Hispanic Americans. The term is used broadly in this country, but it relates to an ever increasing class of people who come from different places and different cultures. Some come from Mexico, some come from Cuba, and yet others come from Latin America. Is there any difference, socially, culturally and politically? Is one section of this diverse community more deserving, or more desirable than another? If so, which one, and why?

Let’s take a look at the differences between the Hispanic/Latino Americans, and perhaps the conclusion will become obvious. Demographically, Hispanics and Latinos make up 16.3% of the population of North America, or a total of 50.5 million individuals. This makes them the second largest ethnic group, after non-Hispanic White Americans (which are themselves composed of dozens of sub-groups). Hispanics and Latinos share a long heritage with White Americans, dating back to the 1565 founding of St. Augustine, Florida, by the Spanish, and near the end of the 16th century in settlements in New Mexico.

The terms ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’ also denote very little difference in the ethnicity of those involved, as the term ‘Hispanic’ is preferred in the east of the country, while the term ‘Latino’ is preferred in the west. The highest number of Hispanic Americans originate from Mexico (almost 32 million) followed by Puerto Ricans (just over 4.5 million) with Cubans ranking at less than 2 million.

Politically, Hispanic Americans appear to prefer the Democrats, with 57% of individuals supporting that party, whereas only 23% identify as Republicans. The Democrat supporters are mainly Mexican, Puerto Rican and Dominican Hispanics, and the Cuban and Colombian Hispanics are mainly in favor of conservative politics.  

Economically, Hispanic Americans are generally in a lower bracket when it comes to average wages. Cuban Americans boast the highest income, with an average of $38,733 and Dominican and Mexican Americans have the lowest, at around $28,000. Puerto Ricans and Central and South Americans recorded incomes in the median, but overall Hispanics tend to be lower paid than White Americans.

The figures would seem to suggest that Mexican and Cuban Americans enjoy slightly more status than the rest of this diverse mix of cultures, but perhaps it would be fair to say that all Hispanics are somewhat less well off than their white counterparts. Those who do not wish to self deport due to this inconsistency should take the time to voice their opinions in the upcoming elections, and demand equality from the society that prides itself on freedom and democracy for all, not just those who happen to be ‘more equal than others’.

POST COMMENTS BELOW

Just how fair is fair? Trickle-down economics, whether championed by Republicans or damned by Democrats, has good and bad elements, but is there any better way in a democracy?

Since the 1980’s, and even well before, there has been a substantial attitudinal divide in the USA concerning the distribution of wealth, and the responsibility of those with extreme wealth to give something back. Both Democrats and Republicans have struggled with policies regarding this important social issue, but have their rhetoric had any real effect? Have policies and ideologies such as ‘Reaganomics’ done anything to equalize the spread of wealth in this, the Land of the Free?

The ‘trickle-down’ economics theory states that tax breaks for the wealthy will ultimately benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole. This assumed conclusion was reached by the argument that if the top earners in our society were taxed less, it would free up more funds for them to invest into business infrastructure and equity markets, which in turn would lead to more affordable goods and more jobs for the middle and lower classes.

While this may seem like a workable theory, it relies on a moral ethic, and does not take into account the fact that the ‘super rich’ may decide to simply accumulate money, and keep it somewhere where it may not be so highly taxed. Standard tactics would include the use of Swiss bank accounts, and hedge fund managers whose job it is to creatively use this money to simply make more money via short selling and other questionable investment strategies. Gordon Gekko – the fictional Wall Street mogul – summed up the general consensus shared by the incredibly wealthy with his catchphrase “greed is good”. Perhaps now, with a global financial crisis at hand, it’s time to ask what went wrong with these policies. Could our society, with the benefit of hindsight, do something to alleviate the stress placed upon the world economy by such laissez-faire attitudes?

The concept of fair taxes has often been at the forefront for both Republicans and Democrats when election time rolls around every four years, but the voices raised in protest at ‘unequal taxes’, from both sides of the fence, suggest that the taxation system itself needs to be closely examined. While it would seem correct to say that everyone must pay their fair share, who is to say what, in fact, is fair? To state that the ‘super rich’ must pay an extra burden for their good fortune may seem more fair to some than it does to others, but in reality, our system of capitalistic democracy has opened the way for a ‘greed is good’ attitude to flourish.

The individuals who have put these policies in place cannot be blamed for their ultimate success or failure. The voting public are responsible for allowing these policies to be brought to bear, and the ‘super rich’ are bound by the rules of our society, as is everyone else. Democracy – the right for everyone to live according to the same set of rules – is a double edged sword, and one we must abide by, whichever side of that sword we happen to have fallen upon. Human nature will always be what it is. Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

POST COMMENTS BELOW

As the lead-up to the presidential elections gets into gear, now is a good time to reflect on the policies of the major parties concerning employment in our country. All the major players, be they Democrats, Republicans, conservatives or liberals, have their own ideas about who should be responsible for job creation in the United States.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment fell 0.6% over the course of 2011, with 1.9 million jobs added by private enterprise.  Over the same period, the government sector showed a slight decrease of 280,000 jobs.

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has lambasted the Obama government for rejecting the Keystone XL Project, the creation of an oil pipeline extension between Canada and the United States, which purportedly would have created a minimum of 20,000 jobs. Given that, Boehner has used various bills that have nothing to do with employment as a part of his “forgotten 15”, a series of bills linked to job creation that have allegedly been ignored by the Democrat led Senate, even though they have passed the Republican led House.

Republican Eric Cantor has made no secret of his affiliation with the Tea Party and their general stance that private enterprise is the way of the future for job creation in the United States.

Senate Minority Leader and Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell has taken the interesting political tack of calling for an immediate vote in the Senate on the Obama government’s $447 billion dollar Jobs Bill. This has been touted by various commentators as a political stunt in an attempt to expose divisions amongst Democrats, a move which might have had more credibility if it had not simply been added as an amendment to an unrelated currency bill. Senator McConnell rejected a bid by Democrats Majority Leader Harry Reid to vote on the jobs package separately to the currency bill without going through the usual series of procedural hurdles.

It seems that the question of jobs creation in the United States is being used as a political football by both major parties. Surely it is the responsibility of both the government and private enterprise to ensure that the American people are not left out in the cold when it comes to employment. The wealth of the nation lies in its people, and the ongoing health of the nation is decided by its people’s ability to survive and prosper. This would seem to be the overall point of democracy – a point which, in the struggle for political power, is often overlooked.

POST COMMENTS BELOW

The 2012 presidential elections are fast approaching, and now more than ever, it’s time for the Hispanic community to stand up and be counted. As with any form of democratic process, the importance of being heard is paramount, and while it may seem that a single voice is just a drop in the ocean, without this voice – your voice – the odds begin to stack in favor of those who do choose to speak out.

The policies of both major parties need to be dissected, as they differ substantially depending on the issue that each policy focuses on. For the Hispanic community, the big issues can be broken down into several major lines of policy. These are immigration, education, and employment.

The question of immigration is most important, particularly when the policies of both major parties diverge so drastically. GOP candidate Newt Gingrich has recently come under fire from his own party for suggesting a ‘humane’ approach to the question of illegal immigrants, as opposed to the standard policy of expulsion for all illegals. This policy option runs contrary to the grain of traditionally conservative party elements, and already there is talk of doors opening for alternative candidates to step into the breach left by Gingrich’s ‘soft’ approach to this issue.

The Democrats have made their position clear on the issue of immigration by strongly opposing GOP hopeful candidate Mitt Romney’s ‘draconian’ agenda to expel all non-documented immigrants without exception, though this has been regarded by some sections of the media as a Democrat grab for the Hispanic vote.

The major parties also have varied views on their education policies. As for spending, the Republicans, if they control both the legislature and the gubernatorial chairs, will elect to divert funds into poorer areas, without actually increasing spending, whereas the Democrats are in favor of increasing funding to both poorer and wealthier schools. Republican policies on this issue tend to be the most conservative, but also the most egalitarian, and in these times of economic crisis, conservative sensibilities seem to make some sense, whereas wild promises of spending may seem attractive to the average American, but spending sprees always need to be paid for, and the way this is ultimately achieved is by raising taxes – an issue which almost all Americans would agree is not a sensible idea.

Employment policies are also the subject of intense debate by both the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans “Jobs Through Growth Act” and the Democrats “American Jobs Act” differ substantially. The Los Angeles Times, in an article dated October 11, 2011 has put forward the view that the Democrat’s American Jobs Act would ‘raise economic demand and boost employment’ whereas the Republican’s Jobs Through Growth Act would do little more than ‘protect corporate profits’. It seems that a Democrat plan to provide 35 billion dollars to states and municipalities to retain schoolteachers, fire fighters and police officers was doomed to failure, as it relied on a half a percent tax to be funded by those with an annual income of over 1 million dollars.

The Hispanic community is vital to the outcome of the next presidential election, and it is their duties to remain informed and, most importantly, vote. Don’t let ignorance or apathy take hold in your community. Spread the word. Register to vote and have your say for the good of your community and your country.

POST COMMENTS BELOW