The Battle over Hearts (A Certain Immigration Update)

Michele Bachmann says that ignoring the interests of American workers is the opposite of compassion: "Bachmann told the audience at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference today that being ”people of compassion” on immigration means opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants, because the policy would hurt American workers and legal immigrants."

National Journal: How Marco Rubio and Rand Paul could team up to pass Gang of Eight bill: "Rubio badly needs immigration reform to pass, having invested so much time and political stock in the bill's passage and lacking a major legislative achievement. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah signaled this week that their votes are out of reach, leaving Paul as Rubio's best hope for a prominent tea party wingman."

Politico reports on how President Obama is trying to network with House Republicans in the hope of passing some immigration bill.

Some House Republicans demand that the "Hastert rule" be applied on immigration; the Speaker's office remains open to possibilities.

Mickey Kaus says that concerns about DUI convictions are driving Democratic opposition to the Cornyn amendment.

Mark Krikorian writes that some in the GOP establishment believe that enforcement will actually happen this time (though he thinks this belief is unrealistic).

The Hill reports that the Cornyn amendment could be used as a vehicle for Republicans to back the president's immigration plan:

A Republican senator who is wavering over whether to support the bill said Cornyn’s vote would bring along a large group of colleagues because Cornyn is the Republican whip and represents a border state.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested earlier in the week that his vote and the support of other Republicans could be contingent on the fate of Cornyn’s proposals.

Conn Carroll remarks,

The Cornyn amendment requires both the DHS Secretary and the Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner to certify, “under the penalty of perjury,” that the triggers have been met before illegal immigrants can become citizens. It also requires the DHS Inspector General to certify completion of the triggers (although not under the penalty of perjury).
That’s it. That is the big difference between the two bills on how completion of the security measures are verified. S. 744 requires DHS Secretary certification, while Cornyn requires certification from the DHS Secretary, the CBP Commissioner, and the DHS IG.
So far no Democrats have objected to this framework. It is hard to see how Cornyn and pro-amnesty Republicans can’t split the difference on the substance of triggers while letting Cornyn keep his verification mechanism.

Harry Reid is pretty optimistic about working with Speaker Boehner on immigration.

Some Immigration Links for a Thursday

Mickey Kaus is skeptical about Senator Cornyn's RESULTS amendment, as is Conn Carroll.  Carroll also has some doubts about Democratic objections to RESULTS.

Senator Durbin says that the Gang of Eight de-links citizenship and border security.  Senator Graham disputes this.

The Grassley amendment to put enforcement before legalization is stopped in the Senate, 57-43.  Most Republicans voted in favor of this amendment; most Democrats voted against it.  The only exceptions: Gang of Eight Republicans voted against it (McCain, Rubio, Flake, and Graham) along Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Democrats Joe Manchin and Mark Pryor voted in favor of it.

Congressman Paul Ryan says he will "debate" anyone who calls the Senate immigration bill an "amnesty."

Ann Coulter is not happy with the Gang of Eight bill.

Could some GOP senators be waiting to stampede for or against the bill?  National Journal says so: "According to some Senate watchers, as many as 20 Republican Senators are eying each other, not wanting to be first out of the gate but willing to join a bloc of their own party if the bill is moving toward final passage with broad support."  Key question: which Senate watchers?

Economic Policy Institute:"the main problem in the labor market is a broad-based lack of demand for workers—and not, as is often claimed, available workers lacking the skills needed for the sectors with job openings."

Facts, Facts

At National Review, I note that, contrary to the promises of Senator McCain, the Gang of Eight bill will put convicted criminals on the path to citizenship.

UPDATE: In an op-ed published earlier this week, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) offers further warnings about the legalization of criminals:

The sponsors promised that those "with a serious criminal background or who pose a threat to our national security" would be ineligible for legal status. But the bill allows the Homeland Security secretary, under certain conditions, to grant it to gang members; those with major misdemeanor criminal convictions (including felonies pleaded to misdemeanors) for serious crimes, including drug offenses, sexual abuse and prostitution; those with arrest records of any length; fugitives from deportation orders; or those who have been deported and illegally reentered.

STEM Shortage?

One of the underlying premises of the Gang of Eight immigration bill is that this bill's guest-worker programs would cure a supposed shortage in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields.  At the end of May, the Georgetown Public Policy Institute issued a report on the mixed employment prospects of new college graduates in the US.  This report's findings trouble the claim of a STEM shortage.

The report estimated that the unemployment rate of recent graduates with a a major in "computer and mathematics" fields was 9.1%.  For those in the engineering field, the unemployment rate was 7.4%.

Here are the unemployment rates for recent college graduates in some specific STEM majors according to this report:

• Information Systems 14.7%
• Computer Science 8.7%
• Mathematics 5.9%
• General Engineering 7%
• Civil Engineering 7.6%
• Electrical Engineering 7.6%
• Mechanical Engineering 8.1%

Clearly, the employment picture for many young Americans in STEM fields could be better.

Ramesh Ponnuru argued in Bloomberg yesterday that the GOP needs to address the economic concerns of young Americans.  A guest-worker plan that makes it harder for US citizens and legal immigrants to find employment could get in the way of that message.

Survey Says

A series of polls in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana,  North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia shows that residents are very skeptical about the Gang of Eight bill.  In every state, significant majorities are opposed to the prospect of legalization before the guarantee of enforcement.  Significant majorities in every state also think that the bill's guest-worker plan is too expansive.  This polling might put new pressure on Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Joe Manchin (D-WV).

Media Games

Jonathan Strong has an interesting story on how effective Senator Rubio and the other members of the Gang of Eight have been in driving the media narrative over immigration reform:

The charismatic Rubio and his immigration gang are effortlessly driving the media coverage of the immigration bill, to the great frustration of the bill’s opponents, who are struggling to draw attention to what they consider the legislation’s deep and systemic flaws.
In past days, Rubio has said the bill doesn’t have enough votes and that he might even vote against it, prompting a frenzy of horse-race coverage that is drowning out most discussion about the substance of the bill. Opponents are convinced that Rubio’s remarks are a sideshow calculated to distract.
“It is no coincidence” that Rubio’s remarks about the bill’s not having enough votes were “made right after the leading GOP critics of the bill penned a Dear Colleague [letter] yesterday exhaustively detailing the scores of crippling flaws pervasive throughout the bill,” said an aide to one of the senators — Sessions, Cruz, Mike Lee (Utah) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa) — who wrote the letter.

The battle over process has been a major strategy for the Gang.  Senator Rubio's threat to walk away from the bill may make him seem more credible to the right and this threat also opens him up to criticism from the left, which might only further rally the right behind him and therefore make the passage of this bill even easier.  The appearance of a battle over immigration can make any "concessions" offered by the Gang of Eight appear more significant.


In a meeting with members of the House, Rubio continued to use a favored tactic by criticizing the bill that he sponsored, co-wrote, and publicizes:

Those in the meeting were struck by how little Rubio stuck up for his bill. There was “very little support for the Senate bill — even from Rubio,” a senior GOP aide said.
At one point, Rubio was asked why he became involved with the Gang of Eight in the first place. He said he joined to move the bill to the right, since the group would have passed a bill through the Senate whether or not he was a part of it.
Some in the meeting noted that if the bill would have easily passed with or without Rubio, his recent protestations that it can’t pass the Senate without fixes on border security didn’t carry much weight.

It does, I suppose, remain unclear how exactly, if the bill currently lacks 60 votes according to Rubio, it would have well over 60 votes if he hadn't supported it.

Meanwhile, Senator Cornyn has released the outline of a new border-security amendment that would keep the legalization-before-enforcement approach of the Gang of Eight but would delay citizenship until certain benchmarks have been met.

Doubling Guest Workers

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a report estimating that the number of guest workers would double under the Gang of Eight bill:

The Schumer-Rubio bill, which will be debated by the full Senate starting next week, would allow unprecedented increases in the number of temporary workers. A new Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the bill finds that, in the first year, the bill (S.744) would admit nearly 1.6 million more temporary workers than currently allowed. After that initial spike, the bill would increase annual temporary worker admissions by more than 600,000 each year over the current level – an increase four times larger than the one called for in the 2007 Bush-Kennedy proposal (about 125,000).
As a result, this bill would roughly double the number of temporary workers admitted each year (nearly 700,000 in 2012). These workers are classified as "non-immigrants" and would be in addition to S.744's large proposed increase in annual permanent legal immigrants competing for jobs (more than 30 million in the next decade).

Meanwhile, Senator Marco Rubio says that the Gang does not yet have 60 votes.

UCLA: A Very Disappointing "Recovery"

The Los Angeles Times has the details on an economic report put out by UCLA's Anderson Forecast:

"Growth in GDP has been positive, but not exceptional," UCLA economists wrote in their quarterly Anderson Forecast. "Jobs are growing, but not rapidly enough to create good jobs for all."
The report, which analyzed long-term trends of past recoveries, found that the long-anticipated "Great Recovery" has not yet materialized.
Real GDP growth — the value of goods and services produced after adjusting for inflation — is 15.4% below the 3% growth trend of past recoveries, wrote Edward Leamer, director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast. More robust growth will be necessary to bring this recovery in line with previous ones.
"It's not a recovery," he wrote. "It's not even normal growth. It's bad."

Investment Banks Moving into Real Estate

The NYT has a very interesting story suggesting that one of the reasons for rising home prices in certain areas is an infusion of Wall Street money:

Large investment firms have spent billions of dollars over the last year buying homes in some of the nation’s most depressed markets. The influx has been so great, and the resulting price gains so big, that ordinary buyers are feeling squeezed out. Some are already wondering if prices will slump anew if the big money stops flowing.
“The growth is being propelled by institutional money,” said Suzanne Mistretta, an analyst at Fitch Ratings. “The question is how much the change in prices really reflects market demand, rather than one-off market shifts that may not be around in a couple years.”
Wall Street played a central role in the last housing boom by supplying easy — and, in retrospect, risky — mortgage financing. Now, investment companies like the Blackstone Group have swooped in, buying thousands of houses in the same areas where the financial crisis hit hardest.
Blackstone, which helped define a period of Wall Street hyperwealth, has bought some 26,000 homes in nine states. Colony Capital, a Los Angeles-based investment firm, is spending $250 million each month and already owns 10,000 properties. With little fanfare, these and other financial companies have become significant landlords on Main Street. Most of the firms are renting out the homes, with the possibility of unloading them at a profit when prices rise far enough.

Is Lisa Murkowski Edging Toward the Gang of Eight?

This story from the Alaska Dispatch suggests that Senator Lisa Murkowski might be heading in that direction:

Murkowski said she supported the following: an immigration reform bill that provided a path for undocumented workers; a reform bill that reunites families; a bill that restores due process for individuals caught in the immigration system; and a bill that allows for guest worker programs and job opportunities for foreign, low-skilled workers.
She also was asked if she’d support a bill addressing the root problems of immigration; her answer wasn’t a straightforward affirmative. Addressing why people choose to migrate is difficult and likely will not be addressed in the current reform bill, she said.
“But Congress recognizes that people choose to come to America for opportunity, that their own countries’ economies are weak,” Murkowski said. “We’re looking to how we can make sure foreign economies are sound.”

Common Core Challenges

In the Weekly Standard, Jamie Gass and Jim Stergios cast a skeptical eye on Common Core.  They note some of the centralizing tendencies of this initiative:

The Department of Education then made adopting Common Core a condition for waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act’s accountability provisions, even though the national standards have never been approved by Congress and are, in fact, expressly prohibited by the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which defined the federal government’s role in K-12 education, the 1970 General Education Provisions Act, and the 1979 law establishing the U.S. Department of Education.

It is worth reminding our friends who call it a conservative policy that Common Core would have been a bridge too far even for President Johnson, who signed the ESEA, and President Carter, who signed the law creating the federal Department of Education.  As syndicated columnist George Will wrote last year about the push for Common Core, “Here again laws are cobwebs. As government becomes bigger, it becomes more lawless.”

The problems with what is now federal policy are not lost on state and local leaders.  In just the past few weeks, Indiana lawmakers agreed to pause implementation of Common Core.  Ditto in Pennsylvania. Michigan’s House of Representatives voted to defund the effort.  And the national standards are under fire in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah.

Nationally, the Republican National Committee recently adopted an anti-Common Core resolution, but opposition is bipartisan.  Many Democrats are troubled that Common Core is not based on research and ignores too much of what we know about how students learn.  American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten recently told the Washington Post, “Common Core is in trouble … There is a serious backlash in lots of different ways, on the right and on the left.”

The backlash is richly deserved.  The Common Core standards are academically inferior to the standards they replaced in high performing states; and they ignore empirical lessons of how states like Massachusetts achieved historic successes.  Neither local leaders nor their constituents like having policies force fed by Washington, especially when the new requirements amount to a massive, and possibly illegal, unfunded mandate.  Common Core’s troubles are just beginning.

Getting to 60

Harry Reid has boasted that he would have an easy time getting to 60 votes for the Gang of Eight's immigration bill.  I raise some doubts about that ease here.  Hot Air has some more thoughts on this topic.

Bernie Sanders Really Critical of Guest Worker Programs

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, was no fan of guest-worker programs in 2007, and he still sounds pretty skeptical today.  In an interview with Dylan Matthews, he raised some serious doubts about the program:

My concerns are in regards to where we stand in terms of guest workers programs, made worse by amendments offered by Senator Hatch. What I do not support is, under the guise of immigrant reform, a process pushed by large corporations which results in more unemployment and lower wages for American workers.
As you well know, we remain in the midst of a severe recession. Real unemployment, once you consider people who’ve given up looking for work, is close to 14 percent, and in some parts of the country is even higher. For minorities it’s very high, and we’ve got to address that. You have massively high unemployment for young people, yet we’re talking about expanding visas so that young people from abroad can serve as life guards, become ski instructors, become front desk people, when young people in this country desperately need jobs to pay for a college education.
I am aware that there may well be certain high-skilled jobs in specific areas in high skilled technical industries that American companies are finding it hard to fill. I find it hard to understand that, when nine million people in this country have degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, only about three million have jobs in these areas.
Furthermore, as someone who was led to believe that what economics was about was supply and demand, if you need workers in a certain area, you need to raise wages. I have a hard time understanding the notion that there’s a severe need for more workers from abroad when wages for these jobs rose only 4.5 percent between 2000 and 2011. You see stagnant wages for high skilled workers, when these companies tell you that they desperately need high skilled workers. Why not raise wages to attract those workers?
The bottom line is that I feel, very much, that a lot of the initiative behind these guest workers programs, a very large expansion of guest worker programs — H2B visas would go up to as many as 195,000, H1B to as many as 205,000 a year — is coming from large corporations who want cheap labor from abroad. Absolutely, there is a need for foreign labor. I recognize that in agriculture and certain areas in the high tech industry, you need foreign labor. But this is a massive effort to attract cheap labor, a great disservice to American workers.

Time Machine: Democrats on Guest Workers in 2007

In National Review, I look at what Democrats had to say about guest-worker programs back in 2007.  They weren't fond of them.  Here's what Senator Boxer (CA) had to say about them back then:

These large employers want a large, cheap labor pool that they can draw from. My colleagues on the other side say: Oh, we are protecting those workers. Oh, they will be fine. No, they will not be fine. How many workers do you know ever in the history of America who have to leave after two years and wait a year to come back to a program, leave after the next two years, come back, and by the way, how powerless are these workers, these temporary guest workers? They know if they say one thing to criticize, perhaps, a manager or to complain or to beg for a sick day because they have a sick child at home, when they know they have no power, everything rides on their being able to come back into the country because the employer says they can come back in. We are setting up a system of exploitation. We are setting up a system with this generalized guest worker program, a system that will put downward pressure on the American worker.

Will Senator Boxer and other Democrats now support an immigration bill that even more radically expands the US's guest-worker programs?

Read the rest here.

Reaganomics Revised

Robert Mundell, a Nobel laureate and significant figure in conservative economic policy development, has come to the conclusion that "free trade" isn't exactly free:

 In an interview on the fringes of the Astana Economic Forum in Kazakhstan, Mundell did not pull his punches. One of the chief architects of Reaganomics and a lifelong advocate of trade liberalization, Mundell now raises a large question mark over the continued viability of free trade. “The United States can’t keep a completely open system if the rest of the world is less open,” he said. “The United States may have to take a leaf out of the book of Japan, China, and Germany, and have protectionism inside the system.”
He explained that though he opposes tariffs (because they would send the wrong signal and thus invite retaliation), America may have to resort to less overt protectionist measures. One such tactic would be to adopt Buy American policies in government procurement (such covert protectionism is virtually universal elsewhere among America’s most significant trade partners).
Mundell  believes outsourcing has gone too far and that America’s formerly world-beating industrial corporations are in danger of losing their ability to manufacture. He commented: “It has been a mistake to let U.S. manufacturing run down so low. While other nations have industrial policies to maximize their trade benefits, the United States leaves itself open like a naked woman. A big problem is with nations that may prove to be future enemies.”

In a neomercantilist world, so-called "free trade" policies could simply empower the protectionism of other nations.

Not Quite a Fracture

The Hill suggests that the Gang of 8 "fractured" over the issue of whether to give newly-legalized immigrants access to the earned income tax credit:

Graham and Flake supported an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to deny earned income tax credits (EITC) to people with Registered Provisional Immigrant Status (RPI).
An estimated 11 million illegal immigrants would gain RPI status under the immigration reform bill pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Schumer and Durbin voted no.
It failed on a party-line vote of 8 to 10.
“EITC is generally available to anyone who has a Social Security number and many are abusing that today we’ve discovered but as these RPIs are established and get a Social Security number, they will qualify it appears under the law for Earned Income Tax Credit,” Sessions said.

However, as Byron York reports, this might be less a real political fracture and more an orchestrated difference:

The situation was potentially embarrassing for Graham and Flake, who might not want to explain to their constituents that their bill gave federal benefits to newly-legalized immigrants. So it appears that the Gang had met and Democrats had given the two Republicans permission to support Sessions’ amendment. As the clerk was calling the roll for votes (at about 3:05 in the video), Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, the de facto leader of the Gang, was heard turning to an aide and asking, “Do our Republicans have a pass on this one, if they want? Yes.”
They did indeed want. In a somewhat unusual show of Republican unity, Graham and Flake joined other Republicans to vote for the Sessions amendment. It didn’t matter — Democrats have a 10-to-8 majority on the committee and voted unanimously against Sessions’ amendment, meaning it was killed by a 10-to-8 margin. But the moment provided a glimpse of the degree to which Graham and Flake are working with Schumer in maneuvering the Gang of Eight bill through the Judiciary Committee.

No Scandal Is an Island

Some (e.g. Mickey Kaus) worry that the current obsession with scandals could undermine efforts to oppose the Gang of Eight bill.  Over at National Review, I raise some doubts about how much these scandals really will help the Gang's plans.

The Scandals of the Day and Big Government

In National Review, I argue that conservatives should keep their eye on the bigger implications of the IRS and DOJ scandals:

Contemporary progressivism depends upon faith in bureaucracy: to collect data, to manage daily affairs on the local and national levels, and to serve as an impartial arbiter of fairness. Many of the major initiatives of the Obama presidency — from Obamacare to his expansion of executive authority to comprehensive immigration reform — demand this bureaucratic faith.
So every scandal that reveals a bureaucracy’s capacity for corruption deals a methodological wound to this centralizing enterprise. While the president might deride those who fear the subversion of a free republic into a less-than-free state, these sorts of scandals — whatever their outcomes — reveal that such fears are hardly misplaced. After all, we now know that federal tax-collection authorities systematically targeted opponents of the reigning ideology. We now know that federal agents could blithely monitor the phone calls of journalists. Those are not the figments of tea-party paranoia; as far as we can tell, they are facts.
The way it looks at the moment, there are two possible impulses behind these scandals: malice or incompetence. Neither one bears good tidings for bureaucratic progressivism.

You can read the rest here.

And Ed Morrissey makes some further points along these lines.

Pennsylvania: A GOP Keystone?

The Cook Political Report suggests that Pennsylvania could play a big role in the GOP's hopes for 2016:

The only blue states that have become less blue since 1998 are Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania.
Of the three, Pennsylvania is the biggest prize with 20 Electoral Votes.
The last time a Republican won the state was in 1988 when George H.W. Bush managed to eke out 50 percent of the vote in the Philadelphia market, and carried the rest of the state with 52 percent of the vote. Since then, however, Republicans have failed miserably in Philadelphia--which makes up 40-42 percent of the vote--and haven’t run up the score enough in the rest of the state to make up the difference.
In 2012, Obama carried the Philadelphia area by 63 percent, while Romney won the rest of the state by 55 percent. If Romney had gotten just 45 percent of the vote in Philadelphia--and still carried the rest of the state by 55 percent--he would have won the state. In other words, if a Republican could lose Philadelphia by the same percentage they win the rest of the state, they could turn the state red.
The Romney campaign spent $8.9M on broadcast TV in Nevada during the general election to get 46 percent of the vote. In Pennsylvania, the Romney campaign spent a paltry $2.4M and got 47 percent. In other words, Team Romney spent four times as much in Nevada as they did in Pennsylvania, to get essentially the same percentage of the vote. Now, imagine that the money invested in Pennsylvania came earlier--and more intensely. 

 With the right policy steps, Pennsylvania could have been in play in 2012.  It was very close with relatively little direct spending by the Romney campaign.  It is very possible that the Republican road to the White House is through the Rust Belt.  But putting this area in play might demand that the GOP rally around the message of middle-class and working-class uplift, industrial renewal, and a popular prosperity.

Many Republicans are sympathetic to the Gang of Eight immigration bill because they hope it will benefit the party electorally.  But the Gang of Eight's guest-worker provisions---the corporate giveaways and enshrining of a two-tier labor model---could undercut the outreach to workers needed to edge states like Pennsylvania into the GOP column.

Is What's Good for the Middle Class Good for the Economy?

I consider this question over at the Corner.

Medical Cost Release

The release of hospital expenditure data (and what federal reimbursement for these expenditures) seems like it could have significant effects on the evolving US debate about health-care policy.  The Washington Post notes the vast range in medical charges for the same procedure:

In the District, George Washington University’s average bill for a patient on a ventilator was $115,000, while Providence Hospital’s average charge for the same service was just under $53,000. For a lower joint replacement, George Washington University charged almost $69,000 compared with Sibley Memorial Hospital’s average of just under $30,000.
Virginia’s highest average rate for a lower limb replacement was at CJW Medical Center in Richmond, more than $117,000, compared with Winchester Medical Center charging $25,600 per procedure. CJW charged more than $38,000 for esophagitis and gastrointestinal conditions, while Carilion Tazewell Community Hospital averaged $8,100 in those cases.

 The lack of price transparency has probably been a major challenge for getting more market-oriented reforms.

The Battle over Heritage

While many in the media are focusing on the personal views of one of the authors of the Heritage report on the Gang of Eight bill, David Frum wonders why the evidence of this report is not gathering nearly as much media attention:

Sorry, no. If you agree with the Heritage study - and so far I have not heard any good reason to doubt it - the results are so important and explosive that the coauthor's other views dwindle into a mere footnote to history. It's not some personal quirk of Jason Richwine's that has caused him to doubt that the legalized immigrants will rapidly raise their skill levels or education standards. 

Some in the media could also perhaps bear to spend a little more time analyzing the various provisions of the bill itself---rather than the biographies of its critics.

A Few Immigration Points

A fairly big news day for the immigration bill, so a slight round-up might be in order.

Heritage has released its controversial report estimating the cost of a mass legalization.  It's worth noting that government costs are not the only reason to be skeptical about the bill.

Yuval Levin suggests some ways to improve the Gang of 8 bill.

Bill Kristol thinks the House should support piecemeal reform.

The NYT reports on opposition to the bill.

Guest Problems

In National Review, I explore the Gang of Eight's guest-worker plans and suggest how they might be problematic for the GOP:

The vast majority of media attention on the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill has focused on three aspects: the legalization of illegal immigrants, the promise of future enforcement (and to what degree that promise will be broken), and the political fallout of the bill and debates about it. However, the Gang of Eight bill also makes far-reaching reforms to other aspects of the immigration system. Under the proposed bill, the nation’s guest-worker programs would be considerably expanded — and this expansion has major implications for the nation as a whole, especially its workers. This guest-worker program could have three big outcomes: bigger government, bigger downward pressure on wages, and bigger problems for the GOP and the future of conservative principles.

Under this bill, the three principal guest-worker programs would be agricultural, low-skilled labor, and high-skilled labor. According to Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, the U.S. already issues 700,000 guest-worker visas a year. Some of these visa-holders work in the U.S. for a short period of time, but others can stay for much longer. The Gang of Eight bill significantly increases the number of guest-worker visas. The annual cap on H-1B visas — meant for “high-skill” guest workers, especially those in technical fields — would immediately jump from 65,000 to 110,000. This new cap would be the floor for H-1B visa numbers in the future, and it would have the potential to rise in further years, all the way up to 180,000.

 Read the rest here.

It's the Middle Class

Byron York notes what really harmed Governor Romney's electoral chances in November:

Romney lost because he did not appeal to the millions of Americans who have seen their standard of living decline over the past decades. They're nervous about the future. When Romney did not address their concerns, they either voted for Obama or didn't vote at all. If the next Republican candidate can address their concerns effectively, he will win. And, amazingly enough, he'll win a lot more Hispanic votes in the process. A lot from other groups, too.

It would do more than any immigration bill or outreach program ever could.

For Better Days

Bill Kristol attacks the complacency of the "new normal":

By the way, the new normal is bipartisan. It’s of course true that the administration in power during this period of national decline has a particular interest in selling the concept of a new normal. It’s true that the idea fits uncommonly well with the fatalism that, beneath the airy talk of hope and change, lies at the heart of modern liberalism. But Republican elites aren’t immune to the charms of the new normal, which excuses subpar performance in so many areas.

So it’s apparently the new normal for GOP leaders in Congress to be more interested in exempting themselves from Obamacare than in laying the groundwork for repealing it, and thereby exempting all Americans. It’s apparently the new normal for GOP elites to spend all their time, money, and effort trying to quickly muscle through a poorly crafted immigration bill—which once passed will have irreversible effects—than trying to do anything significant for American workers or against crony capitalism. It’s apparently the new normal for GOP leaders, at once terrified and contemptuous of their own base, equally intimidated by donors and voters but uninterested in treating either group as grownups, to think they too can simply shelter in place, under the awning of the new normal. (One might add that, when it comes to the leaders of both parties colluding to preserve power and perquisites, the new normal bears a striking resemblance to the old normal.)

Still a City upon a Hill

In National Review, I have an essay up looking at the meaning of the Boston Marathon as a terrorist target:

Boylston is empty.
It is Sunday, and Boylston Street — the avenue of the Boston Public Library, Copley Square, the Prudential Tower, and the Old South Church — is, nearly a week after the terrorist attack of Patriots’ Day, empty. One of the central arteries of the great New England metropolis — usually crowded with vitality and ambition and the hectic beat of urban life — is bare, with the exception of a few police officers and FBI agents. In a grim reminder of the toll of terror, a few signs celebrating the Boston Marathon remain in that empty space. A crime scene, that stretch of Boylston has also become a time capsule.
There is a hole in the city. There is a hole in too many families and too many hearts.
John Winthrop, a leader of those Puritans who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony, proclaimed in 1630 that the new commonwealth would be a “City upon a Hill” to serve as an exemplar of success or failure to people around the world. Well, nearly 400 years after Winthrop’s sermon, the city of Boston serves yet again as an example: of what terror would destroy and of the means of resisting terror.  

Read the rest here.

It's the Workers

Ramesh Ponnuru turns his attention to the dangers that a "guest-worker" program could pose to the United States's civil fabric:

The guest-worker program is where they go wrong. For the Republican politicians who have in the past been its main supporters, this provision is like a dessert with no calories: Businesses get the benefit of the temporary workers’ labor and they get to make some money, but the rest of us don’t have to make room for immigrants in our society, and Republicans don’t have to worry how they will vote.
That’s exactly what’s wrong with the idea. One of the worst things about illegal immigration is that it creates a class of people who contribute their labor to this country but aren’t full participants in it and lack the rights and responsibilities of everyone else. A guest-worker program doesn’t solve this problem. It formalizes it. 

The guest-worker component is a key and under-discussed aspect of the Gang of 8 bill.  If the GOP is going to restore itself as a party of upward mobility and middle-class uplift, a guest-worker program could pose a significant political problem.

Coordination Between CATO, ATR, and Others

Breitbart unearths some emails showing some coordination between CATO, Americans for Tax Reform, and others to counter skepticism about the Gang of Eight immigration bill after last week's events in Boston.

Obamacare and Immigration

Jed Graham raises an interesting point about the immigration bill, arguing that it may incentivize the employment of recently legalized immigrants:

Under the immigration reform bill, some employers would have an incentive of up to $3,000 per year to hire a newly legalized immigrant over a U.S. citizen.
In avoiding one controversy — the cost of providing millions of newly legalized immigrants with ObamaCare subsidies — the Senate "Gang of Eight" may have risked walking into another.
The bipartisan legislation released Wednesday dictates that those granted provisional legal immigrant status would be treated the same as those "not lawfully present" are treated under the 2010 health law.
That means they would neither be eligible for ObamaCare tax credits nor required to pay an individual tax penalty for failing to obtain qualifying health coverage. It also means some employers would face no penalty for failing to provide such workers affordable health coverage.

Gang of 8 Immigration Bill: Bigger Government?

Over at NRO, I explore two aspects of the Gang of 8 immigration bill: how it could affect far more than 11 illegal immigrants, and how it could open the door to a massive new government agency.

Amnesty Incentives?

Mickey Kaus notes an interesting tweet from Senator Marco Rubio's press secretary, Alex Conant:

Rubio press aide Alex Conant tweets that

Without temporary worker program to fill US demand for low-skill labor, people will find way to come illegally despite new fence

Really? Hasn’t Rubio been busy telling us that his plan would secure the border? Now his flack tells us people “will find a way to come illegally” despite it? Doesn’t this mean that those who can’t get into the guest worker program (maybe because it’s full, or because they don’t qualify) will be able to “find a way” in as well–so the elaborately negotiated limits on the number of guestworkers will be routinely violated and, in practice, meaningless? Doesn’t it also mean that those who are drawn by the prospect of the next amnesty (because, you know, ”we can’t deport them all!” and “Latino voters”) will “find a way”in too?

But Conant isn't the only one suggesting that future border enforcement might be less than effective.  Senator Rubio himself says it, this post from Hot Air notes:

“A lot of it is going to hinge on the viability of a guest worker program. There are elements in organized labor that don’t want one. I think, really, that’s going to become the critical issue in this debate … whether we can create a viable guest worker program that protects American workers, but also ensures that in the future [if] we need foreign labor for limited periods of time, we’re able to access that in a legal way. Because if we don’t have a program like that in place, we’re going to have 10 million illegal immigrants here in a decade again.”

This statement obviously contradicts the line taken by the New York Times and others that we needn't worry about an amnesty encouraging further illegal immigration because there are few people left abroad who would want to immigrate illegally.

Terror in Boston

As the evidence piles up, it seems increasingly clear that the explosions that interrupted the Boston Marathon today were acts of terrorism.  A large number of the specific facts regarding this tragedy remain unclear.

What should remain clear, though, is the endurance of a resolve of a free people.

Not Just Legalization

The Los Angeles Times notes that the "Gang of 8" proposal could significantly increase the rate of legal immigration:

The U.S. admits about 1 million legal immigrants per year, more than any other country. That number could jump by more than 50% over the next decade under the terms of the immigration reform bill that a bipartisan group of senators expects to unveil as early as Tuesday. The impact would be felt nationwide, but areas that already have large immigrant communities would probably see much of the increase.
The immigration package includes at least four major provisions that would increase the number of legal immigrants, according to people familiar with it. Some of the parts could generate as much controversy as the provisions dealing with those who enter the country illegally or overstay their visas, according to those with long experience of the politics of immigration....
Opponents such as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who has long opposed measures to increase immigration levels, say new workers would depress wages and crowd out Americans looking for work during a time of persistently high unemployment.
"The masters of the universe in glass towers and suites, they may not be impacted by this, but millions of struggling American families will," Sessions said in an interview Friday. "We do need to be sure we aren't exacerbating unemployment and wage erosion in America."
The surge would come in several ways: The bill aims to eliminate the current backlog of roughly 4 million people waiting to be reunited with family members in the U.S. The 11 million now in the country without legal authorization would be eligible for citizenship only after that backlog was resolved. Reunification efforts would require boosting the number of visas issued each year. To keep the additional inflow under control, the bill would stop allowing adult siblings of immigrants to qualify, but children and parents would continue to be eligible.
In addition to family unification, which allows people into the country permanently, the bill also aims to increase temporary visas for both high-wage and low-wage workers. The number of visas for high-tech workers could nearly double to more than 120,000 per year. At the other end of the wage scale, a new visa system would allow businesses to bring in workers for jobs including janitors, housekeepers and meatpackers. The numbers would start small, but as the unemployment rate declined, it could reach 200,000 a year by the end of the decade. And growers could bring a total of about 330,000 new farmworkers into the country during the decade. At least some of those low-wage temporary workers eventually would be allowed to seek permanent residency.

A New Serf Class?

It seems as though big business, purported "labor" groups, and ethnic lobbyists have pulled together a compromise on the agricultural part of the Gang of 8's immigration "reform" proposal, as Reuters reports.  However, the details of this legislation could have big implications for big government.

Here's what Reuters has to say about how farm workers who are currently illegal immigrants could gain legal status under this proposal:

Farm workers in the country illegally who agree to work in agriculture for an additional five to seven years would become eligible for a "green card" allowing permanent U.S. residence, according to two officials. The workers hold legal status, dubbed a "blue card" by negotiators, during the interim.
The new guest worker program would include a system for setting pay scales and initially would have a high ceiling for the number of visas that could be granted. After five years, the cap could be adjusted by the Agriculture Department. There would be a mechanism for meeting emergency needs for workers.

This kind of farm-worker amnesty could give growers great power over workers.  After all, continued employment in agriculture would be the only way for these amnestied immigrants to secure a path to citizenship, so they will be dependent upon agricultural employers.  This proposal would in some ways lock agricultural workers into a kind of caste, where they are only permitted to work into a certain industry.  This system could lead to considerable number of abuses at the workplace.  Moreover, this agricultural proposal would be a considerable experiment in centralized government planning.  Government would set pay scales and even change worker allocations as central planners see fit.  This is government interfering in the market in a radical way.

The Hill notes a further interesting detail: these legalized farm workers would potentially be able to bring their family members over soon (emphasis added).

“Under the proposed new immigration process, farm workers would be able to work in the fields without fear of getting deported immediately and will be able to reunite with their families in a relatively short period of time. The bill would give professional farm workers presently in the U.S., who have been contributing to our country, temporary legal status and the right to earn a green card in the future by continuing to work in agriculture,” said UFW President Arturo Rodriguez.

So would these amnestied farm workers be able to bring their families over with them before they become citizens?  What counts as family members for the purpose of this act?  A spouse and minor children?  Or siblings, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and so forth?  So this legislative component might not only affect illegal farm workers (and Reuters estimates there could be as many as 900,000 of them), but numerous family members for each worker.  This part of the immigration "reform" proposal alone could set a few million on the path to citizenship, and it could further penalize would-be immigrants who have waited in their home countries for permission to immigrate to the US legally.

Obviously, the legislative language is still in process, but these details will need to be further explained.  The American people deserve to know whether government will be taking over the agricultural sector and how many people will be granted legal status through the Gang of 8's attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform."

Who Knew What When

As USA Today reports, the release of a heretofore confidential memo raises new questions about how much the educational administration of former DC schools chancellor Michelle Rhee knew about an epidemic of cheating on standardized tests within the school system:

DCPS officials have said they take all cheating allegations seriously, but it's not immediately clear how they responded to Sanford's warnings. Only one educator lost his job because of cheating, according to DCPS. Meanwhile, Rhee fired more than 600 teachers for low test scores — 241 of them in one day in 2010.
The cheating issue first came to light in 2011, after USA TODAY reported that, between 2008 and 2010, 103 schools had test-erasure rates that surpassed districtwide erasure-rate averages at least once.
Erasures are detected by the same electronic scanners used to score tests. When a teacher or student erases a bubble sheet, this leaves behind a light smudge. Computers tally the smudges as well as the new answers.
The USA TODAY investigation found that, as far back as 2008, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), D.C.'s equivalent of a state education department, asked for an erasure analysis. Among the 96 schools flagged for wrong-to-right erasures were eight of the 10 campuses where Rhee handed out so-called TEAM awards "to recognize, reward and retain high-performing educators and support staff." In all, Rhee bestowed more than $1.5 million in bonuses based on increases in 2007 and 2008 test scores.

 These numbers suggest far more teachers were punished for low test scores than were punished for cheating.

Investigative journalist John Merrow has more details about the limits of Rhee's administration.

Financial Federalism

Over at National Review, I outline a case for "financial federalism," an approach to financial reform prioritizing market competition and a diffusion of interests:

Conservatives have an opportunity here to argue on behalf of a financial federalism that would attempt to ward off the dangers of asset concentration, revise limits on leverage for a variety of institutions, and draw clearer lines between various banking activities. Just as the political doctrine of federalism entails a broad distribution of government power (in federal, state, and local entities), financial federalism would put in place a financial system in which systemic risk is lessened through a broad distribution of capital and a variety of capital flows. Financial federalism would undo the distortions of Too Big to Fail. There are various economic, policy, and political reasons for Republicans to move toward market-oriented financial reform.

Read the rest here.

Is the AFL-CIO Still about Labor?

National Journal reminds us that "business" and "labor" have supposedly agreed to some kind of guest-worker plan that would be part of the Gang of 8 immigration proposal.  The AFL-CIO, now headed by Richard Trumka, has endorsed a guest-worker program.  NJ also reminds us that the employment picture isn't looking very good.  At 7.8%, the unemployment rate is higher than it had been at any point in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.  And millions have left the work-force.  And wages are stagnating.  So a guest-worker program would be implemented under less than auspicious economic conditions.

One might be forgiven for wondering what Big Labor would exactly get out of a guest-worker program.  The AFL-CIO might want to give the White House a win on a major issue, but would such a program be in the interests of actual workers?

Let's look at what John Sweeney, the former head of the AFL-CIO, had to say about guest workers:

"Guest worker programs are a bad idea and harm all workers....They cast workers into a perennial second-class status, and unfairly put their fates into their employers' hands."

"The compromise legislation has two fatal flaws: a guest worker program that would institutionalize and expand a second-class workforce easily exploited by employers and an unjust, inhumane and unworkable three-tier system of treatment for immigrants who are in this country.
"The original guest worker operation--the post-war Bracero program--was shamed out of existence in 1964 because of egregious employer abuse, cheating, racial oppression and more."

"[A guest-worker program] will assure a steady flow of cheap labor from essentially indentured workers too afraid of being deported to protest substandard wages, chiseled benefits and unsafe working conditions. Such a system will create a disenfranchised underclass of workers. That is not only morally indefensible, it is economically nonsensical. We've had plenty of bad experiences with such shortsighted answers to a complicated problem."

 Mickey Kaus notes that labor activist Cesar Chavez was not exactly a big fan of "guest workers" or illegal labor, either.

So whose side is Big Labor actually on, here?  The workers' or the White House's?

Society and Virtue

Matt Lewis continues to reflect on some of the broader conceptual stakes of the "culture war":

Of course, there has always been a tension between virtue and liberty. But at some point, America ceased emphasizing community values and began valuing extreme individualism. More and more, Americans — including many conservatives — now believe that individuals should do whatever they want so long as it isn't hurting anybody else.
But the cultural conservative says that there is a "tragedy of the commons" problem with this — that the "if it feels right, do it" mentality will eventually hurt society collectively.
And while social conservatives attempt to argue this point on purely secular grounds, the truth is that it makes little sense without God. As Dr. Benjamin Wiker writes in his new book, Worshipping The State, "For liberalism to make sense, we would have to live in a world without ends — to put it in technical philosophical terms, in a non-teleological universe (telos means "goal" or "end in Greek), where, since there are no ends written into nature (including human nature) by God, we are free to create them ourselves."
Absent a higher purpose, laws are arbitrary. Never was this spelled out more clearly than in the Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
In a moral relativist world, aborting an unborn child becomes "giving a mother the right to pursue happiness." Making divorce easy becomes "unburdening individuals to pursue happiness."
Almost every hot-button issue we wrestle with can fundamentally be traced to the struggle between what traditional conservatives deem to be virtue (based on tradition and Judeo-Christian teaching) and the desire to satisfy the individual's desire for extreme freedom.

A Way Forward?

The New York Times hopes that Republican opposition to an immigration amnesty is fading, but Ross Douthat raises doubts about the electoral benefits of a Republican pivot toward amnesty:

The Republican National Committee’s extended autopsy on the G.O.P.’s 2012 defeat, which officially abjures policy recommendations but then goes on to nudge the party toward supporting comprehensive immigration reform and gay marriage, is the highest-profile distillation of what I described last week as the “donorist” view of how the Republican Party needs to change. As Ramesh Ponnuru suggests, this the party elite’s vision of domestic policy reform, reflecting the views of people who are already “more likely to favor same-sex marriage and comprehensive immigration reform on principle,” and who don’t “tend to have any major problems with the Republican economic agenda and do not believe it needs to be rethought in any serious way.” Or to put it another way: If you believe that Mitt Romney’s economic platform and “you built that” rhetoric would be the basis for a durable majority if they weren’t associated with the religious right and anti-immigration sentiment, then this is the vision of Republican reform for you.

Mickey Kaus reminds ambitious politicians that the establishment consensus on amnesty presents a political opportuninty.

The Next Spark?

A potentially very troubling bit of financial news from Cyprus:

ATHENS — In a move that could set off new fears of contagion across the euro zone, anxious depositors drained cash from automated teller machines in Cyprus over the weekend, hours after European officials in Brussels required that part of a new €10 billion bailout be paid for directly from the bank accounts of ordinary savers....
Under an emergency deal reached early Saturday in Brussels, a one-time tax of 9.9 percent is to be levied on Cypriot bank deposits of more than €100,000 effective Tuesday, hitting wealthy depositors — mostly Russians who have put vast sums into Cyprus’s banks in recent years. But even deposits of less than that amount are to be taxed at 6.75 percent, meaning that Cypriot creditors will be confiscating money directly from retirees, workers and regular depositors to pay off the bailout tab.  

As some have noted, this kind of move could lead to a spike of uncertainty and increase the instability of banks across the EU (and elsewhere in the world).

Sustainable Conservatism

In The Weekly Standard, I lay out a case for a "sustainable conservatism," which would combine civic fellowship with targeted reforms:

Even as Washington settles into another battle over the budget, an increasing number of conservative writers (and a few elected officials) are becoming aware of the fact that anti-government platitudes are losing their electoral punch and of the need for conservatism to be about more than the budget. Now is probably not the space to give a laundry list of the names of pundits who have considered conservative reform, but it might be worthwhile to turn to a recent online debate between Hot Air's Ed Morrissey and the Daily Caller's Matt Lewis as revealing two major trends for the future of conservatism---and to look at what a synthesis of these approaches could mean.

Lewis has suggested the value of a return to a "compassionate conservatism," one that would go beyond celebrating selfishness to think of our broader commitments to one another. This interest in rehabilitating compassionate conservatism can be seen more widely on certain parts of the right (Peter Wehner's and Michael Gerson's recent cover story in Commentary, for instance, seems informed by this impulse). Morrissey has proposed instead the value of a "practical conservatism," which would focus on reforming rather than blowing up many of the institutions that have become central to American public life since the New Deal (such as Social Security). This theme also percolates throughout various sectors of the reformist wing of the right. Perhaps I might pose a synthesizing variant of these two: "sustainable conservatism." The goal of such a conservatism would involve nurturing the public and private institutions and tendencies that help sustain a free republic. It seems as though maintaining a free republic demands, among other things, faith in government and the rule of law, a sense of civic participation, a belief in personal freedom, virtue on the part of its citizens (and especially its government officials), and some kind of wisdom or prudence. Sustainable conservatism would seek to foster these tendencies in order to renew the civic compact. 

Read the rest here.

Changing the Game

In The Weekly Standard, Matt Continetti explores the GOP's political "double bind," arguing that possible steps the GOP could take for reform could shatter its political coalition.  As he puts it:

Trying to appeal to the coalition of the ascendant and the Reagan coalition simultaneously would give the party a severe case of political schizophrenia. The GOP would bewilder its historic base of support while disappointing newcomers, leading to confusion, disillusionment, apathy, and perhaps (ultimately) dissolution.

The Republicans, like feminists, can’t have it all. They are trapped in the double bind.

Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner, who worked for President George W. Bush, have a cover story in Commentary on how to revive the Republican party. Their proposals are well intentioned, cogent, and in some ways persuasive. When they get into the nitty-gritty of specifics, though, they bump up against the double bind.

For example, Gerson and Wehner propose “ending corporate welfare as we know it”; “supporting the breakup of the big banks”; and “thoroughgoing reform of the federal role in education, focusing on public and private choice.” Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner made similar arguments shortly after the election, when he called for a “new Republican populism” that “can promise to level the field by getting the bureaucrats and politicians out of it” and by cutting regulations and ending bailouts.

Sounds great. But a word of caution: There is little evidence these policies would be any more popular than traditional Republican ones. And one reason there is so little evidence is that there is no serious advocate for these ideas within the ranks of Republican officeholders. Why is there no advocate for these ideas? Because major elements of the Republican party oppose them.

Continetti suggests that one strategy Republicans might turn to in the face of this double bind is the acceptance of the idea of a "conservative welfare state."  This kind of conservatism would accept the legitimacy of the state but then try to reform this state so that it accomplished conservative ends.  This wouldn't necessarily be totally centrally controlled state; Continetti leaves a big space open for federalism.

As he concludes his vision of a conservative welfare state, Continetti writes:

The conservative welfare state of our dreams would be, well, a state. That is, it would be an effective federal government. And it would be a community. Human beings are not faceless monads choosing identities at will from a universal menu of options. Human beings are born into families, faiths, and nations.

The security of all three of these pre-liberal forms of association is important. For families, that means growing incomes while lessening the costs of child-rearing, and giving parents blocking gear against the offenses of a hazardous popular culture. For faiths, that means protecting ministerial exceptions and religious liberty. For the nation, that means borders that are secure, a trade policy that puts the interests of American laborers over the interests of multinational corporations, a sound currency, and a fearsome military.

The emphasis on "community" in Continetti's vision has considerable merit, especially the recognition that we find ourselves members of community and that people are social animals and not just profit-seeking automatons.

Whether one agrees with all the details of Continetti's alternative vision or not, he certainly does make a good case for Republicans changing the policy playing field.

Should High Worker Wages Be a Problem?

David Frum argues that a guest worker program would pose a threat to the economic revitalization of the working and middle classes:

The immigration debate is often premised on the assumption that high wages for American workers are a problem to be overcome. If you'll look again at the Cleveland Fed chart above, you'll notice that the collapse in labor's share of national income coincides with the start of the mass immigration influx after 1970. Since then 40 million people have migrated to the United States, most of them very low-skilled. About one-third that number arrived illegally.

Immigration advocates insist that this huge surge of cheap labor has nothing to do with the persistent decline in wages that began about the same time. If so, that's one hell of a coincidence. With President Obama proposing accelerated flows of immigration in future, American workers should ready themselves for more coincidences ahead.

In Defense of Virtue

Matt Lewis picks up an important---but often ignored---component of the American founding: the importance the Founders placed not on relentless private acquisitiveness but on self-restraint and sacrifice in the name of the public good.  As Lewis puts it:

Our founders believed self-imposed responsibility was essential to the preservation of freedom. An immoral majority will eventually discover that they can vote "themselves largess from the public treasury." But a nation's elite must also be moral — which is to say, not greedy. As Ed Morrissey noted, "Any society with a large class of exploited poor will have no end of social difficulties and instability, the costs of which in a properly ordered system would far exceed the assistance extended." That's the invisible hand at work.

Without private and public responsibility, the enterprise of this republic could founder.  There's a reason why Jefferson spoke of a natural aristocracy of virtue and talent.

Conservatives Must Continue in Search for Health-Care Solutions

The recent announcement by Chris Christie that he is seeking federal funds (secured by Obamacare) to extend Medicaid has ignited a lot of wrath from the right.  But, as I note in The Weekly Standard, anger at Christie or other GOP governors for accepting Obamacare isn't enough:

With New Jersey governor Chris Christie's announcement that he would accept funds for Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, the number of Republican governors accepting Obamacare Medicaid expansion money rises to eight: Jan Brewer (Arizona), Rick Scott (Florida), Rick Snyder (Michigan), Brian Sandoval (Nevada), Susana Martinez (New Mexico), Jack Dalrymple (North Dakota), John Kasich (Ohio), and Christie. Many of these governors rode to power in 2010 on a Tea Party wave and protested vociferously against Obamacare, so their about-face on Obamacare money stokes more than a little ire on the part of some on the right. I am not sure, however, that conservatives should rest content with excommunicating these governors from the Church of True Conservatism and casting them into the darkness of the RINO Establishment.  The acceptance of these Obamacare funds—however tentative—drives home the need for Republicans to offer an alternative health care model.

There might be an aspect of political self-interest in these governors' decisions. Many of these governors are from states that President Obama won in 2012.  But it would be a mistake to attribute this decision solely to politics. Mitt Romney carried both Arizona and North Dakota handily, and Republican governors who embrace Obamacare funding likely risk a considerable backlash within their own ranks.  So politics alone cannot explain this conversion. 

- See more at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/absence-conservative-solutions-health-care_704924.html?nopager=1#sthash.Er84eUAB.dpuf

With New Jersey governor Chris Christie's announcement that he would accept funds for Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, the number of Republican governors accepting Obamacare Medicaid expansion money rises to eight: Jan Brewer (Arizona), Rick Scott (Florida), Rick Snyder (Michigan), Brian Sandoval (Nevada), Susana Martinez (New Mexico), Jack Dalrymple (North Dakota), John Kasich (Ohio), and Christie. Many of these governors rode to power in 2010 on a Tea Party wave and protested vociferously against Obamacare, so their about-face on Obamacare money stokes more than a little ire on the part of some on the right. I am not sure, however, that conservatives should rest content with excommunicating these governors from the Church of True Conservatism and casting them into the darkness of the RINO Establishment.  The acceptance of these Obamacare funds—however tentative—drives home the need for Republicans to offer an alternative health care model.

There might be an aspect of political self-interest in these governors' decisions. Many of these governors are from states that President Obama won in 2012.  But it would be a mistake to attribute this decision solely to politics. Mitt Romney carried both Arizona and North Dakota handily, and Republican governors who embrace Obamacare funding likely risk a considerable backlash within their own ranks.  So politics alone cannot explain this conversion. 

- See more at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/absence-conservative-solutions-health-care_704924.html?nopager=1#sthash.Er84eUAB.dpuf

With New Jersey governor Chris Christie's announcement that he would accept funds for Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, the number of Republican governors accepting Obamacare Medicaid expansion money rises to eight: Jan Brewer (Arizona), Rick Scott (Florida), Rick Snyder (Michigan), Brian Sandoval (Nevada), Susana Martinez (New Mexico), Jack Dalrymple (North Dakota), John Kasich (Ohio), and Christie. Many of these governors rode to power in 2010 on a Tea Party wave and protested vociferously against Obamacare, so their about-face on Obamacare money stokes more than a little ire on the part of some on the right. I am not sure, however, that conservatives should rest content with excommunicating these governors from the Church of True Conservatism and casting them into the darkness of the RINO Establishment.  The acceptance of these Obamacare funds—however tentative—drives home the need for Republicans to offer an alternative health care model.


There might be an aspect of political self-interest in these governors' decisions. Many of these governors are from states that President Obama won in 2012.  But it would be a mistake to attribute this decision solely to politics. Mitt Romney carried both Arizona and North Dakota handily, and Republican governors who embrace Obamacare funding likely risk a considerable backlash within their own ranks.  So politics alone cannot explain this conversion.

Read the rest here.


Earlier this week in the National Review, Avik Roy also stressed the need for conservatives to think in a more sustained way about health-care reform.

Why Rand Rose?

Matt Lewis offers some interesting thoughts on why Randian thought has risen on the right---at the expense of certain kinds of conservative traditionalism:

But in recent years, additions to the movement have largely served as a backlash against the family values stressed by this Judeo-Christian coalition.
After 9-11, a lot of Americans were shocked out of their reverie — and into the conservative movement. Some of these folks have gone on to play key leadership roles in conservatism. This is fine, in and of itself. But being conservative is about more than being anti-terror.
The election of Barack Obama, coupled with a huge debt and the stimulus, led to the rise of the tea party movement — bringing a lot of new activists into the fight. But despite the fact that many of these same tea party members were also Christians, there is little doubt that the movement adopted a much more Randian ethos.
Because politicians eventually adapt to please their base, some Republicans adapted to this new brand of conservatism with a little bit too much gusto. And so you had Mitt Romney making “you didn’t build that” the theme of the convention. And, of course, there was the “47 percent”…
To be sure, this message plays very well within the base of the movement. But if it were possible to make conservatism even less appealing to average Americans (not to mention Hispanics), overemphasizing the rugged individualism aspect of conservatism, and downplaying its communitarian aspect, was the coup de grâce.

Immigration Conflicts

In The Daily Caller, I explore how a poorly designed immigration bill could harm the GOP's reinvention:

One of the central issues confronting Republicans after 2012 is how to reinvent the GOP to make it a more viable national political force. This need for a GOP reinvention or at least restoration is in the background of the contemporary debate over comprehensive immigration reform, including the recent Senate “Gang of 8″ proposal. Republican advocates of “comprehensive immigration reform” often argue that such reform would be a necessary step toward political modernization. However, there are also many reasons to believe that a poorly designed immigration bill could actually get in the way of Republican renewal. There is an increasing awareness on the part of many analysts that the hollowing out of the economic middle is deeply connected to the current long-term stagnation, and a growing segment on the right has found that middle-class restoration could be key to restoring the vitality of both the Republican Party and conservatism. It seems hard for Republicans to be the party both of middle-class renewal and of unlimited (and government-subsidized) cheap labor. The GOP has perhaps far more long-term viability in advocating the former position, but a flawed immigration bill could easily lead to the latter scenario.

Read the rest here.

Mickey Kaus also reflects on the effects of an amnesty on American employment and wages.

Oops

According to the BEA, GDP growth went negative in the fourth quarter of 2012:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012
(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent. 

Senate Coalition Makes Immigration Play

Members of the Senate released their plan for immigration "reform" and a "normalization" (legalization) of illegal immigrants.  The four key principles of this measure:

Four Basic Legislative Pillars:
1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;
2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;
3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation's workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers. 

 Once you dig underneath this vague language, though, the actual details of the legislation might be more problematic.

David Frum argues that a massive legalization could undermine conservative policy goals while not helping Republicans electorally, a point Ross Douthat echoes.  Mark Krikorian notes that promises of enforcement of immigration law are rarely delivered on.  Mickey Kaus has 6 major questions regarding normalization.

The National Journal games out the legislative path for a legalization.  The House could stop this measure easily, but reportedly a secret committee of Republicans and Democrats have been meeting to try push some legalization through.

Fitch: Play Nice, Washington

A report out from the ratings agency Fitch suggests that the company will downgrade the USA's AAA credit rating if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling in a timely fashion:

Fitch Ratings' expectation is that Congress will raise the debt ceiling and that the risk of a U.S. sovereign default remains extremely low. Nonetheless, and in line with our previous guidance, failure to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner will prompt a formal review of the U.S. sovereign ratings. On 31 December 2012, U.S. federal government debt reached the statutory debt limit of USD16.394trn and consequently the Treasury has begun to implement extraordinary measures that will create an estimated USD200bn of additional headroom under the debt ceiling. A repeat of the August 2011 'debt ceiling crisis' would oblige Fitch to review its current assessment of the reliability and predictability of the institutional policy framework and prospects for reaching agreement on a credible medium-term deficit reduction plan.
In Fitch's opinion, the debt ceiling is an ineffective and potentially dangerous mechanism for enforcing fiscal discipline. It does not prevent tax and spending decisions that will incur debt issuance in excess of the ceiling while the sanction of not raising the ceiling risks a sovereign default and renders such a threat incredible.
So a refusal by Congressional Republicans to raise the debt ceiling and strike a deal with the president could cause the ratings agency to lose faith in America's abilities to pay its bills.

 But there's a warning for the president, too:

The U.S. 'AAA' status is underpinned by the country's relative economic dynamism and potential, diminishing financial sector risks, respect for the rule of law and property rights, as well as the exceptional financing flexibility that accrues from the global benchmark status of U.S. Treasury securities and the dollar. These fundamental credit strengths are being eroded by the large, albeit steadily declining, structural budget deficit and high and rising public debt.
In the absence of an agreed and credible medium-term deficit reduction plan that would be consistent with sustaining the economic recovery and restoring confidence in the long-run sustainability of U.S. public finances, the current Negative Outlook on the 'AAA' rating is likely to be resolved with a downgrade later this year even if another debt ceiling crisis is averted. 

So Fitch (and no doubt others) are looking for a plan to reduce the deficit's burden in the medium term.  It's not demanding immediate cuts, but it is looking for a more positive trajectory.  Cooperation from both parties may be required to realize this trajectory.