|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
Special
George
W. Grayson
Center
for Immigration Studies
Mexican
Officials Feather Their Nests
While Decrying U.S.
Immigration Policy...
[George W. Grayson] 4/27/06
"Show me a politician
who is poor and I will show you a poor politician"
— Carlos Hank González
Executive
Summary
Mexican politicians continuously
demand more visas for their citizens, an expanded guest-worker
program, and "regularization" of illegal aliens living
north of the Rio Grande. While neglecting to mention that the
United States admits nearly one million legal newcomers each
year, they also fail to publicize: (1) the extremely high salaries
they receive, often—in the case of federal and state legislators—more
than their counterparts in developed nations that have substantially
longer annual sessions, (2) the generous stipends that they
grant themselves, including year-end aguinaldos and
end-of-term bonuses of tens of thousands of dollars known as bonos
de marcha, and (3) the generous sums that party leaders
in legislative bodies have to spend with few or any strings
attached.
For example,
-
President Vicente Fox ($236,693)
makes more than the leaders of France ($95,658), the U.K.
($211,434), and Canada ($75,582).
-
Although they are in session
only a few months a year, Mexican deputies take home at
least $148,000—substantially
more than their counterparts in France ($78,000), Germany
($105,000), and congressmen throughout Latin America.
-
Members of the 32 state legislatures ($60,632)
earn on average twice the amount earned by U.S. state legislators
($28,261). The salaries and bonuses of the lawmakers in Baja
California ($158,149), Guerrero ($129,630), and Guanajuato
($111,358) exceed the salaries of legislators in California
($110,880), the District of Columbia ($92,500), Michigan
($79,650), and New York ($79,500).
-
Members of the city council
of Saltillo, San Luis Potosí, not only received a salary
of $52,778 in 2005, but they awarded themselves a $20,556
end-of-year bonus.
-
Average salaries (plus Christmas stipends
known as aguinaldos) place the average compensation
of Mexican state executives at $125,759, which exceeds by
almost $10,000 the mean earnings of their U.S. counterparts
($115,778). On average, governors received aguinaldos of
$14,346 in 2005—a year when 60 percent of Mexicans received
no year-end bonuses.
These same politicians turn a
blind eye to the fact that, when petroleum earnings are excluded,
Mexico collects
taxes equivalent to 9.7 percent of GDP—a figure on par with Haiti.
In addition, the policy makers (1) spend painfully little on
education and health-care programs crucial to spurring social
mobility and job opportunities, (2) acquiesce in barriers to
opening businesses in their country, and (3) profit from a level
of corruption that would have made a Tammany Hall precinct captain
blush — with $11.2 billion flowing to lawmakers in 2004 alone.
Many Mexican officials enjoy princely lifestyles,
while expecting the United States to solve their social problems
by allowing the border to serve as a safety-valve for job seekers.
Introduction
Mexico City — In mid-February
2006, a delegation of Mexican officials jetted to Washington
to condemn pending U.S. immigration legislation. Many of these
politicians turn the air blue with virulent criticism of U.S.
immigration policy while they vote themselves princely salaries
and lavish fringe benefits. Even as they feather their own
nests, they demand that decision makers above the Rio Grande
take responsibility for their citizens who are grossly neglected
by Mexico’s elite. They urge the United States to assume responsibility
for their countrymen who cannot find opportunities at home.
Specifically, they call for an expanded guest-worker program,
an increase in the number of visas, and the "regularization" — a
euphemism for amnesty — of the status of Mexicans residing
illegally north of the Rio Grande.
President George Bush’s October
2005 proposal for the admittance of temporary workers for up
to six years was met with widespread condemnation in Mexico.
Deputy Antonio Guajardo Anzaldúa, a member of the left-wing
Workers Party and chairman of the Mexican Congress’ Committee
on Population, Borders, and Migration Affairs, excoriated the
initiative as "linking workers with employers without
offering them a route toward legalization." He also criticized "the
heavy fine" that would be levied on participants who also
would be ineligible for American citizenship.1
Guajardo’s colleague Eliana
García Laguna, a stalwart of the leftist-nationalist Revolutionary
Democratic Party (PRD), shrilled that the threat posed by
Bush "hurts and injures the interests of Mexicans who
for various reasons must leave our country."2
Even more mordant was the
outcry when the U.S. House of Representatives approved a
bill in December that would crack down on scoff-law employers
who hire illegal workers. The measure, now pending before
the Senate, also would make it a federal crime to live in
the United States without proper identification. In addition,
the measure would require the mandatory detention of some
immigrants; withhold some federal assistance to cities that
furnish services to immigrants without checking their legal
status; and would decrease the number of legal immigrants
admitted annually by eliminating a program that provides
50,000 green cards. Needless to say, the House axed President
Bush’s request for additional guest workers.
Heliodoro Díaz Escárraga,
leader of the Chamber of Deputies and a member of the Institutional
Revolutionary Party (PRI), stated that it "is totally
anachronistic to impose penalties on our migrants or erect
walls as if we were in the Cold War." Indeed, Díaz Escárraga
even nominated Dr. Jorge Bustamante, a professor at El Colegio
de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana and a longtime advocate of
increased immigration, for the Nobel Peace Prize because
of his activism on behalf of international migration and
human rights. Meanwhile, Congress’s Permanent Commission
excoriated U.S. immigration policy as "racist, xenophobic,
and profoundly violative of human rights."3
Members of President Vicente
Fox’s National Action Party (PAN) have joined the chorus
of self-righteous criticism. They applauded an early January
2006 joint declaration by Mexico, Colombia, the Dominican
Republic, and six Central American countries in opposition
to treating migrants who illegally cross into the United
States as law-breakers.
This statement ignored the
strong support of American citizens for immigration reform.
A Fox News poll conducted in April 2005 found that a lion’s
share of Americans believe that undocumented immigration
is a "very serious" (63 percent) or "somewhat
serious" (28 percent) problem for the United States.
Sixty percent of respondents to a late 2006 ABC News/Washington
Post survey favored erecting a barrier at the border;
only 26 percent disapproved. There was no mention of the
nearly one million legal immigrants whom the United States
admits each year.
In their condemnation of
U.S. policy, Mexican authorities seldom if ever talk about
their failure to uplift the poor who constitute approximately
half of its 107.5 million people, particularly when their
nation is contiguous to the world’s largest market and abounds
in oil, natural gas, gold, silver, beaches, seafood, water,
historic treasures, museums, industrial centers, and wonderful
people. After addressing the main theme of this Backgrounder—the
extraordinary salaries and benefits enjoyed by high Mexican
officials—several points will be made about policymakers’ responsibility
for the skewed income distribution in Mexico.
President’s
Salary
Although Vicente Fox Quesada
won election six years ago with a commitment to run an austere
government, he approved legislation that raised his salary
from $196,800 (1,884,492 pesos) to $236,693 (2,556,282 pesos)
per year.4 This figure is 18.58 times greater
than the average income of Mexicans and 727 times greater
than those whose incomes are in the lowest 10 percent of
households. Fox’s salary exceeds those of the president of
France ($95,658) and the prime ministers of the United Kingdom
($211,434)5 and Canada ($75,582).6
Feathering
Their Own Nests
Mexico’s 500 deputies and
128 senators live extremely well, exemplifying the adage: "Show
me a politician who is poor and I will show you a poor politician."7 Although
there are only two legislative periods—February 1 to April
30; and September 1 to December 15—the lawmakers’ earnings
exceed or approximate that of members of legislatures in
industrialized countries that meet for longer periods. Mexican
deputies earn $148,000 (1.6 million pesos) per year. While
this figure includes Christmas aguinaldos, it does
not take into account payments for constituent service, legislative
staff, and coupons (vales) for food and other expenses.8 Taxpayers
also pick up the tab for chauffeurs and bodyguards for some
deputies and senators. Moreover, party leaders have discretionary
funds with which they can provide additional resources to
their colleagues. In 2004 the amount distributed to the three
major parties was as follows: PRI/223 deputies: $15,892,668
(171,640,820 pesos); PAN/153 deputies: $10,297,611 (111,214,200
pesos); PRD/97 deputies: $7,359,122 (79,478,520 pesos). Needless
to say, these fat sums give leaders an opportunity to exert
enormous pressure on their members amid minimal accountability
for the use of their funds.9
The last Chamber of Deputies
(2000-2003) voted themselves a "bonus for leaving office" or bonos
de marcha of approximately $28,000 (290,000 pesos).
In view of the growing weakness
of the presidency in recent years, governors have become
more influential and frequently supplement the salaries and
perquisites of their party’s legislators.
Leaving aside special allocations,
the pay and benefits of Mexican legislators puts them ahead
of their counterparts in France ($78,000 for a nine-month
session) and Germany ($105,000 for nine months) and nearly
on a par with legislators in Italy ($163,000 for eight month)
and the United States ($162,000 virtually year-around), where
living costs are higher. Other congressmen in Latin America
receive substantially less; for example, those in Bolivia
earn $28,000 for a four-month session and legislators in
the Dominican Republic take home $68,500 for six-months of
service.10 Argentine lawmakers earned $34,000
and those in Brazil $62,000 in 2003, a year when the salary
of Mexican legislators was $100,500.11
Despite such generous compensation,
José Alarcón Hernández, vice coordinator of the PRI’s 221-member
faction in the Chamber of Deputies, is pushing for a sharp
increase in compensation. He expressed his belief "that
we should earn double because we earn less than cabinet secretaries
and they have less responsibility than we have."12
Mexican deputies frequently
take to the skies or to the road. During 2005 the Chamber
of Deputies spent $1,018,518.50 (110 million pesos) on domestic
and foreign travel. These outlays amounted to $2,095.24 (22,000
pesos) for each of the 500 deputies or $2,927.78 for the
348 deputies who, on average, showed up for sessions. This
spending on travel is dubious for two reasons: deputies,
who cannot run for immediate reelection, do not have to return
to their districts every weekend like so many U.S. representatives;
and the Senate—not the Chamber of Deputies—plays the primary
legislative role in international affairs.
Few would begrudge their
pay and benefits if Mexican lawmakers had more to show for
the several months that they spend in the capital each year.
Regrettably, they prize vapid speech-making over the passage
of major bills. Since Fox took office on December 1, 2000,
the Congress has failed to enact fiscal, labor, energy, and
judicial reforms vital for achieving sustained development
in a country where per-capita income grew only 2 percent
last year and joblessness abounds.
Instead, they come up with
cynical measures like the one that supposedly would allow
four million Mexicans living abroad to cast ballots in the
July 2, 2006, presidential contest. Although the Chamber
of Deputies passed a reasonably liberal bill—it included
the installation of voting places in foreign countries—the
version that emerged from the Senate was largely cosmetic.
The PRI, which ruled from 1929 to 2000, eviscerated the measure,
fearing that expatriates would support the PAN or the PRD.
By passing something, deputies and senators could claim that
they had backed the vote for Mexicans who send back $18 billion
per year in remittances. At the same time, they encrusted
the initiative with cumbersome procedures to ensure minimal
participation. On January 15, the cut-off date for requesting
a ballot, only about 50,000 men and women had submitted paperwork,
and several thousand of these applications did not satisfy
the requisite standards. Yet Congress approved almost $100
million (1.062 million pesos) for this venture, which is
the equivalent of just over $2,000 per application.
State
Legislatures
For better or worse, Mexico’s
investigative reporters occasionally shine a light onto the
compensation shenanigans of the national Congress. With notable
exceptions, such as the award-winning Zeta weekly
newspaper in Baja California and the Diario de Yucatán in
Yucatán, the media often fail to cover closely the activities
of the 31 state legislatures. As a result, these lawmakers,
who are frequently in thrall to governors, sometimes look
after themselves better than federal deputies and earn, on
average $60,632—more than twice as much as their U.S. counterparts
($28,261). Only in dirt-poor Chiapas ($8,333) do state deputies
receive less than the U.S. average.
For example, the salaries
and aguinaldos of legislators in Baja California ($158,149),
Guerrero ($129,630), and Guanajuato ($111,358) are higher
that the salaries of representatives in California ($110,880),
the District of Columbia ($92,500), Michigan ($79,650), and
New York ($79,500). Many Mexican and U.S. legislators also
receive allowances for travel, meals, lodging, special committee
meetings, and constituent service. However, only in Mexico
do lawmakers regularly vote themselves end-of-term bonuses
that often total tens of thousands of dollars.
Governors
State lawmakers’ salaries
represent only a fraction of the bountiful resources to which
Mexican governors have access. Average salaries (plus aguinaldos)
for state executives equal $125,759, which exceeds by almost
$10,000 the mean earnings of their U.S. counterparts — $115,778.
Narciso Agúndez Montaño, a cousin of his predecessor, runs
Baja California Sur. Although his state has only 424,041
residents, he earns $277,777. This is $100,000 more than
the salary of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who governs 36,132,147
Californians.13
Governors’ wives frequently
serve as head of the Integral Family Development program
(DIF) in their states, enabling them to earn six-figure incomes
when calculated in dollars. Some First Ladies take their
responsibilities seriously; others treat the post as a sinecure.
On average, governors received
aguinaldos of $14,346 in 2005—a year when 60 percent of Mexicans,
30 percent in the underground economy and 30 percent in the
formal workforce, received no year-end bonuses.14
During 30 years in public
service, Arturo Montiel Rojas earned approximately $2.5 million
(26.4 million pesos) and his wife, Maude Versini, whom he
married soon after winning election as governor of Mexico
State in 1999, received an annual salary of $88,889, as head
of the state DIF. He has amassed lucrative properties, including
a condominium in Paris ($1.51 million; 16.3 million pesos),
a get-away in Careyes, Jalisco ($5.56 million; 60 million
pesos), as well as a half-dozen homes in Toluca, the capital
of Mexico State, the Valle de Bravo, Acapulco, and elsewhere.
Montiel’s case reflects the way that politicians can accumulate
resources far in excess of their official income.
Flying
Under the Radar Screen
While an erstwhile presidential
contender like Montiel found himself in the limelight, decision
makers in municipalities and governmental agencies often
avoid scrutiny. Even as they weakened the city’s freedom-of-information
law in 2005, members of the governing body of Saltillo, San
Luis Potosí, voted themselves an end of term bonus of $20,556
(222,000 pesos). This tidy sum came on top of their $52,778
(570,000 pesos) annual salary,15 as well
as other stipends. Meanwhile, PRI council member José Luis
Soto was negotiating a $277,778 (3,000,000 pesos) bono
de marcha for the 22 members of the Ecatepec municipal
council in Mexico State.16 Officials at
the Mexico State Electoral Institute (IEEM) were trying to
recover a total of $277,778 (300,000 pesos) that five of
the seven IEEM members collectively received before resigning
amid a scandal involving questionable purchases of electoral
materials.17
A seat on Mexico City’s
Electoral Court (TEDF) represents a plum assignment. During
its first seven years of operation (1999-2005), this body
held 123 public sessions to handle 594 election-related complaints.
Even though the court averaged only 1.7 sessions per month,
each of the five judges earned $104,859 (1,132,368 pesos)
annually in addition to aguinaldos and other benefits.18
At a time when millions
of Mexicans survive on less than $2 per day, the government
spends millions of dollars on former Presidents Luis Echeverría,
Miguel de la Madrid, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Ernesto
Zedillo. In 2002 it paid out some $5 million to each former
chief executive in pensions, property-operation expenses,
office equipment, travel, staff, and security.19
Although the public can
learn something about the benefits that accrue to the former
leaders, 17 federal entities refused to supply the Chamber
of Deputies information on the salaries of their employees
in 2003. Among these holdouts were the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, the National Fishing Institute, the Federal Attorney
for Consumers, the Autonomous Metropolitan University, and
the National Polytechnic Institute.20
Conditions
of Mexico’s Poor
Even as public officials
fatten their bank accounts, figures from the government-funded
and highly respected National Information, Geography, and
Statistical Institute (INEGI) indicate that the wealthiest
10 percent of Mexican households command 42.1 percent of
total national income, while the bottom 60 percent account
for only 23.4 percent.21
Taxes. When oil revenues
are excluded, Mexico’ federal government collects taxes equal
to only 9.7 percent Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — one of
the lowest figures among the top tier of developing countries
and roughly on par with Haiti, a socio-economic basket case.
Mexico’s percentage rises to 15 percent with the addition
of revenues from royalties and earnings from the sale of
electricity, petroleum, and other products.22 The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
which takes into account federal, state, and local taxes,
found that Mexico had the lowest tax-to-GDP ratio of all
its 30 member countries in 2004. Mexico’s ratio of 18.5 percent
(down from 19 percent in 2003) fell below South Korea (24.6
percent) and far below that of the OECD average of 50.7 percent.
Not only is Mexico’s collection rate low, but its tax system
is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to
widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to accomplish
a fiscal reform. This means there is relatively little money
to spend on education and health care, which are crucial
elements in promoting social mobility.
Education. Mexico
devoted 5.3 percent of GDP to education in 2002, the last
year in which the World Bank did a comparative analysis.
Mexico’s outlays exceeded those of Argentina (4.01 percent),
Ecuador (2.68 percent), Chile (4.22 percent), and Costa Rica
(5.01 percent), Paraguay (4.38 percent), and Peru (2.99 percent),
but fell behind Barbados (7.61 percent), Bolivia (6.31 percent),
Cuba (9 percent in 2001), the Dominican Republic (5.82 percent),
Guatemala (9.01 percent), Honduras (7.22 percent) and Uruguay
(8.5 percent).23
In actual expenditures on
education, however, Mexico fares poorly among OECD countries,
for which comparative data are available for 2000. In that
year, Mexico spent $1,415 per student in elementary and secondary
schools, which was slightly below outlays by the Slovak Republic
($1,732), Poland ($1,988), Hungary ($2,352), and the Czech
Republic ($2,541), but well below South Korea ($3,644), Greece
($3,696), and Ireland ($3,976). The U.S. figure was $7,397
and the OECD average was $5,162.
Only Poland ($3,222), Greece
($3,402), and Turkey ($4,121) earmarked less than Mexico
($4,688) on post-secondary education for which the OECD average
was $9,509 ($20,358 for the U.S.).24
As serious as the unwillingness
of Mexican legislators to raise taxes to increase funding
of schools is the hammerlock that the SNTE teachers’ union
has on the nation’s educational system. Run by Elba Esther
Gordillo Morales, corruption, cronyism, crookedness, and
feather-bedding suffuse the 1.3-million members — Latin America’s
largest labor organization and one of the most powerful in
the Hemisphere. Although at war with the PRI’s presidential
standard-bearer, Roberto Madrazo, Gordillo wields enormous
power among mayors, governors, and cabinet members. She also
has befriended Fox and his politically active wife, Marta
Sahagún, whose "Vamos México" foundation has cooperated
on projects with the SNTE. Politics plays a key role in the
assignment of teachers, promotions, access to housing and
other benefits, and the appointment of school inspectors.
Concepts of merit evaluations and accountability are anathema
to Gordillo and her SNTE. For this reason, Mexico’s political
elite shun public schools in favor of private institutions.
Health Care. In 2002
Mexico earmarked only 6.10 percent of its GDP for health
care. Among Latin American nations, this figure was higher
than that of Chile (5.80 percent), Ecuador (4.80 percent),
Guatemala (4.80 percent), Peru (4.4 percent), and Venezuela
(4.90 percent). Nevertheless, Mexico trailed Argentina (8.90
percent), Barbados (6.90 percent), Brazil (7.90 percent),
Colombia (8.10 percent), Costa Rica (9.30 percent), Cuba
(7.50 percent), El Salvador (8.00 percent), Haiti (7.60 percent),
Nicaragua (7.90 percent), Panama (8.90 percent), and Paraguay
(8.40 percent).
In 2003 Mexico’s per-capita
health care expenditure ($583) was the lowest of all OECD
countries with the exception of Turkey ($453). Even Poland
($677) and the Slovak Republic ($777), which are still ridding
themselves of Soviet influence, spent considerably more.
The problem is not only the low outlays on the physical well-being
of Mexican citizens, but the crazy-quilt of publicly-financed
providers, many of which are grossly under-funded. Among
these entities are the Mexican Social Security Institute
(IMSS), the Social Security Institute for State Workers (ISSSTE),
as well as separate schemes for Petróleos Mexicanos, Banobras,
Bancomex, Nacional Financiera, el Banco de México, the armed
forces, and major public universities. IMSS and ISSSTE are
struggling under enormous operating deficits as their unions
have negotiated high pay and generous pensions for members,
reflected in the joke that "a potential IMSS professional
studies not to become a physician but a retiree." Although
modifications were agreed to in late 2005 for 65,000 new
hires, a family doctor who earned 285,590 pesos ($26,444)
enjoys a retirement stipend of 307,852 pesos ($28,505). Needless
to say, the retirement age is still young enough to spend
20 years in private practice or a private clinic.
Savings. Personal,
business, and government savings represent an important instrument
to propel economic development. According to the World Bank,
Mexico’s savings rate — as a percentage of GDP — is not only
the lowest of major Latin America nations, but it was lower
in 2000 (18.2 percent) than in 2004 (21.8 percent). During
the same period, Chile’s rate grew from 23.5 percent to 30.5
percent.
Doing Business. The
World Bank Group found that it took 58 days to vault the
legal and bureaucratic hurdles to open a business in Mexico
compared with two days in Australia, three days in Canada,
and five days in the United States. Mexico came out better
than Ecuador (69 days), Paraguay (74 days), Costa Rica (77
days), Venezuela (116 days) Brazil (152 days), and Haiti
(203 days), but ran behind Jamaica (9 days), Chile (27 days),
Argentina (32 days), Guatemala (39 days), El Salvador (40
days), Nicaragua (42 days), Colombia (43 days), Guyana (46
days), and Bolivia (50 days).
This same study ranked Mexico
73rd out of 155 countries in terms of the "ease of doing
business." It held position 84 with respect to "starting
a business," 49 with respect to "dealing with licenses," 125
with respect to "hiring and firing," 74 with respect
to "registering property," and 68 with respect
to "getting credit." Among Latin American nations,
Mexico was virtually on a par with El Salvador (76) and Argentina
(77) in the "ease of doing business" category,
while falling behind Chile (25), Panama (57), Nicaragua (59),
Colombia (66), and Peru (71).25
Barriers to Competition. Lack
of competition poses a severe barrier to sustained development.
Only North Korea and Mexico bar risk contracts in the exploration
and production of oil and gas. Mexico also has two sprawling
state-run electricity companies: Luz y Fuerza (Mexico City
and neighboring states) and Comisión Federal de Electricidad
(the rest of the country). In the private sectors, a small
number of firms — closely linked to government officials — control
telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation,
construction, and cement. Politicians who talk about, much
less propose, trust-busting are as rare as a snowfall in
the Sonoran desert. This was evident in the recent congressional
approval of media legislation that greatly benefitted the
super-giant Grupo Televisa and mini-giant TV Aztec networks.
Corruption. A study
by the highly respected Private Sector Center for Economic
Studies (Centro de Estudios Económicos del Sector Privado)
estimates that 34 percent of businesses made "extra-official" payments
to legislators and bureaucrats totaling $11.2 billion in
2004.26 In a similar vein, Transparency
International (TI) ranked Mexico as tied for sixty-fifth
to sixty-ninth place among 158 countries surveyed for corruption.
TI found Mexico to be even more corrupt than nations like
South Korea, Bulgaria, Colombia, Cuba, and Brazil.
Conclusion
Geography, self-interests,
and humanitarian concern mean that the United States and
Mexico must cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of
which is immigration. The material presented in this Backgrounder indicates
that Mexico’s elite has failed through omission and commission
to make the difficult decisions necessary to use its country’s
enormous wealth to benefit the 50 percent of people who live
in poverty. U.S. leaders and the American public have every
right to insist that Mexican officials act responsibly, rather
than expecting that their neighbor to the North will shoulder
burdens that they themselves should assume.
End Notes
1 Quoted
in "Comisión legislativa mexicana rechaza propuesta
migratoria EEUU," Xinhua News Agency, October
19, 2005.
2 Quoted
in "Mexico: diputados rechazan medidas adoptadas por
EE.UU," ANSA, December 7, 2005, Internet ed.
3Quoted
in "México se moviliza para frenar proyecto de ley antimigratoria
en EEUU," Agence France Presse, December 22,
2005.
4 Declaración
patrimonial,
http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/actividades/index.php?contenido=18109/ .
5 The British
prime minister earns an additional $100,087 as a member of
Parliament.
6 The Canadian
prime minister earns an additional $60,728 as a member of
Parliament.
7 Attributed
to the late Carlos Hank González who rose from a humble teacher
to become mayor of Mexico City, governor of Mexico State,
a three-time cabinet member, and one of the nation’s wealthiest
men.
8 Rolando
Ramos and Felipe Morales, "Legisadores mexicanos obtienen
cerca de 500 pesos por hora," El Economista,
February 3, 2005.
9 Jorge
Teherán and Nayeli Cortés, "Tiene la Cámara gasto poco
claro," El Universal, January 17, 2005, p. A1.
10 "Tiene
Congreso recesos ‘de lujo’", Reforma, October
18, 2005.
11 Elistas.net,
September 10, 2003, http://www.elistas.net/lista/quid/archivo/indice/241/msg/259.
12 Quoted
in Anrea Merlos and David Vicenteño, "Niegan diputados
ineficiencia," Reforma, October 19, 2005, http://www.reforma.com/.
13 2005 estimate
by the U.S. Census Bureau.
14 "Un
30% de las empresas mesicanas no pagó aguinaldo, según sindicato," Agence
France Presse, December 30, 2005.
15 Jesús
Jerónimo García and Lorenzo Carlos Cárdenas, "Aprueba
en Saltillo cerrazón y bonos," Reforma, January
1, 2006.
16 "Templo
Mayor," Reforma, January 19, 2006.
17 Juan
Gabriel González Cruz, "Busca IEEM recuperar bono de
ex consejeros," Es Mas, February 9, 2006.
18 Alejandra
Martínez, "Tribunal electoral sesiona solamente 20 veces
al año," El Universal, October 20, 2005, p. C4.
19 José Antonio
O’Farril Ávila, "High Subsidies for Former Presidents," The
News (Mexico City), June 3, 2002, p. 1.
20 Claudia
Guerrero, "Ocultan salarios 17 dependencias," Reforma,
May 11, 2005, p. 8A.
21 Eduardo
Jardón, "Study: Top Households Earning Lion’s Share," The
Herald (Mexico City), June 11, 2005.
22 Information
provided by Manuel Suarez-Mier, Chief Economist for Latin
America, Bank of America, electronic mail to author, January
20, 2006.
23 Gonca
Okur, Development Data Group, The World Bank, electronic
mail to author, January 20, 2006.
24 U.S.
Department of Education, "The Condition of Education
2004" Indicator 36: International Comparisons of Expenditures
for Education (Washington, D.C., U.S Government Printing
Office, 2004).
25 The
World Bank Group, "Doing Business" http://www.doingbusiness.org/EconomyRankings/.
26 "Empresas pagan
en México USD 8.400 millones al año para influir en leyes," Agence
France Presse, August 17, 2005, Internet ed.
George W. Grayson
is the Class of 1938 Professor of Government at the College
of William & Mary. Random House-Mondadori
has just published Mesías Mexicano, his book on Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador,
the front-runner in the July 2 Mexican presidential election.
§
|
|
|
