Tune in Monday for the August issue of Cato Unbound, devoted to the topic of "Mexicans in America."
Richard Rodriguez, author of the celebrated Hunger of Memory and, most recently, Brown: The Last Discovery of America, leads off this month's issue with a provocative meditation on the role of Mexico and Mexicans in the U.S. economy and consciousness. Hoover Institution senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson, author of Mexifornia, will reply, along with Douglas Massey of Princeton University's Mexican Migration Project, and labor economist and immigration expert Steve Trejo at the University of Texas.
Here's the subject:
Today's heated debate over immigration and border control is largely a debate about Mexicans. It is often argued that Mexican immigrants in particular place a heavy burden on social services, especially in border states, bring crime in their wake, depress wages, and displace American workers. Some argue that although we are a nation of immigrants, and that immigration is generally good, Mexican immigrants are different: they are either unwilling or unable to assimilate and become full-fledged Americans, and, therefore, a heavy concentration of Mexican immigrants in the Southwest threatens a distinctly American way of life. How much truth, if any, is in these arguments? A reasonable debate about Mexican immigration requires that we really know about Mexicans in America. Who are the Mexicans coming to the U.S.? Are they fitting in? Are their children fitting in? Their children's children? What kind of contribution are they making to the American economy and national character? In what ways are the U.S. and Mexico interdependent? Are the new Mexican immigrants buying homes, starting businesses, setting down roots? Are they upwardly mobile? Civically active? Is their participation in the labor market hurting American workers? Making America richer, economically and culturally? Answers to these questions can make a huge difference–between belief in amnesty and openness, or deportation and a wall. Getting it right matters. So let's try to get it right.
If you like the work of the Cato Institute, that is. "Morally empty" is how Bush's former head speechwriter described the "small-government" aspect of small-government conservatism in this interview with Foreign Policy magazine:
It is superficially attractive. But in the long run, it’s politically self-destructive because [candidates] end up talking about the size of government while others are talking about education, healthcare, and serious public concerns. It’s morally empty because, from my tradition and political philosophy, any political movement has to have a vision of social justice and the common good in order to appeal [to people]. And government can play a part in that. I’ve seen over the last five years that it clearly can.
And in case you had caught your breath after almost six years of Bush's foreign policy, here he is on the question "Which of the president’s speeches do you think best expresses his worldview?"
Probably the second inaugural, which he wanted to be the democracy speech—the culmination of a series of doctrines and approaches that we had defined in the previous two to three years. It talks very frankly about the necessity of democratic transformation for the future of American security. Particularly in the Middle East, the cycle of tyranny and radicalism has produced an unsustainable situation. That dynamic has to be changed, and democracy is the only way to do it. Some of it is working with authoritarian governments that may go down the path of reform, some of it is standing up for dissidents and taking the side of the oppressed, and some of it is confronting outlaw regimes that threaten the international order. This is, in many ways, the clearest crystallization of his foreign policy.
It'd be comforting to think they've learned their lesson, but they clearly haven't. In case your outrage quotient isn't yet filled, you can read this interview at Christianity Today. Gerson on the Democratic Party:
I would love to see the Democratic Party return to a tradition of social justice that was found in people like William Jennings Bryan. During that period, many if not most politically engaged evangelicals were in the Democratic Party, because it was a party oriented toward justice.
I don't see much of that now in the Democratic Party. Instead of an emphasis on the weak and suffering, there's so much emphasis on autonomy and choice. And so the party of William Jennings Bryan, the party of Franklin Roosevelt, I'm not sure it exists any more. But it would be good if it did.
Gerson on Republicans:
There are some members of the Republican Party who...have a much more narrow view of government's role. It would be a shame if conservatism were to return to a much more narrow and libertarian and nativist approach.
Your Republican Party, ladies and gentlemen. Bomb-slash-democratize the Arabs, accomplish "social justice," cure AIDS in Africa, and ban gay marriage. There's going to be a lot of work left for the federal government, apparently, even after Bush leaves office.
Tim Cavanaugh's short, acerbic postmortem on Joe Lieberman is worth a read. Here's a snippet:
Lieberman is possibly the least libertarian member of the United States Senate: An infinite-state liberal who always found ways to oppose Social Security reform (which he allegedly supported), an absurd moral scold who co-sponsored the "Silver Sewer Awards" with William Bennett, a values buttinski who couldn't resist attaching himself to Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, he was in the final analysis nothing but a fake, a tartuffe, a figure able to puff enough gas into every opportunistic action to make it seem like an example of high principle.
A couple of days ago I wrote a surprisingly upbeat blog entry about the third public draft of the federal Commission on the Future of Higher Education’s report on reforming the American ivory tower. I should have known better: Today commission chairman Charles Miller removed one of the highlights of the draft, a statement asserting that private sector lending should be a much bigger part of the college funding picture than it currently is.
Apparently, that bright spot – well, bright for anyone other than students who are trying to grab as much taxpayer money as they can possibly get their hands on – produced too much pressure for the chairman. A letter sent to him by the Project on Student Debt opposing the nod to the private sector – which I’ve boiled down to its main points below – illustrates just how persuasive the arguments by student interest groups can be:
- Private loans have no limits on interest rates. If overall market rates go up, student loan rates could too!
- Private loans have no set limits on the amount students can borrow. Like chickens without a farmer, student borrowers will apparently eat private loan money until they explode.
- Private loans don’t include all the ways for students to get out of paying them back that federal loans do. Unlike government loans, where taxpayers get stuck eating the losses when students don’t repay what they borrow, private lenders, it seems, actually want their money back.
- Encouraging middle-class students to get private instead of federal loans won’t free up federal resources. Apparently, lots of middle-class kids take federal loans today even though they accrue no benefits from them. So why don’t they just use private loans? Oh, right: Federal loans have artificially low interest rates thanks to being guaranteed with taxpayer money, and federal borrowers can slough off all or part of their debt on the American people.
Sadly, the Project on Student Debt’s kind of “reasoning” has prevailed in higher education policy for decades, and its letter illustrates better than I ever could why the only thing the higher education commission should recommend is that government withdraw completely from the ivory tower. Unfortunately, the chairman’s actions today illustrate another thing better than I ever could: This sort of revolting, taxpayer-robbing, special-interest “logic” almost always prevails in politics, and the commission’s final report will be no different.
Colleen Flood of the University of Toronto law school has a working paper out on the impact of the Canadian Supreme Court's ruling in Chaoulli v. Quebec. In that case the court basically said that if the government prohibits private health insurance, but then threatens people's lives by making them wait for care in the state-run health care system, it is violating the people's rights to life, liberty, and personal security.
Prof. Flood's paper is titled, "Chaoulli's Legacy for the Future of Canadian Health Care Policy." From the abstract:
The decision was initially considered of limited importance by many given that technically it applied only to Quebec. In the six months since the decision was released, however, it has become clear that the legal impact of Chaoulli will be dwarfed by its normative impact on policy debates across the country. Chaoulli has brought Canadian Medicare to a fork in the road. At the time of writing, critical decisions are about to be taken across the country.
Flood's paper is available from the Social Science Research Network here (subscription req'd).
Dr. Chaoulli -- the chief litigant in the case -- authored a paper for Cato on the ruling and its potential impact, available here.
Those who have strong feelings about how wealth ought to be distributed, and who think that government policy ought to be more redistributive, often fall victim to the fantasy that their golden geese will not just wander off into another jurisdiction.
No doubt the members of the Chicago City Council are nonplussed that their attempt to squeeze large retailers has led Wal-Mart, Lowes, and Target to put their plans for new Chicago stores (and new Chicago jobs) on hold. I bet a million billion dollars that at least a few council members have lamented that they can't legally force the big boxes to open stores within Chicago city limits. They're learning the bitter lesson that the right of exit is a powerful check on politicians who can't keep their hands out of other people's pockets.
Worried about inequality? Why not really sock it to the rich? Because the rich — or their money at any rate — will just leave town. Even champions of the poor, like Bono, head for the greenest pastures:
Irish rock band U2 has transferred part of its multi-million-euro business empire out of Ireland due to changes in tax laws there, a British newspaper has said.
In a report from Dublin, the Daily Telegraph said Tuesday the band had moved part of its publishing company, U2 Limited, to the same Dutch finance house used by the Rolling Stones because royalties are virtually tax-free in the Netherlands.
According to the Daily Telegraph, the band — whose frontman Bono campaigns against global poverty — made the move in response to Ireland imposing a 250,000-euro (170,000-pound, 321,000-dollar) cap on tax-free incomes.
I bet Bono thinks he knows better than politicians in Dublin how to use his money. And I bet Bono's right.
A recent Washington Post article details how France is bleeding millionaires thanks to outrageously punitive tax rates:
[High-tech millionaire Denis] Payre, who moved his family to neighboring Belgium eight years ago, is today part of a sizable community of rich expatriate French driven out by the world's highest tax bills on wealthy citizens. The exodus continues: On average, at least one millionaire leaves France every day to take up residence in more wealth-friendly nations, according to a government study.
Now, I bet that more than a few of those fleet-footed millionaires were in favor of those high tax rates, illustrating that the gap between ideology and actual consequences can open up even within a single soul.
There is not a line in McCain-Feingold that isn’t designed to protect incumbents. The so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act makes it a crime to even mention the name of a candidate for federal office in a radio or television ad within 60 days of a general election. No criticizing incumbents! But the worst part of these laws came with the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, which instituted a $1000 contribution limit to candidates running for federal office (now slightly more than $2000, but less in real terms than the ’74 limits). Incumbents have earmarks to pass around and large mailing lists. Challengers do not. Advantage, incumbents.
Ned Lamont’s remarkable victory over three-term incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman yesterday exposes the true nature of contribution limits. They aren’t about the “appearance of corruption.” They’re about preventing a challenger from having a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. The one “loophole” the Supremes created with their incoherent 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo was that candidates have rights the rest of us don’t have. Apparently, they can’t be corrupted by their own money, so there are no limits on what they can spend on their own campaigns.
More than 60 percent of Ned’s campaign expenditures came from Ned. Without Ned, Ned loses. In fact, no political observer thought any candidate dependent on a $2000 contribution limit had any kind of chance of ousting Lieberman. Ned was a very poor candidate. Inarticulate with zero charisma. But by spending his own money he enfranchised the Democrats of Connecticut who otherwise, given the contribution limits, were disenfranchised. The Democrats in Connecticut hate the war in Iraq, Lieberman has rather energetically endorsed it. Yet the federal election laws would have assured Lieberman reelection were it not for the “loophole.”
This anti-war election is directly analogous to my late friend Gene McCarthy’s race for the presidency in 1968. Gene used six-figure contributions from wealthy liberals like Stewart Mott who opposed the war in Vietnam to fund a campaign that ousted a sitting president from his own party. Gene often said that had the ’74 amendments to the FECA been in place in ’68, he would not have run. Campaign finance laws should not have the power to change American history. But they do. Give everyone the “loophole” of being able to spend as much of their own money to promote their political beliefs and we’ll throw a remarkable number of incumbents out of office. And with good candidates instead of bumbling millionaires.