The View from Right Field

Helping Isn't Easy - Or Free

Last Wednesday’s Chicago Tribune had an article entitled "As wages fall, workers slip from middle class / Amid the demise of manufacturing jobs, the birthright of a nice home, college for the kids is under siege."* The article talked about job losses and wage cuts in the manufacturing sector. The focus was on Delphi plants, plants that General Motors owned before Delphi and its parts business were spun off because GM could not afford them any longer.

While the article did a good job of describing the plight of these workers, it did not explain how and why this occurred. Without doing so, either in that article or another article, the whole story is not being told.

Basically, the reason this occurred is that customers were no longer willing to buy the products these workers made. The prices that had to be charged to pay the wages of these workers were too high. I know that sounds harsh, and I do not mean it to be, but it is true. I suppose it is possible, if management salaries were lower or if the company was willing to take a lower profit, that the prices could have been cut and more could have been sold. But it would not have been enough to make a difference.**

The fact is, unless we were going to not let people buy the products they wanted to buy and, effectively, force them to buy what these workers made, not enough people were going to buy the products these workers made. I suppose we could have raised tariffs or imposed quotas to keep out foreign goods, but that would not have helped where the other products were made in the United States. It was not just cars made in Japan that caused Detroit to lose all those jobs; it was cars made in Ohio and Tennessee and elsewhere in the United States. And it was not because those other cars were cheaper. They were better – or at least that is what the customers thought.

Even if we could pass enough laws and add enough rules to force people to buy the products made by the companies that employed these workers, either the customers would have to pay higher prices or the government would have to pay subsidies (or something else) to cover the wages paid to these workers. The effect of this would be to make customers pay some of their own wages (through increased prices or higher taxes) to support these workers so these workers could continue to get their old wages.

And the odds are that at least some of the people who would have to pay the higher prices or extra taxes to support these workers would be people earning less than what these workers were getting paid. I know it is unfortunate these workers cannot continue to earn what they used to, but is it fair to take money from people who are earning less to support the wages of workers who are earning more?

I understand it is sad for these workers, but that does not answer the question. When we say we want to help people, we also have to decide who is going to pay for the help. Help is not free, and if we are not going to do it personally, we ought to figure out who is going to have to pay for the help before we give it.

---------------------
* I am not going to get into the fact that, if "college for the kids is under siege," it is more a result of colleges raising tuitions much faster the rate of inflation (because they can get away with it) than it is because of falling wages.

** In most cases the company could not have taken a lower profit because the company was already losing money.

An Obama, Not a Lincoln

One of the knocks on Barack Obama has been his lack of experience. Hillary Clinton hit hard on this point (as did John Edwards) afterthe following answer by Senator Obama in the YouTube debate last Monday night:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. (APPLAUSE) Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

I will leave Senator Clinton’s and former Senator Edwards’ responses to this answer to Democrats to sort out. I would like to compare Senator Obama’s answer to what another President did, a president that Senator Obama’s supporters like to compare him to. First, though, let me say that I understand the race is still in its early stages and it will be almost eighteen months before the new President inaugurated. A person, a candidate, can learn a lot in 18 months, so maybe Senator Obama will get better in time.

The President I am referring to is, of course, Abraham Lincoln. Senator Obama has made the comparison himself by, among other things, traveling to Springfield to declare his candidacy. I assume Senator Obama and his supporters feel the comparison is a helpful one. Lincoln, for example, only served two years in Washington (a single term in the House of Representatives from 1847 to 1849) before being elected President.

But to compare Senator Obama’s answer (which was, pre-spin, that he would talk with anybody anywhere) with Lincoln’s handling of the first months of his presidency is not flattering to Senator Obama. You certainly did not see Lincoln volunteering to meet Jefferson Davis "to find areas where we can potentially move forward". As the Confederates tried to break away from the Union (which Lincoln never agreed or said they could do – another example of his careful thought and wording), Lincoln skillfully maneuvered them into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter, a key factor in Lincoln’s being able to secure support in the North for taking action to preserve the Union in the first months of the Civil War.

One sees in Lincoln’s actions a careful thinking through of how to deal with a difficult situation. One sees in Senator Obama’s answer the fairly unsophisticated response of somebody who either is just saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear or really doesn’t understand foreign policy. (The fact that the audience liked his answer can be seen in the applause he got.*)

Which brings me to my last point: The particularly concerning point of Senator Obama's answer is what it may be telling us about his basic philosophy of foreign affairs. It seems to say that Barack Obama is, underlying everything else, a true member of the liberal left wing of the Democratic Party. While he may learn he should answer specific questions differently, it appears Senator Obama’s default position in foreign policy is that all we need to do is just sit down and talk things through and we can work it out. Whether that is his real position or just naiveté does not matter much. We had a President like that with Jimmy Carter. We do not want another one. It is too dangerous.

-----------------
* I am not going to even think about what the applause to this answer says about the audience at the debate. That may be even more depressing than Senator Obama’s answer.

"Policy, what policy? We don't need a policy. We're against Bush. That's our policy." - 2007

Last year I posted a series of items called "What, what policy?" This article from the Los Angeles Times shows things have not changed even though the Democrats now have a majority in both the House and the Senate (one of their excuses for not having any policy alternatives last year).

On Iraq the Democrats say we should get out. But what next? Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois admits, "The out of Iraq caucus really has not looked beyond ending military involvement."

When Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, was asked what we should do if the violence increases in Iraq after we withdrew, he said, "That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into it."

In other words, the Democrats have no policy other than get out and it’s Bush’s fault. And that’s their policy.

Go and Do Likewise

Several weeks ago Pat McCullough, who is interning at Bread for the World, commented on my post "Is Lobbying Helping?" It was a thoughtful comment, and I appreciate it.

One of Pat’s responses to my questions was this: "There are many organizations doing great work out there …, but in terms of how much bang we get for our ‘buck’ (that is, our efforts to end poverty), the United States government has no competition."

I certainly understand the point. I also understand and appreciate the good intentions of Bread for the World and the people who support it and other similar groups. I think we all want the same thing, to help people. The question is how to best do it.

Certainly, the United States government, and other governments and quasi-governmental bodies, have a lot of money. All that money can, if used properly, accomplish a lot. The question is whether it is. What we need to do is to carefully analyze the results of various types of aid and see what they are accomplishing.

(Note: The rest of this post, while a bit lengthy, is really just a brief outline of what could be written. Others can do that better than me, but I think even this summary might be useful for raising issues to be considered.)

As I said in my post about Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank, too often aid given by governments and organizations such as the World Bank is wasted. Waste can come in several ways. Aid can be stolen or diverted by corrupt government officials in the country receiving aid. In fact, this may be the biggest problem of all, and it is one that needs much more attention than it usually gets.

(I do not understand why governments and international agencies do not care more about corruption. It is as almost as if they know the problem is there, but they think if they ignore it, it will go away. Maybe they want to avoid the hassles and trouble of confronting countries and officials abut corruption. It is hard to fight corruption, and many times those who try to fight it are not supported by their bosses or agencies. I know it is a lot easier to just send the money out and let somebody else worry about how it is spent, but it doesn’t help people.)

But even if the aid is not stolen and is spent on what it is supposed to be, it still may not help. Projects may never be completed. Even if they are completed, they may not be worthwhile. Politicians and government leaders like big flashy projects, but often that is not what the people really need. Fancy factories may look nice, but they do not help poor farmers who need clean water and a way to get their crops to market.

Also, aid that is wasted can be a bigger problem than just the people who do not get helped. In many cases, aid actually hurts.

When the aid is in the form of loans, the money must be paid back even if it was stolen by corrupt officials or misused by incompetent ones. Even though the poor get no benefit from the loans that are wasted or stolen, they, through their country, still have to pay them back. Their government will have less money in the future to do things that need to be done because it has to repay loans that were wasted.

Even if the loans are forgiven, all it does is to make the donor country feel good about itself. It does nothing to help the poorer country or the people living there.

Aid can sometimes be the cause of problems, too. All that money coming into a country can be a temptation to corruption. This is not a criticism of poorer countries. They are no worse in this regard than other places. (I know; I live in Illinois.) But it happens, and it must be taken into consideration.

Not only do corrupt officials steal aid money, they use the money to maintain themselves in power. Officials steal or divert aid, which they use to maintain themselves in power so they can steal or divert more money, which they use to maintain themselves in power so they can steal more money. It becomes a vicious circle that goes on and on while the poor continue to suffer.

While problems can arise with aid from private groups, they are less likely to occur. Aid from private groups is usually smaller, which means it cannot be used for the kind of grandiose schemes and projects that so often go wrong. Private groups are less likely to just give money to governments, so the money is less likely to wind up being stolen or misused by corrupt officials.

The smaller size of private programs also allows for more direct supervision and involvement by people who care. This individual, hands-on attention usually results in more effective aid. With less bureaucracy and less red-tape, more can be accomplished and at a lower cost. For example, according to The Wall Street Journal of July 7, 2007, a report by the Hudson Institute "finds that while a moderately priced U.S. government consultant working in a developing country costs $300,000 per year, the private sector hires the same skilled professional at just over $100,000."

Private groups also have the ability to innovate and come up with new ideas and programs that governments, whether donor or donee, would probably not think of. Things like micro-finance would probably never have been started by government aid. They are too small and mundane, and too challenging to the established social order, to be started by governments, but they are the kind of thing that really works.

In other words, and perhaps not surprisingly, it seems likely that money spent by private groups achieves much more "good per dollar" than money spent by governments. The concern, however, as mentioned above, is that there is not enough money from private groups to address all the needs. Even if it does not accomplish as much good per dollar as private groups do, only government has enough money to address the needs.

The problem is that government money does not seem to be getting the job done. Is that because not enough money is being spent? That may be part of it, but it is not all. A lot of government aid is wasted. Much more could be accomplished if the government aid that is being given could be used more effectively. There is a lot of work to be done to make sure government aid helps, in terms of good per dollar, as much as it should.

In this regard, there is one thing government can do that private groups cannot do. Government needs to push poorer countries to address the problems that result in aid being wasted and to establish the necessary rules and framework so that aid can be used more effectively.

This involves several things. First, we need to demand honest government and a commitment to end corruption. Corruption is probably the biggest impediment to effective aid. Fighting corruption will not be easy. It will mean disagreements and confrontations. It may mean cutting off aid to countries that refuse to combat corruption. It will be hard, but it is necessary if we really want to help people as opposed to just feeling good ourselves because we give a lot of money.

But it is not just a matter of promoting honest government and wiping out corruption. Poor countries also need the rule of law. People must have rights and there must be courts to enforce them. Without a sense of security, both in their person and their livelihood, sustained development will not happen. People need the confidence that if they work hard, they can keep what they earn. They need to know they can build on their own work. This requires the rule of law and an impartial court system.

The next thing may bother some people, but it is important for real progress: Property rights. Property rights give people the ability to store and save the fruits of their own labor. Along with the rule of law and impartial courts, property rights can give people a sense of security. If people can own something, something that the rule of law will protect and that a corrupt government cannot take away, they will feel secure, and they will amaze us with what they can do for themselves. If we give them a little help, and they know they can build something and keep it, great things will happen. But if government officials can seize whatever they want, or if there is no rule of law or courts to protect people’s property from others taking it, people will have no incentive to try to better themselves.

Property rights also give people the ability to stand up to oppressive government. When the government controls your job and where you live, it is hard to oppose it. But having a way to live that is outside of the government’s control enables people to fight oppression.

Finally, there must be freedom, especially economic freedom. People need the right to buy and sell what they want. And this economic freedom needs to be for all people, not just one part of society. One of the great things that private groups have done is to encourage the economic empowerment of women. Many of the micro-finance plans have been aimed at women. The Women’s Opportunity Fund of Opportunity International is just one example of what can be accomplished when aid is provided to all groups in a country.

I know some may say it is cultural imperialism for us to tell a country and its government how they should organize themselves, whether we are talking about ending corruption or establishing the rule of law or allowing all people to participate equally and fully in society. Two comments. First, I believe every person should have the right to do what he or she wants. If they do not want to do something, that is fine. But they should not be prohibited from doing things by their government or society because of their sex or religion or some other personal characteristic. In other words, all people should be free to exercise their unalienable rights.

Second, we cannot force a country to organize itself in one way or the other. However, there is also no reason we are obligated to give aid to a country that organizes itself in a way that means the aid will be wasted or otherwise not used as effectively as it could be used in other countries. The amount of aid we can give is limited, and we need to give it to those countries where it can do the most good and we can help the most people. I do not believe this is cultural imperialism, but if it is, so be it.

But it is not just a matter of what the recipients need to do. There are things we need to do, too. Too often, government aid is given with strings attached that make it worth much less than it could be. The recipient is required to buy products or services only from the country that gives the aid. While this is great for the donor, it means that the aid is not worth as much. Instead of being aid for the poorer country, it becomes another government handout to the sellers of products and services in the country giving the aid.

Probably the two biggest things we can do to help poorer countries and their people will be the hardest. First, we need to cut tariffs and get rid of quotas and other import restrictions on products that poorer countries make. Instead of giving them handouts, we should give them access to our markets so they can make things and sell them to us. Too often we tell countries to improve themselves, and then when they try to do so, we refuse to buy what they make. Textiles and clothes are just one example of the kind of products we need to let in from poorer countries.

Second, we need to end export and other subsidies for our agriculture. These subsidies do two things wrong. First, they prevent farmers in foreign countries from competing in the United States, just like tariffs and quotas do on manufactured goods. Second, the subsidies we give our farmers mean they can export to poorer countries and unfairly undercut the local farmers there. This hurts rural development in those countries. Rural residents remain stuck in subsistence farming instead of being able to grow crops they can sell to the urban areas of their own country.

This will be hard. Letting in goods made by poorer countries may hurt some industries in the United States. Cutting agricultural subsidies may hurt some of our farmers. But we need to do it, and there will be benefits for us, too. Consumers in the United States will get lower prices for things like clothes and other products made by poorer countries. This may not matter to some people, but it will certainly help others.

I am not ignoring the costs these policies will impose on some workers and companies in the United States. These costs are real, but so are the costs of making people in the United States pay more for products and food to artificially protect U.S. companies. We need to help displaced workers, giving them training and assistance while they look for new jobs, but change happens and we cannot protect companies forever.

So what do we need to do to help the poorer countries? Four things. First, as individuals we need to give as much money as we can to private groups. Many private groups are doing a great job, and with more money they can do even more.

Second, our government needs to push for honest government and an end to corruption in poorer countries. We also need to encourage those countries to establish a legal and economic framework that will let their people develop and grow for themselves. Rule of law, impartial courts, private property, and economic freedom. These will provide the foundation on which people can build a future for themselves and their country.

Third, once corruption is ended and the necessary framework is in place, our government needs to give more aid to those countries where it can be used effectively to really help people.

Last, we need to open our markets and end our subsidies. Instead of just giving aid, we need to give poorer countries and their people a chance to help themselves. We need to give them a hand, not a hand out.

The bottom line is caring – but caring effectively. It is our duty and our obligation.

Dan Quayle

The recent "problems" of Democratic Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana caused the Chicago Tribune to run a list of people who had similar problems in past. Number four on the list was the following, which includes one of my all-time favorite quotes about a politician:

"In 1980, lobbyist Paula Parkinson went on a Florida golf trip with three congressmen. One of them, Thomas Evans (R-Del.), lost his re-election bid when the dalliance was revealed. Another, Dan Quayle (R-Ind.), did not, and later became vice president. Said Quayle's wife, Marilyn: ‘Anyone who knows Dan Quayle knows he'd rather play golf than have sex any day.’"

Hmmm. I had not thought of it before, but from that point of view, maybe Lloyd Bentsen meant it as a compliment when he said in the 1988 vice presidential debate that Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy.

Free Speech: Because That Is What Freedom Is About

In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Kimberley Strassel talks about the problem John McCain is having with conservatives because of the McCain-Feingold law. She quotes Bradley Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission: "For most conservatives, campaign finance is conceptually pretty easy; they saw it as targeting them. I've been surprised at how angry people were, and remain, over that law." She continues:

"[T]alk to Republican Party officials at the state, county and local level, and among their biggest gripes is the difficulties they face in recruiting local candidates, funding those candidates, and registering voters to support those candidates – all thanks to McCain-Feingold. Some leaders point to the lackluster support Mr. McCain has received from state delegates as an expression of this bitterness."

I can understand that many conservatives will not support Senator McCain because of his position on "campaign finance reform" because I feel the same way. However, unlike those conservatives who oppose McCain-Feingold because it hurts Republicans, I oppose McCain-Feingold because it is wrong. It limits everybody’s freedom of speech and press and right to seek redress of grievances. For example, among other things, McCain-Feingold prohibits talking about politics and public issues in certain ways during the period either 30 or 60 days before an election. (30 days for a primary; 60 days for a general election.) But that is exactly what freedom is about: Talking about candidates before an election. If restrictions of the kind contained in McCain-Feingold are not unconstitutional, it is only because too many Supreme Court justices are reading their own personal policy preferences into words in the Constitution that should be absolutely clear.

The point is that Republicans should not be against McCain-Feingold because it will hurt them. It does not matter who is helped and who is hurt by these restrictions. Republicans should be against McCain-Feingold and its ilk because they are wrong.

Here is an example of what Republicans should not do. McCain-Feingold bans soft money contributions to parties. Therefore, in 2004, because money cannot be stopped, only diverted, 527s popped up. The Democrats initially thought this would hurt them, so before the election in 2004 there was a move by Democrats (unfortunately supported by the White House) to put restrictions on 527s. Republicans opposed the attempt, and fortunately they prevailed.

During the election, however, it turned out that 527s supporting Kerry and Democrats received more money than those supporting Bush (see MoveOn.org, etc.).* Therefore, in 2005 the Republicans in the House tried to pass restrictions on 527s. This time it was the Democrats posing (and I do mean posing) as protectors of freedom. Fortunately, the Republicans failed. In any case, this was exactly the wrong thing for Republicans to do. We need to be defenders of freedom, not defenders of whatever we think will help us in the next election.

The point is that it does not matter who spent more money. The 527s in 2004 were okay because they were people spending or contributing money to help elect, or defeat, the candidates of their choice. That is what the First Amendment is, or at least should be, all about.

In 1987, when the Federal Communications Commission finally got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine," I was all for it. I was not for it because I knew Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of talk radio was coming. I was not that smart. I was for it, even though most of the television stations at that time had a liberal slant in their coverage, because it was the right thing to do. It was about increasing freedom.

It does not work to be for campaign reform proposals when you think they will help you and to be against them when you think they will hurt. The key is freedom. Campaign reform laws are about taking freedom away from some people because other people think they have too much freedom (maybe the other people think they are spending too much money on politics). Campaign reform laws are about restricting the freedom of some people because other people do not like what they are doing with their freedom. But this means your freedom, even your freedom to try to change your government, is conditional on other people approving how you use it. That is not freedom and that is not democracy and that is something Republicans need to be against – because there is no way we can trust the Democrats to be against it.

-------------------
* The 527s supporting Bush (or at least opposing Kerry) were, however, more effective. Thank you, Swift Boat Veterans.

Is It Really True "Americans Won't Do These Jobs"?

"Americans won’t do these jobs." "The only people who will do those jobs are illegal immigrants." "If they don’t come, things won’t get done."

At least that is what a lot of people say. On July 6 The Wall Street Journal reported on the large number of lifeguards at local swimming pools who are foreigners here for the summer.* The article explained why many jobs, such as lifeguarding, that American students used to do are now done by foreigners: College students are taking internships to improve their resume. High school students are in summer classes or doing other things to make their college applications look better. College starts so early that it is hard for kids to do some jobs. But then, the article mentioned one last reason why at least some American students may not want the lifeguard jobs it reported on: the $8.00 per hour the lifeguards make.

In other words, we really do not know whether "Americans won’t do" lifeguarding and other relatively low-pay jobs. All we know is that you cannot find enough Americans, both citizens and legal immigrants, to do these jobs at the wages employers are now paying. Or, to phrase it another way, all we know is that you cannot find enough Americans and legal immigrants to do these jobs at wages the employers have to pay to be able to charge prices the Americans are willing to pay.

The question then is how Americans would feel about paying, either directly or through the higher prices we pay to other people, wages that would be high enough to get citizens and legal immigrants to do the work that illegal immigrants do now.

Actually, this question reminds me of one of the nominees Bill Clinton proposed for Attorney General before he finally appointed Janet Reno. When it was discovered that the nominee and her husband had hired an illegal immigrant to take care of their child (or children), her husband (who was in charge of the hiring) said that he had been forced to hire an illegal immigrant because he could not find a citizen or legal immigrant to do the job at the going rate.

No, that is not true, and that is the point. If you cannot find a citizen or legal immigrant, or enough citizens and legal immigrants, to do a job at a particular wage, then that is not the "going rate". It may be all you want to pay, it may be what you can pay an illegal immigrant, but it is not the going rate. The going rate is what you would have to pay a citizen or legal immigrant to do the job.

With respect to all those jobs that we are told American won’t do, the fact is that we do not know if Americans will do them because we have not tried raising wages enough to make the jobs attractive to Americans or legal immigrants. Maybe Americans and/or legal immigrants would be lifeguards and childcare providers and lawn care workers, and whatever other jobs Americans "won’t do," if the jobs paid more.

I have no problem with doing this, but let me be clear what this means. If there are no illegal immigrants to do these low-paying jobs and if we want these jobs done, we are going to have to pay more to get them done. We are going to have to pay lawn care workers more. We are going to have to pay more for childcare. And if we have to pay more to the people who harvest our fresh fruits and vegetables, then our food is going to cost more. In other words, we are going to have to pay the real price for those goods and services, instead of some artificially low price that we can only get away with because illegal immigrants do the work.

If we increase wages and then increase them again (if necessary), and we still cannot find enough citizens and legal immigrants to do certain jobs, then we will know that "Americans won’t do these jobs," but until we try we won’t know. And if we find that the only way we can get some jobs done, at any wage, is to have illegal immigrants do them, then let’s admit it and change the rules to make those people legal.

One final point: Democrats always want to raise the minimum wage. They say it is to help those people earning really low wages. But many Democrats do not seem all that interested in reducing illegal immigration. It seems to me that, if there were fewer illegal immigrants to do the low-wage jobs, then employers would have to pay more to get those jobs done. It is a matter of supply and demand. If there are fewer people available to do low-wage jobs, employers are going to have to pay more to get those jobs done. I do not understand why these Democrats do not want to give it a try.

-------------------------
* I note that the foreign lifeguards in the article are here legally on H-2B visas, but the point of their story and that of illegal immigrants is the same. The jobs are being done by people who are not in the United States on a legal, long-term basis because the employers cannot find enough Americans to do the job at the wage they are paying.

It's Iraq. We Don't Have to Be Logical

Many of those urging us to pull out of Iraq also say we need to stay in the area so we can fight terrorists such as Al Qaeda. The one thing they never explain, however, is why, after we pull out of Iraq and abandon all those Iraqis who have fought alongside us, anybody in the Middle East would want to be on our side. The people in the Middle East are not stupid. After we leave Iraq because it is too hard and too dangerous, why would any of them be willing to stand with us in fighting Islamic totalitarianism knowing we cannot be trusted to stand with them? *

---------------------------
* Country music fans, cue Ronnie Milsap, "(I'm A) Stand By Your Woman Man". (See the lyrics here.)

The Defeat of Immigration Reform – Or How Is It My Fault You Guys Came Up With Such a Lousy Bill?

I am tired of being called stupid and prejudiced and anti-immigrant because I was against the failed Kennedy-Kyl immigration bill (officially called the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007). I am not stupid, I am not prejudiced (except perhaps against a few politicians and certain commentators), and I am definitely not against immigrants. What I am against, however, is illegal immigration and arrogant, condescending politicians.

The immigration bill was supposedly a combination of measures that would deal with the illegal immigrants here now, provide for guest workers to come in legally, and implement tougher border security and employer sanctions to stop (or at least greatly reduce) illegal immigration in the future. But the problem was that nobody really believed the last. In 1986 we were promised that, if we passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill (giving amnesty to those already here), the government would get control of our borders and stop illegal immigration. The bill passed, but the enforcement never happened – or at least it didn’t work. 

And that is the problem. Many of us who opposed the Kennedy-Kyl bill did so not because we hate Hispanics (or Poles or whoever) – we don’t – but because we did not trust its proponents to really try to stop illegal immigration. If stopping illegal immigration was all that much of a priority for President Bush, why did he wait until late last year to try to do something about it? Does anyone, anywhere, really think Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats would follow though on enforcement when they control both the presidency and Congress after the next election?

We are now told that nothing can be done about illegal immigration and that it is the fault of those of us who opposed the Kennedy-Kyl bill. Of course, that is not true. Congress can still do something – if it wants to.

And what it can do is simple. Start small. Start by actually, finally, trying to control the borders. I am not suggesting expelling all the illegal aliens tomorrow. I just want to see the federal government do something to reduce illegal immigration in the future.

Once that is done, Congress can come back to the American people. We are nice people. We are not mean. We do not want to see families torn apart (not even Elián González’s). We like to help people, especially those who help themselves.

But we also do not like to be taken for fools and lied to. That is what happened in 1986, and that is what we were afraid was being done to us again. Until we can trust Congress and the President to actually get some control on illegal immigration (and the proof is in the pudding), we are not going to give them want they want. It is too bad it has to be that way, but it does.

One final thing. All those commentators who supported the Kennedy-Kyl bill are now telling us that Hispanics are going to hold the defeat of this bill against Republicans. Some Republican leaders are saying the same thing and acting like it is true. I don’t see why it has to be true. I think, if we explain to Hispanics what our real position was (we just want to see the federal government get some control of our borders; then we can work out the situation of the illegal immigrants), they will understand.

Republicans are not against Hispanics. We have a lot of positions I think they would like. We are not against immigrants. They like this country and work hard to better themselves. No problem with that. We just want to reduce illegal immigration. That does not make us anti-Hispanic or anti-immigrant, and there is no reason we should let anybody say that we are.

Where Are the Best People Today?

Scooter Libby is not going to jail. Democrats are going crazy, and Republicans (or at least many of them) are jumping for joy. It seems like we have been there before, though sometimes the party positions have been reversed. (See, for example, Jimmy Carter pardoning Vietnam War draft dodgers, George H. W. Bush pardoning Caspar Weinberger, and Bill Clinton pardoning everybody and his brother in his last hours in office {it was actually only 146 pardons and 38 commutations, but it really did include his brother}.)

In any case, the protests and approvals are so predictable and one-sided they are not worth dealing with. It would be nice if more of our politicians could be a little more principled and even-handed, but I suppose that is too much to ask for. In any case, the whole Libby case, and other situations that have come up recently, raise a different question that does need real consideration. (While I will use Bush Administration as my example, I am sure Democrats could provide examples from the Clinton Administration or before that raise the same point.)

The question is this: Given what can happen to a person in Washington, both financially and personally, why would anyone want to work in Washington? It seems that at least since Watergate, and even more so recently, there has been a tendency to "criminalize" political differences and demonize political opponents. It is not just a matter of disagreeing with somebody. If they disagree with you, they must, especially if they are in power, be doing something illegal.

Many people will say who cares? There are plenty of people who want to work in Washington. Look at all the people running for President. If some people do not want to serve, they are plenty of others who do. It’s no big deal.

But it does matter, and it is a big deal. Of course there are plenty of people who want to come to Washington and be in government. But are they the people we want to be in government? Are they really the best people to represent us and govern us?

Two hundred thirty years ago the best people in America were in government. Washington. Adams. Franklin. Jefferson. And more. And we needed every bit of their greatness to win our independence.

During the Civil War, we needed greatness again, and there were men such as Lincoln and Grant to help secure, politically and militarily, what our Founding Fathers had won "four score and seven years" before.

But why would today’s Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln be willing to serve? Special prosecutors are appointed to seemingly investigate and prosecute without regard to proportion and justice. (Democrats see Kenneth Starr. Republicans see Patrick Fitzgerald.)

And if it is not a special prosecutor, it is Congressional "investigations". Hearings are held not to try to find out what is happening and to legislate improvements but to embarrass the Administration (whichever one it is) and score political points.

In the investigation of the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys by Democrats in the Senate, the Justice Department’s liaison with the White House, Monica Goodling, refused to testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Senator Leahy (D, Vermont) of course said that her decision meant she must have something wrong. Her lawyer, however, appropriately replied that

"the Fifth Amendment protects innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances, as much as it protects those who many have done something wrong." *

Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have issued subpoenas to, among others, Sara Taylor, former deputy assistant to the President. Because of the obvious executive privilege problems, this will be a major battle between Congress and the President (which may be all the Democrats are really looking for since I doubt they would have been issuing such subpoenas to a Democratic president). In the meantime, Ms. Taylor, who is no longer in government, has to hire lawyer to protect herself.

While that may sound like just a risk of working in Washington, I am not so sure it ought to be. Washington attorneys are not cheap, and having to spend tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, to defend oneself, when the whole purpose is little more than just political point-scoring, is unacceptable.

But even more than the financial risk is the risk to one’s reputation. When Ray Donovan, Secretary of Labor under President Reagan, was acquitted, along with all of the other defendants, after a five-year investigation by his special prosecutor, he asked, "Which office do I go to, to get my reputation back?" The fact is you can’t get it back. It is gone forever.

With reputations and finances at risk in the blood sport that politics in Washington has become, how do we attract the good people we need? Or will we be left with just the kind of people who enjoy such things?

------------------------
* John Fund, "The Libby Precedent," The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2007.