Iran has become the new cause of some conservatives. During Tuesday’s GOP Presidential debate, Duncan Hunter said he would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I hear other rumblings too. Last week heard one conservative say he prays that Bush will bomb Iran.
Well I don’t get it. Actually I do get it, but figure it is all a sham. What we are being told is not the reality of the situation. To a tin foil hat wearing nut case like me, the reality looks like this:
Iran is a democracy. Not one that follows the western model to be sure, but certainly more so than the former Soviet Union. Or our allies Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The religious fundamentalists have a lot of influence on the lives of Iranians, but there is an opposition and forces that would like to see a more liberal society in that country. This opposition is tolerated and given a chance might even be able to exert some influence. Would Iran become a secular state in a generation? Probably not, however remember that the country does have a democratic tradition that was squashed during the cold war.
The last thing the U.S. conservatives want is a liberal, secular Iran. This would present many problems for their allies in the region. Additionally, it eliminates an external enemy. The classic solution of a regime without a real base of support is to create external enemies to distract the populous from domestic issues. The conservatives need external enemies to distract us from the complete failure of conservative economic and social policies. Because conservatives need a threat, and Iran conveniently fills that role, they take actions that push Iran more and more toward the theocratic conservatives. I see this as a symbiosis of sorts. The external threat of the United States, helps to keep the theocratic conservatives in Iran in power.
It is useful to get beyond the domestic media when it comes to Iran. We only hear a very narrow party line in this country. This link to the BBC back ground page on Iran gives a more rational perspective here:
Be it Iran, or Chavez in Venezuela, we in the United States, get the line that these governments are somehow irrational. From what I observe, conservatives feel that anyone who does not completely and enthusiastically agree with them is dismissed as irrational or crazy. This is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, where not being completely happy with the “workers paradise” created by the fascists (no they were not any more socialists than the Chinese are today) in that country might land you in a mental institution.
So let’s just take a different perspective on Iran for a moment. It is hard, we are bombarded with a contrary perspective, and you may experience a bit of cognitive dissonance as in the Tom Tomorrow cartoon here:
Still suppose Iran has rational leaders, who, although they do not have the same core values as us, none the less want what is best for the people of Iran. Also suppose they see outside threats from a world and regional nuclear powers, and not without reason, fear attack or invasion by these powers. Anyone who has studied deterrence theory knows that when two parties have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of them being used diminishes. Nuclear weapons are additionally the best deterrent to ground invasion. In spite of what you may want to believe about the bomb, it really is an instrument of peace among rational actors. The latest example being India-Pakistan.
Now let’s take another wild leap. Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. The official line of the Iranian government is that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. All of the controversy is because we, the United States, say they are liars. As a result we have created a hostile environment where Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors complete access to their facilities. It is interesting that the IAEA report on this matter is restricted. I wonder what is so secret? I wonder what would happen if we just took Iran at their word and allowed them to have a nuclear energy program that did not violate the NPT?
There is a rub though. The capability to enrich Uranium is the key to being able to develop a bomb. An Iran with nuclear weapons threatens the hegemony of the only nuclear power in the region. It that a bad thing? Let’s take another baby step away from the conservative propaganda. If deterrence theory is correct, and nuclear weapons help to keep the peace, another nuclear power in the region would most likely make it more peaceful. The outcome might not be the most economically advantageous to the allies of our American conservatives, but it might actually be a good thing for both the majority of the people in the region and the world as a whole. Now, I am just a nut with a funny hat on, but I really don’t believe that the Iranians would give a bomb to “terrorists”. If you do a little research you will find the “suitcase bomb” as it is portrayed in the MSM is a myth. (Compact nuclear weapons take a lot of development, have low yields, and are still beyond the ability of a single person to practically lift and carry around) Giving a bomb to terrorists is irrational, and I just cannot for the life of me see the Iranian government as being any more irrational then our current administration.
But to a nut case like me the current strategy makes sense from the perspective on the conservatives. Even provoking Iran to build nuclear weapons makes sense. Attacking Iran makes sense. It all makes sense if your goal is to perpetuate a “long war” and insure conflict for years to come.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Leaders Inspire People to Follow
Al Gore in an interview with NY Times Columnist Bob Herbert: “But what politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I find I have in short supply”
Exactly! and what American voters want is someone who with cut through that crap. It is the difference between a person with ambition and a real leader. Someone who will tell reporters that they are idiots, and answer other questions with an equal degree of honesty. Someone who really will ignore the polls and the consultants and just be his or her self. Who will lay out what the believe and why and what they think we really ought to do as a nation.
The level of artifice in our politics has gotten to a point that people are numb. They buy into it, tolerate it, or quit participating all together. The elites like the third choice because it concentrates power, and invests more in those who are easily manipulated.
Al Gore could run the campaign of a contrarian. Be an anti candidate. Just get out there and talk to people. No polls, no consultants, limited adverts. Just Al Gore being the wooden, policy wonk, the MSM hates. He would get my vote, and a lot more. He would get my time my energy, and I’ll bet others would follow Al Gore. He is a leader.
Re-elect Gore in ’08!
Exactly! and what American voters want is someone who with cut through that crap. It is the difference between a person with ambition and a real leader. Someone who will tell reporters that they are idiots, and answer other questions with an equal degree of honesty. Someone who really will ignore the polls and the consultants and just be his or her self. Who will lay out what the believe and why and what they think we really ought to do as a nation.
The level of artifice in our politics has gotten to a point that people are numb. They buy into it, tolerate it, or quit participating all together. The elites like the third choice because it concentrates power, and invests more in those who are easily manipulated.
Al Gore could run the campaign of a contrarian. Be an anti candidate. Just get out there and talk to people. No polls, no consultants, limited adverts. Just Al Gore being the wooden, policy wonk, the MSM hates. He would get my vote, and a lot more. He would get my time my energy, and I’ll bet others would follow Al Gore. He is a leader.
Re-elect Gore in ’08!
Friday, June 1, 2007
Don't You Know? Global Warming is a Good Thing
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, on NPR May 31, 2007:
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
This is the new conservative line. In essence: Global warming is a good thing. Yeah I agree a good thing if your goal is to bring on the apocalypse. While I have no doubt this is the ultimate goal of some conservatives, it is not one I with which happen to agree.
As often happens, this leads me to question the underlying motives of the conservative movement. Aristocracy? Theocracy? I don’t know for sure, but I do know it involves the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. The penultimate goal is to show the American experiment in democracy to be a null hypothesis. Why do the conservatives hate America? Because in addition to economic liberty, to which they pay lip service, but support established interests who manipulate markets to concentrate wealth, it also offers social liberty. Conservatism is a movement based upon racism, and maintaining the long standing social order.
How does this relate to global warming? Controlling this man made phenomena will require a revolution. Changing all 7 aspects of society, in the classic definition of that term. This sort of change causes a reordering of things that displaces the status quo. The elites who now reap the majority of the benefits of our collective labor are worried. I doubt this has much to do with money. When you have that much it just becomes play money after a while. It is more about power, a sense of entitlement, a Calvinist view, and a feeling that they, the choosen, alone know what is best for the world.
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
This is the new conservative line. In essence: Global warming is a good thing. Yeah I agree a good thing if your goal is to bring on the apocalypse. While I have no doubt this is the ultimate goal of some conservatives, it is not one I with which happen to agree.
As often happens, this leads me to question the underlying motives of the conservative movement. Aristocracy? Theocracy? I don’t know for sure, but I do know it involves the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. The penultimate goal is to show the American experiment in democracy to be a null hypothesis. Why do the conservatives hate America? Because in addition to economic liberty, to which they pay lip service, but support established interests who manipulate markets to concentrate wealth, it also offers social liberty. Conservatism is a movement based upon racism, and maintaining the long standing social order.
How does this relate to global warming? Controlling this man made phenomena will require a revolution. Changing all 7 aspects of society, in the classic definition of that term. This sort of change causes a reordering of things that displaces the status quo. The elites who now reap the majority of the benefits of our collective labor are worried. I doubt this has much to do with money. When you have that much it just becomes play money after a while. It is more about power, a sense of entitlement, a Calvinist view, and a feeling that they, the choosen, alone know what is best for the world.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Gee, I Didn't Realize Insurance Companies Could Vote
Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics at Princeton University was talking about the various Presidential candidates health care reform proposals on APM "Marketplace" yesterday.
Reinhardt:..."and if they're smart — what they'll come forth with is versions of the Massachusetts-Arnold Schwarzenegger plan, which is a little bit of everything. You pay off the insurance industry by letting them be the vehicle through which people get third-party coverage."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/05/29/PM200705295.html
Hmmm. I wonder why we, or "our" government, would need to pay off the insurance industry to reform our health care mess? Aren't the insurance companies the reason we already pay triple the administrative costs for health care what the rest of the civilized world pays, for better care? Oh, and when did we amend the Constitution to give corporations the right to vote?
Just another example of how letting the marketplace decide, results in the worst solution for the majority. Is it any wonder some of us advocate class warfare? Or at least fighting back in the class war the elites have been waging on the middle and lower classes since 1981? ( I often am astounded at how many middle class people align themselves with the elite even though they are actually getting screwed worse than some of us with even lower incomes.)
It really comes down to reforming campaign finance doesn't it. While to not allow individuals to contribute to campaigns would clearly violate the 1st Amendment, it is only a court decision that gives corporations the same right. In the current election cycle, candidates are abandoning public funding because the rates for adverts during an election campaign are sky high. But don't we the people own the airwaves and the broadcast spectrum? It seems to me it would be in every candidates interest to regulate the costs and accessibility of air time during campaigns. This would promote democracy. Even if this does begin to tilt the scales more toward the less known candidates and parties. Competition in the marketplace of ideas is a good thing... Right?
Reinhardt:..."and if they're smart — what they'll come forth with is versions of the Massachusetts-Arnold Schwarzenegger plan, which is a little bit of everything. You pay off the insurance industry by letting them be the vehicle through which people get third-party coverage."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/05/29/PM200705295.html
Hmmm. I wonder why we, or "our" government, would need to pay off the insurance industry to reform our health care mess? Aren't the insurance companies the reason we already pay triple the administrative costs for health care what the rest of the civilized world pays, for better care? Oh, and when did we amend the Constitution to give corporations the right to vote?
Just another example of how letting the marketplace decide, results in the worst solution for the majority. Is it any wonder some of us advocate class warfare? Or at least fighting back in the class war the elites have been waging on the middle and lower classes since 1981? ( I often am astounded at how many middle class people align themselves with the elite even though they are actually getting screwed worse than some of us with even lower incomes.)
It really comes down to reforming campaign finance doesn't it. While to not allow individuals to contribute to campaigns would clearly violate the 1st Amendment, it is only a court decision that gives corporations the same right. In the current election cycle, candidates are abandoning public funding because the rates for adverts during an election campaign are sky high. But don't we the people own the airwaves and the broadcast spectrum? It seems to me it would be in every candidates interest to regulate the costs and accessibility of air time during campaigns. This would promote democracy. Even if this does begin to tilt the scales more toward the less known candidates and parties. Competition in the marketplace of ideas is a good thing... Right?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Is Rudy a Lunatic?
Paul Krugman: “Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a “movement” that “has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he should be treated as a lunatic.”
Why are so many Republicans so delusional? Because it serves their interests to be so. Fear can be a powerful motivator. But it is time those of us who retain our rationality start calling these ideas for what they really are. Do you recall how the neocons used the argument that poor people were poor because the Democrats, kept them that way to maintain their constituency? While that argument had little if any merit, this one does: The neocons secretly support terrorists, and promote terrorism with their polices, because the fear created keeps their constituency motivated and keeps them in power.
Why are so many Republicans so delusional? Because it serves their interests to be so. Fear can be a powerful motivator. But it is time those of us who retain our rationality start calling these ideas for what they really are. Do you recall how the neocons used the argument that poor people were poor because the Democrats, kept them that way to maintain their constituency? While that argument had little if any merit, this one does: The neocons secretly support terrorists, and promote terrorism with their polices, because the fear created keeps their constituency motivated and keeps them in power.
I'll Take the Weird Guy Please
In this morning’s New York Times, David Brooks, attacks and attempts to discredit Al Gore (again). Brooks:” “The Assault on Reason” is well worth reading. It reminds us that whatever the effects of our homogenizing mass culture, it is still possible for exceedingly strange individuals to rise to the top.” As if this were a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, were exceedingly strange, and look at their legacy
To my mind we want visionaries as our leaders. People who can peer 20 years into the future and see that funding something like a distributed, node based, computer network, might have some value in the future. Thinkers who understand that carbon emissions might be a looming problem, long before the mass media accept this idea. Weird people, who see how mass advertising and mass psychology erode the underlying principals of our culture and democracy make the best people to make decisions about our collective lives.
People like that, are willing to make decisions based upon the future and the greater good. They make decisions and promote policies based upon what is right, not what is best for the short term interests of economic elites. I am sorry, but given the choice between a guy who might be great to go to a ball game with, a fun, rich, frat boy, who, while charming, and likable, does not have a clue, and a socially inept, weird, visionary, who thinks about the future in profound ways. I will take the weirdo. But I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. A weirdo myself.
Of course you realize, Al Gore, scares the bejesus out of the status quo. The main stream media hate him because he brings up real issues and makes them look bad. He threatens the current order of things. He has had a peek inside the machine and knows how it really works. He wants to not only change course but change how the machine works as well. Al Gore is a dangerous man.
Brooks, shrill of the conservative elites that he is, gives us an insight as to what a campaign against Gore, in ’08 might look like. Brooks wants us to believe that we should choose our leaders as we often do in grade school, or social organizations. Not based upon their competency, or vision, but based upon their social skills, and popularity based upon personality. This only plays into the hand of the economic elites and results in more of the same lousy policies we have had for the last 25 years.
To my mind we want visionaries as our leaders. People who can peer 20 years into the future and see that funding something like a distributed, node based, computer network, might have some value in the future. Thinkers who understand that carbon emissions might be a looming problem, long before the mass media accept this idea. Weird people, who see how mass advertising and mass psychology erode the underlying principals of our culture and democracy make the best people to make decisions about our collective lives.
People like that, are willing to make decisions based upon the future and the greater good. They make decisions and promote policies based upon what is right, not what is best for the short term interests of economic elites. I am sorry, but given the choice between a guy who might be great to go to a ball game with, a fun, rich, frat boy, who, while charming, and likable, does not have a clue, and a socially inept, weird, visionary, who thinks about the future in profound ways. I will take the weirdo. But I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. A weirdo myself.
Of course you realize, Al Gore, scares the bejesus out of the status quo. The main stream media hate him because he brings up real issues and makes them look bad. He threatens the current order of things. He has had a peek inside the machine and knows how it really works. He wants to not only change course but change how the machine works as well. Al Gore is a dangerous man.
Brooks, shrill of the conservative elites that he is, gives us an insight as to what a campaign against Gore, in ’08 might look like. Brooks wants us to believe that we should choose our leaders as we often do in grade school, or social organizations. Not based upon their competency, or vision, but based upon their social skills, and popularity based upon personality. This only plays into the hand of the economic elites and results in more of the same lousy policies we have had for the last 25 years.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
A Percentage of the Population
Listening to an interview with one of Petraeus’ warrior/intellectuals: Brig.Gen. H.R. McMaster, on NPR this morning, I heard him make this statement about the “terrorists” in Iraq: “They rely upon a certain percentage of the population looking to them as their protectors.”
Well to me, that strategy sounds very familiar. It sounds like the strategy of the current people in charge of our executive branch of government.
Last night on the PRI program “Marketplace” I heard Ben “Bueller…Bueller?” Stein, fear mongering in a commentary. To echo Stein: How can we be so complacent when the terrorists want to kill us?
FDR brilliantly said: “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” This is my perspective. I have more fear of dying in an automobile accident than in a terrorist attack. This is because statistician in me tells me this is far more probable. When someone uses fear to motivate a population, or a certain percentage of the population, it is because they do not hold the moral high ground. Because they have no other means of moving the population to support their policy. I would argue that in our current situation the real reasons for the current policies cannot be made public. They would be completely and utterly unsupportable by a large percentage of the population.
There are simple solutions to the threat of terrorism. The support for terrorism is not because “they” hate our way of life. No "they" hate our policies, and the injustices and inequities those policies create. Although the solutions are simple they are not easy. In fact, politically, I would put them close to impossible. But we can move away from extremism, back to a more even handed policies. Policies that seek justice, and economic equity for all peoples. If you look at history, in the 1960’sand 1970’s the United States was much admired in the Near and Middle East. I would ask rhetorically: What has changed? and why?
Well to me, that strategy sounds very familiar. It sounds like the strategy of the current people in charge of our executive branch of government.
Last night on the PRI program “Marketplace” I heard Ben “Bueller…Bueller?” Stein, fear mongering in a commentary. To echo Stein: How can we be so complacent when the terrorists want to kill us?
FDR brilliantly said: “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” This is my perspective. I have more fear of dying in an automobile accident than in a terrorist attack. This is because statistician in me tells me this is far more probable. When someone uses fear to motivate a population, or a certain percentage of the population, it is because they do not hold the moral high ground. Because they have no other means of moving the population to support their policy. I would argue that in our current situation the real reasons for the current policies cannot be made public. They would be completely and utterly unsupportable by a large percentage of the population.
There are simple solutions to the threat of terrorism. The support for terrorism is not because “they” hate our way of life. No "they" hate our policies, and the injustices and inequities those policies create. Although the solutions are simple they are not easy. In fact, politically, I would put them close to impossible. But we can move away from extremism, back to a more even handed policies. Policies that seek justice, and economic equity for all peoples. If you look at history, in the 1960’sand 1970’s the United States was much admired in the Near and Middle East. I would ask rhetorically: What has changed? and why?
Welcome TMW Readers!
Thanks to "Tom Tomorrows" encouragement, my crazy ideas are now accessible to an audience beyond my limited email list. I post almost daily to my nature themed: View From Gildersleeve Mountain (link on the right). While posting to this blog is irregular. I hope readers will find it interesting enough to come back now and again.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Why is Immigration Policy so Difficult?
As a first generation American. The son of an immigrant. I am a bit perplexed by our inability to fix the immigration problem. But to a tin foil hat wearing, nut like me. Someone who thinks from way outside the box. It is not all that complicated. In fact it is easy.
First we have to make legal immigration easy. There is no need to build a fence or a wall. People will just find a way around that. In making legal immigration easy, we automatically control illegal immigration and make it much more difficult. Having worked in Mexico, I found their system to be quite effective. Upon entering the country I applied for a work permit. I had to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, and identity. With my work permit I was permitted to work and conduct business in Mexico for the limited period of the permit. Upon leaving Mexico, I was required to turn the permit back in. Failure to do so would result in a hefty fine the next time I returned to Mexico to work. As I recall they even had computers set up in the immigration office to check this. With our work permit would come a number. This would be the equivalent of a social security number, and any employer would have to utilize it in that manner. Wow! You realize this means we would collect social security and income taxes on immigrant workers. Since immigrant labor would never collect social security, except in the rare cases of those who become citizens, this would also help to resolve the "crisis" with this program.
This next bit is the real sticking point. Holding employers responsible. If any employer caught paying compensating or utilizing the services of anyone without a valid work permit, was fined on a escalating scale and eventually faced jail. Well then, not many people would employ illegals would they? Make this apply to the top person in the company. Make that person responsible for insuring the company follows the law. Of course we know in most cases Fortune 500 companies are not employing illegals. Most of the time it is construction contractors, farmers, labor contractors, and small businesses.
How about enforcement? Right now we rely on the INS and Border Patrol. Enforcement too is easy. How about we empower local law agencies to enforce the laws and gave them a cut of the fines? This is not empowering them to arrest the people without work permits. No, we do not want the labor to scatter like the wind when the police show up. That is the traditional approach that goes after the immigrants and not those who hire them. This is the power to arrest their employers.
I too worry about the creation of another permanent underclass. As a part of allowing someone employ an immigrant and the regulation of both interstate and international commerce we could create a minimum wage for immigrant workers. Setting that wage would be a matter of economic policy, but as a part of this, employing an immigrant could not be on a cash, or day labor basis. Make the employer collect or pay all the applicable taxes. We might even have an additional tax on immigrant labor to cover the cost of administering work permits and other associated costs. This has the additional advantage of creating a disincentive to using immigrants. Right now it is actually easier in many cases, to employ illegal immigrants than it is to employ citizens.
How about the highly skilled knowledge workers big companies say they need? Let the Microsofts, and the Hewlett Packards, bring in as many as they want providing: 1. They cannot find a qualified US. Citizen or permanent resident. 2. They offer a multi year contract with benefits. 3. They take responsibility of the cost of the person’s return home if they do not want to stay. These workers cannot be allowed to job hop. They must be tied to one employer to make this work. They must be allowed to quit at any time, but must also be guaranteed employment by their sponsor. They could also come in for a shorter time with a regular work permit.
What about the illegals already here? Make them go to the border or an INS office and get a work permit just like everyone else. No amnesty. If they continue to work without a permit their employer will suffer the wrath of the law. When the permit expires they must turn it in at the border and go through the required waiting period before they are able to return
What about citizenship? The privilege accorded citizens or permanent residents is that of free enterprise. Going beyond working for wages. The American dream. Immigrant labor should be just that, and only that...labor.
I think you should see where I am going with this. I am making those who employ immigrants the responsible party. Not the immigrant, not the government. By regulating the marketplace for immigrant labor the problem becomes easier to deal with and control. But I doubt this will fly. Employers wont stand for being held responsible, and it will put upward pressure on wages, which according to the Federal Reserve is a bad thing for some reason.
The reason immigration is a complicated problem is because there are 3 forces at work. 1. As in any economy, there exists a market for cheap labor. 2. Citizens are unhappy with the downward pressure on wages this creates. And 3. A bi-partisan group of people believe in the rule of law, but are more beholden to the interests of employers than of ordinary citizens and immigrants. It is in trying to continue to supply(1) while pulling a con on (2) that (3) have all the trouble. In more simple terms: It is very difficult to take from the wealthy and give to the poor. No wonder it is all so complicated.
We could make immigration work to everyone's advantage. Especially if it were combined with universal heath care. We want immigrant labor to play on the same level as the rest of us. If all immigrant labor were included in the tax base, had health care, and were a part of the above ground economy, there would not be such complexity. We have complexity because the underground economy works to the advantage of an elite few. But those few have tremendous power with lawmakers. In fact they often are lawmakers, or in government. Think "nannygate".
First we have to make legal immigration easy. There is no need to build a fence or a wall. People will just find a way around that. In making legal immigration easy, we automatically control illegal immigration and make it much more difficult. Having worked in Mexico, I found their system to be quite effective. Upon entering the country I applied for a work permit. I had to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, and identity. With my work permit I was permitted to work and conduct business in Mexico for the limited period of the permit. Upon leaving Mexico, I was required to turn the permit back in. Failure to do so would result in a hefty fine the next time I returned to Mexico to work. As I recall they even had computers set up in the immigration office to check this. With our work permit would come a number. This would be the equivalent of a social security number, and any employer would have to utilize it in that manner. Wow! You realize this means we would collect social security and income taxes on immigrant workers. Since immigrant labor would never collect social security, except in the rare cases of those who become citizens, this would also help to resolve the "crisis" with this program.
This next bit is the real sticking point. Holding employers responsible. If any employer caught paying compensating or utilizing the services of anyone without a valid work permit, was fined on a escalating scale and eventually faced jail. Well then, not many people would employ illegals would they? Make this apply to the top person in the company. Make that person responsible for insuring the company follows the law. Of course we know in most cases Fortune 500 companies are not employing illegals. Most of the time it is construction contractors, farmers, labor contractors, and small businesses.
How about enforcement? Right now we rely on the INS and Border Patrol. Enforcement too is easy. How about we empower local law agencies to enforce the laws and gave them a cut of the fines? This is not empowering them to arrest the people without work permits. No, we do not want the labor to scatter like the wind when the police show up. That is the traditional approach that goes after the immigrants and not those who hire them. This is the power to arrest their employers.
I too worry about the creation of another permanent underclass. As a part of allowing someone employ an immigrant and the regulation of both interstate and international commerce we could create a minimum wage for immigrant workers. Setting that wage would be a matter of economic policy, but as a part of this, employing an immigrant could not be on a cash, or day labor basis. Make the employer collect or pay all the applicable taxes. We might even have an additional tax on immigrant labor to cover the cost of administering work permits and other associated costs. This has the additional advantage of creating a disincentive to using immigrants. Right now it is actually easier in many cases, to employ illegal immigrants than it is to employ citizens.
How about the highly skilled knowledge workers big companies say they need? Let the Microsofts, and the Hewlett Packards, bring in as many as they want providing: 1. They cannot find a qualified US. Citizen or permanent resident. 2. They offer a multi year contract with benefits. 3. They take responsibility of the cost of the person’s return home if they do not want to stay. These workers cannot be allowed to job hop. They must be tied to one employer to make this work. They must be allowed to quit at any time, but must also be guaranteed employment by their sponsor. They could also come in for a shorter time with a regular work permit.
What about the illegals already here? Make them go to the border or an INS office and get a work permit just like everyone else. No amnesty. If they continue to work without a permit their employer will suffer the wrath of the law. When the permit expires they must turn it in at the border and go through the required waiting period before they are able to return
What about citizenship? The privilege accorded citizens or permanent residents is that of free enterprise. Going beyond working for wages. The American dream. Immigrant labor should be just that, and only that...labor.
I think you should see where I am going with this. I am making those who employ immigrants the responsible party. Not the immigrant, not the government. By regulating the marketplace for immigrant labor the problem becomes easier to deal with and control. But I doubt this will fly. Employers wont stand for being held responsible, and it will put upward pressure on wages, which according to the Federal Reserve is a bad thing for some reason.
The reason immigration is a complicated problem is because there are 3 forces at work. 1. As in any economy, there exists a market for cheap labor. 2. Citizens are unhappy with the downward pressure on wages this creates. And 3. A bi-partisan group of people believe in the rule of law, but are more beholden to the interests of employers than of ordinary citizens and immigrants. It is in trying to continue to supply(1) while pulling a con on (2) that (3) have all the trouble. In more simple terms: It is very difficult to take from the wealthy and give to the poor. No wonder it is all so complicated.
We could make immigration work to everyone's advantage. Especially if it were combined with universal heath care. We want immigrant labor to play on the same level as the rest of us. If all immigrant labor were included in the tax base, had health care, and were a part of the above ground economy, there would not be such complexity. We have complexity because the underground economy works to the advantage of an elite few. But those few have tremendous power with lawmakers. In fact they often are lawmakers, or in government. Think "nannygate".
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Errata
Some thoughts on various issues. Seemingly disconnected but perhaps interrelated. You decide...
Al Qaeda sleeper cells? More like the gang who couldn't shoot straight. The arrests in New Jersey, just go to show how the threats are overblown for the purpose of creating fear. Attacking a military base with a squad sized unit, no matter how well armed, is like taking on an elephant with a BB gun. (They did plan to die in the attack, but give me a break…) Yet the FBI wants us to be afraid, be very afraid. Right. These guys were idiots living some sort of fantasy. I doubt they would have ever carried out the attack unless goaded into it by an informant/infiltrator.
As I watch the Democratic, pre Presidential, campaign I realize how little I trust both Hillary, and Obama. Obama especially. This is in part because he refuses to lay out specifics for anything. Also, because I don't trust his rapid rise to prominence. I look at a piece of legislation he sponsored, to limit greenhouse gas emissions and see a classic example of greenwashing. It is a toothless bill, co sponsored by “Joementum” Lieberman. To me Obama is the Energy and Agribusiness candidate. A stealth version to be sure, but in reality just W in sheep’s clothing.
On the Republican side, I wonder why the GOP can’t do better. Why can’t they get beyond the extreme conservatism that has gotten us into the mess we are in? Being from Kirtland, Ohio I have little worry about Romney’s religion. That is a red herring from my perspective, and he is the least scary of the GOP candidates. But why can’t someone who would be a darn good President, someone like former New Jersey Governor Whitman, succeed on a national level? We know the answer. The extremists still control the GOP, and will continue to hang on in spite of multiple failures. This is a good thing.
A few posts ago I wondered about what caused the tipping point in the attitudes of the elites toward global warming? I see Citicorp is going to invest $70 billion in green technology. This follows a plan by Bank of America to invest $20 billion announced in March. Two years ago this was all so inconclusive. A hoax designed to ruin the American economy. While I am glad to see the change. A tin foil hat wearing nut like me, always likes to ask why? 5 times.
A little math to put things in perspective: Price of a Honda hybrid, well equipped, $25K or 2.5 x10^4. Number of passenger vehicles sold in North America every year, about 17 million, or 1.7x10^7. Cost to convert the entire vehicle fleet to hybrid technology for 1 year =4.25 x 10^11 or $425 billion. Wait! That doesn't make sense… How much have we spent on the war in Iraq? The current estimate is a mere $424 billion. In other words, for what we have spent on the war in Iraq we could have given a hybrid car to every American who purchased a vehicle last year. To quote a song by an old punk band: “I’m not crazy…You’re the one who’s crazy…” Oh well, I have to inspect my funny hat to make sure there are no holes in it.
Al Qaeda sleeper cells? More like the gang who couldn't shoot straight. The arrests in New Jersey, just go to show how the threats are overblown for the purpose of creating fear. Attacking a military base with a squad sized unit, no matter how well armed, is like taking on an elephant with a BB gun. (They did plan to die in the attack, but give me a break…) Yet the FBI wants us to be afraid, be very afraid. Right. These guys were idiots living some sort of fantasy. I doubt they would have ever carried out the attack unless goaded into it by an informant/infiltrator.
As I watch the Democratic, pre Presidential, campaign I realize how little I trust both Hillary, and Obama. Obama especially. This is in part because he refuses to lay out specifics for anything. Also, because I don't trust his rapid rise to prominence. I look at a piece of legislation he sponsored, to limit greenhouse gas emissions and see a classic example of greenwashing. It is a toothless bill, co sponsored by “Joementum” Lieberman. To me Obama is the Energy and Agribusiness candidate. A stealth version to be sure, but in reality just W in sheep’s clothing.
On the Republican side, I wonder why the GOP can’t do better. Why can’t they get beyond the extreme conservatism that has gotten us into the mess we are in? Being from Kirtland, Ohio I have little worry about Romney’s religion. That is a red herring from my perspective, and he is the least scary of the GOP candidates. But why can’t someone who would be a darn good President, someone like former New Jersey Governor Whitman, succeed on a national level? We know the answer. The extremists still control the GOP, and will continue to hang on in spite of multiple failures. This is a good thing.
A few posts ago I wondered about what caused the tipping point in the attitudes of the elites toward global warming? I see Citicorp is going to invest $70 billion in green technology. This follows a plan by Bank of America to invest $20 billion announced in March. Two years ago this was all so inconclusive. A hoax designed to ruin the American economy. While I am glad to see the change. A tin foil hat wearing nut like me, always likes to ask why? 5 times.
A little math to put things in perspective: Price of a Honda hybrid, well equipped, $25K or 2.5 x10^4. Number of passenger vehicles sold in North America every year, about 17 million, or 1.7x10^7. Cost to convert the entire vehicle fleet to hybrid technology for 1 year =4.25 x 10^11 or $425 billion. Wait! That doesn't make sense… How much have we spent on the war in Iraq? The current estimate is a mere $424 billion. In other words, for what we have spent on the war in Iraq we could have given a hybrid car to every American who purchased a vehicle last year. To quote a song by an old punk band: “I’m not crazy…You’re the one who’s crazy…” Oh well, I have to inspect my funny hat to make sure there are no holes in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
