21st Century Agenda for America

Within one week of taking office, President Obama has dispelled any doubts on whether he’s serious about tackling climate change. His stimulus plan will direct greater tax and spending subsidies to climate-friendly technologies and fuels over the next 18 months than the Bush administration did over the last eight years, and the federal government will offer itself as a model by bringing federal facilities up to the “Gold Leeds” energy-efficiency standard. Moreover, his EPA will let states that as yet are politically more climate-sensitive than Washington, including California and a dozen others, set more stringent CO2 emissions standards than the federal versions. And other climate-friendly laws and regulations are on their way, including higher federal fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks.

Sound as these steps generally are, they leave undone the hard work that climate scientists agree must be done – namely, to put in place a policy to embed the cost of carbon in the price of everything our businesses and households use, especially that electrical power which mostly still depends on the most carbon-intensive fuel we have, coal. And there’s a good reason why President Obama isn’t starting with this step, even though it’s the most important one: Making people pay more for carbon-intensive energy and the products and services produced with it means that, well, people have to pay more – and people don’t like that, especially in very hard economic times. And the inconvenient truth is, those are only the beginning of the costs to contain climate change, since retrofitting our factories, offices, homes and our power systems for less carbon-intensive and energy-intensive technologies and materials will cost everyone, well, a lot more than the stimulus package. To his credit, President Obama corrected one of his rivals for the nomination who tried to claim that we could beat climate change at little cost. And there is some other good news here: The costs to redo our lives around more climate-friendly fuels and technologies can be spread over two generations – and paying those costs will save much of planet for our grandchildren.

The current hard economic times hopefully will focus more of the climate change debate on how to contain those costs, both the direct costs to people and businesses and the indirect ones through the larger effects of these policies on the economy. And if we don’t figure that out, any systemic reform that doesn’t contain those costs may not survive long enough to make a difference. Here is where a real divide opens between the two main options for embedding the price of carbon, a cap-and-trade system and carbon-based taxes. On the direct costs, a tax-based system has the advantage: You can tax energy based on its carbon content, and then turn around and return the revenues to everybody through payroll tax cuts or simple disbursement to every household. Cap and trade could do something of the same thing by auctioning off its permits to generate greenhouse gases and then using those proceeds for tax cuts. But so far, every cap-and-trade plan either gives away its permits (businesses wouldn’t have it any other way) or uses the auction revenues to pay for other climate-friendly initiatives. In either case, cap-and-trade leaves everyone’s incomes lower, a pretty nasty outcome for most of us.

Another inconvenient truth here is that carbon-based taxes also have the advantage on indirect costs. The great asset of cap and trade is that it applies an actual cap to CO2 emissions. But whenever demand for the energy that produces those emissions is greater than had been expected when the cap was set – for example, because the summer is hotter than expected, the winter is colder, or the economy grows faster than anticipated – demand will hit the cap, and prices will spike for both the permits and the energy that underlies them. Adding a new layer of national price volatility in energy prices, on top of what we already have to bear from international forces, would be another nasty outcome.

Carbon-based taxes have their own problems. They don’t involve a set, annual cap on greenhouse gases, so keeping us on a safe emissions path would probably entail adjusting the level of the tax on a pretty regular basis. And the prospect of enacting a large, new tax and then choosing what offsetting taxes to cut could itself easily turn into a nasty piece of political business. It’s no wonder that President Obama isn’t eager to referee this fight. Of course, the public’s faith that of all of our national leaders, he alone is best equipped to drive and guide our responses to daunting challenges is also the main reason he’s the president today.

Steve Lohr has a very worthwhile story in the NYTimes today taking a hard look at the true economic legacy of FDR.  Titled "F.D.R's Example Offers Obama Cautionary Lessons, " it begins:

In 1933, as today, a new president stepped into the White House,
vowing change and decisive action at a time when a banking crisis posed
a grave threat to the nation’s economy.

The economic morass that confronted Franklin D. Roosevelt 76 years ago was undeniably deeper and more ominous than the trouble President Obama
is facing. Yet, according to economists and historians, there are also
some telling similarities and cautionary lessons to be drawn from the
experience of the Roosevelt years in the 1930s.

Roosevelt had his triumphs. He stemmed panic and stabilized the
banking system with a combination of deposit insurance, government
investment in banks, restrictions on banking practices and his
“fireside chat” radio addresses, which repeatedly steadied the national
mood and bought Roosevelt time to make changes.

Still, even after the government assistance, the surviving banks
were shaken and lending remained anemic — much as the nation’s banks
today are reluctant to make loans again, despite receiving more than
$300 billion of taxpayers’ money in Round 1 of the federal banking
bailout.

So, throughout the 1930s, economic recovery remained frustratingly
elusive and arrived only with the buildup for World War II in the 1940s.

The shorthand verdict on Roosevelt, economists and historians say,
is that he was an eloquent and skillful politician, and an innovator in
jobs programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and in regulatory
steps like the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission to
police Wall Street. But Roosevelt, they say, while brilliant in many
ways, did not have a sure grasp of how to guide the economy as a whole.

“Roosevelt had some successes, but we hope that Obama is going to do
better,” said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard. “Otherwise, we’re in trouble.” 

I've been a little suprised that so much of the discussion in recent months on FDR's legacy has focused on his first 100 days, or some of the jobs programs which had marginal impact on the economy at the time.  A truer read of his legacy would show that America remained in an economic slow down until we went to war; that perhaps his most lasting legacy was not domestic but international, in defeating fascism and in fashioning a new liberal international order that has kept the world peaceful and prosperous for 60 years; and that of all of this was done over time, a long time - the FDR-Truman Administrations were in power for 20 years. 

As I wrote in a recent essay, Progress Not Motion, those in power now have to start coming to terms with the most challenging part of the FDR legacy - the unpleasant reality that solving the great challenges in front of us will certainly take more than the 2 years before the next election and the 4 years before the President's reelection.   There is a very real chance that the economy will still be in recession in 2010, and even 2012.  To me what this means is that our leaders need to stop raising expectations that things will get better quickly; to stop suggesting that there is no time to waste; to resist short term fixes that will not hasten the transition of America into the new economy of the 21st century.   As our new President said in his Inaugural speech last week this is a time for us to act responsibly, which means many things but certainly it means that we cannot confuse motion and progress in these vital days ahead.  It is more important at this critical time for our leaders to be right than fast - and to make it clear to the American people that the messes left behind by our recent era of terrible leadership will take many years, a lot of money, a great deal of effort and a lot of patience to fix. 

Below you'll find a summary of our articles related to immigration this week.   

Immigration Remains Top Priority For Hispanics, Evidence of Bipartisan Support for Reform on Al Punto yesterday.

Why DHS Fees are So Unjust - GAO Study Finds DHS Did Not Adhere to Federal Accounting Standards and Principles.

Simon Discusses How the Meaning of Race in America is Changing

NDN and Twelve-hundred other groups delivered a letter to the Obama Administration outlining priorities in order to fix the broken immigration system - The letter stresses the urgency with which the new Administration should approach immigration reform legislatively and administratively, noting that efforts to address the many ills facing our immigration system have become the victim of gridlock in Washington for too long.

Hispanics and Immigration Reform Must be a Part of the Economic Agenda - A recent study on minorities and the economic crisis shows: 1) Hispanics are currently suffering a percent of unemployment much higher than that of their white counterparts, 9.2% in January, up from 8.9% unemployment in December 2008.  2) Even during a period of employment gains enjoyed by Hispanics from 2001-2007, poverty increased among Hispanics over the same period, which only highlights the low wages at which Hispanics tend to work. 3) Personal and family income has steadily declined for Hispanics.  4) Large disparities in health insurance coverage also persist.  In 2007, 32.1% of Hispanics lacked health insurance coverage, compared to 10.4% of whites.  5) Additionally, Hispanic home ownership rate was only 49.7% for Hispanics in 2007, compared to 75.2% for whites. 

NDN Participates in Pre-inaugural Day Events - Simon and Andres addressed approximately 100 Latino organizers, community leaders, and individuals interested in increasing the civic participation of Latinos from approximately 20 different states.  Subsequently, Simon spoke at the "Latino State of the Union" conference, where he highlighted the importance of immigration reform as an essential part of any plan for economic recovery, "As long as the trap door of undocumented immigration remains, with 5% of the American workforce outside of the protection of U.S. law and U.S. minimum wage, we will not be able to achieve economic recovery." 

NDN Praises U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller for offering amendment to help legal immigrant children. 

A Race to the Bottom, A Broken Immigration System Has a Social and Economic Cost, too - According to a report just released by the Migration Policy institute, although the U.S. economy's nosedive has probably contributed to a drop in the number of undocumented immigrants coming into the United States, those already here will be less inclined to return home due to the manifestation of the economic crisis in the U.S. and abroad.

Victory for Nashville - It's always good to hear good news on the immigration front - Props to all those Nashville, TN voters and organizers who voted down an "English-only" amendment. 

Yesterday, Al Punto, the Sunday morning political show on Univision - the network with the largest Hispanic viewership in the U.S. - featured the issue of immigration once again, as it does each week in one way or another.  Immigration features prominently on the Spanish-language newscast each evening, and during Al Punto's interviews every Sunday because it is an issue that remains a top concern for Latinos, and to Americans in general.  

Yesterday's show highlighted the bipartisan support that can be drawn on the issue of immigration.  The first segment consisted of an interview with U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez and U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to discuss their opinion of President Barack Obama's agenda coming into office.  Rep. Sanchez quickly named immigration reform as one of the top three issues she believes President Obama should move on first (along with the economy and the war in Iraq).  She mentioned that she has already spoken with White House staff to discuss how to move on immigration this year, and reiterated her belief that immigration reform is imperative in order to help the economy and secure our borders.  For her part, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen was more skeptical about reform passing this year, although she recognized that President Obama is in a great position to launch reform because "the American people are on his side" - polling data has consistently shown that the American people want a solution to the broken immigration system - and that the popularity enjoyed by President Obama would certainly help efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform.  It's noteworthy that Rep. Ros-Lehtinen stated that while she might not agree on many issues with President Obama, she is on his side when it comes to immigration reform and would work with Rep. Sanchez and others in order to pass comprehensive immigration reform. 

The show's third segment consisted of an interview with U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid.  Jorge Ramos began the interview by asking, "Barack Obama promised the Latino community that he would move comprehensive immigration reform within his first year, is there the political will to do this in the first year?"  The questions denote the sense of urgency for reform felt among Latinos.  Reid pointed out that in addition to addressing interior and exterior enforcement, future flow, path to citizenship, etc., any bill for comprehensive (CIR) would also include the Dream Act.  This is great news, but Jorge Ramos pressed on, "As you know, this is very important for the Hispanic community; when will CIR pass?"  Sen. Reid answered, "I hope that we can get it done in September, and I feel confident that we can get this done.  I've spoken with John McCain," and "Sen. McCain has reiterated his commitment to providing Republican support," for the legislation.  It's interesting that Sen. Reid noted, "Now we're 59 Democrats, and we need 60 votes," alluding to the new political landscape in the Senate, a landscape that requires less Republican votes for the bill than was required when legislation for immigration reform was presented in 2007.  Now if we can only make sure all Democrats share the President's view and the Democratic platform for immigration reform.....Ramos ended the interview by thanking Sen. Reid and reiterating, "And we'll be checking in with you on the progress of immigration reform." 

New York City -- As the economic recovery and investment package backed by the Administration works its way through Congress and more evidence about the nature of this recession surfaces, an interesting exercise is to think about how we want to emerge once it is over.  In the midst of current economic turmoil, it may seem difficult to imagine the post-recovery world, let alone accurately predict it. Nonetheless, starting with an outcome and working backwards to a policy prescription is far preferable to policy based purely on the passions of the moment. Following are my thoughts on the world I would like to see in 2012 and the resulting implications for current policy.

First, by 2012, I certainly hope that a robust recovery is well underway. But to do that, we need to get through the pain now and resist any temptation to drag things out. In the years of true laissez faire before modern management of the economy, the typical business cycle ran about 3 to 4 years from top to trough.  The United States entered recessions in 1893, 1896, 1900, 1903, 1907, 1910 and 1914, for example, with this pattern continuing through 1931. Modern economic policy combined with changes in the economy have tamed and extended the business cycle so that we have been averaging nine-year expansions interrupted by quick, shallow recessions. However, the Japanese example of the 1990s shows that policy can extend a slowdown if a country is unable to take its licks quickly and then move on. We don't want a Japanese-style lost decade. So a top priority is to face up to our problems now to clear the decks for the future.

Second, a recession of this depth virtually guarantees a strong expansion coming out.  However, it is important that we lay the groundwork for an expansion that has three qualities.  The expansion should create new high paid jobs, it should be broad-based, benefiting every income segment and region of the country and it should contribute to our long-term productivity. The fact is not all expansions are alike. And the recent Bush expansion failed on all these counts. Lacking any science or technology component, it left tract houses and debt instruments but no new industries to speak of.  It benefited a small group at the top while the lower 80 percent of Americans saw their incomes actually drop.  And it made precious few investments in our future productivity. In contrast, the 1980s expansion created the personal computer industry and the 1990s expansion the Internet --both dominated by U.S. firms. The 1990s built our broadband network on which much of our future productivity depends and raised middle class incomes. Both created great new American companies. So in 2012, I would like to see a recovery underway that is innovative, broad-based and long term.

Finally, in 2012, I would like to see the United States on a path toward environmental and climate sustainability. As the global population continues to explode, we can no longer take our earth's health for granted. The consequences of ignoring the health of the earth are simply too dire to leave to chance and the negative consequences of pollution and climate change could easily eat up and make a mockery of the benefits of the next expansion.

So what are the implications for current policy?

First, we need to act decisively, but intelligently, to put this recession behind us. The stimulus package is not a cure-all, but it will help restore liquidity to the economy. The key here is to pass it quickly rather than haggling over details. The greatest task is probably to revamp and refashion the clumsy TARP program into a multi-pronged policy to restore the health of the financial sector. The government needs to help banks clear their books of non-performing loans.  While new classes of bad assets are emerging daily, the largest class -- as evidenced by the financial strength of banks who resisted their allure -- remain the mortgage-backed securities and structured investment vehicles that started the crisis. The government should corral these, buy them up and then sell them off to investors. If the investors profit as did those who bought real estate from the Resolution Trust Company in the 1990s, so much the better. In turn, the government should also create a new US mortgage with a stable, 5.25% interest rate to create the basis for secure, affordable homeownership in years ahead. A comprehensive effort, building on Paul Volcker's recent report, needs to begin to update our financial regulatory regime to prevent another crisis of this nature. And we need to dramatically strengthen the rights of the consumer of financial services. It is shocking that the financial services industry -- with billions of taxpayers' money in its hands and pockets --is at this moment lobbying against consumer protection. The gutting of usury regulation, credit and consumer reporting legislation, fairness in lending and other post-war consumer protections by banking lobbyists in recent years clearly played a major role in the crisis.

Second, we need to ensure that the next recovery is broad based. The answer here involves investing in education, middle-class tax relief and our infrastructure to ensure that everyone benefits from the next expansion. 

Third, we need to ensure that the next economy bolsters the long-term productivity of the United States. That means investing in science and technology to power innovation from which new industry must come, investing in greening our economy to cut energy costs and investing in new infrastructure such as a smarter electrical grid, mass transit and greener buildings to make our people more productive. The stimulus bill is an important down payment on the investments we need. However, by its very nature the stimulus bill is designed to get as much money out the door as quickly as possible. This means it cannot --in its current form -- be expected to make all the long term investments we need. 

Finally, we need to make the energy investments and policy changes needed to restore our climate to health. Many of the green elements of the economic recovery and investment package that we at NDN began proposing last summer will help in this regard -- from greening the federal government to providing tax credits for saving energy to investing in mass transit. However, the Administration also needs to move forward on comprehensive energy legislation and a cap and trade system so that we can take a leadership role in global negotiations next year in Copenhagen.

As I often argued in the 1990s and dicussed in my book, The Coming American Renaissance, and as National Economic Council chairman, Larry Summers, said this weekend on Meet the Press, America's greatest days lie ahead of us. I am convinced that America will emerge from the current crisis stronger and that the years from 2012 to 2016 and beyond can be among America's greatest.

To do that, however, we need to make the right decisions today to power the next round of prosperity.  Cleaning up our financial sector, investing in our people and investing in new clean technologies and infrastructure are the way not only to get our economy back on track, but also to clear the decks for the the next great wave of economic growth.

We knew there was something very wrong with the new fee schedule released in Summer of 2007, now GAO explains why these fees, in fact, have no basis.   

In February 2007, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) completed a study to determine the full costs of its operations and the level at which application fees should be set to recover those costs.  Based on its analysis, in June 2007 USCIS's new fee schedule increased the cost of some applications by over 300%!  For e.g., the cost of applying for Legal Permanent Resident status went from around $300 to $675 ($595 plus an $80 biometric fee) - and that does not include the cost of hiring a lawyer to assist throughout the application process, which most immigrants can't afford (and people wonder why immigrants fall out of status).  The cost of applying for citizenship went from around $192 plus a few additional fees, to $460, plus additional exams and fees.

This GAO report, released today, to investigate USCIS fee review found that the costing methodology USCIS used to develop the fees for each application type did not consistently adhere to federal accounting standards and principles and other guidance (surprise surprise).  The GAO reports:

While federal accounting standards allow flexibility for agencies to develop managerial cost accounting practices that are suited to their needs, they also provide certain specific guidance based on sound accounting concepts. USCIS's methodology was not consistent with federal accounting standards and principles and other guidance in the following aspects: (1) costs paid by other federal entities on behalf of USCIS were not included in its estimates of costs, (2) key assumptions and methods used for allocation of costs to activities and types of applications were not sufficiently justified, (3) assumptions about staff time spent on various activities were not supported by documented rationale or analysis, (4) the cost of premium processing services was not determined, and (5) documentation of the processes and procedures was not sufficient to ensure consistent and accurate implementation of the methodology.

Over 1,200 advocacy and non-profit organizations, including NDN, delivered a letter to the Obama Administration outlining priorities in order to fix the broken immigration system.  The letter stresses the urgency with which the new Administration should approach immigration reform legislatively and administratively, noting that efforts to address the many ills facing our immigration system have become the victim of gridlock in Washington for too long.

"Over the last eight years, immigrants and their families, employers and workers alike, have suffered from our nation's inability to find common ground on the issue of immigration reform," states the letter, which was signed by groups in 39 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

Noting the President's background and the new era his presidency signals, the letter says, "As the son of a Kenyan national and a woman from Kansas, you validate the American dream and we believe that your victory represents a triumph for tolerance and hope."

While we hope the Administration acts swiftly to address the most egregious problems with the enforcement practices and last minute regulatory changes of the previous Administration, there is only so much President Obama and his team can do on their own.

"While President Obama can address some matters administratively, ultimately the President must propose and the Congress must enact meaningful, broad immigration reform to bring order to the current chaos," said Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum. "Reform that is fair, respects the rights of immigrants and non-immigrants, strengthens our economy, reduces the black market, and gets immigrants and employers playing by one set of enforceable rules should be the goal.  We know what needs to be done, now we have to summon the political will and focus the President's political muscle on making it happen."

"The urgency for reform cannot be overstated," the letter says.  "Unless and until we recalibrate our policies, all Americans' rights will be at risk, our communities will be divided and the power of our nation's fundamental principle of E Pluribus Unum compromised."

The letter, delivered late last week to the President's transition team, is part of a broad effort to bring together immigrants, advocacy and civil rights organizations, faith leaders, employers, trade associations, and labor unions in an effort to enact immigration reform as quickly as possible.

"In the 2008 elections, immigrant voters and their families turned out across the nation in unprecedented numbers. They were inspired by your message, including your commitment to a comprehensive reform of our nation's immigration system. The reform challenge is formidable, but so is our resolve," the letter states.

For the full text of the letter and list of signatory organizations, click here.

Reports from the Pew Hispanic Center and others, released at the end of 2008, show disturbing data on the impact of the economic crisis on minorities, and I hope Tim Geithner is up to speed on this information and keeps minorities in mind as he helps map the course for economic recovery.  We hope Geithner's confirmation hearings over the next few days will pass to a speedy confirmation so that he can get to the business of governing "for all Americans," along with President Obama.

Data show that minority workers have fewer employment opportunities, lower wages, or both as compared to their white counterparts. As a result, they tend to have lower incomes and slower income growth.  And because minorities are less well suited than white families to save and build an economic cushion, hard economic times place them in tougher conditions sooner than is the case for white families.

Hispanics are currently suffering a percent of unemployment much higher than that of their white counterparts, 9.2% in January, up from 8.9% unemployment in December 2008.  In addition, the unemployment rate for Hispanics rose faster than for any other group, increasing by 3.1% from December of 2007-December of 2008, while the unemployment rate for whites rose by 2.1% and for blacks, 2.9%.

Even during a period of employment gains enjoyed by Hispanics from 2001-2007, poverty increased among Hispanics over the same period, which only highlights the low wages at which Hispanics tend to work. In 2007, 8.2 percent of whites lived below the poverty line, up from 5.4 percent in 2000, but well below the 21.5 percent of Hispanics who lived below the poverty line in 2007.

Lastly, personal and family income has steadily declined for Hispanics.  From 2001-2007, family incomes for whites were about 30 percent greater than for Hispanics and that gap has increased over time.  Hispanics' median family income declined by an average of 0.5 percent per year from 2000, the last full year before the last recession started, to 2007, the last year for which data are available, falling to $38,679 from $39,935, or by a total of $1,256 (in 2007 dollars). In comparison, whites' median family income fell at a much lower rate of just 0.003 percent per year, for a total decline of $12 between 2000 and 2007, to $54,920 from $54,932 (in 2007 dollars).

Large disparities in health insurance coverage also persist.  In 2007, 32.1% of Hispanics lacked health insurance coverage, compared to 10.4% of whites.

Additionally, Hispanic home ownership rate was only 49.7% for Hispanics in 2007, compared to 75.2% for whites.  While the annual average increase of homeownership was greater among Hispanics, many were also victims of bad-actor lending companies and they ended up purchasing high-cost mortgages, as opposed to market rate mortgages.  Nearly 29% of home purchase loans made to Hispanics in 2007 were high cost, as opposed to only 11% for whites.

We encourage Secretary Geithner and President Obama to show courage and leadership in developing an economic stimulus and economic recovery that addresses these discrepancies and includes financial literacy for minorities.  In addition, we encourage President Obama to take the lead on fixing our broken immigration system in order to help stem this economic crisis.  As long as the trap door of undocumented immigration remains, we will not be able to achieve economic recovery.  It is vital that Congress and the Administration realize that as long as we continue the race to the bottom fostered by our broken immigration system, we will not achieve economic recovery.

Ulan Bator, Mongolia -- I'd rather be spending this week in Washington, celebrating with friends and my country the politically and spiritually invigorating elevation of Barack Obama to our presidency. These feelings lie very close to the heart of patriotism, and they are an exquisite pleasure to feel again without reserve.

Instead, I find myself in one of the coldest places on earth, Mongolia's capital city of Ulan Bator, giving advice on the process of economic and social modernization. On the way, I stopped off in Beijing, where the extravagant new bones of that ancient city, from the Olympic Village to the new Ritz Carlton on Financial Street (no joke), have the signature taint of the very recent time when money was no object, prosperity seemed unending, and architectural glitz was the national emblem of conspicuous consumption. Here in Mongolia, a country perched atop huge mineral deposits, people are adjusting with difficulty to the end of ballooning commodity prices and an accompanying overconfidence that led to tax and regulatory changes for extracting as much as imaginable from the foreign mining companies developing the resources. Now that those prices have sunk, those changes could force the companies to pull up stakes from Mongolia and head for Africa's mineral deposits. So the global crisis leaves Mongolia wrestling with how to give up its most recent hopes for itself and settle for a slower route to modernization that will cost a lot more.

On this wondrous day of the inauguration of a serious, intelligent and deep-valued person -- all things relatively new for us and for the world to be looking to us again -- the question is how rude our own awakening will be. Like the Mongolians with their mineral deposits, President Obama has enormous resources. And much as the Mongolians could squander their assets by holding fast to a narrow-minded view that doesn't take into account new conditions, we could squander our own historic moment of extraordinary unity of purpose and faith in our new leader's capacities.

To avoid this trap, we all have to recognize not only the real nature of our deep and dangerous economic and geopolitical problems, but also the pitfalls in our own system that could divert our new leadership from the tasks history will ultimately remember them for.

President Obama's signature governing act in his first year will almost certainly be the paths he charts for the $350 billion bailout fund and the trillion dollar stimulus. The pitfall for both is politics-as-usual, while the path to meaningful, productive change will rest on transparency, accountability, and innovation. The change we need here is an end to giving the most well-connected financial institutions and interest groups whatever they ask for. The change we need for both the bailout and the stimulus are openness about who gets what and under what conditions; accountability that requires those who receive bounties from the taxpayers to actually use them for those taxpayers' benefit, by extending more credit and advancing a 21st century economy and society; and innovations that can address the underlying forces driving our problems, especially the rising foreclosure rates for the financial crisis and the stagnation of incomes that laid part of the foundation for the current Great Recession.

The other pitfall for our new president and the rest of us to begin to think about is the hangover that will hit us from the extraordinary steps we're being forced to take now. Several years of deficits topping $1 trillion, on top of what looks to be a doubling of our monetary base over just six to eight months, could ultimately produce the greatest underground, domestic inflationary pressures in more than a half-century. Moreover, they are likely to come to the surface a few years from now, just as our boomers' demands on government spending begin to add up exponentially. This could create an acute financing crisis for American government, on top of rising inflation, and the second economic crisis of the Obama presidency. Recalling John Kennedy, what we can do for our country is to be prepared to support serious entitlement reforms that will mean less for all of us and even, yes, new taxes on top of it.

But today, wherever we are, let's celebrate our own good judgment and good fortune in Barack Obama.

Washington, D.C. - Today, Simon and Andres will address approximately 100 Latino organizers, community leaders, and individuals interested in increasing the civic participation of Latinos from approximately 20 different states. 

It is most fitting that Simon and Andres begin the day's program, reflecting on Latino vote in 2008.  NDN's most significant accomplishment has been our advocacy for what we have called the "new politics."  For years NDN has made the case that a new politics was emerging in America, driven by three major changes: 1) the emergence of a new governing agenda and priorities, 2) the emergence of a whole new media and technology construct that was fundamentally changing the way we communicate and advocate, and 3) the emergence of a new American people, one very different from the demographic makeup of the U.S. in previous decades.  As part of this third pillar of the new politics, NDN has made the case to progressives and those on the center-left that for us to succeed as a 21st century movement, we must involve Hispanics and encourage Latino participation in politics. 

This day-long event is intended to serve as one major step to ensure that Hispanics continue to build on the momentum built by their participation in the 2008 elections, and engage civically.  Panelists are experts in the areas of political organizing, media strategy, and advocacy.  Attendees are coming to this pre-Inauguration event from AZ, CA, CO, D.C., FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, MA, MD, NV, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, PR, TX, VA.

LATINO POLITICAL TRAINING DAY
Más que nuestro voto: The New Latino Movement

Saturday, January 17, 2009
8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
National Council of La Raza Headquarters
Raul Yzaguirre Building, Washington, D.C.
1126 16th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

Honorary Co-Hosts

Rep. Xavier Becerra & Rep. Linda Sanchez

Schedule & Speakers
8:30-9:30 a.m.  Registration. Continental breakfast. Activity on challenges facing the Latino community.

9:30 a.m. Official Opening & Welcome Remarks

9:35-10:35 a.m.  Reflection on 2008 Election

Simon Rosenberg, President of NDN
Andres Ramirez, Vice President for Hispanic Programs at NDN
Temo Figueroa, Obama campaign Latino Vote Director

10:35-11:35 a.m. Political Fundraising

Gabriela Lemus, Director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Regina Montoya, Poder PAC member, previous congressional candidate in 200, and previous chief executive of the New America Alliance

11:35 a.m.-12:35 p.m. Media Outreach

Estuardo Rodríguez, Raben Group
Fabiola Rodríguez-Ciampoli, Rep. Xavier Becerra Communications Director and former Hispanic Communications Director for Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign

12:35- 1:50 p.m. Lunch and Conversation with Latino Leaders

Moderator: Adolfo Gonzales, Ed.D., National City Police Chief
Mireya Falcon, Mayor, Achichilco, Hidalgo, Mexico
Delia Garcia, Kansas State Representative
Victor Ramirez, Maryland State Assembly
Emma Violand-Sanchez, Arlington County School Board

2:00-3:00 p.m. Advocacy/Lobbying

Sam Jammal, MALDEF
Larry Gonzalez, Raben Group
Alma Marquez, Green Dot Public Schools

3:00-4:00 p.m. Community Organizing
Introduction: Dario Collado, Harvard University Latino Leadership Initiative
Marshall Ganz, Harvard Professor and designer of "Camp Obama" organizing strategies for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.
Jeremy Byrd, former Ohio General Election Director, Barack Obama's Campaign for Change
Carlos Odio, Deputy Latino Vote Director, Obama for America

4:15-5:00 p.m. Regional Break out sessions

Participants will break into groups based on their geographic region to reflect on lessons learned during the course of the training, key issues to address, and next steps.

5:15 p.m. Closing Remarks

Melody Gonzales, New Latino Movement Committee Chair

Stephanie Valencia, Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs, Presidential Transition Team and Deputy Latino Vote Director, Obama for America