Topic: General

Build a Wall around the Welfare State, Not around the Country

Most of the members of the conference committee on the immigration bill seem to have forgotten our own heritage.

Compared to the present, the United States had a higher rate of immigration just prior to World War I when we had no significant immigration controls (except against the Chinese) and no federal welfare programs. Most of these immigrants were from Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, and other poor European countries; most spoke no English and had only crude manual skills. Many Americans from families who had been here for more than a few generations were prone to speak disparagingly about the status and prospect of the new immigrants. For all that, almost all of these new immigrants (including my grandfather) were work-oriented, family-oriented, no burden to others, and, within a generation, fully assimilated Americans.

Most current immigrants, other than being Hispanic, are very much like those who chose to make their future in the United States a century ago. The record of recent immigrants is impressive: a relatively high employment rate, a relatively low rate of birth to single mothers, and an unusually low incarceration rate. So far, the one major difference from prior immigrants is that the Hispanics are less education-oriented. Given the opportunity, there is every reason to expect them to be good workers, good neighbors, and fully assimilated Americans within a generation. 

The one major difference from a century ago that affects this issue is that the United States is now a substantial welfare state. Illegal immigrants appear to be net taxpayers to the federal government but net tax burdens to state and local governments, especially if they have children in school. 

The primary solution to this problem is to build a wall around the welfare state, not the U.S. nation-state. For new immigrants, access to social services could be limited to emergency health care. Access to public schooling could be limited to those children born in the United States. Access to the full range of social services could be limited, for example, to those who have four years of legal work experience, a record of full payment of taxes, and no felony conviction. 

A supplementary solution to this problem would be a federal transfer to those states and local governments with an unusual number of immigrants. This approach should substantially reduce the opposition to immigration by residents of the border states.

Building a wall around the country, in contrast, is unnecessary, futile, and offensive.

The Buying of America

According to USA Today, the Democrats are preparing a platform called a “New Direction for America” in which they will promise to “reduce the cost of student loans and prescription drugs, raise the minimum wage and launch an effort to develop alternative fuels if they win back control of Congress.”

Is there anyone in their right mind who could possibly think that this is anything other than a shameless effort to buy American voters? No way! Too bad the Republicans have been doing the same things for years.

Topics:

Spending Limits Are Not the Answer

David Primo and Jeff Milyo have just published an op-ed in Roll Call. Advocates have long argued that restrictions on campaign spending, which can be direct spending or contributions, enhance electoral competition. In Vermont they convinced the state legislature to pass spending limits, the constitutionality of which are now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Primo and Milyo correctly note “the most current and best scientific evidence flies in the face of the promises” made by these advocates. Indeed, “the court jurisprudence upholding campaign finance laws is built on a shaky empirical foundation.” They continue: “In fact, we are aware of no scholarly studies that yield consistent evidence of large and statistically significant effects of campaign finance regulations on electoral competitiveness.”

I go into the shaky philosophical and empirical foundations of campaign finance law in my upcoming book, The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform.

Supreme Court Gets it Wrong in Hudson

The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that police who conduct an illegal “no-knock” raid on a citizen’s home can use evidence seized from that raid against the suspect at trial.

Taken with the high degree of immunity from lawsuits courts and lawmakers have given to police officers in these cases, there is now no real penalty for police who ignore the legal requirement to knock and announce themselves before forcibly entering a private home.

We can expect the already disturbing trend of military-style police raids on American citizens to get substantially worse.

Last April, I wrote a synopsis of what’s at stake in the Hudson case for Slate.

Time to Boycott AMA Members?

A quick look at the press releases coming from the AMA during their annual meeting this week revealed numerous protectionist or otherwise paternalistic positions taken by the physician lobby. The august AMA House of Delegates approved resolutions that called for:

  • greater efforts by health insurers to make price information available to patients (physician, heal thyself)
  • a prohibition on direct-to-consumer advertising of every new drug until physicians feel they’ve had enough time to learn about the drug (pity the poor MD who doesn’t know the answers to his patients’ questions – and First Amendment be damned!)
  • regulation of nurse practitioner-run clinics, which offer affordable access to basic care (and pose a threat to physician incomes; blogged previously here)
  • ending alcohol ads on college sports telecasts, smoking bans, warning labels on video games,” etc., etc.
  • urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to revoke the ‘generally recognized as safe’ (GRAS) status of salt and to develop regulatory measures to limit sodium in processed and restaurant foods,” etc., etc.
  • requiring Americans to purchase health insurance (which increases the appetite for physician services; blogged previously here)

Paging Dr. Bastiat …

But not all was venal and meddlesome in Chicago this week. On a (barely) positive note, the AMA gave a “cautious green light” to the practice of “solicitation of organs from potential donors who have no preexisting relationship with the recipient.” So for all of you who are reading this while your blood is flowing through a dialysis machine, and who don’t want to be one of the thousands who will die on the kidney transplant waiting list this year, if you go out and try to find someone who will give you a kidney so that you can live, the AMA has decided that would be “ethically acceptable.” There. Feel better? 

Minimum Wage: From the Horse’s Mouth

Via the admittedly pro-business Employment Policies Institute, a funny anecdote regarding this whole minimum wage debate:

The generally accepted leading advocacy group for so-called “living wage” laws around the country is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. In its Resource Guide for activists, written by David Reynolds of the Wayne State University Labor Studies Center, ACORN casts aside concerns about minimum wage laws resulting in fewer jobs for low-wage workers, scolding

That’s low road thinking, the kind of philosophy that seeks short-term increases in the bottom-line by directly lowering costs and casts high wages, benefits, and other worker protections as obstacles to competition.

But in 1995, ACORN actually went to court in California in an attempt to exempt ACORN from that state’s minimum wage and overtime laws. Why? Well, according to ACORN’s brief in an appeal of the ruling against them…

…the more that ACORN must pay each individual outreach worker–either because of minimum wage or overtime requirements–the fewer outreach workers it will be able to hire.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce couldn’t have said it any better.

Topics: