Prop. B is extensive in its wording but in reality it boils down to a couple of simple points: the initiative would give most new employees 401(k)s instead of guaranteed pensions and 2) it attempts to impose a five-year freeze on employees’ pensionable pay. Pretty simple right? And with the city of San Diego in deep, deep financial problems and as most people are themselves having to face harsh economic times, the initiative resonates with a lot of folks.

Like Prop. B we could be wordy and editorialize in length about this measure, but we will keep it simple: this pension reform plan will not work and it will not save the city the millions as promised.

The pension reform will not work because you cannot freeze public employee pay by vote and the 401(k) plan will only affect new hires. It does nothing to change the pensions or the payouts. And more than likely, if this proposition does pass, it will end up in court for a long time before it can be implemented.

This pension reform is not really about pension reform. It is not the employees or their pensions that drove the city to become the “Enron by the Sea.” At the root of the pension debacle is that elected officials and private sector corporations started the practice of diverting money from the pension fund to increase the city budget to pay for popular city initiatives, such as the ballpark, the convention center expansion, and for the cost of hosting the 1996 Republican National Convention.

During good times, when the stock market is booming, those expenses can be covered. But when stocks crash… well we all now know the results. The pension scandal itself arose when the pension board and then the city council voted to lessen funding requirements and increased benefits (including to several members of the pension board) and sold municipal bonds without disclosing the underfunding.

Nowhere in this $2 billion debacle was it reported that it was the employees who created this mess. Yet Prop B backers want to try and fix this mess on the backs of the employees by freezing employee pay, after years of pay cuts, layoffs, and furloughs???

We are not so naïve to say that there are no problems with pension payouts such as the DROP program, again another problem created by politicians. There needs to be reform. But let us not fool ourselves and blame the problem solely on city employees. If there is to be real interest in fixing the pension problem the politicians should start by reforming the pension board.

This pension reform is not about reform but is more of a political philosophical tug-of-war over who will control the city, corporate America or the workers and their Unions. DeMaio wants to continue feeding corporate America and minimize the impact of the Unions at city hall.

At La Prensa San Diego, we are going to side with the workers. After decades of work in the city, they deserve and earned a guaranteed pension. The work they do is not glamoures, nor is it high paying. The rank and file worker are not the ones abusing the pension system so let’s not make them scapegoats on this issue.

We recommend a No Vote on Prop. B.

The U.S. Marines carefully worked their way through the Iraqi village on foot towards their vehicles outside the village. On both sides of the road shops with metal corrugated roll-up doors faced the road. Iraqis stood outside their shops sullenly watching the Marines walk by; obviously disliking these invaders of their homeland. One of the Iraqi men started loudly cursing the Marines in Arabic. The squad’s interpreter, a United States Marine born in Morocco, verbally re-acted and their Arabic exchange grew more intense every second. The Marine was livid over the insults hurled at the Marines by the Iraqi.

There is an old Marine maxim: You can insult a Marine but not the Marines. Sergeant Nathan Fletcher approached the translator and calmed him down. Once calmed down, Fletcher started talking – through the interpreter – with the excited Iraqi man. After some minutes Fletcher got down on one knee talking to the man while the translator changed his English into Arabic. When done, Fletcher stood and the Iraqi man shook Fletcher’s hand. So says Tom Montero, the Miami-born Hispanic who was mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher’s Commanding Officer in Iraq in 2004. Montero (CWO 5, USMCR ret.) says he never saw anything like what Fletcher did that day. Nor did Fletcher flinch during any of the many actions or firefights Montero said in which Fletcher was involved.

Montero says Fletcher worked well with him and the other San Diego Hispanic, Lou Orozco, in the unit as well as a Filipino American Marine Master Sergeant. In fact when Fletcher was elected to the State Assembly, Montero and Orozco flew to Sacramento to observe Fletcher being sworn into office as the Assemblyman’s guests.

Montero, a Rancho Bernardo resident is supporting Nathan Fletcher for Mayor.

La Prensa San Diego once asked why Fletcher waited till now to create a Latino coalition to work with. Interestingly, he has significant Latino/Hispanic support of 25% in a survey released May 14th. His Coalition consists mostly of young educated Mexican American business and professional men and women and it looks to this veteran political observer that they really like him.

He didn’t need such a coalition to help him in the old 75th Assembly district that he won twice because there weren’t that many Latinos in the district and he won the seat with percentages approaching 60%. Running in the City of San Diego, however, is a different story.

Unlike his three opponents, Fletcher is acutely aware that 51.4% of the city’s population is Hispanic (28.8%), 15.9% Asian and Black (6.7%).

This is proven by his widespread Hispanic support unlike his opponents; Carl DeMaio whose television advertising shows but one minority person out of dozens of supporters talking about his being “courageous.” Bonnie Dumanis has little if any “minority” support. Bob Filner has a cadre of hard-core Hispanic support and some Filipino support but that is not based on his 20 years in Congress, it is based on his labor union and Democrat Party support.

Most importantly, “Councilman Carl DeMaio voted against the (City Council censure on Arizona’s infamous anti-Mexican SB 1070)… because ‘We need to speak from a position of principle and a position of fact as well as a position of balance,’” DeMaio told the Union/Tribune, May 3, 2010.

Comparing Bob Filner’s 20 years in Congress to Nathan Fletcher’s four years in the State Assembly in Sacramento draws a good belly laugh. Fletcher has passed more bills into law in four years than Filner has in 20 years in Washington D.C. Fletcher has “Chelsea’s Law” as his shining moment. Bob Filner has what?

What should be clear to San Diego’s 376,532 Hispanics is that Fletcher is the only mayoral candidate who has worked in stressful situations with Hispanics, life or death situations. He really knows Hispanics, having put his life on the line for them and depended on them to protect his.

He is clear on Hispanics and their place in San Diego that no other candidate can possibly have. Fletcher works well with Hispanics as manifested by Tom Montero. But Montero is not alone.

“He is well respected in the Legislature for his willingness to work across party lines to find thoughtful solutions for California,” Democrat Speaker of the Assembly John Perez told the Associated Press.

Is there a Democrat alive that can say that about Carl DeMaio, or Bonnie Dumanis, or is there a Republican alive that can say that about Democrat Bob Filner after 20 years in Congress?

The four candidates for mayor each bring something to the race, yes. But three of them fall short in knowing Hispanics, in serving Hispanics and in having worked under the most stressful of circumstances with Hispanics.

The Marine Corps reports that in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars one in five, 20%, of all Combat Marines were Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Nathan Fletcher served with them in Iraq, at the Battle of Fallujah and many other engagements. He knows Hispanics.

Nathan Fletcher lives today because his back, literally, was covered by Hispanics and they live today for the same reason in that they trusted Fletcher, to cover their backs.

San Diego Hispanics can count on Nathan Fletcher when he is mayor of San Diego because he knows Hispanics better than most, maybe even better than me.

“I want to quit smoking,” pleaded Paul Wells of 23 years of age. He was five when he, his brother and sister arrived in the United States from Poland after a long adoption process.

He had it all, a wonderful adoptive mother, the nation safest city to live in, an excellent high school in Irvine, new friend and relatives. However, his life took a bad shift when he lit his first cigarette. It never crossed in his mind that as teenager he would be so hooked on cigarettes.

Paul began smoking as early as 15 years of age. Since he put a cigarette in his mouth, his fingers have not stopped reaching for those tiny rolled up papers containing harmful substances. He knows cigarettes are bad, but wishes he had a real choice back then when he was a teenager.

Without prevention programs against tobacco smoking at schools, teenagers like Paul are easy prays to Big Tobacco.

According to government sources, each day over 3,800 minors under 18 years of age, smoke for the first time, and over 1,000 become addicted for life. “I never saw a prevention class in my school,” pointed out Paul with disappointment.

In 1998, the tobacco industry agreed on a monetary settlement with the states after prosecutors successfully proved this industry’s disingenuous portrayal of their product in the market. At the height of the trial, Dr. Victor De Noble, former researcher at Philip Morris, became a key witness to unveil his former employer’s unlawful activities. In the end, the big three, Phillip Morris, RJ Reynolds and Lorillard, agreed to repay the states $246 billion over 25 years because states had absorbed massive bills from cancer patients and other people affected with other illnesses related to tobacco smoking.

This year, states are expected to collect 25.6 billion in revenue from tobacco taxes and the tobacco settlement.

Nonetheless, only $456.7 millions (1.8 %) will be allocated in youth prevention and cessation programs. That figure is about half of what states spent during the first decade of the agreement. To make things worse, states cut down another $61.2 millions from prevention programs last year.

While states are doing less, tobacco moguls have multiplied their resources to lure teenagers into smoking. According to the Federal Trade Commission, in 2008 they spent around $10.5 billion in marketing. For every dollar states spent on prevention, Big Tobacco used up $27.00 to market its products.

Our youth is Big Tobacco’s primary target. An addicted teenager insures solid profits for at least 20 years or more.

Adults, on the other hand, are no longer reliable “markets,” as their health are beginning to erode, and it is just a matter of time before some of them seek remedies in public hospitals.

Our state might be in fiscal insolvency, but our willingness to stop a tobacco onslaught against our kids is not.

Proposition 29 has all the ingredients to change the dynamics of smoking. In June 5, voters in California have an opportunity to add $1.00 to a pack of cigarette. It would be a major setback to the tobacco industry. If passed, the state will collect about $835 million per year, which will be used for cancer research, prevention programs and law enforcement.

High prices on cigarettes have been enemy number one to Big Tobacco. The more expensive the pack, the less like teenagers will get one. Even tobacco moguls recognize it. “When the tax goes up, industry loses volume and profits as many smokers cut back,” stressed Ellen Merlo, senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris. No wonder why they have raised nearly $40 million to stop Proposition 29.

For Paul Wells quitting smoking isn’t a personal decision anymore. He understands the need of a special rehabilitation program to get through his vice. Proposition 29 will give him precisely that.

Humberto Caspa, professor and researcher at Economics On The Move. E-mail: hcletters@yahoo.com. He is also a weekly editorial contributor of La Opinion, Spanish daily newspaper.

La declaración del presidente Barack Obama de que apoya los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo se dio tras un proceso de evolución, según afirmó, y de una cuestión de principios, agregó.

Es un arriesgado paso político a meses de los comicios generales que le ayudará con un amplio e influyente sector de votantes y que seguramente le afectará con otros. Esas consideraciones se pesaron en la balanza política antes de hacer pública su postura.

Pero lo interesante es cómo la presión de la comunidad LGBT, sin prisa pero sin pausa, orilló al presidente a cerrar el proceso de evolución en favor de una postura políticamente arriesgada.

Si tan sólo Obama también evolucionara en el tema de los Soñadores o DREAMers y ante la falta de legislación federal les concediera un amparo administrativo, como grupo, que les permita estudiar y trabajar legalmente en Estados Unidos sin miedo a la deportación.

La presión aumenta no sólo de parte de los grupos pro inmigrantes y de los propios Soñadores que vienen solicitando el amparo luego de que la promesa de reforma migratoria integral se hizo sal y agua. Pero ahora también crece la presión por la posibilidad de que un republicano, el senador de Florida, Marco Rubio, potencial compañero de fórmula del virtual aspirante presidencial republicano, Mitt Romney, se apreste a presentar su versión del DREAM Act que el joven senador cataloga como una “misión humanitaria”.

La medida no contiene una vía directa y especial a la ciudadanía, pero Rubio asegura que los jóvenes podrán solicitar la residencia legal por los mecanismos tradicionales.

Que la medida progrese en año electoral está por verse. Rubio tiene que convencer a sus colegas republicanos que le han dado la espalda al DREAM Act, incluso quienes alguna vez fueron autores o coauspiciaron la medida. Y el presidente de la Cámara Baja, el republicano John Boehner, ya advirtió que avanzar el DREAM Act de Rubio será “difícil por demás”.

De todos modos, la idea de que sea un republicano quien trate de buscar consenso en un tema que goza de un abrumador apoyo entre los votantes latinos, debe enviar una señal a los demócratas en el Congreso, a la Casa Blanca y a la campaña de reelección de Obama.

Pero mientras el hacha va y viene, ICE no descansa y la posibilidad de la deportación es real a pesar de la discreción ejecutiva que en teoría se supone haga que los Soñadores no sean prioridad de remoción. La práctica es más complicada.

A cada rato surgen casos de jóvenes en el umbral de la deportación y sólo las campañas a su favor previenen que no se conviertan en una estadística más.

Entiendo perfectamente la diferencia cuando se ponderan estas consideraciones políticas. El lobby de la comunidad LGBT es poderoso, aportan dinero a campañas y finalmente son ciudadanos que votan.

Los jóvenes indocumentados ni pueden votar ni aportar a los cofres de campaña.

Pero se trata mayormente de jóvenes hispanos que tienen el apoyo de una comunidad de familiares, amigos o conocidos que sí votan y que también aportan a las campañas. Un sector de votantes que será clave en los esfuerzos de reelección de Obama.

Su causa también es una cuestión de principios. Estos jóvenes que fueron traídos sin documentos a Estados Unidos no tuvieron ni parte ni suerte en la decisión de sus padres, han sido criados aquí, son estadounidenses excepto por el papel que lo confirma. Sólo buscan la oportunidad de convertirse en profesionales y de servir a su nación en las Fuerzas Armadas.

Este jueves 17 de mayo los Soñadores conducen un Día Nacional de Acción a través del país para presionar por una solución a su dilema y presentar su Declaración de Derechos, entre esos, el vivir con sus familias y sin miedo.

Ojalá que el presidente entienda la importancia de buscar una salida administrativa al limbo migratorio que enfrentan estos jóvenes en tanto se concreta el esquivo consenso legislativo.

Ya 22 senadores demócratas le enviaron una carta al presidente solicitándole que considere la acción diferida o suspensión de deportación para todos los jóvenes indocumentados que serían elegibles para el DREAM Act si el proyecto se promulgara.

En entrevista con Jorge Ramos en el programa Al Punto, el líder de la mayoría demócrata del Senado, Harry Reid, afirmó que “el presidente hará más administrativamente. Y eso deberá ocurrir bastante rápido”.

Ojalá y así sea y Obama tenga una evolución a favor del Sueño de millones de jóvenes indocumentados de obtener un amparo administrativo.

Maribel Hastings es asesora ejecutiva de America’s Voice

I recently relented to pressure of a former student to go on Facebook. He persuaded on its usefulness as an organizing tool. Once I got on FB I could see that I could not break my classroom habits and I feared that I would come across as too peachy.

The more I got into the postings the more I realized that much of the content is based on touch feely, a highly sociable environment, which I am definitely not a part of. I am the kind of person who cannot stay on the telephone for more than three minutes or talk to someone without multitasking. I even feel uncomfortable with birthdays and I have walked out of birthday parties given to me by students. I have never seen any reason to indulge people as they sing “Happy Birthday” and spit on my cake.

Furthermore, from my perspective there is disconnect between the various posts, lacking common themes. I thought about it and concluded that the disconnect was a product of generational differences. This is a generation raised with commercials and theme parks – they live fairyland existences where illusions become delusions.

A young girl is enraptured by the illusion of being Snow White and the delusion is that she will be a princess. Parents encourage this. When I was a child my parents would delude us into believing that I would become like Popeye, the Sailorman, if I ate my spinach.

The delusion takes over in ordinary life to the point that we develop a false consciousness. During 911, for example, many Americans were convinced that we never violated the sovereignty of another state, although history is replete with examples to the contrary.

Thus, our delusions obfuscate reality. We don’t know that Donald Duck is not real.

I guess illusions are great if you want to control children by fixating them on the television tube. But when the illusions become delusions and create false consciousness we have a problem.

This is how I felt about my last article dealing with the Arizona Democratic Party, criticizing its neglect by not building a core and its failure to protect the rights and interests of Latinos within that state. A small sector of readers reacted as if I were criticizing Holy Mother the Church.

Their defense of the Democratic Party was delusional. I am accustomed to the excuse, “Well I vote Democrat because it is better of two evils.” I can buy that, but to say that the Party is looking out for the interests of Mexicans in Arizona is a bit much.

The email that bothered me most was from Luis Heredia, a longtime Democratic Party operative. Heredia worked for Raul Grijalava more than a dozen years ago. Since then he has tied his kite to the official Party bureaucracy. His brother is the head of the Arizona Mi Familia Vota.

Luis Heredia was appointed Executive Director of the Arizona Democratic Party in 2009 by then Arizona Democratic Party Chair Don Bivens, a Phoenix attorney, who is known as Party kingmaker. Bivens is a partner in the firm that represented ex-state Senator Russell Pearce, hardly a friend of Mexican Americans.

Heredia has led a number campaigns most revolving around door-to-door voter contact and voter registration drives. He has served in several capacities as a State and County Democratic Party Officer. Heredia was named the Arizona Democratic Party’s Young Democrat of the Year in 2005.

“Luis is deeply committed to the future of Arizona, and we look forward to his leadership and vision as Executive Director, “ beamed Biven, an endorsement that was like a kiss of death among many Latino activists.

A Party loyalist, Heredia has written columns for the Huffington Post that give the illusion that the Democratic Party is the champion of progressive causes within the state.

Unfortunately, this is a delusion. The Democratic Party has been almost mute on immigration and has no policy toward SB 1070. Indeed, most candidates that criticize this ethnic chauvinism don’t make it out of the primaries.

As mentioned in the last blog, I found Heredia’s and the Democratic Party’s support of Ann Kirkpatrick as the candidate for Arizona’s First Congressional District very troubling. It is a Democratic-leaning district, which the Democrats have a good chance of picking up. It is 40 percent Democrat, 30 Republican, and 30 percent Independent. Demographically, it is 22 percent Native American, and 19 percent Latino. It has the highest percentage of Native Americans in country.

Who is Ann Kirkpatrick? She is a former Congresswoman who was beaten by a Tea Party candidate. She has strong ties with ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), the payday-loan industry, and Corrective Corporation of America (CCA), none of whom represent the interests of Latinos.

Ties and campaign contributions from ALEC lobbyists to Kirkpatrick are well documented. The most nefarious are her ties to former U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini who became a big time lobbyist once he retired. As a member of the Senate, DeConcini was part of the “Keating Five”, the huge banking and political contribution scandal in eighties. DeConcini has donated heavily to Kirkpatrick’s campaigns.

It is worth noting that DeConcini became a lobbyist for the Corrective Corporation of America (CCA) and sits on its Board of Directors. CCA and ALEC wrote SB1070 with Russell Pearce. DeConcini endorsed and made robocalls for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

As a congresswoman Kirkpatrick voted to keep tax cuts for the rich and supported SB1070, referring to the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit as a “distracting sideshow.” She skipped the vote on the DREAM Act.

In Tucson, the Democratic Party is controlled by Blue Dogs, which ally with the Republican Party. Both are in bed with the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, ALEC’s mini-me.

As Richard Martinez, the attorney in the suit challenging HB 2281 and the counsel defending the Mexican American Studies program has said “the Arizona Democratic Party should be ashamed of their complete lack of any role, support or action in combating HB 2281.”

Indeed, the Democratic Party has supported Mark Stegeman, the head of the Board of Trustees of the Tucson Unified School District who along with Superintendent John Pedicone have viciously attacked the Mexican American community and students and dismantled the MAS program, firing almost all of the teachers. Where does Heredia stand in this?

At one time, I was a member of the Democratic Party. I worked through the Mexican American Political Association in 1964 registering voters in conjunction with the California Democratic Council. I tried to change the Party and was a delegate for Eugene McCarthy during the 1968 California Democratic Party Presidential Primary. However, something called principles and desire to give back and represent unrepresented Mexican Americans led to a break. In other words, I grew up.

My delusions became a nightmare in August of 1983 when the darling of liberals Arizona Democratic Governor Bruce Babbitt sent the state National Guard to Morenci-Clifton to break a strike against Phelps-Dodge. The invasion included tanks and helicopters.

The consequence was that the union was busted. The Miners that had been a majority Mexican were now a majority white. Greenlee County that had been historically Democrat became Republican.

In ignoring the candidacy of Wenona Baldenegro, Heredia and other Latino loyalists are ignoring history. Without the Latino and Native American vote there is no way that a Democrat can get elected to the First Congressional District. Heredia is delusional in thinking that he can sell his delusions to Latinos, Native Americans and progressive whites.

My criticism of the Democratic Party is based on principles, not on ambition. Unless, it recognizes its chauvinism toward Latinos it won’t be able to correct itself. The truth be told, there is little difference between the Blue Dogs and the Republicans.

Bob Filner, throughout his 19 years as Congressman of the 51st District, has served this diverse community of South San Diego with energy, enthusiasm, and dedication. It can never be said that Filner was an absentee representative. You call Bob Filner’s office, he responds and he is in the community. Filner has proven himself a tireless worker which is trait that he will bring to the office of Mayor for the City of San Diego.

Filner has represented the best interests of the Hispanic and ethnic community, and they have rewarded him by re-electing him over qualified Hispanic candidates. Filner was an early advocate of civil rights and he has fought for federal funding for border infrastructure. He has been an advocate of improved U.S./Mexico relations, quality education, protection of the environment, and universal health care.

Congressman Filner has served as Chairman of the House of Representatives Veterans’ Affairs Committee. He has achieved a national reputation for his work on behalf of our nation’s veterans, both current veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and more elderly veterans from the Vietnam and Korean wars and World War II. He has created bonds with the Filipino community with his fight to restore honor and benefits to the Filipino Veterans and Merchant Mariners of World War II.

But what sets Filner apart from the other candidates is his perspective on Pension Reform. While the three other candidates for Mayor agree and support Proposition B which would strip middle class workers of hard earned pensions, Filner, with the support of the Unions, is developing an alternative for Prop B.

Although Prop B is being decided in June by the voters of San Diego, Filner has proposed an alternative plan. However, neither Prop B nor Filner’s alternative is a fully restorative answer to the pension deficit problem. And they are radically different in perspective. The difference between the DeMaio plan and Filner’s falls more along the line of a philosophical difference. With Prop B, Councilman Carl DeMaio is hoping to fix a problem by placing the burden on the backs of the rank and file. Prop B would freeze their pay and switch new employees to a 401K retirement plan. Prob B is a plan to fix a problem that was not created by the middle class workers.

Filner’s proposed plan looks to fix the pension deficit but doesn’t ask the workers to carry the burden by reducing their pensions, their Union representation, or their wages. Instead it caps pensions at $100K per year and seeks more aggressive investment strategies for the management of the retirement fund.

The Pension deficit is a problem created by politicians, the business community, and Union leadership and that is where the fix is needed. We have yet to hear how the next Mayor of San Diego is going to fix the persistent problem of the San Diego City Employee’s Retirement Pension Fund which acts with impunity and without accountability. That was where these so-called leaders sold out the city and created the pension deficit.

Filner has been a tireless worker for the Hispanic community and as Mayor would work to support the working man of San Diego. For these reasons we support Bob Filner for Mayor of San Diego.

Four years ago we endorsed Pamela Bensoussan for Chula Vista City Council. Over the years we have grown to regret that endorsement. The person we met before the election, the candidate we endorsed, was not the person that became a council person!

We believed that Bensoussan cared about the community only later to find out that Bensoussan only cared about Bensoussan, her campaign debts, and re-election.

The enduring memory we have of Bensoussan is on the day of her swearing in she proposed a sales tax increase, at a time when her community members were suffering under the burden of an economic meltdown, home foreclosures, record unemployment, and higher costs across the board. Bensoussan was out of touch with the community. Chula Vistans responded negatively to her tax initiative and the proposition lost by 70% of the vote.

Then there was her support of a developer to build apartment buildings on the historical section of 2nd Avenue, against community opposition. Once again Bensoussan was out of step with her neighbors. The 100 year centennial that Bensoussan spearheaded was a disappointment, stemming from poor leadership and her co-opting of the centennial book where she highlighted herself. Many described this as nothing more than political propaganda.

The final nail in the proverbial coffin was her backroom dealing with Republican David Malcolm and the negotiations regarding Chula Vista Bayfront and a possible city contract to clean up the South Bay power plant. This alignment with Malcolm, who is the Political Action Committee co-chair for the Lincoln Club, and the alignment with Mayor Cox earned her the endorsement of the partisan special interest Republican Lincoln Club.

It is for these reasons, and many more reasons that we did not list, that we support and endorse the candidacy of Robert Castañeda.

Robert Castañeda is the brother of Chula Vista City Councilman Steve Castañeda. The assumption would be that Robert is following in the footsteps of his brother, but nothing could further from the truth. Robert Castañeda has had a long time interest in politics. At one time he ran for San Diego City Council (he lost). He has also worked for 3 elected governors.

Robert has an extraordinary grasp on the ins and outs and political mechanizations, how to collaborate with fellow politicians, and how to move forward on issues. He learned to compromise as a staff member of three governors in California, two Republicans and one Democrat.

It is true that Robert just recently moved to Chula Vista, but he and his family are well known. He has been involved with the Chula Vista community and has worked on projects with Earl Jentz. He has also worked with his brother/business partner on Chula Vista issues.

Robert, as a small businessman, understands the issues of the business community. He understands budgets having worked for the State Lottery as the director of community & and legislative affairs and with the California Public Utilities Commission.

Robert Castañeda is the best choice to become the next City Council member for Seat # 3.

The partisan squabbling over the killing of Osama bin Laden is a typical election-year distraction, effectively squelching discussion of more important matters one year after the execution of the al-Qaeda chief executive.

Aided by cable-TV talking heads, Americans are spending too much time speculating over whether presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would have given the order to get bin Laden, and also issuing paeans to President Obama’s “courage.”

While the commentators are engaged in trivialities, big foreign-policy questions are ignored.

For instance, although bin Laden is dead, his strategy of sucking the United States into bloody, expensive imperial wars in the Muslim world has worked like a charm. In a video released in 2004, bin Laden said, “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.” He compared what was happening in Afghanistan then to the previous Soviet debacle there. “We, alongside the mujahideen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.”

Ironically, President Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has bragged that he helped draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan in 1979 precisely to mire the Russians in their own “Vietnam.” That experience failed to deter President George W. Bush from blindly following in the Soviets’ footsteps; nor did it keep Obama from redoubling this futile effort, including a major expansion of drone attacks in Pakistan, which have killed at least 1,400 people since Obama took office. The U.S. government has been fighting the same people it helped fight the Soviets.

“All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,” bin Laden said.

Right he was. The Obama administration ruthlessly drone-bombs Yemen and Somalia to eradicate the “threat” from real or potential al-Qaeda affiliates in those countries. Even American officials are aware that this policy creates anti-American militants. This is not rocket science. Bomb people, and they will dislike you — and perhaps seek revenge.

Bin Laden got his wish. America’s fiscal house couldn’t be more disorderly. The debt is over $15 trillion, larger than the GDP. The Congressional Research Service says that from 2001 to 2011 the Afghan war cost $443 billion. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, and many more maimed. American deaths total more than 1,800, with well over 15,000 wounded. The number of survivors whose lives have been effectively destroyed is uncountable. And that leaves the Iraq war out of the account. Al-Qaeda wasn’t even in that country until George W. Bush invaded in 2003.

The point is that we let bin Laden take our eyes off the ball. He and al-Qaeda were creatures of American policy, though not in the sense that U.S. agents funded him or set up his organization. Rather, he turned his wrath toward America (and away from U.S.-backed Middle Eastern oppressors) as it became apparent that so much of the misery inflicted on the Muslim world had its origins in Washington, D.C.

The sources of misery include the decade-long economic sanctions on Iraq, the stationing of U.S. troops near holy places in Saudi Arabia; and the continuing subjugation of Palestinians by U.S.-backed Israel. In the absence of those and related policies, bin Laden would have had no interest in seeing U.S. territory attacked.

To be sure, bin Laden is gone. But the abominable foreign policy goes on.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

As frenzied political junkies begin to chatter about the fight for the Latino vote in November, another fight is brewing in Washington this spring. Last week, the highest court in the land heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law SB 1070.

The Court has the potential to officially condone the use of racial profiling and discrimination against Hispanics and other minorities.

The law was enacted in the name of fighting undocumented immigration, but its victims may be legal residents or, ironically, citizens–the precious voters both parties are trying to attract.

The decision, which is expected to be handed down in June, will land with a splash in the middle of the presidential campaign. It has the potential to sharpen the contrasts between a president, Barack Obama, who supports comprehensive immigration reform while setting records for deportation, and an (almost-certain) Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, who is now doing the typical candidate dance to the center to appeal to independent and moderate voters in the general election.

Most important perhaps is attracting Latinos, whom he has isolated for the past several months with anti-immigrant positions.

The Supreme Court case marks another contrast: Obama’s Department of Justice is the plaintiff in the case, having sued Arizona for usurping the role of the federal government in setting immigration laws.

Romney, for his part, has said that if he were elected one of his first actions would be withdrawing the lawsuits against Arizona and other states that have passed their own immigration laws.

Furthermore, the mastermind behind SB 1070 and other anti-immigrant state laws (like Alabama’s HB 56), Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, “informal” advisor to Romney on immigration.

Gary Segura, a professor of political science at Stanford and a principal at the polling firm Latino Decisions, thinks that regardless of the outcome of the case, SB 1070 will have political implications in both the short-term and long-term. It could be of particular benefit, he says, to Democrats.

“If SB 1070 is upheld, Latinos will be inflamed, Republicans will embrace it and Latino turnout and enthusiasm for the election will go up. If SB 1070 is struck down, largely because the president authorized the Justice Department to sue, the president gets the benefit of all of that and you can expect Republicans to denounce the Court and to say predictably awful things about Latinos. So it’s kind of good for Obama either way,” Segura says.

While some consider Obama’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform-a promise he made during his 2008 campaign-to have opened the door for laws like SB 1070, Segura argues that while Latino voters will probably make that connection, “he has the perfect comeback, which is that there is not a single Republican legislator willing to sign on to comprehensive immigration reform.”

“If the other party was reasonably competing for Latino votes, he’d [Obama] be in a lot of trouble for his inaction [on immigration reform], and the deportations, and the whole inadequacy of his handling of the issue, but he benefits, as Democrats have for generations, from comparison to this sort of xenophobic, ethnocentric, social conservative Republicans.”

That’s exactly the type of Republican the Supreme Court case is putting in the spotlight. The law the Court’s considering is championed by anti-immigrant stalwarts like Kris Kobach, who’s linked to Romney’s presidential campaign-but it would permit discrimination against the same Latino voters Romney’s now trying to win over.

Maribel Hastings, a native of Puerto Rico, is America’s Voice Senior Advisor, political commentator and columnist. Reprinted from Latinovations “La Plaza”

Commentary:
By Rodolfo F. Acuña

The fitness exercise pilates, from my limited understanding of the exercise method, works on the principle of developing “a strong core or center (tones abdominals while strengthening the back), and improving coordination and balance.” The principle fascinates me because it can be applied to almost any endeavor.

For example, when San Jose State Chicano professors approached me in 1969 with a plan to start a Mexican American Studies program at the Master of Arts level, I responded that I did not believe that a MAS graduate program could grow without a solid undergraduate degree. My thinking was that “a strong core or center” had to be developed to allow for the coordination and balance of a large program.

The core’s abdominal muscles are the masses of students. The only programs that are subsidized in the higher education are those blessed by the institution. Logical persuasion would not develop a discipline or method to educate neglected sectors of society. You needed bodies to build the core.

I have applied this principle to politics. Unless you have bundles of money such as the case of Republicans and you can buy elections, Mexican Americans and Latinos are not going to bring about changes in the political arena. A strong core is essential for coordination and balance to leverage this outcome.

The building of the political core does not depend as much on individual political activism as it does on the core, which is not built by electing Latino elected officials. You can have progressive representatives such as Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva but his power although concentrated at the core can easily be isolated by the system.

In many ways Grijalva is an aberration, elected in an island of Mexican American and white liberal constituents. Even so he has problems raising political capital and he has organized successful re-election campaigns despite the Democratic National Committee whose main purpose is keeping control of the White House.

I learned this lesson in 1996. Two years before the presidential election, we organized a highly successful anti-187, the anti-immigrant proposition, march. This was the first time that over a hundred thousand Latinos took the streets of L.A. It gave us a feeling of power and many activists wanted to replicate it in 1996 in opposition to Proposition 227, the anti-affirmative action ballot measure.

Word came down that what was important was to get Bill Clinton re-elected to the White House. The California Democratic Party then proceeded to dry up funds for the march, badly dividing community activists and Latino politicos.

We never recovered and it carried over to 1998 in the fight against 227, the proposition to eliminate bilingual education. The gigantic marches were not revived until the second half of the next decade when the core was re-energized by youth and immigrants that had been politicized by 187 and by sporadic school walkouts throughout the L.A. basin. Youth could not be channeled like community organizations and labor that looked to Latino politicos for leadership and funds.

Thus, the core never developed muscle or balance and it remained dependent of the political establishment and the media.

Based on my experience I have found the core in Arizona worse off than California. The state has been kidnapped by the Republican Party with the Democratic Party leaders concentrating on keeping the White House. The rationale is “things could really get bad if Romney gets in the White House,” which is true unless you figure that things are already bad and the White House is not doing anything about it.

The Arizona experience is a valuable case study. It explains why in Mississippi where the black population numbers over a million and makes up 37 percent of the state has only one black congressman out of four.

If the Democratic National Committee would have channeled funds into Mississippi and other southern state with sizeable black populations undoubtedly the core would be stronger.

In Arizona where almost a third of the state is Latino, only two of eight congressmen are Mexican American. The Tucson Unified School District is upwards of 60 percent Latino but has two of five board members (really one).

You would think that there would be concern on the part National Democratic Party and that it would spearhead a restructuring of the Arizona Democratic Party to reflect its presumed progressive agenda versus that of Tea Party Republicans.

But it ain’t so. The strategy of the DNC has been to support Blue Dog Democrats who have sold out on the issues of the economy, immigration and the struggle to save Mexican American Studies in Tucson. In the process, racism has become constitutional in Arizona.

The wrongheaded strategy of the past is repeated. Everything is justified if Barack Obama is re-elected. It doesn’t matter that he has been mute on the Minutemen assassination of nine year old Bresenia Flores and that his Justice Department has been mute about enforcing the U.S. Constitution vis-à-vis enforcement of desegregation orders. This, according to the DNC strategy, will be rectified by making the Arizona Democratic Party more conservative and even vote with Republicans.

According to this wrongheaded strategy, it will make Obama look more palatable to right wingers.

Consequently, the Democratic Party core in Arizona is so flabby that it stands for nothing. The failure to develop the political core of the Arizona Mexican American is glaring.

Presently, a well-qualified and intelligent candidate is running for Arizona’s First Congressional District. Wenona Baldenegro is a Harvard trained attorney. A Navajo with strong ties to the Native American and Mexican American communities, she represents the best in those groups. Instead of supporting Wenona, the national party is supporting a reactionary Blue Dog Democrat with Tea Party ties and is actively working to sabotage her candidacy by pressuring donors not to fund her campaign. Another example of the weakening of the core is the federal courts appointment of special master Willis D. Hawley to oversee the controversy over HB 2281 and the elimination of the highly successful Mexican American Studies Program. Without a core Mexican Americans have been unable to check the coopting of Hawley who knows absolutely nothing about the education of Mexican American children.

I make this criticism only after of months of patient waiting. I did not want my biases toward multi-culturists to in anyway affect the outcome. Blame my Catholic school training and its belief in redemption.

However, my fifty years in academe have hardened my opinion toward multiculturalists who range from friendly touchy feely people to arrogant academics.

Some are good scholars. They want a better society. But, many think that they know more about what is good for minorities than minorities themselves.

I have had to fight them in committees because they failed to see the necessity for Chicanos to determine their own pedagogies. Consequently, they have undermined Chicana/o and African American Studies programs because they see no need for them to build their cores.

If you want a Chicano, African American or an Asian American center, their solution is, let’s save money and throw you all into a multi-cultural center.

Self-determination is not a nationalist demand; it is the aspiration of every living person. Communities should determine their futures and the role of political parties is not to manipulate them but to strengthen them.

Perhaps if our political cores were stronger, the Democratic Party would not sell us out as in Arizona and other states.
With this said, like in the days of the Romans, we don’t have to worry. Our cores will get fat and flabby as we get free bread and circuses during Cinco de Mayo. People will celebrate it without knowing its historical message which was that Mexico was not open to foreign colonialism and that the separation of church and state was the law of the land.

But, this is too much exercise. Too much to think about. Let’s bring on the beer; enjoy the jarabe tapatio; and let the mariachis blare. Enjoy the smiling politicos and the Obamas talk about how Americans are exceptional.

El nuevo “talking point” de los republicanos hispanos al hablar de inmigración es decir que el presidente Barack Obama no cumplió su promesa de impulsar una reforma de inmigración durante el primer año de su gestión cuando los demócratas controlaban ambas cámaras del Congreso. Y lo sazonan agregando que bajo la administración Obama se han deportado más indocumentados que bajo la presidencia del republicano George W. Bush.

Siempre he criticado que el presidente Barack Obama no impulsara con más ahínco esa esquiva reforma de inmigración y que todo el capital político de los primeros dos años de su gestión, cuando realmente pueden conseguirse cosas porque los otros dos años son dedicados a la reelección, fuera absorbido por la reforma de salud que privó de oxígeno a toda una suerte de asuntos. Siempre he criticado que se use el tema de inmigración a última hora y en año electoral para dar la impresión de que se está haciendo algo aunque realmente no esté haciéndose nada. Siempre he dicho que los demócratas pudieron hacer más en ese tema, no sólo ahora con Obama sino antes en previas administraciones con la diferencia de que las anteriores, léase Bill Clinton, no hicieron ninguna promesa al respecto. He criticado también el alcance de los programas federales que han contribuido a la cifra récord de deportaciones porque mayormente han afectado no a criminales como se supone que sea, sino a padres y madres de familia. Y critico que aún bajo los nuevos lineamientos sobre deportaciones, jóvenes indocumentados que se beneficiarían del DREAM Act tengan que pelear con uñas y dientes sus potenciales deportaciones.

Pero el cinismo de algunos republicanos de criticar a Obama por no haber cumplido esa promesa de reforma no parece conocer límites.

Manipulando el comprensible descontento entre un sector de los votantes hispanos por la falta de reforma y por la alta tasa de deportaciones, estas figuras republicanas todo lo resuelven con la clásica línea de “el presidente Barack Obama rompió su promesa de reforma de inmigración” que daría risa si sus consecuencias no fueran tan serias y en muchos casos devastadoras.

Lo que no dicen es que los republicanos contribuyeron enormemente a que esa promesa no se concretara porque a la mera mención de reforma saltaban como fieras para desechar cualquier viso de movimiento. Tampoco dicen que bloquearon medidas más limitadas como el DREAM Act y que durante el debate de la medida en la Cámara Baja en diciembre de 2010, el presidente del Comité Judicial, Lamar Smith, llegó a comparar a estos jóvenes indocumentados con criminales. Es cierto que cuando la medida llegó al Senado cinco demócratas que habrían hecho la diferencia votaron en contra, pero también lo habrían hecho cinco de los 36 republicanos que se opusieron al proyecto, varios de ellos coautores de la medida original.

La pregunta para estas figuras republicanas es simple: Si Obama hubiese impulsado el proyecto de reforma migratoria, ¿los republicanos lo habrían apoyado? ¿Lo apoyan ahora? ¿Lo apoya el casi nominado presidencial republicano, Mitt Romney? La respuesta también es simple y es un rotundo no. Ni lo habrían apoyado entonces ni lo hacen ahora y Romney, quien incluso se ha atrevido a emplear el argumento de vez en cuando, no sólo no apoya esa reforma, sino que cree en el concepto de la autodeportación, que los inmigrantes, así lleven décadas viviendo en Estados Unidos, decidirán autodeportarse en algún momento antes de que ICE lo haga.

Bueno, al menos eso parece ser lo que piensa porque Bettina Inclán, la directora de alcance hispano del Comité Nacional Republicano (RNC), dijo que Romney “todavía está decidiendo cuál es su postura en inmigración”. Dios Mío. Quizá Inclán se estaba refiriendo al DREAM Act porque Romney pasó de prometer vetarlo si el proyecto se concretara y él fuera presidente, a considerar una versión republicana ahora que quiere apelar a los votantes latinos.

Ni qué decir de la cifra de deportaciones. Cada vez que escucho a un republicano hispano decir que Obama ha deportado más indocumentados que Bush, se me crispa la piel porque al final de la oración tendrían que añadir “y nos parece que no son suficientes”.

La desfachatez de criticar a alguien por no hacer algo que de todos modos usted no apoya es el colmo de la hipocresía.

Desconozco si la estrategia rendirá frutos entre algunos hispanos realmente desafectos con Obama por el tema migratorio. Pero de lo que no cabe duda es de que el barato argumento republicano equivale a predicar la moral en calzoncillos.

Maribel Hastings es asesora ejecutiva de America’s Voice.

Four years ago in 2008, community members felt that it was important to have a city attor-ney elected by a majority, to serve and be responsive to the community as an elected official. This newspaper supported that idea and Prop. Q passed with over 58% majority vote.

In 2010 Glen Googins became the first elected city attorney for Chula Vista.

Googins was not the choice of many of the same people that first proposed and supported an elected city attorney. Now, these same people are looking to change the terms of the original proposition and add on another layer of bureaucracy.
Prop C would reduce the salary of the city attorney, set term limits, and limit the authority of the city attorney. It would authorize the establishment of the office of Legislative Counsel to advise the City Council on its legislative duties and on conflict of interest issues.

The argument for this proposal starts out stating that “an elected city attorney should be a position of public service sacrificing personal gain for the public good.” While we laud this sentiment with a city council person, where there are no required qualifications to serve other than the ability to get one more vote than all other candidates, qualifications to serve as city attorney are specific and require the services an educated and qualified professional.

Salary for the city attorney is based on the medium income of city attorneys within six comparable cities. In 2008, this seemed reasonable and no circumstances have changed to warrant a compensation change.

The second change proposed by Prop C, to apply term limits, two four-year terms, is problematic at best. In the State of California, term limits have proven to be a disaster, and as such, have prompted a vote on Prop 28 that would expand on the number of years legislators can serve. We should learn from past mistakes and not hobble the city attorney with term limits. Again, the City Attorney is a professional position and when you get a good one in office, it would be counter-productive to see him leave after two terms. Accumulated wisdom is a good thing as City Attorney.

The last change proposed by Prop C is to create a Legislative Counsel, appointed by the City Council, which in effect would take some of the work away from the City Attorney and create yet another office. This change has been called for to eliminate a conflict of interest issue when complaints are filed against the City Attorney.

This Proposition doesn’t not project any cost for this new office, nor does it identify where the money would come from to pay for salaries and staffing. Before we vote on something we should have at least some idea of the cost.

In 2008 voters made their voices heard when they agreed with the terms of an elected city attorney. In 2010 once again the voters of the city made their choice for a city attorney. Let us allow this process time to work and let’s give the present city attorney a couple of terms at least before we decided the system needs fixing. To fix something that hasn’t proved itself broken doesn’t make sense.

We recommend a No Vote on Prop. C – City of Chula Vista.

Proposition 28 would change the term limits of the State Legislature to a total of 12 years in office in either the State Assembly or the State Senate. Under current term limits, politicians are limited to a total of 14 years in office—including a maximum of six years in the State Assembly and eight years in the State Senate.

When term limits were passed in 1990, voters were fed up with career politicians who through the fortune of incumbency, influence, and money were able to carve out political legacies, providing little opportunity for fresh faces and ideas. The poster child for the term limit movement was Willie Brown, who served 30 years as Assemblyman, 15 of those as Speaker of the House. Brown was undoubtedly the most powerful politician in Sacramento. Even Governors had to seek him out for support.

It was with this backdrop that the voters voted in term limits.

Now two decades later, glaring problems with term limits have persisted and they need to be addressed. These ugly problems are most pronounced whenever State Legislators try to pass a budget, which are usually extremely late and look more like piece meal plans than a meaningful, effective budgets.

We have learned that experience and trusted working relationships is a valuable commodity at the State level. At present with the constant turnover of elected officials, inexperienced politicians rise to leadership positions with little knowledge, fixed ideologies, and a lack of willingness to compromise. And due to the lack of experience and knowledge, these elected officials, now more than ever, become dependent on bureaucratic establishments and lobbyists. Lobbyists and special interests with institutional knowledge and deep pockets exert great influence over California’s state legislators. They not only help them to get elected but also are a key part in “educating” them about how to do their jobs.

Term Limits are needed, but in the present form they are not working in the best interest of voter or the state. State politics has become nothing more than a battle ground for the left and the right with neither willing to cross the proverbial line drawn in the sand. The art of compromise and working together is absent and becomes magnified during budget talks.

Term Limits need to be tweaked in order to better serve the voter and the State. Prop 28 is a step in the right direction. Something has to change because what we have now is not working.

We support a Yes Vote on Prop 28 – State of California.

Imagine that you are standing on a track, about to run toward a distant finish line. Suddenly, a wall appears between you and the finish line, and then another, and yet another after that.

Over the course of the past decade, states have raced each other to construct more and higher walls in the way of prospective voters. Last week, however, a federal court that sits one step below the Supreme Court voted to knock down one such barrier, an Arizona mandate that new registrants not just affirm their U.S. citizenship, but provide documentary proof to state elections officials. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund played a key role in litigating the case and securing this important court victory.

Voter registration should be an easy and accessible process, and most states only require a signed form where voters confirm their identity and citizenship status. Nonetheless, several states have followed the path established by Arizona when it adopted a proof of citizenship law in 2004, imposing yet another demand on citizens wishing to take part in the American political process.

It did not take long for evidence to emerge in Arizona and elsewhere that many Americans – particularly Latino U.S. citizens – simply do not have immediate or free access to proof of citizenship. Before government registration of births was a routine, universal practice, Latino families often had the least access to formal health care. As a result, Latinos are less likely than other native-born citizens to possess a state-issued birth certificate. Such individuals often cannot satisfy requirements for obtaining alternate proof of citizenship; laws like Arizona’s put them at risk of being permanently barred from voting by virtue of having been born at home.

Ostensibly designed to prevent misdeeds that rarely occur, like false impersonation of a voter, the walls that states have erected do far more to discourage active citizenship than guarantee election integrity. In Arizona, more than 31,550 voter registration applications were rejected for lack of proof of citizenship between January 2005 and fall 2007.

Though 90% of those submitting rejected applications listed the United States as their place of birth, only about one third of these individuals were ultimately successful in registering. Most or all of the remaining 20,000 voters did not fail to register because they were ineligible – instead, they were simply unable to scale the wall in Arizona because of lack of time or resources, or inability to obtain sufficient proof of their nationality.

Acquiring new proof of citizenship is never free, which means that laws like Arizona’s impose poll taxes on many aspiring voters. It has long been established, however, that it is unconstitutional to require citizens to pay to vote. States generally charge unwaivable fees for certified copies of birth certificates, and Arizona is no different in this regard. Other forms of proof carry steep costs, from $55 for a passport card which cannot be had without independent proof of citizenship to $345 for a replacement certificate of naturalization, and a whopping $600 for a certificate of citizenship issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. A significant number of Arizona’s Latino voters are naturalized citizens, and would be subject to these prohibitive fees if forced to obtain documentation of citizenship.

With 2010 Census data showing Latinos are the nation’s second largest population group (growing at a rate of 43%) in this country, now is not the time to discourage participation by those citizens who are shaping the future of American politics. A strong and vibrant democracy strengthens our nation, and it is in our collective best interest to work together to continue to tear down the walls and clear the way for every American – rich and poor, young and old, native-born and naturalized – to access the ballot box.

We are pleased to see the 9th Federal Circuit Court make a principled decision that protects and upholds the precious right to vote, and we look forward to continuing to work to eliminate voting obstacles so that all Americans are able to reach the finish line. Our organization the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund projects that 12.2 million Latinos will reach this important milestone this year, and we will be hard at work in the coming months to ensure that even more Latino voters are able to cross the finish line on November 6th.

Arturo Vargas is the Executive Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund. The organization is the nation’s leading non-partisan, non-profit organization that facilitates full Latino participation in the American political process, from citizenship to public service. Reprinted from La Plaza (http://blog.latinovations.com/)

and La Mordida

Commentary:
By Rodolfo F. Acuña

Direct forms of political control are easy to figure out. For a time, laws and police agencies can keep things together. However, most institutions and societies depend on social control to deceive people into thinking that they live in a democracy. They use processes that socialize them into believing that those in control have moral authority.

Belief systems exert a greater control on behavior than laws. For example, religion maintains control through laws.

Nevertheless, institutions such as the Catholic Church maintain control more through their moral authority than their laws. A society does not stay together for a long period of time through the use of coercive powers alone.

Historical events such as the Black Plague in the first part of the 14th Century shook the Church’s moral authority and two centuries later the Protestant Revolt ended the hegemony of Catholicism in Europe. No one can predict what effect the Church’s pedophile scandal will have. One thing for sure is that the scandal has reduced the moral authority of the Church Fathers and their interpretation of what god wants.

In the similar vein, government has suffered a loss of moral authority. This is good and bad; one thing is for sure it is leading to a divided society. Although the number of southern states passing anti-immigrant laws has grown to over a half dozen and they are flushed with emotion, it must be remembered that California and New York alone dwarf the population numbers and wealth of the red states.

Much has been written about the growth of the Latino population and its voting power. But truth be told, Latinos are growing increasingly disaffected with government and most are cynical about its fairness.

The institution that has taken the hardest hit in the past dozen years is the Supreme Court.

To put things in perspective: when I was growing up we understood that Mexico had problems, which was obvious because we were here. My relatives talked about the political and moral corruption of the Mexican government and uttered sighs of relief that we lived in the United States.

There was racism and inequality. Yet in comparison to what was happening in Mexico or what we thought was happening there, U.S. institutions appeared to be free of corruption. This was true as long as we did not read the newspapers – the radio did not carry that kind of news.

Even when it came to the sex lives of elected officials, we believed that the Mexicans were the only ones who cheated on their wives.

That is not true today. The lives of our elected officials are soap operas. The affairs of past Mexican presidents are boring in comparison to the Anglo-American versions.

My grandfather, more cynical than the rest of the family, would often correct us about our misconceptions. He would say that the gringos always did things on a grander scale. They did not take small bribes. It was only the public officials at the bottom who were regulated.

What we did not know was that what those on the top stole affected us; we just did not see it. We lived in another universe.

Thanks to cable news or better still, cable opinion, we know corruption is ubiquitous – it is at the federal, state and local levels. So much so that it seems as if all elected officials are corrupt. I would not call them whores because I don’t want to give the word a bad name.

You look at the Republican and a majority of the Democrats in Congress and they are bought – pure and simple. The entire state of Arizona has been purchased. Lady Justice is dead.

Talking to my students in general they are cynical about the courts. It was once evident that justice depended on the size of your wallet. The rich could hire rich attorneys and get away with murder. The poor especially if they were minorities were left at the whim of the court.

The Supreme Court is currently listening to arguments in Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation. If the Court rules for Arizona the decision will give legs to every racist legislator in the nation who will repeat that it (racism) is the law of the land.

They can say whatever they want but that does not make it right or less corrupt. Only the most naive and ill-informed person would make the case that Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and John Roberts are not corrupt. Well documented articles prove the same. Thomas and Scalia have family members who are feeding at the corporate trough.

I do not want to call these justices partisan – it would be giving partisanship a bad name.

Frankly, we are not going to be able to do much about Gore v. Bush (2000) that gave George W. the presidency. At the time we shrugged our shoulders and the Democrats rolled over. In Citizens United (2010), the Court delivered the presidency to corporate interests.

Now healthcare will probably be dismantled and the anti-immigrant legislation will be upheld. Racism will be legal in the United States.

When and if this happens the moral authority of the Court will be irreparable. The Supreme Court might as well be honest and set up shop on K Street.

I don’t want to sound cynical but the worst thing that could happen to you when I was growing up was que te vieran la cara de pendejo (literally meaning that they took you for a fool or a punk).

Six degrees of separation is the notion that everyone on earth is on average approximately six steps away from any other person. If this is so, we should accept that only one degree separates our justices from the Mexican border guard and his grubby mordida (kickback).

My grandfather was right – the border guard took five pesos. Our elected officials are higher paid (escorts). Who does more damage to democracy?

While there appears to be plenty of support in the white community for continuing the program of DUI checkpoints by the Escondido Police, there should be a clarification of facts regarding these suspicionless stops by police in search of drunk and/or unlicensed drivers.

First, there is no evidence that checkpoints do anything to make streets safer. There is no study that has conclusively found that DUI checkpoints are responsible in any way for the reduction of alcohol-related accidents, hit-and-run accidents, or any other type of accident. Even though officials of Escondido say that the recent reduction in accidents “may have been the result of checkpoints”, it is more wishful thinking than anything else. This statement also ignores the fact that other cities have enjoyed a similar reduction without any checkpoints.

Second, one should take note of the fact that the recent data released by California’s Office of Traffic Safety shows that while the raw number of accidents has gone down in Escondido, the same holds true for other cities, some of which hold no checkpoints or fewer checkpoints than Escondido. In fact, Escondido’s ranking went from the third worst city in accidents to second worst. In other words, despite all the checkpoints held in Escondido, they did not seem to help lower the number of accidents as much as other similarly sized cities.

Third, while there are a few studies that have found that unlicensed drivers are disproportionately responsible for more accidents, none of the studies have taken into account a community having a large immigrant population. This is important because current studies have been limited to those unlicensed persons that did not take or could not pass the exam, have accumulated too many points against their license, or have had their license revoked by a judge.

Undocumented immigrants, unable to be licensed in California, are likely to drive in a manner that does not attract attention. It would not be surprising if a study were to find that (proportionately) undocumented drivers are responsible for fewer accidents than licensed drivers.

Fourth, it should be clearly understood that a hit-and-run is a crime that occurs after an accident. This crime takes place when one of the drivers flees. It is very difficult in most cases to prosecute these drivers because a positive identification must be made on who was driving at the time of the accident. But an effective way to curb the number of hit-and-run accidents is to reduce the overall number of accidents. Hit-and-run accidents tend not be planned crimes. People will run for a variety of reasons, but the most logical way of reducing this crime is to reduce the number of accidents that precedes the criminal conduct. There are many proven strategies for accident reduction, none of which involves checkpoints.

There is a much more effective and efficient way to catch DUI drivers. Saturation patrols have proven time and again that they produce more arrests utilizing fewer officers. Stopping 1400+ cars through a checkpoint manned by 12 or more officers (all being paid overtime) that might result in a few arrests twice a month for the last six years is a clear example of government ineffectiveness and wastefulness, and an unreasonable intrusion of our freedom.

Yet with the continuing cries from the Latino community to stop the abuse, it has only recently come to light that there is reason to suspect that the City of Escondido, through these abusive checkpoints and the impounding of thousands of vehicles, that Escondido has been unlawfully doctoring their records to secure millions of dollars…all on the backs of Latinos and poor people. The ACLU is calling for an independent audit of the city’s accounts to see exactly how the monies have been collected and spent. There are laws governing how money is collected and spent by cities and indications are that Escondido has violated these laws.

There is no other reason that Escondido continuously is the center of controversy concerning their treatment of Latinos and immigrants. Perhaps this is the real reason why this city has been underperforming for so long. Perhaps this is why so many businesses choose other cities to move to. It is no mistake that Latinos and others avoid visiting, shopping or moving to Escondido. It seems that there are more than enough good reasons. Most people want to avoid supporting a local government that has a well-established record of targeting Latinos with their checkpoints, with ICE agents stationed here, and with a city council hell bent on driving Latinos out.

This past week the Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney went out on the campaign trail along with Florida Senator Marco Rubio in what could be described as a vice presidential trial run. Rubio received a warm welcome among the folks at this town hall meeting in Aston, PA. Rubio, of Cuban descent, was their number one choice as VP.

Sen. Rubio took another step along the VP trail Wednesday with a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution. At another event, he proposed a compromise version of the controversial DREAM Act for illegal immigrants, the biggest difference between his version and that of Sen. Orrin Hatch, his will not offer citizenship to the students, leaving them in a sort of limbo.

Rubio has been a Senator for only 15 months now, which gives him little national and international experience. He had served in the Florida State Senate for nine years, but he does bring three things to the Romney campaign that put him on the short list. He is a darling of the Florida Tea Party which Romney needs to court. Rubio brings youth and enthusiasm. But most importantly Rubio, who is Hispanic, generates a lot of Hispanic interest.

Would the addition of Rubio be enough to swing the Hispanic vote, or least the 35-40% they would need to win an election? That is the question the Romney and the Republican Party will have to answer.

For most Hispanics though, the Republican Party is still the anti-Hispanic party, which is dominated with politicians like Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer, the likes of Rodger Hedgecock and Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and the minutemen. There is an old saying that putting makeup on a pig doesn’t make the pig pretty. Putting a Hispanic on the Presidential ticket doesn’t change the Republican Party.

But wouldn’t it be ironic that the Republican Party which is considered anti-Hispanic would be the first Party to put a Hispanic in such a prominent position, propelling Rubio from relative obscurity to national prominence? This would be something that the Democratic Party, the Party that is supposed to be the Party of Hispanics, has failed to do, to promoting a Hispanic in such a significant manner.

It has often been discussed that the Democratic Party has taken the Hispanic vote for granted! If the Republicans continue down this road of reaching out to Hispanics, and if they temper the anti-Hispanic sentiment, the Hispanic voter could begin looking at voting for a Republican Hispanic vice presidential candidate. It will only take 35% of the Hispanic vote to swing a victory over to the Republican side.

One last note: it has been suggested that Rubio is not your typical attack dog VP candidate and that all of this grooming and elevating of Rubio to national prominence is with one eye to the 2016 Presidential race, when Rubio could run for President!

Marco Rubio es un tanto demasiado rubio para considerarse Latino. No es el color de su tez lo que lo deslatiniza, tampoco es su ascendencia ancestral, ni mucho menos su nombre. Los güeros, las personas de ascen-dencia europea y los Rubio, respectivamente, los hay desde México hasta Tierra del Fuego.

El problema de Rubio es su falta de sincronía con los ideales e intereses de comunidad latina. Su plan migratorio es una aberración a las pretensiones de miles de estudiantes indocu-mentados que llegaron a este país cuando no tenían uso de razón y no tuvieron la oportunidad de elegir entre quedarse allí o venir aquí.

“Ellos [los estudiantes indocumentados] recibirían una visa no inmigrante, renovable, que les permitiría estar legalmente en el país, a través de la cual podrían estudiar y trabajar”, comentó Rubio a una periodista de la La Opinión.
De acuerdo a su proyecto migratorio, una parte de la población de indocumentados estaría prácticamente viviendo en un lugar similar al purgatorio de la iglesia católica. Un lugar donde el individuo no sabe si esta o no está a salvo.

En este sentido, los estudiantes indocu-mentados serían culpables por pasar la frontera mexicana-norteamericana sin los trámites legales correspondientes, aunque no sufrirían la desagradable experiencia de ser deportados.

Sin embargo, la posibilidad de salir del estado de incertidumbre sería virtualmente nula, dado que el proyecto migratorio de Rubio no otorgaría residencia legal (green card), ni mucho menos permitiría la ciudadanía norteamericana.

En consecuencia, se estaría creando una clase social de indeseados dentro de la sociedad norteamericana. Es decir, una población o personas legales de segunda clase, sin derecho a la máxima fuente del civismo nacional: la ciudadanía.
Lo anterior es una contradicción palmaria a los ideales de la constitución política norte-americana y unas leyes migratorias que, a pesar de haber tenido históricamente fuertes inclinaciones hacia la intolerancia, han sido consistentes con reconocer los derechos civiles y libertades ciudadanas del individuo.

Asimismo, el proyecto de Rubio se opone claramente a la asimilación cultural o al Melting Pot. Desde el inicio de la República Norteamericana, los nuevos inmigrantes, particularmente los europeos, encontraron en el Melting Pot una fuente de integración para encontrar su Sueño Americano.

Por el contrario, el plan de Rubio tiene como meta alterar la política del país en un proceso electoral singular donde los latinos se han convertido una masa política valiosa para las pretensiones de candidatos demócratas y republicanos.
De acuerdo a los recientes estudios demográficos del Pew Research Center, los demócratas tienen una ventaja de 67% a 27% sobre los republicanos en los votos de latinos.

Pareciera mas bien que Rubio quiere ampliar su “currículum vitae” en sus pretensiones de ser nombrado compañero de Mitt Romney para las elecciones presidenciales en noviembre.

A pesar de que los republicanos necesitan el apoyo latino, el nombramiento de Rubio sería desastroso. No simplemente su figura es polarizante, sino que también adolece de experiencia y latinización.

Humberto Caspa, Ph.D., es profesor e investigador de Ecomonics On The Move. E-mail: hcletters@yahoo.com

As budget chair for the House of Representatives, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) is “The Man.” President Obama presented his budget, and Ryan has announced his. Dueling budgets. Under the Ryan budget, even if you’re part of the infamous 1%, your local services will be cut. That road expansion to bring in more trucks for new businesses? Gone. Federal funds to help expand the local airport for business or tourism – nope. Shoring up collapsing bridges and ruined roads? Wait your turn. And for the 99%, it’s slash and burn. Local job training to help those out of work, help to reduce the increased class sizes, and more rental assistance for newly unemployed? Gone.

The United States is in debt. But the question is: Will spending cuts to support our communities help bring back our nation’s financial strength? As more and more people fall into poverty, become homeless, drop out of school and face chronic illnesses without treatment, the fundamental system of a working society crumbles. The result, simply put, is less ability to contribute to the economic system, which includes paying taxes as a member of that society. Those lost taxes will make it even more difficult to make up our deficit, or bring down our debt.

Here’s an idea: Rather than focus on wounding domestic programs that help people and families, communities and businesses, let’s cut where elected officials have maneuvering room: the Pentagon budget. Each year, Congress appropriates more than half of discretionary spending to the Department of Defense, wars and nuclear weapons spending. Even without deficit reduction pressure, this overspending takes dollars away from needed domestic priorities that strengthen our economy and ensure that America can compete in the world marketplace. This isn’t making our nation more secure. As chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dempsey put it, “It makes no sense at all for us as a nation to have an extraordinarily capable military instrument of power if we are economically disadvantaged around the world.”

Also, many tax dollars going into this enormous Pentagon budget are wasted on last century’s security strategy. Over the next decade, we are slated to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a nuclear weapons arsenal built for another era.

Expanding our production of nuclear weapons and their expensive delivery systems is at odds with our efforts to constrain nuclear weapons development elsewhere in the world. These weapons are simply irrelevant to support our troops on the battlefield or to address 21st century threats.

We also seem to be addicted to consuming deficit money on wars. Nearly nine years in Iraq have been joined by more than a decade in Afghanistan, while sabre-rattling over Iran heats up. Whether measured merely in direct financial cost, or in the broader and more profound cost of lives lost and damaged, we cannot afford to be a nation perpetually at war.
Fiscal conservatives like Rep. Ryan must agree that the Pentagon, which swallows up such a large percentage of our budget, must be at least as carefully scrutinized for waste as other government programs. Right now the Pentagon does not even pass an audit to show how it spends our tax dollars.

Some supporters of the Pentagon and their contractors tout money to the Pentagon as a jobs’ program. War should never be viewed as such a program. Sensible national security jobs make sense, and no member of Congress can ignore the effect of policy decisions on jobs. Nonetheless, economists have shown that federal investments in non-military sectors — like education, health care and clean energy – -create more jobs than military spending. Let’s invest in those jobs.

Rep. Ryan, unchecked spending on the Pentagon at the expense of domestic programs that support people struggling in this economy negatively affects your own constituents, and the entire county. Let’s put this nation on reasonable footing when it comes to national security and fiscal responsibility. Let’s have sensible cuts to the Pentagon budget.

Shaer is the Executive Director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), and co-chair of Win Without War.