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
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Did McCain ever have a chance with Hispanic voters?
With the trouble of today’s economy which is greatly blamed on the Bush’s Republican administration, McCain was greatly tainted by the financial and economic troubles brought on by the past 8 years of Republican policy. Following the most beneficial presidency and prosperous 8 years for our country in the postwar era, did the contrast between the Republican screw up and the Democratic success ever really give McCain a chance to win the Hispanic vote?
In a 14% leap over Kerry four years ago, Barack Obama achieved an astounding 67% of the Hispanic vote. On the other hand, competitor John McCain saw a 13% drop in his support from the Hispanic community as he only garnered 31% of the Hispanic vote, a number that greatly hurt him in the southwestern swing states. Furthermore, in a race where Hispanic turnout increased by 25% from 2004, the loss of so much of the Hispanic vote was colossal and very detrimental to John McCain.
Over the past 8 years, all minorities, especially Hispanics, have seen a tremendous decrease in about every economic category. “Hispanics’ median family income declined by an average of 0.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2006, after rising an average of 1.5 percent per year in the 1990s.” [1] This resulted in an average income increase of $33,394 to $38,834 in the 1990’s for Hispanic families, and a decline from $38,834 to $37,781. Thus, by examining income alone, it is no surprise that many Hispanic voters returned to vote for the Democratic Party.
In addition, by comparing both the healthcare and poverty rates of the Democratic 90s and the past 8 years under Republican rule, there is more evidence for the Hispanic shift back to the Democratic Party. “In 1990, 25.0 percent of Hispanics were living in poverty, but by 2000, this number dropped to 19.2 percent, an average decrease of 0.7 percent per year.” [1] However, by 2006 the poverty rate for Hispanics increased from 19.2 percent to 20.6 percent. Thus, it is obvious that many Hispanics would be nostalgic for a financially benign Democratic regime.
To further this point, “Between 1990 and 2000, the number of employed Hispanics grew on average by an impressive 4.7 percent each year.” [1] However, this rate decreased by about a quarter as it declined to 3.7% in 2007. This disappointing statistic simply adds to list of reasons for many Hispanics to shift back to the Democratic Party.
Like the anti-Republican sentiment that Latino voters carry against McCain simply because of associations with anti-immigration Republicans like Tom Tancredo, it is likely to assume that many Latino constituents shifted back to the Democratic Party because of negative associations with Republican Party financially. In an election where economic policy was at the forefront, the powerful nostalgic sentiment for the robust Democratic economy of the 90s did not help McCain in his quest to win over Hispanic voters. Thus, it is no surprise that “for the first time, Latino voters emerged as a mobilized Democratic voting bloc in states across the country.” [2]
Further Reading:
[1]http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/minorities_economy.html
[2]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E0DC1638F934A35752C1A96E9C8B63&scp=1&sq=hispanics+in+economy&st=nyt
In a 14% leap over Kerry four years ago, Barack Obama achieved an astounding 67% of the Hispanic vote. On the other hand, competitor John McCain saw a 13% drop in his support from the Hispanic community as he only garnered 31% of the Hispanic vote, a number that greatly hurt him in the southwestern swing states. Furthermore, in a race where Hispanic turnout increased by 25% from 2004, the loss of so much of the Hispanic vote was colossal and very detrimental to John McCain.
Over the past 8 years, all minorities, especially Hispanics, have seen a tremendous decrease in about every economic category. “Hispanics’ median family income declined by an average of 0.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2006, after rising an average of 1.5 percent per year in the 1990s.” [1] This resulted in an average income increase of $33,394 to $38,834 in the 1990’s for Hispanic families, and a decline from $38,834 to $37,781. Thus, by examining income alone, it is no surprise that many Hispanic voters returned to vote for the Democratic Party.
In addition, by comparing both the healthcare and poverty rates of the Democratic 90s and the past 8 years under Republican rule, there is more evidence for the Hispanic shift back to the Democratic Party. “In 1990, 25.0 percent of Hispanics were living in poverty, but by 2000, this number dropped to 19.2 percent, an average decrease of 0.7 percent per year.” [1] However, by 2006 the poverty rate for Hispanics increased from 19.2 percent to 20.6 percent. Thus, it is obvious that many Hispanics would be nostalgic for a financially benign Democratic regime.
To further this point, “Between 1990 and 2000, the number of employed Hispanics grew on average by an impressive 4.7 percent each year.” [1] However, this rate decreased by about a quarter as it declined to 3.7% in 2007. This disappointing statistic simply adds to list of reasons for many Hispanics to shift back to the Democratic Party.
Like the anti-Republican sentiment that Latino voters carry against McCain simply because of associations with anti-immigration Republicans like Tom Tancredo, it is likely to assume that many Latino constituents shifted back to the Democratic Party because of negative associations with Republican Party financially. In an election where economic policy was at the forefront, the powerful nostalgic sentiment for the robust Democratic economy of the 90s did not help McCain in his quest to win over Hispanic voters. Thus, it is no surprise that “for the first time, Latino voters emerged as a mobilized Democratic voting bloc in states across the country.” [2]
Further Reading:
[1]http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/minorities_economy.html
[2]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E0DC1638F934A35752C1A96E9C8B63&scp=1&sq=hispanics+in+economy&st=nyt
Monday, November 3, 2008
How will African Americans vote?
The color of Barack Obama’s skin will not be the only reason African American voters show up to vote for him on November 4th. Despite his deracialized campaign strategy and an unsure future for the Black Agenda in what is likely to become a Obama presidency, one thing is for sure—Obama’s economic platform is much more benign to the African American population than rival John McCain’s.
In the face of an unforgiving and troubling economy, African Americans will show up to the polls on Nov 4th with their pocketbooks in mind. As a troubling year, and many failed policies come to an end, it will be no surprise that blacks will show up to vote for Obama, not only because he is black, but to ensure their financial interests.
African American’s suffer a 24.2 percent poverty rate, 3 times the white poverty rate. Moreover, with an average family income of $32,132, Black families earn lower than both whites and Hispanics. In fact, the white family annual income average hovers at 1.6 times the African American average. This discrepancy has been something that has never been cured, and increased during the past Republican administration after the gap was narrowed in the 90s.
Thus, it is evident it is evident that the majority of Blacks will favor Obama’s tax plans as it favors them in return. Most importantly, the Obama tax plan will cut taxes by a rate of 8 times the McCain tax cuts for most Black families. Furthermore, the Obama plan offers additional tax breaks to lower income families through a 50% credit for child care expenses. A $4000 college credit in exchange for community service will also be favored by Black families struggling to send their kids to college. In addition, Barack’s initiative to raise the minimum wage by over two dollars will also help garner him votes. The substantial pros for the average Black family that would come from an Obama presidency should add to the list of things that will help win the Black vote.
Moreover, Barack Obama will be much more favorable to the 20.3% of African Americans who lack health insurance. At a number double that of whites, Blacks who lack health insurance and are who struggling to keep it, will most likely show up to vote for Obama. Considering that Obama’s healthcare plan is much more to the average Black man, who hold more jobs that refuse to give healthcare, it is likely that Black constituents will respond positively to his initiatives to provide subsidies that increase with lower incomes, mandate insurance for children, penalize employers who fail to provide insurance, and promote private healthcare. With such leverage on the healthcare issue, it will be no surprise (in addition to many other things) that the majority of Blacks vote for Obama.
Obama undoubtedly holds most (if not all the cards) when it comes to minorities and the economy. Both his tax plans and healthcare plans heavily favor the hurting minorities in comparison to McCain’s. Thus it is very likely that Obama wins the Black vote after we topple his minority favoring economic policies to his long list of minority favored qualifications and policies.
For further reading:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/minorities_economy.html
http://www.biztimes.com/news/2008/10/3/which-one-has-the-best-economic-plan
In the face of an unforgiving and troubling economy, African Americans will show up to the polls on Nov 4th with their pocketbooks in mind. As a troubling year, and many failed policies come to an end, it will be no surprise that blacks will show up to vote for Obama, not only because he is black, but to ensure their financial interests.
African American’s suffer a 24.2 percent poverty rate, 3 times the white poverty rate. Moreover, with an average family income of $32,132, Black families earn lower than both whites and Hispanics. In fact, the white family annual income average hovers at 1.6 times the African American average. This discrepancy has been something that has never been cured, and increased during the past Republican administration after the gap was narrowed in the 90s.
Thus, it is evident it is evident that the majority of Blacks will favor Obama’s tax plans as it favors them in return. Most importantly, the Obama tax plan will cut taxes by a rate of 8 times the McCain tax cuts for most Black families. Furthermore, the Obama plan offers additional tax breaks to lower income families through a 50% credit for child care expenses. A $4000 college credit in exchange for community service will also be favored by Black families struggling to send their kids to college. In addition, Barack’s initiative to raise the minimum wage by over two dollars will also help garner him votes. The substantial pros for the average Black family that would come from an Obama presidency should add to the list of things that will help win the Black vote.
Moreover, Barack Obama will be much more favorable to the 20.3% of African Americans who lack health insurance. At a number double that of whites, Blacks who lack health insurance and are who struggling to keep it, will most likely show up to vote for Obama. Considering that Obama’s healthcare plan is much more to the average Black man, who hold more jobs that refuse to give healthcare, it is likely that Black constituents will respond positively to his initiatives to provide subsidies that increase with lower incomes, mandate insurance for children, penalize employers who fail to provide insurance, and promote private healthcare. With such leverage on the healthcare issue, it will be no surprise (in addition to many other things) that the majority of Blacks vote for Obama.
Obama undoubtedly holds most (if not all the cards) when it comes to minorities and the economy. Both his tax plans and healthcare plans heavily favor the hurting minorities in comparison to McCain’s. Thus it is very likely that Obama wins the Black vote after we topple his minority favoring economic policies to his long list of minority favored qualifications and policies.
For further reading:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/minorities_economy.html
http://www.biztimes.com/news/2008/10/3/which-one-has-the-best-economic-plan
How will Hispanics vote in 2008?
Like everyone else, Hispanics are troubled by a down spiraling economy in 2008. And most likely, the economic platforms of McCain or Obama will decide the elections as Hispanics are much more concerned about their financial security than they are about border security.
To predict the outcome of Hispanic voters, it is essential to examine their current economic conditions, and the perspective positions as a result of each candidate’s economic platforms.
“Although all U.S. households are hurt in the economic slowdown, Hispanic and African-American households are more vulnerable; they are likely to suffer first and to suffer more” (Logan and Westrich, 2008) [1]. The economic crisis has taken a severe toll on all Americans, but it has hurt minorities at a harsher level; this hurt will likely result in what is predicted to be the greatest Hispanic turnout in the history of the United States, making for a even more potent and essential Hispanic vote that will be controlled by economic issues.
In 2006, Hispanics already suffered a substantial income gap in comparisons to whites, who have an average family income at a rate of 1.4 times of the Hispanic family average. Furthermore, “the relatively lower-paying jobs Latinos tend to hold typically don't offer health insurance, further endangering their tenuous grasp on economic survival. Added to this, the vast majority of jobs held by Latinos are in construction and service industries, among the first and worst hit in the current economic crisis” [2]. The devastating effect of the economy and the presence of much needed healthcare will be a huge factor in the Hispanic vote that should primarily favor Obama.
Obama’s advantage in tax cuts for lower income families and healthcare plans will be a big plus for Hispanic voters due to the fact that 34.1% of Hispanics were not covered by healthcare and the Hispanic poverty rate of 20.6% in 2006. The Obama tax and healthcare plans greatly favor voters in such an economic situation. Most noticeably, the Obama tax plan will decrease the amount of taxes that the average Hispanic family pays by more than triple that of the McCain tax plan. Also, Obama will give $1000 tax refund to working families, another advantage he caries over Obama when it comes to minorities and the poorer families across America. Thus, by tax breaks alone, it seems that it would be most logical that Hispanics generally vote in the way of Obama.
However, Obama’s argument is even more compelling through his more lenient and applicable (to Hispanics) healthcare plan. Obama’s plan provides subsidies that increase with lower incomes, mandates insurance for children, penalizes employers who fail to provide insurance, and promotes private healthcare. All of Obama’s healthcare policies favor the Hispanic initiative to gain healthcare. For the 34.1% of Hispanics who do not have healthcare and the 1000’s of others who are struggling to keep theirs, Obama’s healthcare initiative will be huge in garnering their votes.
Thus, Barack Obama should find him self in a solid lead among Latino voters come November 4th. He carries an edge in almost every association with Latino constituents, and most importantly, he represents their financial interests. Therefore, it is very unlikely that we will see Bush high numbers achieved by McCain in 2008.
Further Reading:
[1] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/minorities_economy.html
[2] http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Winning-Latino-Vote-McCains-Blunder/story.aspx?guid=%7B4A323034-4ABE-4BF5-B72F-D7DF2B4DBCBA%7D
[3] http://www.biztimes.com/news/2008/10/3/which-one-has-the-best-economic-plan
To predict the outcome of Hispanic voters, it is essential to examine their current economic conditions, and the perspective positions as a result of each candidate’s economic platforms.
“Although all U.S. households are hurt in the economic slowdown, Hispanic and African-American households are more vulnerable; they are likely to suffer first and to suffer more” (Logan and Westrich, 2008) [1]. The economic crisis has taken a severe toll on all Americans, but it has hurt minorities at a harsher level; this hurt will likely result in what is predicted to be the greatest Hispanic turnout in the history of the United States, making for a even more potent and essential Hispanic vote that will be controlled by economic issues.
In 2006, Hispanics already suffered a substantial income gap in comparisons to whites, who have an average family income at a rate of 1.4 times of the Hispanic family average. Furthermore, “the relatively lower-paying jobs Latinos tend to hold typically don't offer health insurance, further endangering their tenuous grasp on economic survival. Added to this, the vast majority of jobs held by Latinos are in construction and service industries, among the first and worst hit in the current economic crisis” [2]. The devastating effect of the economy and the presence of much needed healthcare will be a huge factor in the Hispanic vote that should primarily favor Obama.
Obama’s advantage in tax cuts for lower income families and healthcare plans will be a big plus for Hispanic voters due to the fact that 34.1% of Hispanics were not covered by healthcare and the Hispanic poverty rate of 20.6% in 2006. The Obama tax and healthcare plans greatly favor voters in such an economic situation. Most noticeably, the Obama tax plan will decrease the amount of taxes that the average Hispanic family pays by more than triple that of the McCain tax plan. Also, Obama will give $1000 tax refund to working families, another advantage he caries over Obama when it comes to minorities and the poorer families across America. Thus, by tax breaks alone, it seems that it would be most logical that Hispanics generally vote in the way of Obama.
However, Obama’s argument is even more compelling through his more lenient and applicable (to Hispanics) healthcare plan. Obama’s plan provides subsidies that increase with lower incomes, mandates insurance for children, penalizes employers who fail to provide insurance, and promotes private healthcare. All of Obama’s healthcare policies favor the Hispanic initiative to gain healthcare. For the 34.1% of Hispanics who do not have healthcare and the 1000’s of others who are struggling to keep theirs, Obama’s healthcare initiative will be huge in garnering their votes.
Thus, Barack Obama should find him self in a solid lead among Latino voters come November 4th. He carries an edge in almost every association with Latino constituents, and most importantly, he represents their financial interests. Therefore, it is very unlikely that we will see Bush high numbers achieved by McCain in 2008.
Further Reading:
[1] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/minorities_economy.html
[2] http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Winning-Latino-Vote-McCains-Blunder/story.aspx?guid=%7B4A323034-4ABE-4BF5-B72F-D7DF2B4DBCBA%7D
[3] http://www.biztimes.com/news/2008/10/3/which-one-has-the-best-economic-plan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)