The National Hispanic Leadership Agenda has given Senator Russ Feingold a 100% rating for his votes on six key issues affecting Hispanics during the 2003-2004 Congressional session. In addition to the immigration issues discussed last night, he has consistently fought for the well-being of Hispanic voters who work hard and play by the rules.
Below, I will discuss each of the six votes and discuss some of the other work he has done for the Hispanic community. Winning this group over is important if we wish to win the West in 2008, as this was a region which trended Blue in the last election.
2004 Budget, March 26th 2003: This budget cut back funding for Hispanic education and other programs. In addition, administration officials, during the election campaign, touted programs that they had cut funding for, lying to the Hispanic voters about their concern for their welfare. For instance:
Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years.
The administration also announced recently that it was providing $11.6 million to the states so they could buy defibrillators to save the lives of heart attack victims. But Mr. Bush had proposed cutting the budget for such devices by 82 percent, to $2 million from $10.9 million.
Whether they involve programs Mr. Bush supported or not, the grant announcements illustrate how the administration blends politics and policy, blurring the distinction between official business and campaign-related activities.
This was also the budget which included the notorious Bush Tax Cut.
Among other things, the 2004 Bush budget:
–Cut Small Business Administration funding. Many Hispanic immigrants do not work for farms at low wages, but have the skills to start their own business. Over 1 million have done so. Bush’s budget cuts have forced more to work at farms for sub-minimum wages.
–Bush broke a promise to fund $9.4 billion for education; many Hispanics do not have a diploma or GED.
–Bush froze the funding for ESL programs even though non-English speakers are a rapidly growing group.
Here is Feingold’s discussion of the budget:
This budget resolution is a prescription for fiscal disaster. The tax cut and spending policies it provides are grossly irresponsible. The budget enforcement rules included in the resolution are no better. Instead of extending the budget rules that have helped impose some fiscal restraint on Congress and the White House since 1990, this resolution rips a $1.5 trillion loophole in them for this year, and opens the door for unlimited fiscal mischief in future years.
Over the 11 years covered by this document, from FY 2003 through FY 2013, the budget resolution produces annual deficits that by themselves would cause concern in any one year. In total, their effect is far worse. The additional debt run up over the 11 years covered by this resolution is an absolutely astounding $4.5 trillion. It will be extremely difficult to recover from this budget resolution. As we have seen, our economy is resilient, but the damage done by this resolution will be with us for many years.
The question we must now ask is who will pay for all of this? As the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman famously said, “there is no free lunch.” Someone will be stuck with the credit card tab this budget runs up. The answer is that our children and grandchildren will have to pay for all of this. The tax cuts and spending increases we pass today will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. That is precisely the tradeoff this budget makes. Tax cuts and increased spending for us, and our kids will have to pay the bill.
Feingold voted against this budget and also voted for an amendment on September 3rd, 2003 which would have restored funding for Hispanic programs to the budget.
Immigrant Health Care, June 26th, 2003: Feingold voted against an amendment sponsored by Jeff Sessions which would have prohibited states from granting funding for legal, pregnant immigrants and children. This was a very irresponsible amendment which is typical of the right wing’s attempt to control women and their bodies.
I suggest that race and xenophobia is at the bottom of this irresponsible amendment as well. This blatant power play is just one more proof that the right is not really concerned with the welfare of the fetus; they are concerned with controlling the woman’s body.
2005 Budget, March 12th 2004: Feingold voted against this budget, which further cut funding for the programs listed above.
The House resolution would provide a modest increase over FY04 levels; however, spending levels for programs including Head Start, job training, some child care funding, housing programs, as well as several other programs that serve low-income families would be cut due to a cap the resolution places on discretionary spending. The measure would also result in cuts as high as $2.2 billion from entitlement programs, which would likely result in cuts for Medicaid. An amount of $138 billion in new tax cuts over the next five years would also be assumed in the House budget resolution.
This is typical doublethink from the right — First they demand that welfare recipients work, and then they cut the tools necessary for people to go to work. And then, when they get fired, they right blames the welfare recipients for not working hard enough or other such nonsense.
Snowe/Dodd Childcare amendment, March 30th 2004: This amendment to the TANF bill provided $6 billion in funds to help welfare recipients get daycare for their children so they can keep their jobs. Latinos consist of 26% of welfare recipients. Feingold voted for this amendment.
Carolyn Wylie for the Children’s Defense Fund explains the need for this amendment:
By imposing increased work requirements, without adequate child care funding, states will be forced to make even deeper cuts in child care programs that will have profound effects on low-income families. These effects will be as extreme for many families as forcing them to choose between leaving their jobs and leaving their children in unsafe environments. It is unacceptable to put families in that position – we must not force families to make a choice between employment and the safety or well-being of their children. Federal policy should safeguard both the long-term self-sufficiency and employment of parents and the well-being of their children. Work requirements become punitive and counterproductive when there is inadequate child care funding to assist families in meeting those requirements, especially for single parents with children under six who are required by H.R. 240 to double their hours worked from twenty to forty hours per week.
The right oversimplifies the problem of welfare recipients; they are frequently caught in a catch-22: They can’t get a job because they don’t have the money to pay a baby-sitter. And they can’t hire a baby-sitter because they don’t have a job so they can get the money to pay the baby-sitter.
And here are the direct consequence of the Bush budget cuts to Hispanics welfare recipients and others:
Jacksonville, FL–“Kelli Gunter, a single mom who works full time, has been looking for help with day care for her son, Keilan. Gunter told Channel 4’s Jim Piggot that she’s doing all she can to keep off welfare, but she keeps getting turned down for child-care assistance…Funding for day care has not increased for the city since 2001…`More people are living here, more people are needing support with child care, but the dollars have remained the same,’ said Linda Lanier, the [Jacksonville Children’s] commision’s executive director.”–News4Jax.com, January 5, 2004
Arizona–“Parents of nearly 8,000 children on a waiting list for help with child-care costs are making tough choices about what to do with their kids while they’re at work. One in 11 families is leaving children home alone,…other parents are putting 9- and 11-year olds in charge of younger siblings,…A third of families had to change their work hours, and nearly one out of eight had to quit jobs because of the high costs of child care.”–The Arizona Republic, January 14, 2004
Internet tax non-discrimination act, April 29th 2004: Supported by Feingold, this bill banned Internet access taxes by any federal, state, or local authority. Only 32% of Hispanics have Internet access according to the Hispanic Leadership Agenda, compared to 70% of Whites; such a tax would have made those numbers even lower.
In addition to these votes, here are some other positions and actions by Feingold in fighting for Hispanics:
–Voted for the filibuster of extremist judge Miguel Estrada, despite the smear campaign of three right-wing Hispanic businessmen claiming to represent the Hispanic community. They claimed Feingold was being racist by opposing Estrada. Two national Hispanic groups repudiated their smear campaign.
—Fought against predatory lending practices in low-income Hispanic communities.
–Opposes “English-only” legislation for schools.
–In other education issues:
On education, Feingold says he supports legislation that would allow undocumented children who have lived in the U.S. for a significant period of time to obtain legal status and give them the opportunity to attend college. In addition, he supports bilingual education, parent assistance programs, and early college awareness programs for low-income youths.
Feingold has shown a consistent pattern of helping the Hispanic community far above and beyond the six votes mentioned in this diary. I challange anybody else to show me that their candidate has done more.
