The disastrous failure of discipline and leadership in deficit reduction is a driving force behind the dreadfully sluggish pace of our economic “recovery.”

I see every day how Washington’s runaway growth affects the plight of Hispanic families who continue to be hit hard in this economy. Unemployment among Hispanic workers is 10.7 percent — substantially higher than the national rate of 8.3 percent.

Read the entire piece here.

The reports have been typically sensationalistic and have driven a public scare campaign that has led to a small number of loud voices forcing supermarkets to stop carrying products containing the beef, which in turn has caused a number of beef processing plants to close down, eliminating the jobs therein.

To hear the reports, one would think that some dangerous, radioactive material has insidiously found its way into our food and has threatened consumers.  But what the media hype is missing, of course, is a sober look at the facts.

The truth is that the product in question is in fact is 100% beef that is 95% lean beef that is used to make fattier hamburger leaner and healthier.  What the product is actually called is Lean Finely Textured Beef.  And the process that makes LFTB helps reduce the potential for harmful bacteria to grow.

Just a few years ago, the Washington Post did a story about the company that pioneered the use of LFTB, praising the methods by which they were improving food safety.

But that is not as exciting, it seems, as creating a scare campaign against an approved product that has been used in billions of servings consumed in American families dining rooms as well as in restaurants.

If not were not enough, this recent bout of media hysteria is costing jobs, is driving up prices for consumers, and ultimately, could very well result in beef that is less safe.

It takes a special sort of ignorance for a news outlet to praise alleged “accomplishments” of a brutal and inhumane totalitarian regime, especially when one of the many deceptive hallmarks of such a regime is maintaining strict control over what information, location, and potential interviewees are available to international outlets like NBC.

For a terrific breakdown of this “report” check out this story over at Newsbusters.

New Dodd-Frank rule threatens major American job-creating industries

WASHINGTON, DC—The Hispanic Leadership Fund is urging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to consider economic growth and international competitiveness when drafting rules and regulations for an important piece of the Dodd-Frank Act. In a letter to the commissioners, HLF President Mario H. López explains:

Section 1504 of the Wall Street Reform legislation is intended to promote transparency and limit corruption among foreign government where U.S. companies operate, but the devil is in the details. If the SEC requires U.S. oil, gas, and mining companies to report line-item spending on a project basis, it will reveal important strategic decisions to foreign firms who are not required to disclose similar information, compromising U.S. competitiveness …

If approved, this rule will have dire consequences for U.S. oil and gas firms, which compete globally with these much larger foreign state-owned enterprises not subject to such guidelines. The rule will effectively place American companies at a significant competitive disadvantage in international markets. Foreign competitors such as Chinese, Venezuelan, and Iranian oil companies would be free to conduct business as usual while being privy to significant amounts of private data from American companies.

The entire letter is here:  HispanicLeadershipFund_SEC_Extraction_S7-42-10_27Feb12

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Hispanic Leadership Fund today released the following statement from its President Mario H. Lopez, in response to the most recent attacks on Senator Marco Rubio (FL) coming from Senator Harry Reid (NV):

“It is hard to decide where to begin with Reid and the administration’s smear campaign against Hispanic leaders who disagree with their radical Leftist agenda.  Let’s not forget that internal memos showed that Senator Reid and Democrats were guilty of backroom schemes against the judicial appointment of Miguel Estrada, specifically because he was a Hispanic appointee.  This latest coordinated smear campaign is comes at a time when Reid and his cohorts are attacking First Amendment rights of religious freedom, increasing government dependency, and obstructing every effort at job creation.  Hispanics are the hardest hit victims of President Obama’s and Harry Reid’s destruction of the American economy, so it is no wonder why they are eager to change the subject.”

Federal Court Set to Take Up Landmark Election Law Case

HLF Defends First Amendment Freedoms in Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C.–Following the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision permitting the Hispanic Leadership Fund to intervene as a defendant in U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission challenging the Federal Election Commission’s donor disclosure rules, the federal court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday, January 11, 2012.

Hispanic Leadership Fund President Mario H. Lopez said, “We are glad that the Hispanic Leadership Fund can be at the forefront of protecting the First Amendment rights of our members and all who seek to inform the American public about political candidates and their positions on issues.  We will continue to oppose liberal attempts to force federal courts to impose rules restricting free speech. ”

In April of last year, after Congress failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which aimed to counter the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which determined that corporations, including non-profits like the Hispanic Leadership Fund, have a constitutional right to engage in independent expenditures.  The FEC declined to impose similar free speech restrictions through additional regulations.  Van Hollen then filed this lawsuit as a last resort attempt to push courts to impose DISCLOSE Act-style regulations on groups that exercise their First Amendment rights.

“This case exposes the Left’s version of government: they want to force the FEC to unilaterally impose rules that the Supreme Court has already rejected and that twice failed in Congress,” said Lopez.  “Because we spread the message of free enterprise, economic opportunity, and prosperity, the Hispanic Leadership Fund and our rapidly growing number of supporters represent a threat to those in power who want to impose Big Government controls on Americans’ liberties, increase damaging government dependency, and severely hinder our ability to communicate our message.”

In the fall of 2010, the Hispanic Leadership Fund paid for an electioneering communication mentioning a candidate for Congress in a Florida congressional district.  Had the rules that Van Hollen advocates been in place at the time, HLF’s speech could have been chilled due to concerns about the disclosure of donors.  In the filings in this case, Van Hollen makes clear that he wants the ability to attack donors to groups funding ads, saying in a sworn declaration that he suffered injury, “because I cannot draw attention to the person or persons who finance electioneering communications about me. . . .”    It is very clear that Van Hollen seeks these disclosures so that he can discourage outside speakers from exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

As a result of tomorrow’s hearing, the district court decision could be issued just as the 2012 election cycle heats up.  the decision will have a major impact on the rights of groups’ to speak under the First Amendment.

Jason Torchinsky, partner at Holtzman Vogel PLLC and counsel to Hispanic Leadership Fund, said, “This is a very important case because it could impact the donor disclosure rules for any organizations looking to spend money during the 2012 election cycle.  In a post-Citizens United world, liberals continue to try to undermine existing rules regarding donor disclosure.”

###

But is that what really happens in practice?  The reality is that a lot of regulation is confusing, messy, unpredictable, hurts consumers, and can ead to costly litigation against both private-sector companies and the regulating agencies.

A classic case of this is the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) impenetrably complicated rules for how phone calls are switched between telephone networks and the vast array of telecommunications service providers, known as “inter-carrier compensation” regulations.  The FCC recently attempted to “reform” these regulations, but the resulting “rules of the road” are far from clear.

In October, we submitted a joint letter (with a prominent consumer organization) to the Federal Communication Commission making a simple request: to clarify regulations dealing with the fees on pre-paid calling cards, which had never been properly articulated, and which have resulted in costly and unnecessary litigation between phone companies and long-distance calling card companies.

Specifically, since 2006, it had been unclear whether access charges, fees charged to cards that feature a non-local number users must dial in order to then make their call, could also apply to locally-dialed access numbers.  This is an issue that affects millions of consumers of these cards, which are extremely popular with Latino consumers.

From our letter:

The outcome of this issue will have an immediate and significant impact on calling card consumers, many of whom are amongst our nation’s most economically-challenged consumers.  The cost of calls originating when a consumer calls a local access number and lower than they would be otherwise.  Collectively, these savings add up to billions of minutes.  Applying access charges to prepaid calling cards with locally-dialed access numbers will mean that consumers will have to pay tens of millions of dollars more in additional costs.

Unfortunately, the FCC failed to clarify this and other matters, which a variety of companies and other parties see as forcing them into litigation in order to gain clarity into these old and byzantine regulations (particularly true in the telecommunications industry).

Instead of rules of the road, we get litigation between rival firms, and between businesses and the government.  And instead of consumer benefits, consumers of calling card users are likely to face unnecessary higher costs.

The FCC has two incoming commissioners, and we hope that they will help move the commission to take these matters more seriously, helping consumers avoid the costs of both needless regulation and needless litigation.

The Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce recently broke with the state chamber and announced its public support, while National Federation of Independent Business released a poll showing plurality of small business owners support the plan.  Penny Shafer, chair of the Miami Chamber, underscored the collateral benefits and increasing tourism that would result from the enactment of the resorts.   The Chamber clearly understands that a potential $6 billion investment in the area and enticing millions of new visitors to Florida will stimulate the private sector, revitalize the job market, and bring relief to hard-hit areas of the state.

In addition, the Associated Builders and Contractors, Florida Carpenters Regional Council, Florida Concrete & Products Association, Hollywood Limousine, and the Florida Retired Workers Association have expressed their support for the benefits that the resorts may bring, addressing the economic needs of the state.

The growing support for the resorts by these business groups stands in contrast to others who have expressed opposition:  Disney (which we’ve written about before), the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Florida Retail Federation (FRF) and the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association (FRLA).

Three years ago, both the FRF and FRLA praised the economic benefits the Seminole compact.  More recently, however, they each strongly denounced destination resorts.  Hard Rock International sits on the FRF board of directors and is owned by the Seminole tribe, which presides over a monopoly on the state’s gaming.  In addition, the Seminole Hard Rock has seats on the boards of the Broward and Hillsborough FRLA.

While there may be reasons to their opposition beyond board involvement, none of the opposing groups have put forward any proposal that holds as much promise for growing employment and the economy as the destination resorts.   As taxpayers and policymakers across the state dig more into the issue, they would be wise to focus on concrete measures that focus on creating jobs and economic growth in the region.

Outdated existing regulations have restricted new capital from entering the market and curtailed the implementation of cutting-edge technologies.

Read the piece here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Hispanic Leadership Fund today released a letter from its President Mario H. Lopez, to Walgreens CEO Gregory Wasson, expressing concern over the ongoing dispute.

At a critical time in our nation’s history, millions of patients, including many in underserved communities, are in danger of having health care choices severely affected by the dispute, which has also negatively impacted Walgreens itself.

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. Wasson,

I am writing to respectfully request that you weigh the negative consequences of severing your relationship with Express Scripts and that you reconsider the decision to end Walgreens low cost prescription drug program.

As the largest drug store chain in America, Walgreens is in a unique position to affect significantly a wide variety of communities.  Walgreens position has served its customers well, providing convenient access to important medications for millions of Americans in both affluent and struggling communities. That access is especially important in Hispanic areas, which are traditionally underserved.

Severing your relationship with Express Scripts and their customers would needlessly disenfranchise a large segment of the public from critical health care options.  If you follow-through with your plan to stop accepting Express Scripts prescription drug coverage, there may be significant harm to underserved individuals and families across the country.

From our perspective, it would seem that Walgreens, and its customers and shareholders, all have much to gain from negotiating a mutually beneficial agreement with Express Scripts.

I thank you in advance for your consideration of these concerns.

 

Sincerely,

/s/

Mario H. Lopez