During his election campaign Joe Biden promised a strong investment package to revamp the US economy, whose focuses were on rebuilding infrastructure, energy reconversion, helping businesses and families to resume activities in the post-pandemic context, and the expansion of social assistance to help the poorest families. Considering that most of the population of Latin origin is at the base of the social pyramid, such measures had great repercussions among this portion of voters.

The Biden administration has introduced a series of laws related to his campaign platform known as “Build Back Better Plan”. The initiative involves the following aspects we summarize below:

a) “The American Rescue Plan”: approved by Congress on March 11th, 2021, the project guaranteed resources for the rescue of families and businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic. In short, Single people making less than $75,000, heads of household making less than $112,500, and married couples filing jointly making less than $150,000 qualify for stimulus checks. People making up to $80,000 will receive partial payments. unemployment benefits until September 6 with a weekly supplemental benefit of $300 on top of the regular $400 benefit. The first $10,200 of unemployment benefits will be tax-free for people with incomes less than $150,000; will provide emergency grants, lending, and investment to hard-hit small businesses so they can rehire and retain workers and purchase the health and sanitation equipment they need to keep workers safe also includes a Small Business Opportunity Fund to provide growth capital to main street small businesses in economically disadvantaged areas, including minority-owned businesses; among other measures.

b) “The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs”: approved by Congress on November 5th, 2021. This project aims to increase public investments to renovate US infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, railroads, airports, ports, sanitation, electricity generation and distribution, expansion and improving the quality of broadband Internet access, etc. It also foresees investments to revamp the country’s industrial base and supply chains, supporting the construction of advanced manufacturing.

c) “The American Families Plan/The Build Back Better Act”: this bill, whose name coincides with the name of the broader Initiative, was rejected by Congress, especially by votes from two Democratic senators. The project foresaw increased investments in improving the supply of public services, such as early childhood education, basic education, assistance for the elderly and disabled, tax cuts for lower-income families, etc. The project also provided for strong investments in the clean energy sector, encouraging energy conversion and a long-term commitment to zero carbon dioxide emission.

It is interesting to note that the part of Biden's project that deals with expanding social assistance, tackling climate change and the green economy are very sensitive topics for the population of Latino/Hispanic origin. In previous editions of this weekly analysis, we referred to these themes and how they impact the lives of this population, and is equally important to debate a new approach to immigration and voting rights. 

According to Erik Reinert “[…] …since its founding fathers, the United States has always been torn between two traditions, the activist policies of Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) and Thomas Jefferson’s (1743–1826) maxim that ‘the government that governs least, governs best’. With time and usual American pragmatism, this rivalry has been resolved by putting the Jeffersonians in charge of the rhetoric and the Hamiltonians in charge of policy”. As Reinert points out, the intellectual traditions of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton continue to polarize US society until now. Hence, the issues of State intervention in the economy and social assistance to the poorest are extremely controversial.

Portions of the population, even those who are likely to benefit from measures such as universal access to health, free day care, housing or education subsidies, are doctrinally opposed to greater State participation and greater taxation on the richest strata of the population society. It is possible to mention that part of public opinion is influenced by millionaire campaigns sponsored by ultra-liberal organizations, such as the Charles Koch Foundation, Heritage, Catho, Atlas Network, among others. However, there are historical issues related to the characteristics of English colonization in North America that partially explain the aversion to the State and political centralization.

The northern colonies of the United States were formed by families that fled the repression of the English monarchy because of the faith they professed, and most had to bear the costs of the sea voyage out of their own pockets. During the 17th century, social institutions such as churches, schools, and universities were built from the efforts of communities. Even actions and conquests against native peoples were undertaken with little support from the English State. Historical research may relativize this information, but this social “myth” is rooted in the stereotype of the “self-made man”, a recurring figure in the social consciousness of the American population and an element duly exploited by political currents that are averse to greater State intervention in the economy and society. Author Ayn Rand's 1957 novel “Atlas Shrugged” explores this myth and extols the role of the wealthy in the fight against state regulation.

On the opposite side, when thinking about the adoption of policies in favor of greater state interventionism and greater social assistance to the poor, one almost automatically refers to the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, such as the names of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the traditions of the New Deal, social democracy, Marxism, feminism or environmentalism. Furthermore, in this case, it is necessary to consider the historical experience to rescue other contributions, such as populism and social evangelism. The first influence dates back to Andrew Jackson, who in 1832 stated that “it is regrettable that the rich and powerful often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes”. Another important “populist” influence was that of William Jennings Bryan who in 1896, during his first attempt to be elected President of the United States, advocated an expansionary monetary policy based on silver, progressive taxation and the nationalization of the railroads. Such proposals echoed loudly among small farmers, especially in the South of the United States. 

It is also necessary to consider the role of local churches in helping the most vulnerable families, a role that gradually extended to the State from the beginning of the 20th century due to the growing demand for assistance that occurred with rapid industrialization and urbanization. Unlike the Calvinist current, which defends individualism and predestination, churches such as the Catholic and Methodist value charity and solidarity with the poorest. Especially the latter is engaged in the so-called movement known as “social evangelism”, which sought to improve the living conditions of the poor and miserable through the application of biblical principles of charity and justice. 

The Salvation Army, derived from the Methodist movement, played an important role during the Great Depression when it organized campaigns to feed unemployed workers. In this sense, the policies that followed Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal were, in part, a consequence of these populist and religious movements, and not just the influence of Keynesianism or European social democracy. See here the history of the implementation of the social welfare state from the Roosevelt Administration. 

The polarization between these two positions regarding the role of the State is contributing to the inertia of the political structure of the United States and generating a lot of frustration among voters from both sides in disputes, as the majority proposals of the Republican and Democratic Parties are blocked by the lack of consensus – or in its absence, for the lack of a clear majority that can guarantee the approval of its projects. The failure of the Biden administration to pass the sections dealing with the Build Back Better environmental and social package reflects this problem, since, on the one hand, Democrats demand to increased public spending and taxes on the richest, Republicans defend the tax cuts and the shrinking of the State.

Interestingly, the Latino/Hispanic community also divides into opposing field, with the more affluent groups in South Miami and the Rio Grande Valley, Texas, opposing Joe Biden's initiative. The increase in Latino support for the Republican Party was discussed here.

In that news, we called attention to the issue of conservative values, notably the issue of family protection, and also to the fear of job losses in the oil and gas sector, as in the case of the state of Texas, due to a decarbonization of the energy sources in the United States, something that also impacts West Virginia, a major coal producer and the electoral stronghold of Senator Joe Manchin.

We can summarize the position of this group with the statement by Daniel Garza, chairman of The LIBRE Initiative regarding the defeat of Build Back Better in the Senate, on January 19th, 2022: “As we have been saying for months, this massive government overspending will result in job loss, stagnant wages and make inflation worse for millions of Americans – including many in the Hispanic community who are struggling to find work and provide for their families. We applaud Sen. Joe Manchin for understanding these concerns and rejecting calls to grow the size of government while adding to our country’s debt. (…) But we are under no illusion that this is the end of the line for policymakers determined to ram through elements of an extreme far left agenda. LIBRE is committed to continuing to educate our country’s growing Latino community about the perils of growing government dependency, overspending and running up our national debt.” 

On the other hand, it is worth citing a text written by Congressman Juan Vargas (D-CA) defending his position in favor of the Joe Biden project and how the project would impact the lives of Latino communities: “In November, I joined my Democratic colleagues in the House and voted for the Build Back Better Act. Build Back Better makes historic investments in Latino communities. It is a win for Latinos that will create jobs, boost our economy, and invest in hardworking people across our country. With these transformative investments in health care, childcare, and affordable housing, we could better the lives of nearly every Latino. The Build Back Better Act includes a $390 million investment to lower child care costs and expand access to free preschool for children. In my district, the lack of access to affordable preschool affects countless families; nationwide, only 59 percent of Latino children are enrolled in preschool programs. Getting more kids into school and learning from an early age will only benefit our nation’s next generation. Build Back Better also ensures that most working families will pay no more than 7 percent of their income on childcare. As a result, parents can rest easy knowing their child is safe while staying employed, having more money in their pockets to help their families and invest in our growing economy.”

In November, I joined my fellow Democrats in the House and voted for the Build Back Better Act. The bill proposes making historic investments in Latino communities. It's a win for Latinos who will create jobs, boost our economy and invest in hardworking people across the country. With these transformative investments in healthcare, childcare, and affordable housing, we could improve the lives of nearly every Latino… The Build Back Better Act includes a $390 million investment to reduce child care costs and expand access to free preschool for children. In my district, the lack of access to affordable preschool affects countless families; nationwide, only 59% of Latino children are enrolled in preschool programs. Putting more children in school and learning from an early age will only benefit the next generation of our nation. Build Back Better also ensures that most working families pay no more than 7% of their income on child care. As a result, parents can rest easy knowing their children are safe while they remain employed, having more money in their pockets to help their families and invest in our growing economy.”  It is an optimistic speech, made to reinforce his political position. But the votes of two Democratic senators overturned the bill and delayed the benefits of structuring a welfare state for the poorest families, not just Latinos.

As we can see, there is a great contrast between Garza's and Vargas' opinions. They reflect the two worldviews that separate the Latino community. On the one hand, the more well-established groups, which after many hardships managed to realize the “American dream”, even though they took advantage of the public services offered by the State to do so. They are formal workers, small businessmen, liberal professionals, etc. who want to forget their parents' harsh conditions and “kick the ladder” away from under a new generation of competitors. This can be seen in the support of Latinos/Hispanics linked to the Republican Party for restrictions on a new wave of immigration. It also reflects the identity crisis of this segment, which carries its ancestry in its blood, but which seeks to guarantee what they consider as the “privileges” deserved by the myth of the “self-made man”.

On the other hand, the most recent generations of immigrants face many challenges to settle in the country and feel insecure and fearful about the future. They are out of the formal job market, live in poor conditions, some live undocumented in the country and, in general, they hope that the political process can provide equitable conditions so that they're also able to enjoy their share of the “dream”.

These different coexist nowadays among integrated immigrants and newcomers. This situation brings us back to the cinema, more specifically to the movie “Gangs of New York”, in which the older generation of immigrants sought to differentiate themselves from the newcomers and tried to restrict their territory tooth and nail, whether through arrogance, violence or humiliation.