Presidents have always awarded loyal supporters through political appointments. Ever since Andrew Jackson, the spoils system (the system by which the party who wins appoints loyal patrons to government office) has been used to fill government offices. The spoils system has become more complicated though in the evolution of the American political scene. It is now not only a reward to loyal patrons, but a prediction of presidential policy. Presidential appointments now help to signal the policy of a president toward certain groups. Through the number of appointees and the importance of their positions, it is often possible to recognize the intended policies and sensitivity of a president to certain groups. Thus, the choosing of president-elect Obama’s cabinet should help us predict the importance of minority issues to his agenda.
Most obviously, the nomination of Bill Richardson to the cabinet position of Secretary of Commerce is a very notable nomination. Richardson is the man at the forefront of Latino politics. His nomination for Secretary of Commerce marks an accomplishment for the Latino community as does it help ensure that their economic needs will be served. By appointing Richardson to his cabinet, Obama is (indirectly) telling the world that he holds Latino minority interests and will hear the opinion of the Latino community via Bill Richardson.
However, one must always ask the question: is this a "token" appointment? Is Obama simply putting Richardson on his cabinet to appease the Latino community? Will he actually listen to what Richardson has to say and implement into his agenda setting and policy?
The fact that Bill Richardson was overlooked for Secretary of State, a much more powerful and important position than Secretary of Commerce, lends credibility to this argument. Furthermore, when being asked this exact question, Obama responded, “Well, commerce secretary is a pretty good job, you know. It’s a member of my key economic team that is going to be dealing with the most significant issue that America faces right now, and that is how do we put people back to work and rejuvenate the economy.” [1] Obama’s response here, being the great speaker he is, also does nothing to reassure me that Richardson is not simply in his cabinet as an appointment (however, I must admit that this argument is completely speculative).
One way to help reassure the Hispanic community that their economic concerns will be heard will be to nominate Xavier Becerra to the United States trade representative. Becerra “is known as a defender of workers’ rights.” [2] Becerra would be the second Hispanic on Obama’s cabinet, and would, thus, give Hispanics much more pull on economic issues, as well as other issues. Moreover, the appointment of Becerra would demonstrate a benign Hispanic mentality, as well as take away from the argument that Bill Richardson was a “token” appointment.
In conclusion, the fate of Hispanics and other minorities (for that matter) is still very unsure. Bill Richardson, despite being very qualified, is still appearing as a sort of “token” candidate. However, a Becerra appointment would be a huge step in the Obama administration declaring that they support minority and Hispanic issues. We will still not know how Obama will treat minorities until he is actually president, but a Becerra appointment or not, will be a very important harbinger of presidential opinion towards minority issues in the future.
For further reading:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04richardson.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/us/politics/05becerra.html
Monday, December 8, 2008
Will people hold minorities responsible for the mortgage crisis?
Despite this seeming like a silly question, many are already starting to blame minorities for the mortgage crisis.
Back in 1992, according to the Federal Reserve Board, “blacks were twice as likely as whites to be denied mortgages” [1] Outraged by these findings, the government and organizations such as ACORN (association of community organizations for low-income people) pushed for severe reform in bank lending practices. In 1994, Fannie Mae pledged $1 trillion to finance 10 million homes for low-income people. As a result, low income people (greatly made up of minorities) across the nation were getting subprime loans that seemed affordable. Despite terrible credit, with no shot of paying back banks, minorities and other low income people still were given mortgage loans.
Despite the activism on the side of minorities to gain these loans, is it really fair to blame them for the subprime crisis? Although some firms were forced to make loans to low income people, they were the ones who continued this cycle and pushed up the prices of the housing markets to make colossal profits. Moreover, it was these same capitalists that enticed these low income people into taking subprime loans in the hope that they would default and that the bank would make lots of money on gaining the default house in an over-inflated market.
Furthermore, lending to poor people is not necessarily risky. Nehemiah Homes proves this. Nehemiah Homes is an initiative that sells homes to poor people on the outer boroughs of New York. Despite selling homes to poor people, the program has a default rate of 0.25% (10 defaulted homes out of 3,900). So why is a project like this on a grand scale so risky? This can easily be explained by the greed on Wall Street. Selling loans in hope that they will fail never really left the majority of minority low-income home buyers a chance of not defaulting. Minorities were subject to a system designed for them to fail, and now that the system itself failed, there is a misplaced blame on the original victims of the crisis: the minorities and low-income people.
Even misplaced blame can carry into policymaking. Thus, leaves the question: will people carry an anti-minority sentiment because of this crisis? Will racist lending practices return in the future? How will Obama reshape this industry and how will it affect minority lending?
All these question remain unanswered and it will not be until Obama has sat in the Oval office for years, will we truly know the answer.
For further reading:
[1] http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5702.0.110.0
[2] http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789
Back in 1992, according to the Federal Reserve Board, “blacks were twice as likely as whites to be denied mortgages” [1] Outraged by these findings, the government and organizations such as ACORN (association of community organizations for low-income people) pushed for severe reform in bank lending practices. In 1994, Fannie Mae pledged $1 trillion to finance 10 million homes for low-income people. As a result, low income people (greatly made up of minorities) across the nation were getting subprime loans that seemed affordable. Despite terrible credit, with no shot of paying back banks, minorities and other low income people still were given mortgage loans.
Despite the activism on the side of minorities to gain these loans, is it really fair to blame them for the subprime crisis? Although some firms were forced to make loans to low income people, they were the ones who continued this cycle and pushed up the prices of the housing markets to make colossal profits. Moreover, it was these same capitalists that enticed these low income people into taking subprime loans in the hope that they would default and that the bank would make lots of money on gaining the default house in an over-inflated market.
Furthermore, lending to poor people is not necessarily risky. Nehemiah Homes proves this. Nehemiah Homes is an initiative that sells homes to poor people on the outer boroughs of New York. Despite selling homes to poor people, the program has a default rate of 0.25% (10 defaulted homes out of 3,900). So why is a project like this on a grand scale so risky? This can easily be explained by the greed on Wall Street. Selling loans in hope that they will fail never really left the majority of minority low-income home buyers a chance of not defaulting. Minorities were subject to a system designed for them to fail, and now that the system itself failed, there is a misplaced blame on the original victims of the crisis: the minorities and low-income people.
Even misplaced blame can carry into policymaking. Thus, leaves the question: will people carry an anti-minority sentiment because of this crisis? Will racist lending practices return in the future? How will Obama reshape this industry and how will it affect minority lending?
All these question remain unanswered and it will not be until Obama has sat in the Oval office for years, will we truly know the answer.
For further reading:
[1] http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5702.0.110.0
[2] http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)