Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.
This is featured post 2 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.
This is featured post 3 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.
This is featured post 4 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.
This is featured post 5 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.
As Congress returns from its July 4 recess, recent events reinforced the belief that the November election will be filled with surprises. So far we have learned:
1. In certain cases, being an incumbent has not helped. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) is the latest incumbent to lose his reelection effort; however, the anti-incumbent fever may not be as strong as indicated in the media.
2. Republicans are still expected to make majors gains this fall.
3. The Republican Party is hoping the primary results in South Carolina where an African American and Indian American were nominated to represent the party in a congressional and gubernatorial race will demonstrate the party is more racially and ethnically diverse.
4. Ron Paul and Sharron Angle, Republican Senate candidates and Tea Party Favorites in Kentucky and Nevada respectively, must prove their platform will appeal to a broader audience.
5. Unions will seek to push Democrats to the left as the Tea Party is pushing Republicans to the right.
6. Democrats run the risk of alienating Hispanic voters by focusing on a punitive approach to immigration reform instead of the type of comprehensive reform promised by President Obama during his campaign.
Inglis Defeat
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) is the latest incumbent to lose his reelection bid. Inglis joins Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV), and Rep. Parker Griffin (R-AL) as incumbents who have lost primary battles. His major crime – he supported the Federal bailout of the banking industry and opposed the Iraq troop surge in 2007. Ironically, he was recently honored for his “consistent support of conservative principles on a wide range of issues” by the American Conservative Union. He has a lifetime rating of 93.4 percent with the group.
The loss by Inglis is another example of the volatility of voting patterns; however, some writers are not convinced being an incumbent is a bad thing. While anti-incumbent fever is high this election cycle, it is far too simplistic to assume anger against sitting Members of Congress is driving this election cycle. Stuart Rothenberg, a political analyst based in Washington, DC points out that 98 percent of incumbents seeking reelection has been renominated.
Anti-incumbency may be a factor in voter anger but the faltering economy is driving their anxiety. The war, growing frustration with immigration, the oil spill, and lingering uneasiness about the impact of health care reform continue to create opportunities for Republicans to exploit in their quest to recapture one or both chambers of Congress.
Republican Gains still expected to be high
Republicans are hoping voter discontent will result in major gains for their party. There are some observers holding onto the belief Republicans will regain control of both the House and Senate. However, elections are not an exact science. Much can happen between now and the election and Republicans have not fared well in the special elections held this year which they were expected to win. Additionally, the infighting within the Republican Party has not stopped. Republicans can’t seem to stop putting their feet in their mouths. The remarks by Party Chairman Michael Steele on Afghanistan created an unwelcomed amount of bad publicity for the party. It has forced prominent Republicans to distance themselves from the remarks and place a spotlight on the trials and tribulations of Steele’s tenure as party chairman.
Steele is the Republican Party’s highest profile minority who has alienated various elements of the party faithful. Due to dissatisfaction with Steele’s leadership, Republican donors have bypassed the party and have contributed to other entities such as the Republican Governors Association headed by Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi. There are some Republicans who feel Steele’s difficulties will adversely impact their efforts in November.
The Republican Party appeared poise to waltz to a landslide victory in November after the health care debate was completed and growing concerns about the deficit increasing forced Democrats to scale back some of their initiatives. The Elena Kagan nomination hearings were expected to rally the Republican base; however, her hearings were uneventful.
While Republicans are expected to make gains this fall, politics is a fickle profession and things can change very quickly. When Charlie Crist decided not to seek the Republican nomination in Florida and run as an independent, most observers predicted he would lose badly and crowned Marco Rubio the next senator from Florida. Rubio was seen as a rising star within the Republican Party and was a darling of the Tea Party. He was expected to easily defeat the Democratic nominee, Rep. Kendrick Meek. Now, Crist is poised to stun the political world and is favored to win the vacant Florida Senate seat as an independent. Assuming he wins, polls show he is comfortably ahead of both Crist and Meek, and he will likely caucus with Democrats and be a major power broker in Washington.
In Nevada, most “experts” were drafting the political obituary for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D). Polls were showing voter dissatisfaction with him which made him a primary target for Republicans to win back that seat. However, Sharron Angle’s Republican primary victory in Nevada has caused many “experts” to now believe Reid will survive his reelection bid. Angle has some within her own party suspicious that her views are in sync with voters. Angle is strongly supported by the Tea Party. She and the other Tea Party candidate, Ron Paul, seem to be avoiding “mainstream” media as much as possible to avoid too much scrutiny. Paul came under fire for suggesting the Federal government had no right to prevent private businesses from discriminating against any one and is the only Republican to support Steele’s Afghanistan remarks.
Two new stars are about to shine within the Republican Party as Nikki Haley seeks to become the first woman of Indian descent to become governor of a state. Haley is representative of a wave of individuals of Indian descent flexing their political muscle. There are at least eight individuals of Asian Indian descent seeking electoral office this year. Haley, like Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, will be prominently featured by Republicans to represent the new diversity of the party.
Joining her will be Tim Scott who defeated the late Senator Strom Thurmond’s (R-SC) son Paul in a congressional race. Scott is poised to become the first African American Congressman since J.C. Watts (R-OK) decided not to seek reelection in 2002.
Union to Flex its Muscle, Hispanic Impact Unclear
Unions were unsuccessful in defeating Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) in her primary race this year but have positioned themselves to be the “Tea Party” players of the left. They spent millions of dollars in Arkansas to defeat Blanche but more importantly sent a clear message to Democrats they will not tolerate any middle to the right democratic candidates. It will be interesting to monitor their efforts within the Democratic Party and see how it mirrors the actions of the Tea Party. The Tea Party will continue to impact the Republican strategy heading into the fall. An interesting development occurred recently when Politico reported that Ginny Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, had raised money to position herself as a bridge between the Tea Party supporters and “establishment” members of the party. This is reflects the efforts and resources advocates will expend this fall to influence the outcome of this year’s election. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is expected to spend as much $100 million to ensure Republicans win this fall.
Immigration continues to escalate into an issue which could prove detrimental to both parties. The administration has decided to sue Arizona over the law it passed which allows police to stop any one it believe might be undocumented. Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah appear close to passing similar legislation. Each of the aforementioned states is considered a conservative state and it should not surprise anyone that they would consider enacting that type of legislation. For Democrats in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, opposing that type of legislation could spell certain defeat. If the administration believes suing Arizona will compensate for not enacting comprehensive immigration reform, they could be in a for a major surprise this fall.
In Arizona, the size of the Hispanic population causes a person to assume considerable political risk by taking either a supportive or opposing position on the issue. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has historically enjoyed considerable support within the Hispanic community and has called for comprehensive immigration reform. However, since his failed run for president, he has become a hard-liner calling for deportation and stronger border enforcement. While Hispanics are as concerned about employment and the economy as other Americans, immigration is an issue which can be a determining factor for either party’s success this fall.
Observations on Hearings to Nominate Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court
The recent Supreme Court decision striking down gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park cast a spotlight on the Senate nomination hearing for Elena Kagan who is President Obama’s current nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court. The decision which stated Second Amendment rights to gun ownership extend to state and local governments can have a chilling effect on efforts to curb gun violence in many communities. It also highlights the magnitude of the decisions made by the individuals sitting on the Supreme Court.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee and then, by extension, the Senate deliberate on her nomination, there are a number of issues pertinent for housing and redevelopment professionals to understand as the debate proceeds.
Debate on Qualifications
Republicans are raising concerns about her qualifications since she has never served as a judge. They argue that her work as an attorney was mostly about policy, instead of deciding cases as a judge would. Those opposed to her confirmation will argue that Kagan is a "political activist."
Democratic supporters of the Kagan nomination will argue for Kagan to be confirmed based on her service as solicitor general. In that position, Kagan has been responsible for arguing cases before the Supreme Court. She has also served as dean of Harvard's Law School and held positions in the Clinton Administration.
The larger issue is not qualifications, it is politics. There is no requirement in the Constitution that nominees be judges. Of the 111 judges nominated since 1789, 40 did not have experience as judges (36 percent). These individuals were nominated by both Democrats and Republicans. Attacking the “qualifications” is one way opponents attack a nominee in the hopes of derailing the nomination. is the minority party’s way of trying to defeat the president’s nominee.
Debate over Judicial Philosophy
A second way of attacking a nominee is to gauge their judicial philosophy by reviewing their track record of cases. If a nominee has not been a judge, there is no track record of cases to find out how they will rule from the bench.
Because of the intense scrutiny given to the writings and decisions of a nominee, the practical result is that in order to get the nomination through the Senate, there is an incentive for presidents to choose individuals who have a similar profile to Kagan (talented lawyers and academicians, but not judges with a case record to defend). Speaking broadly, some conservatives believe that decisions of the court are limited to examining what the framers of the Constitution or legislators that enacted the law wrote and applying the terms to the facts of the particular case before them. These "strict constructionists" believe that other judges, who take a broader view of a judge's review, are “judicial activists,” and are improperly expanding the role of the judiciary.
More liberal judges assert that their role is not to just follow the text of the law but also the intent of the legislators and the reasonable inferences of the text.
As an example, “cruel and unusual punishment,” which is prohibited by the Constitution, meant one thing two hundred years ago. However, modern notions of what is “cruel” or what is “usual” have changed. What is a “speedy” trial? What does the “right to bear arms” mean as weapons get more and more sophisticated?
Moreover, it is quite difficult to amend the Constitution. If our notions of justice and equal treatment change over time (as they did with women’s suffrage and civil rights issues), or if technology advances in ways that the framers of the Constitution couldn’t possibly have anticipated (DNA evidence, for example), how should fundamental rights of U.S. citizens be decided?
On the other hand, how can judges, be they conservative or liberal, keep their political and personal opinions out of their decisions and avoid making up the law as they go along? Kagan will be asked to explain her philosophy on these issues.
Confirmation
Since Supreme Court justices serve for life, both sides recognize that the ability to nominate members of the federal judiciary is one of the most powerful aspects of a president's authority. In this particular instance, if Kagan, like Justice Stevens before her, sits on the bench until she is 90, she will be deciding cases until the year 2050.
Opponents of the Kagan nomination understand the stakes, and they are reluctant to let Kagan be confirmed without a fight. There's an old saying: "When you have the votes, you want to vote. When you don't, you want to stall." On the Kagan nomination, the Democrats want to vote.
There is not much serious doubt that Kagan will make it through the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing without a hitch. Kagan’s nomination has been supported by an array of individuals and interest groups, including former First Lady Laura Bush, 68 deans from major law schools around the country, and the American Bar Association. Unless something surprising happens, it is expected that Kagan will field the questions from the Committee, be as bland as possible, and avoid giving her opponents ammunition. Kagan will likely be confirmed by the full Senate during the month of July. Republicans will attempt to use Kagan as another example of Obama’s “socialist” agenda in the fall election.
Check back with the Blog for more information on the nomination and key legal issues facing housing professionals.
Today’s primaries in Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Kentucky and Oregon will provide a sneak peak into the level of anger directed towards incumbents by voters. Today’s results could single Federal funding for affordable housing will be more difficult to achieve in the next Congress if more conservative candidates are elected.
The primary losses of Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) to more conservative opponents reflects an anti-incumbent trend expressed in concern over too much Federal spending. Both Mollohan and Bennett were members of their chamber’s appropriations committee which placed them in prime position to ensure Federal resources were directed to their states. Each of their opponents are calling for less Federal spending.
The primary loss of Mollohan to a blue dog (conservative) Democrat, Mike Olivero, is a blow to housing advocates who could count on him as a reliable vote in support of affordable housing in his seat on the Appropriations Committee. Mollohan had a 100 percent score on affordable housing issues according to the voting report card issued by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) over the last two years.
The losses suffered by Mollohan and Bennett (the remaining candidates in the Utah race must face-off in a run off) have raised concern among incumbents. These losses, combined with the possible losses of other incumbents in the today’s primaries, sent a message to members of both parties not to take anything for granted. These losses also illustrate various elements of both parties are not happy. Bennett was considered not conservative enough while Mollohan was punished, in part, by his vote for health care reform. Mollohan has also been hounded by allegations of ethics issues. Mollohan was considered unbeatable since his father held the seat for seven terms prior to his own election.
In Arkansas, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is upset with the incumbent, Blanche Lincoln’s, opposition to a public option in the health care reform bill. They have rallied around her challenger, Lt. Governor Bill Halter. Frustrated with the failure to include a public option in the final bill, they want to send a message of dissatisfaction to the party by attacking Lincoln.
In Pennsylvania, incumbent Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) is not expected to win the Democratic nomination which would end his tenure in Congress. He was first elected as a Republican to the Senate in 1980. He switched parties in 2009 because he felt the party’s shift the right was too extreme for him. He has not been fully embraced by Pennsylvania Democrats and has been challenged by Rep. Joe Sestak. Sestak is expected to win. Both Lincoln and Specter have perfect scores in support of affordable housing according to NAHRO.
If Specter and Lincoln lose, the party’s nominees are expected to cast similar votes if elected to the Senate. However, even if Halter and Sestak win their party’s nomination, their victory in November is still in doubt. The Republican nominee in Pennsylvania, former Congressman Pat Toomey, is a formidable opponent. Because of the anti-incumbent tone of the electorate, Republicans have an excellent chance to capture the Senate seat in Arkansas. There are five individuals seeking the Republican nomination in Arkansas with Congressman John Boozman considered the favorite to win. Today’s primary will determine the Republican nominee as well.
Here are four things to look for in the final results Tuesday evening:
1. Incumbency: This is not a good year to be an incumbent. You are either going to lose or your standing will be weakened by a furious electorate. If a large number of incumbents lose or win by small margins, Congress will be reluctant to act on controversial legislation such as immigration reform before the election. Members will want to spend as much time as possible campaigning to avoid defeat in November.
2. Establishment influence: Each party is poised to see their “anointed” nominee lose today. In Pennsylvania, Specter enjoyed strong backing from the Democratic Party while Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s (KY) hand-picked candidate, Trey Grayson, could lose as well. Both parties will need to reevaluate their strategies this fall in the wake of these expected losses.
3. Tea Party: The defeat of Bill Bennett in Utah was a clear victory for the Tea Party movement. It singled that they can be major players in certain races. They have now turned their attention to Kentucky where Rand Paul is challenging Grayson for the U.S. Senate nomination in Kentucky. Paul is the son of Texas Representative Ron Paul. Paul will leading the race heading into today’s showdown; however, the Tea Party-backed candidate’s ability to win a general election will be tested in November.
4. Unions/liberals: Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln has drawn the ire of unions and liberals for her vote against the health care legislation. Each group has funneled an enormous amount of money in support of her challenger Bill Halter. Lincoln is expected to be the top voter among the Democratic candidates (businessman D.C. Morrison is the third candidate) but will not secure more than 50 percent of the votes to avoid a run-off. Unions/Liberals have also threatened conservative Democrats most notably in North Carolina for their vote against health care reform. If they can defeat Lincoln, they will be the Democrats’ version of the Tea Party and seek to push Democratic candidates to the left. This strategy might actually help Lincoln in a state that is moderate at best. If Halter wins, there is a huge risk he will be unelectable in the fall.
Tuesday’s primaries will provide another scene to the landscape called the November election. Both parties will sit on pins and needles waiting for the outcomes to be announced in the early evening.
Report Links Financial Stability Early in Life to Future Economic Prospects
A new report released by the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) reviewed data which showed that assets and financial stability have a powerful impact on the future economic prospects of children.
The report, Assets & Opportunity Special Report: The Financial Security of Households with Children, reviewed data on the net worth and asset poverty of households with children, and finds that many families are on financially shaky ground. The report stated that millions of children are growing up in families facing economic hardship. Savings and asset ownership can provide a cushion to help get families through periods of unemployment, a medical emergency or other financial shocks.
Key findings include:
• Households with children are more vulnerable to economic shocks than those without children: households with children own only 70 cents for every $1 in wealth held by all households.
• Wealth gaps by race, income and gender persist across all households, but are most significant for households with children.
• While net worth grew for most households in the years leading up to the recession, African American households and poor households with children fell further behind.
CFED called on policymakers to adopt policies in four broad areas to address the lack of financial assets and incomes of families:
1. Boost the income of families and children by expanding or enacting Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) at all levels of government; enacting the Child Tax Credit; and increasing minimum wage and unemployment insurance.
2. Encourage and incenting savings by creating Child Savings Accounts (CSA) and expanding Individual Development Accounts (IDA).
3. Eliminate disincentives to save by changing policies which require savings limits in order to be eligible for assistance.
4. Promote safe and affordable financial services by outlawing or better regulating payday lending practices and providing user-friendly financial services.
CFED is a national nonprofit based in Washington, DC dedicated to expanding economic opportunity for low-income families and communities. CFED uses a “think-do-invest” approach grounded in community practice, public policy and private markets.
This is the third in a series of articles on issues which will affect the November election. Today we look at immigration.
The decision by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to sign legislation which allows state and local law enforcement officials to detain anyone who “appears” to be in the United States illegally has thrust immigration into the forefront of the national debate. On the heels of a divisive debate on health care, immigration appears to be the next contentious issue President Obama and the Democratic Party will address this summer.
The president promised during his campaign that he would pass comprehensive immigration reform within his first year in office. Democrats, concerned about the potential to suffer significant losses this November, have decided to pursue immigration reform this year in the hope that it will motivate Hispanic voters turn out in large numbers this fall.
A report released last month states the Hispanic vote can have a dramatic effect on 40 state and congressional races in the 2010 mid-term election. The report, The Power of the Latino Vote in the 2010 Election, also states immigration will be a major issue to the Hispanic voter. According to the Census, New Mexico is 44 percent Hispanic, Texas and California each are 36 percent Hispanic. Every state with high concentrations of Hispanic voters will see registrations for the elections soar. On a national basis, Hispanic residents were 9 percent of the country's population in 1990, 12.5 percent in 2000, and over 15 percent in 2007. One of every two people added to the nation's population between 2006 and 2007 were Hispanic. While the economy, health care and education are important to members of the Hispanic community, passage of comprehensive immigration reform is considered a litmus test on how committed the president and the Democratic Party are to their concerns.
Lydia Camarillo, Vice President of the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project (SVREP) in an interview with A View from DC in March said the grassroots is very angry and feels the president has not kept his promise of enacting immigration reform which prompted many Latinos to vote for him in the fall of 2008. Camarillo said Latinos will not be satisfied with simply introduction of a bill, she says Latinos want a comprehensive bill passed.
“There are no excuses,” she said. “Democrats are in control and should be able to pass something.”
Republicans see risk and reward in immigration legislation. They believe it is an inopportune time to discuss immigration reform when the economy is the number one issue facing the country. Failing to address these economic issues, they believe, heightens their prospects this fall. However, there is the risk they will be perceived as anti-Hispanic and could alienate the fastest growing segment of the nation’s voting population.
In an editorial in the March 19 edition of the Washington Post, Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC) summarized the basic elements of comprehensive immigration reform legislation they hope will generate bipartisan support.
Their proposal will require the creation of a biometric Social Security card to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfill and strengthen the nation’s commitment to border security and interior enforcement; create a process for admitting temporary workers; and implement a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here.
Graham recently threatened to withdraw his support for reform if Democrats insist on proceeding on this issue at the expense of another key issue: climate change. The House Democratic leadership said they will move on immigration reform after they receive a Senate-passed bill. Democrats are privately saying they do not have the votes to pass a bill but are willing to make the effort and make the Republicans appear the villain when it fails.
Camarillo said Hispanics may withhold support for Democrats in the fall if immigration reform is not passed. That strategy doesn’t sit well with a long-term time advocate for immigration reform.
Arnoldo S. Torres, a political consultant based in Sacramento, California, does not believe that strategy will help.
“How is that helping their efforts,” he said. “They need to elect more progressive people in the next two to four years who will work toward passing reform. For them to say it is okay for moderate Democrats or conservative Republicans to get elected who aren’t going to vote for what they want contradicts their objective to get reform passed. It really is an empty threat and not a well thought out idea.”
He doesn’t believe many Hispanic advocates are interested in solving the problem and stopping the flow of immigrants but getting more Hispanics registered to vote for Democrats Torres was the Director of the Washington office of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) in the late seventies and early eighties and was instrumental in writing and helping to pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act (ICMA) of 1986. That was the last time Congress passed comprehensive immigration reform.
ICMA sought to address the same issues currently under debate:
1. It made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization);
2. Required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
3. Granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 ; and,
4. Granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982.
Torres said lessons from that legislation have not been learned. He said our immigration policy has never fully addressed the two key factors that influence immigration. First, there is the “push” factor. There is insufficient economic development occurring in the countries of origin of the immigrants. In his view, trade agreements open markets for US goods but keep the US markets closed to foreign products. Therefore, there are few economic opportunities in those countries to prevent migration to the US. He said the “pull” factor is the second issue not address. This is where US businesses offer work opportunities which are low-paying by US standards but are better than the prospects immigrants have in their home countries.
What is the answer?
That is hard to say. As Torres stated the Schumer-Graham proposal is a political response to a complicated issue. Without addressing the “push” factor Torres talked about, we will have this discussion again in 20 years. Plus, if politics defeats any reasonable solutions the status quo will only get worse. The response by Republican hardliners to immigration reform which includes a path to legalization is causing the party to be viewed as hostile to Hispanics. While the perception of Republicans by Hispanics is not as bad as the perception which exists in the African American community, it is heading in that direction. Republicans are not likely to increase their numbers significantly within the Hispanic community; however, more Hispanics can find comfort under their tent that African Americans.
What does this mean for housing?
The composition of the next Congress will determine the type of funding and policies affordable housing providers can expect over the next two years. A more conservative Congress is likely to reign in spending. A liberal Congress will attempt to increase funding for social programs. Immigration reform can potentially motivate Hispanic voters to participate this November and will likely vote for Democrats.
Here are a few thoughts to keep in mind:
1. Congress will take on immigration reform this year. With the signing of the Arizona law, Obama now has a call to action, a reason for taking it off the back burner and moving it to the front. Had the Arizona bill been vetoed, the urgency of reform would have been defused. Neither party is itching for this fight. This is an issue the winner can lose for winning.
2. Immigration and the economy will focus voter attention more than health care reform. As contentious as health care reform is as an issue, it pales in comparison to the historical, social and emotional weight that immigration carries. It will be divisive. Expect the debate to be heated.
3. Immigration will more strongly motivate the Republican Party base and Tea Party advocates to vote this November. Just as the Arizona law is galvanizing proponents for reform, a path to legalization or citizenship is galvanizing the Republican base and the Tea Party. For Democrats, Arizona gave them an early Christmas present. The Arizona bill is the easy get-out-the-vote cry for Hispanic voters. If the Hispanic voting population gets energized, the tea party’s electoral power will be put to the test. As reflected in the Census data cited above, there could be drastic effects in every election throughout the southwest, and enough swing voters in other areas that Congressional races could be decided on the immigration issue alone.
4. Opposition to a path to legalization is not universally opposed by some of the Republican Party’s natural constituents. For example, the US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) supports comprehensive reform which includes a path to legalization, while the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) which represents small businesses, does not. While there will be a great deal of pressure on Democrats in conservative districts, Republican lawmakers will also be under tremendous pressure from competing supporters within their party.
5. Immigration reform can be a key unifying civil rights issue for 2010. Hispanics of all backgrounds, Asians and African-Americans, each have shared experiences of racial profiling by police officers. Many police departments, to their credit, have worked hard to develop trust within these communities. If the Arizona law gains momentum in other states, that trust can evaporate and create hostilities which can adversely affect communities. Housing advocates may find different groups and new players in the public arena. There may be opportunities for coalition building, grassroots organizing and networking that simply weren't present in previous years. Stay up to date on immigration reform as this issue is debated in the near future.
This is the second in a series of articles on issues which will affect the November election. Today we look at the impact the economy will have on the election results.
As former President Bill Clinton said during the presidential campaign in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid." The economy is the only constant issue which can dramatically impact elections. In 1992, then President George Herbert Walker Bush had very high approval ratings (above 90 percent following Desert Storm). Clinton was able to use dissatisfaction with the economy as a tool to focus voter attention, and he upset the incumbent.
A grassroots movement occurred in the 1994 mid-term election and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" became the rallying point for Republicans. Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress that year. It was the first time they had control of the House in over 30 years.
In the 2008 election, it was the Democrats who had the theme. Then Senator Barack Obama ran on "change." He parlayed voter dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and a ballooning deficit into a historic victory becoming the first African-American to be elected president in the United States.
He inherited a bad economy and a huge deficit. In just over a year's time, he shepherded a stimulus package initiated by his predecessor, George W. Bush, signed into law health care reform, and is pursuing other key agenda items he feels are important to the country.
However, in spite of the administration’s efforts, the economy does not show signs of immediate recovery and voters are upset. The immediate concern is to return the unemployed to work. In testimony delivered before the Joint Economic Committee, Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said restoring the two million jobs lost during this tough economic period will take time.
While the administration has touted the most recent employment figures which indicated 162,000 new jobs were created in March. Republicans say those figures are misleading because they include temporary positions filled by the Bureau of the Census and employment due to the recovery from the February snowstorms. Unemployment still hovers near 10 percent and benefit claims are steady at approximately 450,000 weekly. This is causing some financial experts to be skeptical a full recovery is near.
Concerns about the economy and the Obama “agenda” have given rise to a grassroots movement, the Tea Party, which has energized opposition to incumbents in general, but more specifically, Democrats. Nervous Congressional Democrats, however, haven't forgotten the lessons from 1992 and '94. It is the status of the economy that determines the outcome of elections; and a grassroots movement and voter anger can affect the type of "change" that House and Senate incumbents fear in the mid-term elections.
Historically, the party of a new president loses seats in the subsequent mid-term election. The Democratic Party will not buck historical trends and win big this November. The only question facing Democrats is: how big will the losses be? Most experts expect Republicans to gain eight seats in the Senate and as many as 30 to 40 seats in the House. It is unlikely, but not improbable, for Republicans to regain control of the House, Senate or both. However, you can expect a surprise or two this fall
Whether Democrats lose big, small, or maintain the status quo, the appetite for big idea initiatives will be significantly diminished in 2011. One issue which is certainly going to be front and center leading into the fall and beyond is deficit reduction. President Obama has proposed a deficit reduction commission to explore short and long term solutions to this issue. Any proposed recommendations will be non-binding. However, it will be interesting to see what is proposed, but more importantly, what recommendations the White House and Congress will seek to implement. In his congressional testimony, Bernanke urged Congress to do more to control the Federal deficit. He has said the US economy can not sustain the deficits long term. His testimony will add pressure to Congress and the president to act.
Congress has held discussions in the past to devise strategies to control the deficit but these talks grind to a halt beyond a verbal agreement that controlling entitlement spending, specifically Medicare and Social Security, is critical to deficit reduction. No politician wants to face the wrath of citizens potentially facing cuts in benefits in the name of fiscal prudence. Any politician offering such a plan faces the real possibility of losing his or her next election.
As a result, expect gridlock in a number of arenas, particularly in the appropriations process. One of the most memorable examples of gridlock occurred in 1995 when the federal government was shut down. It could happen again in 2011. Even if it doesn't, there won't be money for housing issues unless advocates grow in effectiveness.
National Decisions, Local Impact
This raises legitimate concerns for housing and community development advocates and program providers. They are the first responders to the needs of the poor. When the economy is strong or weak, these individuals struggle to secure the resources and policies to help poor families. For example, very little has been done to help poor renters who were evicted from foreclosed properties not for failure to pay rent but due to the owners’ failure pay the mortgage.
The Congressional Black Caucus has expressed its concern to the president that poor communities, specifically the black community, have not benefited from the influx of stimulus dollars to local communities hardest hit by the economic downturn.
National decisions will have local consequences. Advocates need to keep certain points in perspective:
1. The current political and economic dynamics are not working in their favor; however, the ability to effectively manage current resources can help you leverage additional resources and different policies.
2. The health care legislation is going to increase administrative costs for all employers; therefore, plan for this increase now and factor it into the current budget as much as possible so as not to be blindsided when those costs go into effect.
3. It is unrealistic to expect significant increases in funding from the Federal government so there is a need to look outside the box for resources.
4. It is important to study and understand the impact the internet is having on business development, expansion, contractors, suppliers and the workforce. Understanding its impact is important in creating future economic development and job training initiatives.
5. Monitor local demographic changes and the analyses and assessment of their impact on your community’s economy. These demographic changes will help determine the type of economic development and job training initiatives you community and citizens will need in the future.
In order to navigate these murky economic times, it is advisable for local advocates to consider these ideas in the planning process;
1. It is important for local agencies and advocates to convey their work and contributions to the community in a concise and easy to understand language and images. Keep the message simple and easy for the listener to digest the salient points. Talk in terms of how your work is providing jobs to your community, increasing the local tax base, reducing dependency, serving kids, etc. Most people don’t care about the challenges you face or the details of your programs. They want to know their tax dollars are not being wasted.
2. Determine when it is best to play defense and when it is best to play offense when seeking Federal resources and regulatory changes. Don’t be afraid to use the current anti-Washington sentiment to advocate for greater local control.
3. Local agencies, such as public housing authorities, should explore hiring a rating agency like Standard and Poors, Fitch or Moody’s to assess your operations. These assessments can be expensive but they offer credibility and confirmation of your work.
4. Reevaluate your staff needs when an opening appears. Seek to hire individuals who do not require a lot of supervision, have great communication skills and are confident to express a fresh set of ideas.
5. Work with your professional associations to create career fairs in colleges and universities to encourage students to pursue a career with public agencies.
6. Pursue activities which can benefit both the agency and residents. For example, starting a business incubator or establishing a credit union might create opportunities to provide education, training, resources and opportunities in a non-traditional way that can be “sold” to a diverse group of policy makers and funders.
Economic downturns are platforms for innovation and growth. It is during these challenging times which offer great opportunities for local communities to challenge existing assumptions, pursue new ideas, tweak current initiatives and embrace the future. With some thought, an open mind and a willingness to make adjustments, advocates can become stronger, more efficient and more successful in meeting the needs of local communities.
10:01 AM
Julio Barreto
