MaxedOutMama
Monday, May 15, 2006
Immigration - The Flashpoint
I think your position on immigration reform largely depends on your family background. If you have connections to working class people, you want illegal immigation curbed, no ifs, ands or buts. You cannot drive past any construction business and look at all the Hispanics working without knowing what you are seeing. If you are an upper-class woman from an upper-class background, you most likely want a cheap nanny or maid so you can continue to make the big bucks at your professional job. If you own a restaurant, a chicken factory or a construction-type business, you are making money off cheap labor, and may well want it to continue.
I think we should take off the gloves and admit that unlimited cheap immigration is suppressing wages for huge numbers of people, including recent legal immigrants. Furthermore, it's an absolute undercutting of unions everywhere, because no way are illegals going to join a union and strike. It's class warfare.
It's fuelling a level of anger that's unimaginable to those who talk only to people who are insulated from the world of factory workers, house cleaners, roofers and WalMart workers. These people are subsidizing, in the form of lower wages and therefore lower costs, the lifestyles of people who have much more and make much more than they. In many areas of the country, most construction workers are making around $10 an hour. They make less in real dollars than they did in the 1970's, and they know it, and they are hurting.
With that in mind, read Polipundit (duking the issue out), see Whitehouse.gov on Bush's position on illegal immigration, and see this Heritage Foundation analysis of the current Senate bill, sponsored by two Republicans:
I think he's right. This is not an issue that falls within the presidential purview. Congress must act, and if they fail to act by election time this will be almost the only issue that matters. If the Repujblican party goes down, this will be the issue that sinks it.
I think we should take off the gloves and admit that unlimited cheap immigration is suppressing wages for huge numbers of people, including recent legal immigrants. Furthermore, it's an absolute undercutting of unions everywhere, because no way are illegals going to join a union and strike. It's class warfare.
It's fuelling a level of anger that's unimaginable to those who talk only to people who are insulated from the world of factory workers, house cleaners, roofers and WalMart workers. These people are subsidizing, in the form of lower wages and therefore lower costs, the lifestyles of people who have much more and make much more than they. In many areas of the country, most construction workers are making around $10 an hour. They make less in real dollars than they did in the 1970's, and they know it, and they are hurting.
With that in mind, read Polipundit (duking the issue out), see Whitehouse.gov on Bush's position on illegal immigration, and see this Heritage Foundation analysis of the current Senate bill, sponsored by two Republicans:
If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.I asked Chief No-Nag what he thought about this (he is a naturalized citizen born in South America - he came here in his twenties), and he said there was no way we could absorb that many people and that no one was considering the extra costs. He said it was insane. He said we were creating a population that would live in poverty and have little chance to move out of it.
...
In contrast to the 103 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population.
The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.
I think he's right. This is not an issue that falls within the presidential purview. Congress must act, and if they fail to act by election time this will be almost the only issue that matters. If the Repujblican party goes down, this will be the issue that sinks it.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Angry, Useless Politics
Update: Viola Jaynes referred me to this video by Roy Beck, and it's a good one. The NumbersUSA website.
Well, the immigration bill seems to have set off the political season for real. Now the frothing begins. Bloomberg contemplates the tacking into the political winds by the presidential aspirants, and ends by citing polls that show considerable support in the general population for some sort of deal that regularizes the status of illegal immigrants:
As far as I can tell, the immigration "compromise" fails the pragmatism test pretty badly. Illegal workers can be exploited, and are exploited, and are used to drive down wages of non-illegal workers. Flooding the market with low-skilled workers also drives down wages. Cheap nannies, yardworkers and dishwashers may be an economic benefit to highly-educated professionals, but they hurt another segment of the population pretty badly (including legal Hispanic immigrants). So legalizing them is a priority; this gives them much more freedom to change jobs and negotiate. It gives them an incentive to sink down roots. I doubt very much that most lower middle-class and under families can afford to have the head of household go back to their native countries, so I don't think this "compromise" is going to accomplish that.
The "send them all back" crowd are wildly unrealistic; we do need more people with our aging population. Furthermore, a lot of illegals are relatively well-integrated and stable; some have even bought houses and many run businesses. It sure would be nice if we could get them all legalized, filing taxes and voting.
Obviously it is a matter of setting rational limits. I wrote before about what I thought of "guest workers" who never have a chance to settle here. I still believe that it is destroying our nation and that it is a form of class warfare. If I have to read any more about "doing the jobs Americans won't do" I might get a little rabid myself.
I have the uneasy feeling that angry political maneuvering and spittle-flecked rhetoric is going to drown out the interests of the American population on this issue once again. We've got the rabid right and the looney left and they're both screamers. (Dr. M has an interesting theory on this question which might explain why so often our rabid right and the looney left seem to be ending up in bed together. She thinks anger and insecurity is what draws people to a certain type of politics, rather than that they get angry because of politics.) I'd hate to see either the rabid right or the looney left conquer the massive middle, but I have an ugly feeling that the large slate of presidential would-bes will mean that everyone will be fighting for small factions in order to stay in.
Carl says that the compromise has destroyed the Republican party for this cycle. I think he's right. I also think that unless we can get candidates who are attached to more than just rhetoric in the Democratic party that the same is true for the Democrats. Obama and Clinton are neck and neck, and so far Obama does not impress me on issues, but I don't trust Hillary's ethics or her ability to concoct or promulgate pragmatic solutions. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have had great moments in our history. The common denominator of those great moments has been when one or another confronted a transitional period, junked the BS, and crafted changes that benefited the great majority of the citizens in the country.
What we need are candidates with much broader experience than our current frontrunners. We want governors. We want people with some expertise in making things work. We don't need to hit home runs, we just need to keep getting runners on base. Right now the whole country seems stalled. If it takes an Independent candidate to accomplish that, I'm all for it and I am not alone in my frustration. The Anchoress:
Well, the immigration bill seems to have set off the political season for real. Now the frothing begins. Bloomberg contemplates the tacking into the political winds by the presidential aspirants, and ends by citing polls that show considerable support in the general population for some sort of deal that regularizes the status of illegal immigrants:
The public, by a margin of 59 percent to 37 percent, supports the idea of granting illegal immigrants legal working status and a path to citizenship, according to a March poll by the Pew Center, a Washington-based research organization.But does this compromise satisfy that desire? Regardless, it is usually the case that the general population is in fact more moderate than the political spinners. I wonder if most voting Americans don't really belong to the "pragmatic party", and end up swinging to the party that seems to be best attempting to improve matters pragmatically at any one time.
A Bloomberg News poll conducted April 5-9 found that voters may be receptive to a compromise. A majority of Republicans and Democrats favored combining strict enforcement and a guest- worker program.
As far as I can tell, the immigration "compromise" fails the pragmatism test pretty badly. Illegal workers can be exploited, and are exploited, and are used to drive down wages of non-illegal workers. Flooding the market with low-skilled workers also drives down wages. Cheap nannies, yardworkers and dishwashers may be an economic benefit to highly-educated professionals, but they hurt another segment of the population pretty badly (including legal Hispanic immigrants). So legalizing them is a priority; this gives them much more freedom to change jobs and negotiate. It gives them an incentive to sink down roots. I doubt very much that most lower middle-class and under families can afford to have the head of household go back to their native countries, so I don't think this "compromise" is going to accomplish that.
The "send them all back" crowd are wildly unrealistic; we do need more people with our aging population. Furthermore, a lot of illegals are relatively well-integrated and stable; some have even bought houses and many run businesses. It sure would be nice if we could get them all legalized, filing taxes and voting.
Obviously it is a matter of setting rational limits. I wrote before about what I thought of "guest workers" who never have a chance to settle here. I still believe that it is destroying our nation and that it is a form of class warfare. If I have to read any more about "doing the jobs Americans won't do" I might get a little rabid myself.
I have the uneasy feeling that angry political maneuvering and spittle-flecked rhetoric is going to drown out the interests of the American population on this issue once again. We've got the rabid right and the looney left and they're both screamers. (Dr. M has an interesting theory on this question which might explain why so often our rabid right and the looney left seem to be ending up in bed together. She thinks anger and insecurity is what draws people to a certain type of politics, rather than that they get angry because of politics.) I'd hate to see either the rabid right or the looney left conquer the massive middle, but I have an ugly feeling that the large slate of presidential would-bes will mean that everyone will be fighting for small factions in order to stay in.
Carl says that the compromise has destroyed the Republican party for this cycle. I think he's right. I also think that unless we can get candidates who are attached to more than just rhetoric in the Democratic party that the same is true for the Democrats. Obama and Clinton are neck and neck, and so far Obama does not impress me on issues, but I don't trust Hillary's ethics or her ability to concoct or promulgate pragmatic solutions. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have had great moments in our history. The common denominator of those great moments has been when one or another confronted a transitional period, junked the BS, and crafted changes that benefited the great majority of the citizens in the country.
What we need are candidates with much broader experience than our current frontrunners. We want governors. We want people with some expertise in making things work. We don't need to hit home runs, we just need to keep getting runners on base. Right now the whole country seems stalled. If it takes an Independent candidate to accomplish that, I'm all for it and I am not alone in my frustration. The Anchoress:
I hold a relentless belief that undertaking positive actions will always come to better, more fruitful and constructive ends than negative actions.She's right - people who are succumbing to frustration and anger are just letting themselves be suckered. We've got to remain anchored in reality and debating how we could make things better rather than worse.
...
I can understand dissatisfaction with a bill but I have never loved this notion of scalp-hunting on the left or the right, and for heaven’s sake, at this point some on the right are sounding exactly like the hard-left they abhor. Funny how a tactic one disdains becomes a tactic one endorses when one feels the ends justify the means.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Progressive Political Dementia
Whatever else Brookings may be, it is not a conservative think tank. I found Galston's paper on the mid-term losses and the Obama administration interesting. He describes the competing narratives accurately, IMO, and then argues his own interpretation:
It is an interesting paper, although its worst fault is that it does not mention Nancy Pelosi.
She has been a very strong and determined leader of the House who has brought a historic electoral disaster upon her own party, who is now running to be the head of that party in the House once more. She will probably win, because the numbers are in her favor. There is a solid core of innumerate progressives from the Left, West Coast who will support her!
However, if she wins Obama may be truly cut off at the knees; for Pelosi to advance her agenda she would have to attack the Democratic president in substance if not overtly.
Even though Republicans are pretty much despised, the leadership of the Democratic party decided to ignore political and economic reality and has shoved the country back into Red territory.
That is what elitism gets you, but progressives don't get it and can't recognize that their fundamental agenda amounts to warfare against the middle and working classes. That's a battle that can't be won because the numbers are too skewed.
If you are a hardline conservative, this is a dream come true. What progressives cannot grasp - because American progressive thought has been seized by people who cannot add and subtract, and cannot tell the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion - is that if they succeed in blocking repeal of the health care reform legislation, they will force some states to exit Medicaid, and that will force other states to follow suit.
California is dominated by this too-big-to-deal-with-reality agenda, and California is creating an utter fiscal nightmare for itself. Further, loss of the House ensures that California can no longer pretend it is Goldman Sachs and demand a federal bailout for itself. Eventually, California will bust, and with it, this generation of progressives will bust too.
If you are a moderate, this is pretty much a nightmare scenario. Only a Democratic party that advances very workable and fiscally sustainable proposals can force the GOP to do the same. If that were to occur, the solid and experienced core of politicians in the middle of both parties would end up cooperating to salvage what we can from the Clinton/Greenspan initiated flight of fantasy.
The truth is, both conservatives and liberals, cooperating, steered the US onto this path of doom. It will take both, cooperating, to steer us off. In order to survive, we are either going to have to go hard right and almost completely dismantle the social safety net, or go center and dismantle welfare for corporations (which means junking the entire alternative energy subsidy program, crippling the EPA, and legislation passed through Congress that removes the ability of interest groups to sue for environmental reasons) and dismantle welfare for the upper and middle class. We can afford a social safety NET, but not what we have now, and if we try to actually implement health care reform, we will end up destroying the social safety net we have now.
We are so screwed. The future our current laws offer us involves a progressive series of Bernanke type cuts in real incomes for most of the middle class and the lower class. That is not going to provide the basis for legislative success for either party. If continued much longer, it would push the country hard right as people decided to abandon Eva Pelosi rather than experience the fate of the Argentinian middle class.
Yes, American history is replete with examples of presidents and parties who experience political difficulties in hard economic times, only to regain public esteem as the economy regains its balance. But there is more to the losses that President Obama and the Democratic Party suffered in November 2010: the public punished them, not only for high unemployment and slow growth, but also for what it regarded as sins of both commission and omission. The White House and congressional leaders pursued an agenda that the people mostly rejected while overlooking measures that might well have improved the economy more, and almost certainly would have been more popular, than what they did instead. In short, while Obama was dealt a bad hand, he proceeded to misplay it, making the political backlash even worse than it had to be.This is the sort of thing that makes progressives howl at the moon, but I think there is considerable evidence for Galston's theory.
It is an interesting paper, although its worst fault is that it does not mention Nancy Pelosi.
She has been a very strong and determined leader of the House who has brought a historic electoral disaster upon her own party, who is now running to be the head of that party in the House once more. She will probably win, because the numbers are in her favor. There is a solid core of innumerate progressives from the Left, West Coast who will support her!
However, if she wins Obama may be truly cut off at the knees; for Pelosi to advance her agenda she would have to attack the Democratic president in substance if not overtly.
Even though Republicans are pretty much despised, the leadership of the Democratic party decided to ignore political and economic reality and has shoved the country back into Red territory.
That is what elitism gets you, but progressives don't get it and can't recognize that their fundamental agenda amounts to warfare against the middle and working classes. That's a battle that can't be won because the numbers are too skewed.
If you are a hardline conservative, this is a dream come true. What progressives cannot grasp - because American progressive thought has been seized by people who cannot add and subtract, and cannot tell the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion - is that if they succeed in blocking repeal of the health care reform legislation, they will force some states to exit Medicaid, and that will force other states to follow suit.
California is dominated by this too-big-to-deal-with-reality agenda, and California is creating an utter fiscal nightmare for itself. Further, loss of the House ensures that California can no longer pretend it is Goldman Sachs and demand a federal bailout for itself. Eventually, California will bust, and with it, this generation of progressives will bust too.
If you are a moderate, this is pretty much a nightmare scenario. Only a Democratic party that advances very workable and fiscally sustainable proposals can force the GOP to do the same. If that were to occur, the solid and experienced core of politicians in the middle of both parties would end up cooperating to salvage what we can from the Clinton/Greenspan initiated flight of fantasy.
The truth is, both conservatives and liberals, cooperating, steered the US onto this path of doom. It will take both, cooperating, to steer us off. In order to survive, we are either going to have to go hard right and almost completely dismantle the social safety net, or go center and dismantle welfare for corporations (which means junking the entire alternative energy subsidy program, crippling the EPA, and legislation passed through Congress that removes the ability of interest groups to sue for environmental reasons) and dismantle welfare for the upper and middle class. We can afford a social safety NET, but not what we have now, and if we try to actually implement health care reform, we will end up destroying the social safety net we have now.
We are so screwed. The future our current laws offer us involves a progressive series of Bernanke type cuts in real incomes for most of the middle class and the lower class. That is not going to provide the basis for legislative success for either party. If continued much longer, it would push the country hard right as people decided to abandon Eva Pelosi rather than experience the fate of the Argentinian middle class.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Friday's Fools And Follies
NOTE: Scroll down for something that will have you grinding your teeth. According to one senator, the Senate's immigration bill makes it far more advantageous for an employer to hire illegals than for an employer to hire American citizens. For one thing, the employer gets tax amnesty for withholding taxes.
The life of a criminal defense lawyer is not always an easy one.This one got slapped, and this one got choked by their own clients in the courtroom:
Senator Jeff Sessions does not like the Senate's immigration bill. Minor technical details such as an estimate that it will cost $500 billion in additional welfare (EIC, etc) costs over ten years, special rights for immigrant workers (that's right - they'd have more rights under this law than an American citizen) have him irate. Read it and contemplate matters. Sessions is particularly steamed by the way these and similar provisions were written into the bill. It's amazing what you discover when you actually read the legislation upon which you are voting:
Earlier I wrote on this topic that it was class warfare, and I stand by that statement. The elite in this country is bound and determined to work over the working class. They want cheap nannies, cheap houses and cheap labor and they don't care who they destroy in order to get it. If anything like this bill becomes law, Howard of Oraculations is correct that it will mean a revolution.
In most areas of this country, a roofer now makes no more per hour than he did when I was in high school - and I graduated in 1978. What does that tell you? In some areas, a roofer makes less. This is because the market has been flooded with cheap, often illegal workers. When I was in high school, a construction worker could buy a modest house. All that has changed, and proposals like these would cripple our country.
The life of a criminal defense lawyer is not always an easy one.This one got slapped, and this one got choked by their own clients in the courtroom:
Jacobson, whose eyes were focused elsewhere, backhanded his attorney without warning, said Undersheriff Neil McClanahan, who was in the courtroom because he had received a summons for jury duty in the case.The judge in this case declared a mistrial. I'm not sure that's a good idea - this punching out your attorney to delay matters might become a well-known strategy in prisons. I think the rule should be that if you attack your own attorney in the courtroom in front of the jury, the jury stays and you go.
"Not only did you see it, you heard it," McClanahan said.
...
The case against Jacobson stems from a reported attack on two guards while he was incarcerated at Maple Lane School, a state institution for juvenile delinquents.
Senator Jeff Sessions does not like the Senate's immigration bill. Minor technical details such as an estimate that it will cost $500 billion in additional welfare (EIC, etc) costs over ten years, special rights for immigrant workers (that's right - they'd have more rights under this law than an American citizen) have him irate. Read it and contemplate matters. Sessions is particularly steamed by the way these and similar provisions were written into the bill. It's amazing what you discover when you actually read the legislation upon which you are voting:
So all the big print, “temporary guest workers,” “temporary guest worker task force,” and then you read in that section down there that it effectively converts them from temporary workers to legal permanent residents, granting them a green card.The employment requirements are weak - only 1 day out of every 60. Furthermore an affidavit can be used as proof of employment. Illegal aliens would qualify for in-state college tuition rates. The future provisions for guest workers apply to illegal immigrants already in the US. The bill would fine federal agents who investigate the applications:
...
Under the AgJOBS component of the substitute, illegal alien agricultural workers who have worked 150 “workdays” in agriculture over the last 2 years will receive a “blue card,” allowing them to live and work permanently in the U.S. However, because current law defines an agricultural “workday” as 1 hour of work per day—the bill language restates that definition on page 397—an alien who has worked for as little as 150 hours—there are 168 hours in a week—in agriculture over the last 2 years will qualify for a blue card.
...
No alien granted blue card status may be terminated from employment by any employer during the period of blue card status except for just cause.
Because blue card aliens are not limited to working in agriculture, this employment requirement will follow the alien at their second and third jobs as well.
...
The AgJOBS amendment specifically states that recipients of “funds under the Legal Services Corporation Act” shall not be prevented “from providing legal assistance directly related to an application for adjustment of status under this section.” Interestingly, page 414 of the bill requires the alien to have an attorney file the application for him. Not only will AgJOBS give amnesty to 1.5 million illegal aliens, it would have the American taxpayer pay the legal bills of those illegal aliens.
A Federal agent, trying to do his duty to enforce the law and investigate fraudulent information provided by an illegal alien in their amnesty application, for law enforcement purposes, what happens to them if they take the amnesty application and actually examine it and find out it is fraudulent? What do they do? The agent would be fined $10,000.As Sessions says, this appears to be a way to allow people to file fraudulent applications as a matter of routine. Illegals who apply for amnesty are only required to pay back taxes for three out of five previous years, and they get to pick the years. Employers of illegal aliens are given tax amnesty on withholding taxes, which will favor the employer who hires illegals and will ensure that the employer gets the workers to file for immigration amnesty:
Employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status—amnesty—“shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such an alien.” That means a business that hired illegal workers does not have to pay the taxes they should have paid. Why? This encourages employers to violate our tax laws and not pay what they owe the Federal Government. They are excusing these employers and giving them amnesty from not withholding taxes. That is a very bad thing. Every American business knows they have to pay their withholding taxes.I leave you with that question.
What about two small businesses, one hiring illegal aliens not paying Social Security, not paying withholding to the Government, and paying some low wage, and another one across the street doing all the right things, hiring American citizens, perhaps paying higher wages and withholding money and sending his Social Security money to the Federal Government, what message does that send to the good guy, to give complete amnesty to the guy who has manipulated the system and gotten away perhaps with tens of thousands of dollars in benefits that his competitor did not get?
Earlier I wrote on this topic that it was class warfare, and I stand by that statement. The elite in this country is bound and determined to work over the working class. They want cheap nannies, cheap houses and cheap labor and they don't care who they destroy in order to get it. If anything like this bill becomes law, Howard of Oraculations is correct that it will mean a revolution.
In most areas of this country, a roofer now makes no more per hour than he did when I was in high school - and I graduated in 1978. What does that tell you? In some areas, a roofer makes less. This is because the market has been flooded with cheap, often illegal workers. When I was in high school, a construction worker could buy a modest house. All that has changed, and proposals like these would cripple our country.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Lancelot On Social Security
I really liked Lancelot Finn's article on Social Security reform for Tech Central Station. It covers some of the current proposals and the problems of our current system. I do believe that we will have to index benefits to reduce payouts to wealthier people in the end. As Lancelot (Nathan Smith) writes:
And we can't fix Social Security without beginning to save the money paid in. All the rhetoric of reform opponents is designed only to avoid that reality.
Meanwhile, today's Social Security welfare queens should know this and be warned: Social Security reform will happen, sooner or later. And what's on the table now is the best deal they're likely to get. Bush has promised there will be no changes for those over 55, which is more than generous. Their benefits are not guaranteed by law. Nor are their benefits objectively deserved, based on what they contributed. Still less do they represent a "compact between the generations" in any sense. They are merely the ill-gotten gains from electoral class warfare against younger generations. Only the voting clout of the elderly protects current benefit levels. But every year, the generations for whom the New Deal is the Old Ripoff increase their share of the vote.It's hard to move away from such a stupid and yet such a necessary system. Still, we are going to have to change things soon (within the next ten years), and the current proposals seem to be an effort at increasing the fairness of the system. As it stands the Social Security system is designed to fail. That failure will be a brutal blow to the lower income population that hasn't been able to save for itself because of high payroll taxes and will find itself getting negative return on those taxes.
And we can't fix Social Security without beginning to save the money paid in. All the rhetoric of reform opponents is designed only to avoid that reality.
