hours of Lou Dobbs shows?

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

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

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.

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.

Gov Bill Richardson’s appointment (after having been derailed from becoming the first Latino Secretary of State)  for the Secretary Commerce demonstrates that President-Elect Obama will continue the tradition of appointing at least one Hispanic or Latino to the Cabinet. The first President to appoint a Latino to the Cabinet (Lauro Cavazos) was Ronald Reagan back in 1988. Actually, Senate Confirmation Appointees level Hispanics began in the Kennedy Administration with Raymond Tellez to be Ambassador to Costa Rica followed by Teodoro Moscoso as Ambassador to Venezuela. In 1967, the first Hispanic career Foreign Service Ambassador was John Jova (Ambassador to Honduras, OAS and Mexico). The first Assistant Secretary level appointee was under Gerald Ford when he named Alberto Zapanta to be Assistant Secretary at Interior in 1975. Carter named the first Hispanic Chief of Protocol, Lalo Valdez and the first service secretary, Edward Hidalgo as Secretary of the Navy in 1979. Several Federal Judges have been named since Reynaldo de la Garza of Texas was named Federal District Judge in 1961, yet none have ever been named to the Appeals or Supreme Court. Miguel Estrada, the Honduran American, was blocked from becoming a Federal Appeals Judge. As for additional Latinos in the Obama Cabinet yet to occur, speculation focuses on Federico Pena, former Mayor of Denver and later Clinton’s Secretary of both Departments of Energy and Transportation, Miami Mayor Manny Diaz is often mentioned, as is another prospect Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles. ‘Tino’ Cuellar, Stanford Law Professor is being bandied as the new Immigration Director (CIS/DHS), which is at the Under Secretary level in Homeland Security.

It is interesting how the Obama transition team was feeling the heat to come up with more visible Latino appointees and readily announced NCLR Vice President Cecilia Munoz as Director of Inter-Government Affairs at the White House, as was also announced former Army Secretary under Clinton, Louis Caldera as the Director of the White House Military Office, which traditionally has been occupied by a high ranking military General. Caldera was viewed as having done a so-so job in the Army Secretariat, but many consider he bombed out of the Presidency of the University of New Mexico where he later was awarded a tenured position in is law school — probably to comply with the terms of the contract. Let us hope that both Munoz and Caldera get the official White House title of “Assistant to the President.”

On the National Security side, there are no rumors of a Latino at Defense, at least not in the Deputy Secretary slot or at the under secretary and assistant secretary level. At State likewise except for the strong rumor of Tampa lawyer Frank Sanchez  to be named Special Envoy to the Americas following the Clinton practice of having an envoy to Latin America. The substantive question here is: Will Frank Sanchez report to the President as Mack McLarty and former Florida Governor Buddy McKay did?…Or will he report to the Secretary of State or even worse to the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America (a fourth rung bureaucratic level after Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary)? Ideally, one would hope he will report to the President. Former Congressional Staffer Dan Restrepo is another name consistently heard in the Obama circles as the incoming NSC Director for Latin America.

Hopefully, Obama will improve on the career ranks of ambassadors and general/flag rank officers. The outgoing Bush Administration has a shabby record at State for having named only three visible Latino career foreign service officers as Ambassadors – the worst record in over three decades: Colin Powell only named one, Lino Gutierrez, Cuban American to Argentina now working for Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez as his top adviser on Cuba policy. Gutierrez like Mel Martinez (HUD)  was deliberately granted the gatekeeper role on Cuba and over-all Latin policy for the George W Bush Administration. Now that Richardson gets Commerce, will Obama follow the practice of having him (Richardson) be the lead on Mexico and US Latin American relations? Condi Rice named only two additional Latino career foreign service professionals to be ambassadors: Hugo Llorens (Cuban American) to Honduras  and the first female Hispanic (visible) career officer Carmen Martinez (Puerto Rican) to Zambia, where she was proclaimed by the local media as the best US Ambassador ever.

As for our Latinos in the military ranks, much remains to be remedied. Latinos comprise about 15 to 17% of the over 1.2 million active duty US soldiers and African Americans are about 25% of the active duty ranks, yet Latinos have only three general/flag rank officers, none with three or four stars. The African-Americans have 26 general/flag rank officers. The one Latino was LT GEN Ricardo Sanchez, who was slotted to be the first four star general in years. Only two Latinos have ever been four star officers: Admiral Horacio Rivero of Puerto Rico and Army General Richard Cavazos (brother of first Latino cabinet head Education Secretary Lauro Cavazos).  Sanchez took the hit for the disastrous torture episodes in Iraq while he was three star army commanding officer of US Forces, as they say in Spanish:  ’el perro flaco recibe las pulgas’  (the skinny dogs gets the fleas). Sanchez obviously had no real ’top cover’ because none of the other top rank officers paid the price like him, worse yet Sanchez had no ‘top cover’ from the Hispanic caucus in Congress nor does the Caucus as a whole appear to interest itself in these low promotion numbers of Latinos at State and the Defense Department.

In the Intelligence Community, it is rare to find any Latinos. Only two have ever risen to the highest circles of the Community (they remain nameless), and only one Latino was ever named to the prestigious and high powered  President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), a former career Foreign Service Officer Ambassador Cresencio Arcos. He was named to the Board once by President Clinton and re-appointed by President George W. Bush. It should be noted that the Latino advocacy groups are rarely seen interesting themselves to check on the progress of moving Latinos up the career ladder. If they were to examine the ranks of SESers (Senior Executive Service)  in the Civil Service, the numbers may be even more appalling. The paucity of high ranking Latino career professionals is obscured by some glittering political (non-career) Hispanic appointment to the Cabinet or Embassies. Then again the rap on Latin Americans (ergo Latinos) is that we do not concern ourselves institutionally only personally…that is at the personal level.