Home › Blogs › Stephen Gordon's blog ›

A Really Simple Federal Candidate Litmus Test

Submitted by Stephen Gordon on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 02:31
in

Patrick is right when he states that Jon is right in: "Is the Republican Party For or Against Trillion Dollar Deficits?"

A couple or three CPACs ago, I ran into Grover Norquist and chatted with him for a few minutes about GOP priorities.  This was the first time I ever heard Grover say that he wished, in retrospect, that he had placed much greater emphasis on reductions in federal spending.  I later heard him say pretty much the same thing at an event at his house.

I spent much of the evening of July 4, 2007 with the late John Berthoud of the NTU.  He expressed the same general sentiment as we watched the DC fireworks from the Pentagon.  He jokingly suggested that we could reduce quite a bit of cab fare expenses simply by relocating GOP headquarters and the Capitol office buildings to K Street.

During this general timeframe, the WSJ's John Fund walked by a booth I was managing at an NTU event.  I asked John his thoughts on federal spending, and he responded with something to the effect (I don't remember the exact words but Patrick's blog entry reminded me of the conversation) of: The majority of Republicans in Congress probably won't be serious about decreasing spending until the GOP hits rock bottom.

Perhaps the GOP has hit rock bottom.  Perhaps not.  As with alcoholics, I still see a lot of denial out there.

If so, I've got a simple suggestion which should not prove controversial.

I'd like to see one of the major policy organizations promote and publish a rather simple pledge.  I used Grover's National Taxpayer Protection Pledge as my starting point.

I ,____________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district of the State of _________ and to the American People that I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase federal spending for any domestic or discretionary purpose ; and 

TWO, oppose any and all efforts to increase future federal spending obligations for any domestic or discretionary purpose. 

Purposefully, I left defense spending out of the equation.  As a matter of compromise, the pledge could be sunsetted for when we reach a balanced budget or pay off the deficit.

This should be a no-brainer for conservatives.  If candidates can't accept these simple but principled terms, it is our duty to make sure they never hold elected office.  If the right truly wants to take a "first step", this could be it.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

The problem with this

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 13:58.

Is that no politician, I think, would promise this, as they would never get re-elected. Satisfying those who are for smaller government is great, but many others would feel left out.

Additionally, some domestic spending might actually be necessary, like infrastructure.

That's my two cents, anyways. I like the motivation behind the post though.

Wow

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 14:10.

Blanket opposition to any increase increase in federal spending for any domestic purpose.

So, if there is a three-year long drought that devistates the family farmers in the red states of the midwest, we'll just let them all go under?

 

No, we'll live within our means

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 16:11.

No, it means that if some terrible disaster strikes somewhere, the government should readjust its budget accordingly.  So if drought hits the Midwest, maybe it's time to cut NASA funding for a while and move that money to drought relief.  That is what all of us as families and repsonsible individuals do.

Oh yes, I'm sure TX and FL would be fine with that.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 19:20.

Oh yes, I'm absolutely sure that the TX and FL congressional delegations would happily approve taking hundreds of millions in jobs and economic activity out of their economies and sending it to the Dakotas and Nebraska instead.

Or, at least, I would be sure that would happen had I not just witnessed a parade of southern senators arguing against the Detroit bailout becasue they thought its failure would benefit the foreign car makers who had set up shop in their states.

 

Good Point.

Submitted by Cahnman on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 20:29.

As a Texas resident, I must admit that Houston does love their NASA pork.

are you prepared to permanently erase scientists from

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 11:50.

the basic research pool? (not NASA specifically, but most science projects run on a five year term. that means that changing the allocation of resources even by 10% means that HALF of the projects get funded that were supposed to be. this makes it hard for scientists to plan, since they generally only have one project running at a time).

 

Special interest scare-mongering

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:14.

First, you're wrong about how federally funded science projects work.  But that is a distraction really.  I have a hard time understanding your and other lefties' opposition to this sort of fiscal responsibility.  If there's a disaster, like any family budget, you rearrange your budgetary priorities to make sure the effects of the disaster are mitigated.  Instead you seem to be advocating the "we can have our cake and eat it too" philosophy - from a budgetary point of view, pretend like there hasn't been a disaster and spend the money anyway.  That wouldn't be responsible in anyone's personal life, why would it be considered responsible if a government does it?  Your responses here go a long way towards illuminating why the tax-and-spend label was so effective when it was applied to Democrats.

yawn. don't tell me I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong.

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:50.

http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/Grants/GrantTypes

Here's my citation, pulled quickly off NIH. notice how the R01 is the most commonly funded grant. I admit, I've only worked for young researchers, either ones working towards R01s or with one on the books.

Prove me wrong, or shut the hell up.

Also, with the amount of time it takes to get a grant funded (over a year in most cases), science is a relatively inelastic means to deal with strained demand.

Why not cut something like transportation, or the military? (okay, not the military right right now. i know what a dire state they're in. but most years!).

That might make it hard on a few construction workers, but if done practically (read in profitable states), it won't be career ending, as drastic droughts in an already small GDP expense like science is likely to be.

science, droughts and budgets

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 15:58.

The standard NSF grant is 3 years.  NSF has lots of other funding opportunities too that range from less than 1 year to 5 years in duration.  The military research agencies have their own set of rules.  And then there's the national labs with their quasi-university structure, mostly funded by DoE.  And then there's NASA.  And then there's NIST.  And then there's the USDA and their ag research programs.  And then there's all the other NIH funding opportunities.  So there's an awful lot of federally funded science out there that can't be easily categorized into "5 years of duration".

But you miss the larger point.  I don't care if science is a personal favorite of yours.  It happens to be a personal favorite of mine too.  But the government, like any family, should establish priorities with its money.  I think there should be some government funding of science research.  But if you balance that against, say, drought relief, which should give way?  We have gone too long in saying "we don't need to choose, let's spend the money anyway" and that is simply irresponsible.  In short we should stop looking at government budgets as this grab bag of money that special interests feel entitled to, and start looking at government budgets as establishing national priorities.

hmm... and back we go!

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 16:23.

I agree wholeheartedly that the government budget should be used to establish national priorities. That's why I believe in universal health care -- spending 6% of our GDP every year on denying people care seems... awful nearsighted.

But how do we establish national priorities? I like Brin's idea of stipulating, of getting politicians to tell people what they don't want to hear. But really, we establish priorities based on elections. You get a rather standard slate from a Republican (reduce entitlements, reduce vet benefits, raise military spending) and a rather standard slate from a Democrat (raise taxes on the rich, raise wages for the poor, hope you get more tax revenue, reduce national prioritization on health care).

Everyone claims to be in favor of conservative fiscal policy (balanced budgets and such), but demographically it's infeasible for the Republicans to insist on that (as the federal budget siphons considerable quantities of money from blue states to red states). I hope that in eight years, I can say that Obama is well on the way to balancing the budget, and paying down our debt, but for too long most people have forgotten that debt hurts us. They see no consequences in not raising taxes or lowering spending. I devoutly wish that both parties would go on a PR drive about fiscal discipline, from Obama on down. But that would wreck the American Economy, which is built on rampant consumerism for stuff people don't need. Still, it might be good in the long term.

also, you got me on the NSF. that should be my career field, but it ain't. however, NIH accounts for around half of non-military r&d (http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/upd1104.htm) -- possibly a little more than shown, since most military r&D run through non military channels goes through noaa or nsf, i'd figure (i could be wrong)

My god, where to start.

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 22:07.

My god, where to start. 

1. We already have universal health care - nobody is denied treatment.  It is the law.

2. But what of course you really mean is "universal health insurance".  I would be absolutely thrilled if we had "universal health insurance", if that term is understood to mean "everybody is able to purchase the health insurance coverage that he/she wants, including purchasing no coverage at all if that is his/her desire."

3. You claim that Republicans want to cut funding for veterans.  This is beyond false, it is a filthy lie.  Funding for Veterans Affairs has increased every year under Bush, and Reagan for that matter.

4. Bush didn't cut entitlements, he INCREASED them.  So did Gingrich. So did Reagan.  So has every Republican president that has ever served since FDR, much to the consternation of true fiscal conservatives.  The only people who believe Republicans want to take away grandma's Social Security check are Democrat fundraisers when they mail out the next round of fundraising letters for the DNC.

5. You complain that Republicans aren't sincere in wanting to balance budgets, as that would end the excess transfer payments from blue states to red states - as if it were some clever scheme enacted by Republicans to steal the wealth of blue states.  It isn't.  It is mostly due to those entitlements that you lefties love so much.  Old people tend to migrate to warmer (i.e., red) states, and when they move their entitlement payments follow them.  And, guess what, there's more military bases in red states than blue ones, simply because red states occupy more territory.  More military bases = more military funding.  Maybe that's some clever scheme enacted by the Pentagon? Yeah let's put those missile silos in North Dakota so that they will continue to support Republicans!  The fact that more money goes to red states from blue states is an unintended consequence of the wealth redistribution schemes enacted by you lefties.  I would be THRILLED if New Yorkers got to keep more of their money because it would mean a return to a more federalist government.  But that would mean reducing the size of government in DC, which you will undoubtedly fight tooth and nail because that would mean starving children and grandma living under the freeway, or whatever are the Democrat scare tactics du jour.

6. Every modern non-socialist economy is built on "consumerism", not just us Americans.  True consumerism is when people purchase goods and services in excess of their basic needs.  You imply this is some sort of evil enterprise - it isn't.  I have disposable income, I'll spend it on things that make me happy.  What's wrong with that?  The only problem is if I buy goodies for myself while at the same time neglecting my long-term needs, such as saving for retirement.  Maybe that's what you mean by "rampant consumerism".  Well guess who enables that sort of consumerism - that's right, it's the government with its cradle-to-grave entitlement programs.  Why should I save for my kids' college tuition when I think they will be able to get it paid for by the government?  Why should I save for my retirement when Social Security and Medicare will pay my retirement expenses for me?  Heck, why should I plan ahead at all?  If I find myself in a bad situation, all I have to do is complain loud enough and a caring, compassionate, liberal government will wipe away my tears and hand me a check to soothe my pain.  So government entitlements enable short-term "rampant consumerism" rather than long-term fiscal prudence.  But, do liberals even recognize the connection?  No.  They are quite happy trashing American companies as being greedy capitalist pigs preying on the weak with their mesmerizing ads, while at the same time trashing Republicans who attempt any entitlement reform whatsoever as being a bunch of cruel-hearted monsters.  In essence you want it both ways.

7. And I have no idea where you got "spending 6% of our GDP denying people care".  Is that all you think insurance companies do?

8. Finally - and I mean this in all seriousness - why are you here?  Why do you bother coming here if all you are going to do is project your ignorant Republican stereotypes onto all of us?  I thought this was supposed to be a place dedicated to rebuilding the Republican Party.  Seems like all you want to do is tear it down.  You aren't helping.

Riddle me this:

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 11:02.

if we have universal health care, how do we get children dying of a toothache? Let alone people freezing to death in their own homes (ahem. maybe there's a reason debt collectors shouldn't be allowed to intimidate old people)... If you say that health care is the law, I have news for you -- there are enough places out there without enough hospitals to service their populace. And using the emergency room for quasi-routine care is NOT universal health care. For gods sakes! If I told you that you could pay $1000 a year to keep me from using the hospital emergency room on a daily basis, would you pay it? This is not a hypothetical situation. This is what the result of denying antihistamines to the severely allergized looks like -- a situation in which they are fundamentally unproductive members of society (in a state of mild shock) with occasional bouts of moderate shock, leading to poor decisionmaking and the necessity for hospital visits every night, to put them on oxygen so that they can continue to breathe.

Some of the more Right Wing republicans in congress were floating a new slogan: "Veterans Benefits are the New Welfare" Also, I rather doubt that the increases in Veteran's care have been even at the level of inflation, let alone enough to help out the wounded, judging by the documented cases of depressed/mentally damaged soldiers not getting enough help from the VA, for their documented war injuries. Brain damage is not a fun thing, particularly when your only fault was being near a bullet.

Have I just been hearing people blowing smoke out of their tushies then? I could have sworn many republicans were for limiting social security and other entitlements. Let alone that dippy idea of putting more dumb money into the stock market.

It's no clever scheme to steal money from blue states -- and even if you leave out entitlements like social security, you still see more welfare and infrastructure investments going to red states than they pay in taxes. I'm not saying this isn't good for the blue states -- having a working interstate highway system is a good thing by any measure, as well as having a functioning electric grid. And this is going beyond the 50% of American electricity produced by red/purple states in the rockies and Appalachia. On a fundamental level, I believe that returning to federalism as the founders envisaged it -- would turn many places in our beloved country into third world areas, just as they were before The War on Poverty. So I'd object to decreasing the 'globalism' of America, the interconnectedness, on the grounds that it would severely undercut our global advantage.

Also, have you read Born Fighting? I was more referencing the number of miltary veterans in red states v.s. blue states, which can serve as a rough proxy for how much military spending people are likely to favor. In point of fact, since all of the Pacific states are blue, it would make much more sense for the Navy to put more of it's bases in blue states... yay logistics!

If government entitlements were at all sufficient to give a dignified retirement, you might find me agreeing with you. As it is, with the decrease in the average American wage, financial experts suggest that people should save a million dollars apiece for their retirement. I sincerely doubt more than 20% do so. I believe that the Boomer generation in particular has just become simply greedy. It's not the corporations, but the people. They will be rightly excoriated by future generations for having robbed them of pristine natural resources with no forethought towards the future.

15% of our GDP goes to health care. 40 cents on every health care dollar goes to denying people coverage. Hence my number. This isn't all on the insurance company's end. some of it comes from hospitals and doctor's offices, where they have to determine whether you can pay, how much, and run collections agencies.

I've written a few diaries on demographics here, and on where and what I think the Republicans could do to fix their permanent minority status. I believe that a Republican party that tries to reach majority status is a net plus for the entire country, as we'd have to deal with less voter supression. Of course, I also believe that there may be a place in the Republican party for left-libertarians.

 

hmm... and back we go!

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 16:23.

I agree wholeheartedly that the government budget should be used to establish national priorities. That's why I believe in universal health care -- spending 6% of our GDP every year on denying people care seems... awful nearsighted.

But how do we establish national priorities? I like Brin's idea of stipulating, of getting politicians to tell people what they don't want to hear. But really, we establish priorities based on elections. You get a rather standard slate from a Republican (reduce entitlements, reduce vet benefits, raise military spending) and a rather standard slate from a Democrat (raise taxes on the rich, raise wages for the poor, hope you get more tax revenue, reduce national prioritization on health care).

Everyone claims to be in favor of conservative fiscal policy (balanced budgets and such), but demographically it's infeasible for the Republicans to insist on that (as the federal budget siphons considerable quantities of money from blue states to red states). I hope that in eight years, I can say that Obama is well on the way to balancing the budget, and paying down our debt, but for too long most people have forgotten that debt hurts us. They see no consequences in not raising taxes or lowering spending. I devoutly wish that both parties would go on a PR drive about fiscal discipline, from Obama on down. But that would wreck the American Economy, which is built on rampant consumerism for stuff people don't need. Still, it might be good in the long term.

also, you got me on the NSF. that should be my career field, but it ain't. however, NIH accounts for around half of non-military r&d (http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/upd1104.htm) -- possibly a little more than shown, since most military r&D run through non military channels goes through noaa or nsf, i'd figure (i could be wrong)

Special interest scare-mongering

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:14.

First, you're wrong about how federally funded science projects work.  But that is a distraction really.  I have a hard time understanding your and other lefties' opposition to this sort of fiscal responsibility.  If there's a disaster, like any family budget, you rearrange your budgetary priorities to make sure the effects of the disaster are mitigated.  Instead you seem to be advocating the "we can have our cake and eat it too" philosophy - from a budgetary point of view, pretend like there hasn't been a disaster and spend the money anyway.  That wouldn't be responsible in anyone's personal life, why would it be considered responsible if a government does it?  Your responses here go a long way towards illuminating why the tax-and-spend label was so effective when it was applied to Democrats.

What chemjeff said.

Submitted by centerfire on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 19:18.

The FY2008 federal budget had more than $2.9 trillion in outlays.  If you cannot find enough wiggle room within a $2.9 trillion annual budget to reallocate funds in order to deal with an unforeseen disaster or two, then you are demonstrably too incompetent to control the public purse.

And I say that without regard to party affiliation: the maxim applies to Democrats and Republicans alike.

 

Absolutely.

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 22:14.

Maybe suggesting NASA was too specific.  But just imagine if it were a family that suffered some financial calamity.  What would be the first thing you'd do?  Probably cut back on the frills.  No vacation this year.  No more eating out for a while.  Let's apply the same discipline to the federal budget.  Let's not instantly think that the first thing we should do is raise taxes or go deeper into debt.

here here!

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:53.

sorry to quibble about what looks to be a randomly chosen example.

but since I consider science to be one of the few good things the gov't does well, I tend to be a trifle territorial about it.

here here!

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:53.

sorry to quibble about what looks to be a randomly chosen example.

but since I consider science to be one of the few good things the gov't does well, I tend to be a trifle territorial about it.

We can't reduce spending Mr. Gordon...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 20:34.

...why?  Because of domestic "entitlements".  You see Mr. Gordon, we are not only providing a safety net for our own poor and downtrodden. Not much we can do about that. We've learned to accept it.  But now we're also responsible for 20 million+  illegal immigrants!   And the Base can't accept that burden being put on its shoulders.  And we can thank your buddy Grover Norquist for helping to make that possible.  He has fought hard to keep the borders open and porous and the flow of cheap labor unrestricted.  He hides behind the legitimacy of ATR but he, along with others like Tom Donohue of USCoC, are responsible for the "souring" of the relationship between the GOP Base and the Party. 

I've written here on this site on the need to "purge" specific people from the GOP. Meaning to block them from having any influence over or within the party.  They're  transnational progressives (google it).  They are alienating the conservetive Base.  Norquist is a chief among this elitist gang.   Norquist has a lot of gall asking/demanding that people sign his pledge of no new taxes when his own actions are partially responsible for the need for more taxes.                 Darvin Dowdy

Are you serious?

Submitted by TheWaterman on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:45.

Entitlements for illegal immigrants is the reason we can't cut spending.

That argument is never going to hold water. You could seal the border, eject every illegal immigrant, and for good measure every naturalized citizen and green card holder while you're at it - and the current entitlements system will still devastate our economy far worse than the fiscal crisis did.

Claims that illegal immigrants are the problem do nothing but distract from, and reduce political capital being spent on reforming the whole entitlements system. And all the while they continue to alienate minority communities and independent voters as well as libertarian-republicans and some moderate republicans.

If you and superdestroyer are so up in arms over the issue of illegal immigration, why not actually propose something that might fix it. Our border is so massive that it will never be possible to keep it impermeable. The only way to fix it is to change the current system - it's massively convoluted, complex, resource-consuming (both time and money), and extremely painful to get through (for a great example, read this).

That account matches the experience of every person I know that has recently emigrated to America. Until we stop making it so damn hard to come here legally, people will continue to do so illegally.

Oh, and as for purging people like Norquist from the party? The pledge has been instrumental in preventing countless numbers of tax increases over the years. What have you and those of your persuasion done? We could do a lot better by purging the Tom Tancredos of the party (not to say that we necessarily should).

My wife was here on a VISA

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 15:14.

And we got her a green card. Honestly, it was tougher than getting my security clearance. Medical exams, tax records, letters from family and friends... I can't imagine what it would be like to try and get a green card without already being married to a citizen.

LnGrrrR...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:41.

...same here.  Cost me a bundle. But we did it legally and have never asked the government for a dime.  My beef is not w/legal immigrants.  We most definitely need foreign workers.  Certainly if the flow of illegal's was stopped there would be more available slots for legal immigrants.  And you can bet the process would be streamlined dramatically.

And how do you stop the flow of illegals?  You put teeth behind the I9 process and the SSA needs to enforce the SS Mismatch Letter program w/badged, uniformed, gun toting officers.  Once a few HR directors get thrown under the jail and the jobs of illegals start to dry up, watch them ( those here illegally) all go home peacefully and on their own nickel!!   And maybe our 6.7% unemployment rate might go down.  Not that the Transies in the GOP care about that!  The criminals love the cheap labor even if it is illegal.   They care nothing for US workers which is why they continue to lose elections.  They're so dumbed down by their brazen arrogance they can't remember that, "hey, don't US workers have the ability to vote? Duhhh"  DD

Illegals Taking Spots From Legals?

Submitted by TheWaterman on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 23:11.

Something about your logic isn't adding up here. You're suggesting that somehow the presence of illegal immigrants is taking up slots that could otherwise be filled by legal immigrants. Do you have any evidence to support the assertion.

The U.S. only offers 120,00 employment-based visas for permanent residence per year. And those slots get filled every year, and there's still 1.2 million people in employment-based categories waiting - and that's as of last year! (source)

That would certainly suggest, to me at least, that it's not illegals taking spots from legals - it's an inane and pointlessly bureaucratic system that is the problem. That's why any real solution has to involve reforming the immigration code as the primary focus, not as a secondary one after enforcement.

But let's try your suggestion for argument's sake. We'll do nothing about fixing the current legal code and instead just ramp up enforcement. Some businesses will get busted and some others will change practices to avoid penalties.

But everyone? I seriously doubt that. The enforcement costs to ensure total compliance would be astronomical, and the infringement of liberty even more so. And the exact same would hold true for the border. And even then, I suspect the market would adapt faster than the government and new ways to evade the regulations would manifest themselves, on both counts.

But even if it did work, and illegal immigration ground to a halt, how do you think that would work out economically? The economy is already reeling. Cut out the job base of a decent amount of southern business - most of which is already struggling and replace it with higher wage labor? Most businesses won't be able to afford that and will be forced to either close or at least cut back on employees. Whichever happens, there'll be comensurate declines in services offered or goods produced, and whatever does get produced will cost more. How exactly does this help American workers?

I also notice you failed to address the problem of illegal immigration rhetoric distracting attention from the true threat of not enacting across-the-board entitlement reform. Come up with some reasoned responses to that and the points I just raised and we can have an actual discussion.

let me address this non-logic...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 08:41.

...lets see now, we start punishing employers who hire illegals (I9 & SS mismatch letter strict enforcement), then over the next several months 10 million or so illegals pack up and go home.  So that leaves 10 million+  job openings.  Right?   A good many of those jobs will be filled by US citizens.  What a novel concept. (yes these are the folks that the GOP Hierarchy forgot all about!) And, yes!, business' will have to pay a bit more. They might not get the big quarterly bonus that they've been used to. Boo Hoo! So they'll have to postpone buying that new set of Callaway's.     The gov't will be pressured by business, certainly, to streamline the legal process for issuance of work visa's. Which it will.   But issuance of work visas must be tied directly to unemployment/employment numbers.  Its not complicated, waterman!  You know it and so does the present administration.  Unfortunately they have caved in to pressure from the US Chamber and other lobbies. 

Waterman, folks like you want continuance of the status quo.  Ain't gonna happen.  If the middle class goes down in this nation, the nation goes down.  We all go down together.  The GOP must understand that or they'll continue in irrelevance.  Darvin Dowdy

Where's the money going to come from?

Submitted by TheWaterman on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 12:51.

Do you honestly think that every job held by an illegal immigrant would go to a U.S. citizen?

How many illegal immigrants do you think get paid at minimum wage rates? My guess is barely any. Most every business is being forced to let people go already. Where are they going to get the money from to hire the same number of employees at minimum wage while keeping prices stable?

If we assume that an illegal immigrant gets paid $2 less than minimum wage and works an 8 hour day, 5 days a week, for 52 weeks, than replacing him with a legal, minimum wage earning employee is going to cost $4160 dollars. I seriously doubt many construction projects or landscaping operations can afford that kind of cost increase. So jobs will be lost and/or costs will go up - either way it's a decline in service that harms the economy, and at a time when we can least afford it.

And anyhow, weren't you just complaining that illegal immigrants were pulling in all the entitlements. Now you're mad that they're taking all the jobs. You can't exactly have it both ways. Particularly when the evidence in fact suggests that immigrants are putting in more than they take in benefits.

I agree with you, the issue isn't complicated. The math seems pretty obvious to me. Our economy can't afford to be anti-immigrant, legal or illegal.

It's basic economics. People respond to incentives. There is no way that you can ever make the negative incentives strong enough to stop illegal immigration - the enforcement costs will always be far to high to have truly effective enforcement so the benefits will consistently outweigh the negative ones.

The only way to stop illegal immigration is to change the incentive structure so that the positive incentives of legal immigration are better than the incentives to emigrate legally. And that means reforming the immigration code so that the costs to emigrate drop to near zero. Until you do that all the enforcement logistically possible is pointless.

And for the record you still haven't justified the anti-immigrant rhetoric on entitlements when it's hurting the cause of real entitlement reform.

no one is more eloquent...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 18:49.

...than a guilty criminal trying to plead his own case.  Waterman if you are an employer and you are hiring illegals, you are a criminal.  It doesn't matter if the gov't doesn't enforce the law.  Stop it! Stop breaking the law!

You say: "You can't exactly have it both ways." Ha!  Best joke I've heard all day! Waterman you need to come down here and live in the Houston area for a couple of years. We have apprx 400K illegals in this area and thats a "best guesstimate".  You want to talk about having it both ways, well they do.  They are illegal.  Many  have several sets of fake id's.  They enroll their kids in public schools under one set, apply for a LoneStar card on another, WIC on another.  Free Clinics with their other.   Its common knowledge that many drive w/out insurance.  Why should they? If they get in a wreck they just abandon the vehicle and get another one. The license plates are many times stolen.   And if the police give them a ticket, they just refuse to show up in court. The fake id has some fictitious name and address on it .  And, of course, the police can't press them on their status, you know.  And you are right.  They don't work for minimum wage, no sir!  They make $10-$15 bucks an hour.  Sometimes more.  As contract labor.  No benefits, you see.  Plus they take advantage of all the above entitlements.   And here's some more if you're (or any of the other open borders Transies visiting this site)  interested in the truth:  ( link ) DD

 

 

So why not make it more attractive for them to be legal?

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 20:34.

Look, it's not feasible to just start knocking on doors and rounding them up. So why not introduce a program that will make them legal, so they have to pay taxes?

I've known people that were born in the US from illegal parents. The one thing that scared them was always that they would make a wrong move and be deported. MANY illegal immigrants are scared of this situation, and would be willing to try to become legal if A) it wasn't so costly, B) they wouldn't have to move back to their country of origin while they waited for a card and C) the wait times weren't so long.

 

Wonderful assumptions

Submitted by TheWaterman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 10:14.

No I do not employ illegal immigrants. For that matter I am not currently employing anyone. But if I were to hire someone I wouldn't hesitate to exercise my natural right to freely exchange my money for someone else's labor at the best possible value to me, regardless of their immigration status.

And before you start preaching to others about breaking the law and how they ought to stop, tell me, do you religiously obey every law? Do you always obey the speed limit? Have you ever not signalled when turning? Or online, have you ever downloaded "obscenity" or watched a music video on YouTube?

And that's just on a national level. You live in Texas Right. Have you ever:

What is there that makes immigration different than any of those? Nothing. It's just another law that was arbitrarily made that artificially limits liberty.

The presence of another person competing in your economy is only a problem if you think that people shouldn't have to freely compete. And if you think that, then you're going to have an awful lot of trouble arguing against the bailout, entitlement programs, card check, and everything else Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are getting ready to try and shove through.

And before you start going off on immigrants committing murder, theft, and the like, that's a separate issue. If a person kills someone, or steals from them, or otherwise violates their rights than they deserve to be punished. How they came to the country doesn't matter, not morally.

And once again, you have still justify my original complaint. Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are a far greater threat to the country than immigration. Yet the more people complain about immigrants using entitlement programs (and as my source in the previous comment noted they put in more than they take from such programs) the more strength they sap from the movement to reform the entire entitlements system.

see, these are the sorts of things you can get

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 11:05.

democrats and republicans to support. A "ban sweatshops and illegal immigrants" campaign where you DON"T go after the schlemiels (i.e. the immigrants who just want to feed their family) but instead go after the corporations -- that has real promise for a good consensus.

PARTICULARLY if you pair this with a campaign to open our country to legal immigrants.

Can you remember June 07? McCain/Kennedy?...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:20.

...when the Base roared?  All of you Transies wish it would go away.  And you ask, "What have you and those of your persuasion done?"  Uh, uh, uh...how about 11/7/06 and 11/4/08?  You just can't understand (or refuse to accept) -  you won't win elections without us.  10-20 million Civic Conservatives stayed at home or protest voted for another.  (not me- I voted straight GOP as I have since the early '80's) You and your ilk believe that the concept of sovereign borders is antiquated, obsolete, passe'.    As long as negative forces such as you, waterman, control the GOP, expect a continued accelerated downward spiral.  Go ahead and live in unreality if you so desire.  But don't expect to be in the winners circle.   Darvin Dowdy

Are you serious?

Submitted by TheWaterman on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:54.

(comment deleted by author as duplicate)