This article by Michael Tanner at the Cato Institute completely destroys the argument that Detroit failed because of 'free market' principles.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/government-not-globalization-destroyed-detroit
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Immigration (Part 1)
The purpose of this blog post is to address the problem of
immigration. Conservative organizations and politicians have been blasting the
immigration reform bill that passed the senate. Most of the criticism are
coming from claims of amnesty as well as concerns over a possible spike in the
deficit as immigrants take advantage of government services. Also, Republicans
are for the most part worried that if illegal immigrants are granted
citizenship it will be the death of the Republican party.
One of the major organizations to come out swinging against
immigration reform is the Heritage Foundation. According to a study conducted
by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine Ph.D, immigration reform will add trillions
to the deficit[1].
In their research they advocate being very cautious about who and how many
people are to be let into the US due to the vast benefits citizens receive. According
to their empirical analysis, if the current illegal immigrants were legalized
it would add about $9.3 trillion to the deficit over a lifetime. When this
study was released, political commentators such as Glenn Beck[2]
and Rush Limbaugh[3]
have been blasting immigration reform.
On the other side of the debate is the Cato Institute. While
they are not fully behind the immigration reform bill, due to various flaws,
they do agree that reform is necessary and disagree with the Heritage
Foundation's findings. While these two organizations frequently agree on
economic issues, here there is virtually no agreement. The Cato Institute
responded to the Heritage report with harsh criticism. First was the critique
that the Heritage analysis didn't account for GDP increases. Then, they didn't conduct
any analysis on the immigration reform bill that was before the senate[4].
Not only does Cato disagree with Heritage's report, scholars at the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI), the American-Action Forum, and the Hudson Institute
also disagree with Heritage's methodology[5].
When Cato conducted their statistical analysis they found that by legalizing
immigrants GDP would increase by $1.5
trillion over ten years and that Heritage's proposal would reduce GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.
So, with these two policy think tanks in Washington, DC in
disagreement, what is the right path for the US? Both organizations mostly
follow the Austrian school of economics but come to very different conclusions.
In order for there to be any consensus there must be common ground first. Both
organizations understand that the current illegal's in the US have broken the
law. They have taken advantage of a broken system and are able to abuse
government benefits due to the US becoming a welfare state. However, what action is to be taken? Both
organizations are looking for the most economical way of dealing with this
problem. Are we to allow them the benefits of US citizenship, which costs money,
or do we deport or imprison them, which also costs a lot of money.
According to a GAO study, in 2009 the US spent $1.6 billion
on incarcerated illegal immigrants[6].
This clearly demonstrates that something needs to be done about immigration. Now,
this $1.6 billion is the cost to incarcerate approximately 55,000 illegal
immigrants. By doing a little math we can find that it cost around $29,000 to
incarcerate an illegal immigrant. Now, if we were to imprison all illegal
immigrants it would cost over $319 billion for one year to keep the estimated 11
million illegal immigrants in prison, in 2009 dollars. So, if you're looking
for an economical solution, this one isn't it. So if arresting and imprisoning
an illegal immigrant is off the table, what next.
Typically, deportation is another option that is expressed
by conservatives. Given that illegal immigrants broke the law it only stands to
reason that they don't deserve to be here and should be sent home. According to
CNS News it costs about $12,500 to arrest and deport an illegal immigrant[7].
If we then deported all the illegal immigrants in the US today it would cost $137.5
billion. This option already looks better than putting these individuals in
jail. The cost per person is less than half of what it costs to keep that
person in jail. While this option is better economically, it still costs
billions of dollars.
With the arrest or deport plans failing to be economically
beneficial to the United States, there must be other options to resolve this
problem. We cannot just arrest or deport all of the illegal immigrants in the
US because it would be fiscally irresponsible. Not to mention, if it was made
mandatory to deport all current illegal immigrants they would pursue all means necessary
to stay in the US, making it harder to identify them and deport them, costing
even more money. This issue is complex and will need a complicated solution.
With a problem so large we cannot just allow quick fixes. Amnesty isn't the
answer, but neither is a simple deportation program. Deportation is expensive
and amnesty was tried under the Reagan administration and the problem has only
gotten worse.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Mayor Bloomberg
Politico Headline: "Mayor Bloomberg: End 'shoot-first'
laws." This sort of thing makes me really angry. Not the fact that the
Mayor wants to alter the law, but that he is talking about Florida's gun laws
and the Zimmerman trial. Bloomberg made this statement after the conclusion of
the George Zimmerman trial blasting Florida's 'shoot-first' gun law. Bloomberg
should remember he is the Mayor of New York City, not a representative of
Florida. He should keep his mouth shut on the laws Florida residents have
enacted for their own protection.
Bloomberg then goes on to say
"But one fact has long been crystal
clear: ‘shoot-first’ laws like those in Florida can inspire dangerous
vigilantism and protect those who act recklessly with guns. Such laws – drafted
by gun lobby extremists in Washington – encourage deadly confrontations by
enabling people to shoot first and argue ‘justifiable homicide’ later"[1].
Here, Bloomberg is clearly making a reference to the
Zimmerman/Martin case given the time in which this statement was delivered.
What is unfortunate is that he is using this event for political gain. It's
made even worse because he isn't even acknowledging any evidence put forward by
the defense. Bloomberg must believe as the prosecution tried to prove, that
Zimmerman acted as a vigilante and not in self defense; that he shot Martin
first and then decided to deal with the consequences later. Clearly Bloomberg hasn't actually been
following the case since there was photographic evidence of Zimmerman's bloody
face and head, as well as testimony at the trial from forensic pathologist Dr.
Vincent DiMaio that Martin was standing over Zimmerman when he was shot[2],
which fit with Zimmerman's story.
The worst part about Bloomberg's quote is he is saying that
the people of Florida don't know the proper policy for their own protection. He
clearly believes that up on his high horse in NY City he knows the true needs
of people living in Florida.
His entire rhetoric is offensive to those who believe they
shouldn't have to flee from criminals. The 'shoot-first' laws he is referring
to is also known as 'stand your ground' laws. They essentially state that "a
person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is
reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first[3]."
So in essence, we have a right to our own protection and we aren't require to
run away first. One question for Bloomberg, what happens if someone is cornered
and unable to run away, in something like a dark alley? If someone is making
threatening advanced and you can't 'run away,' what then, beg? Also, even if
you are required to 'flee first,' litigation will still follow because it will
need to be determined how much effort should be put into running away before
deadly force is used.
When Florida enacted their 'stand your ground' laws they
were actually returning to an old concept that was well known around the
founding era. It's known as "Castle Law" or "Castle Doctrine." Castle Doctrine states that if someone were to be attacked
in their home they were not legally obligated to retreat, but could meet force
with force. Currently, 24 states have some sort of "stand your
ground" laws[4].
So given the amount of states, it appears that many people in the US desire the
legal protection for self-defense.
So not only is Bloomberg speaking about this issue without addressing
the facts, he is telling residents of Florida and half the country that they
are in the wrong on this issue. Bloomberg needs to remember he is the Mayor of
New York City, not Miami. He doesn't represent the state of Florida, he doesn't
represent the Federal government either. His sole concern should be those
living in NY City. It's time for politicians to stop bashing people in other
states. Your job as an elected official is represent those who put you in
office, not to make social commentary or bash representatives of other states. Mayor
Bloomberg, if you want to spew your ideology to everyone, be a talk show host,
not a tax paid politician.
Obamacare
Since its inception, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has
been nothing but trouble. Back in 2011, the CLASS act was delayed and then a year
later it was repealed. In April of this year, the ACA's Small business
Health Option Program (SHOP) was postponed until 2015.The Obama administration
then decided to delay the employer mandate until 2015. The reasons cited for this delay is the
complications of this program and for businesses to have time to adapt to the
law[1].
What is amazing is that he Individual Mandate is still in effect. The Obama administration has essentially
admitted that health reform has an incredibly complex regulatory system. Given
the complications for compliance, it will inevitably cost businesses money.
On July 9th, HHS
decided to delay another part of the law. HHS was planning to implement
anti-fraud measures into the law by verifying a person's income to determine
their subsidy eligibility. They were unable to achieve this goal in time and
this is now postponed[2].
Although the delay for employers has been put in effect,
which may not be legal, they are still spending tax payer dollars as if nothing
changed. According to Michael Tanner at the Cato Institute, the administration
has already spent $31million in advertising alone[3].
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been trying to recruit
businesses and celebrities to endorse health reform.
Also, along with spending millions to recruit celebrities,
HHS has already contracted with SERCO, a British firm, to help deal with the
expected health care applications. The contract is for up to $20 Billion[4].
So not only is the administration already spending millions of dollars on this
program, it's delaying one of its key components.
At this point it's just getting out of hand. There was
jubilation when Obamacare was passed; now it's a sore spot invoking nothing but
controversy. Flawed programs, repeals, and delays have plagued Obama's
signature achievement as President. Ezra Klein at the Washington Post is even
calling for the Employer Mandate to be repealed because it's bad policy[5].
While at this point in time it appears to be a defeat for the President, it may
prove to be a smart move to delay the mandate to after the election. If what
many fear is correct, businesses will suffer from the mandate, which would cost
Democrats many seats.
Even though democrats may be able to help protect
businesses, they will not be able to shield themselves from the possible
fallout from increased insurance rates due to Obamacare. The Wall Street
Journal reported that insurance rates from the exchanges for healthy
individuals could "double or even triple when they
look for individual coverage”[6].
This won't exactly bode well for the democrats who helped passed this
legislation. We can only hope the people will smarten up and call for repeal
before it is fully implemented. Thankfully, Obama has given Republicans more
time to challenge the law before it entraps all of the American economy.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Response to Billy Corriher at Center for American Progress
On July 9, 2013 Billy Corriher from the Center for American
Progress wrote a piece about Justice Clarence Thomas and his decision in the Shelby County v Holder case. The Shelby case was in regards to the 1965
Voter Rights Act and if it still applied to today. Under this act, southern
states were required to get approval from the Department of Justice if they
wanted to make any changes that would affect voting in those states[1].
In Mr. Corriher's article, he starts off by comparing
Justice Thomas to Justice Marshall, the only African-American's to serve on the
high court. The article starts out rather plainly and goes on to define the
different philosophies of the judges. Thomas is considered an 'originalist'
while Marshall believes the Constitution to be a 'living document.[2]'
Marshall once said of his judicial philosophy "you do what you think is
right and let the law catch up.[3]"
There is a sort of problem with this statement given the job of a Supreme Court
justice isn't to dictate the direction of the law, but to interpret it within
the confines of the Constitution.
The court decided it was no longer necessary to keep key
provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act given the changes in America in
regards to race. Also, given the context in which the Act was passed, it is no
longer relevant to American society. The Act was passed during a time when
racism was rampant across America and the Jim Crow laws were just being
challenged. Protests for racial equality were occurring across the US, not
exactly something are seeing now. Also, the justices ruled that there is to be
'equal sovereignty' between states. Corriher seems to think this concept is
false, or disagrees in some way. I'm not exactly how the government can treat
states differently in regards to voting laws while at the same time treat all
voters the same. This 'equal sovereignty' seems only logical.
Corriher then goes on to claim that "Justice Thomas and
the other conservative justices seem to believe that racism in voting is over,
or at least that Southern states have made enough progress that the preapproval
process is no longer justified." This is clearly a shot at the justices
and there are no statistics cited here to prove if there is still in fact
significant racial disparity in voting records. It is also crazy to believe
that the justices think racism in its entirety has disappeared. But just
because elements of racism exist in society, does that mean policy is to be
crafted for what may well be a slim minority? According Ilya Shapiro at the
Cato Institute, the court overturned the Act "[b]ased on 40-year-old data
showing racial disparities in voting that no longer exist.[4]"
So yes, southern states have made enough progress to have the preapproval
process removed.
Even though data seems to side with the justices, Corriher
then goes on to equate voting law changes as discriminatory, such as voter
identification, penalizing college students for voting at school and not at
home, and ending early voting[5].
It seems that any sort of restriction at all is discriminatory. After the
election all we hear in the news is how many people voted more than once, or
forged a name so they could vote numerous times.. The reason for these added
restrictions doesn't appear to be for the sole purpose of preventing a minority
class from voting, but to try and reduce fraud.
In another shot against Thomas, Corriher goes on to say that
the justice would also like to see preferential college admissions towards
minorities overturned. While to his progressive worldview this may sound
insane. But to someone who hold an 'originalist' interpretation of the
Constitution and believes in equal opportunity, this isn't a foreign desire.
Corriher goes on to end his article by saying that Justice
Thomas is undoing everything that Justice Marshall did to make our society more
equal. This again is another cheap shot at Thomas. If nothing at all had
changed between 1965 and now this may be a valid argument, but things have
changed. The court has recognized that. Data shows racial disparity in voting
has disappeared, and in order to ensure a 'free society' how can you punish one
state but not another? The Voting Rights Act in today's America no longer
levels the playing field, it only makes people less equal. It's a good thing
that Thomas is doing everything he can to ensure equality for all, even if it
means undoing some of Justice Marshall's work.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Obamacare and low-income workers
Here is another blog post I co-authored during my time at the Heritage Foundation, side-effects-obamacare-hurts-low-income-workers.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Obamacare Blog Post
In 2010 I was an intern at The Heritage Foundation. During my time there I wrote numerous blog posts dealing with Obamacare and helped with other health care related policy studies. Check out this blog post dealing with insurance coverage changes due to Obamacare.http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/side-effects-more-bad-news-for-those-who-like-their-current-coverage/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)