Paying Ransom

President Obama on Wednesday announced a new US government policy for dealing with Americans who are kidnapped abroad, and as always he stressed compassion for the hostages and their families.

Compassion? Where’s Obama’s compassion for the kidnap victim, who’s exposed to further kidnapping, since snatching him clearly pays off? Where’s Obama’s compassion for other Americans, now at increased risk or kidnapping themselves, by ransom paying that is nothing more than aiding and abetting the criminals/terrorists masqueraded as “compassion?”

…a government-wide review of US hostage policy, which has drawn criticism for inconsistency and lack of coordination. “The families of hostages have told us—and they’ve told me directly—about their frequent frustrations in dealing with their own government: How different departments and agencies aren’t always coordinated,” Mr. Obama said[.]

Those departments also don’t inform very much, if at all, the victim’s families of the status of efforts to get the victim back. The right answer, though, is not to reward the kidnappers for their efforts but to create consistency and coordination—and to summarily fire those bureaucrats who fail at this—and to pass information freely and on demand to the victims’ families. Certainly, many efforts are and should remain secret, but in those events, swear the families to secrecy—they need to be inside the loop, not outside of it.

The SEC and Judges

The SEC doesn’t like it when the ones it charges with miscreancy object to the cases being heard solely by SEC administrative judges. One statement in particular in the WSJ article at the link, though, jumped out at me.

The SEC accused several defendants of “judge shopping” by trying to get a case heard in a particular court and in another instance asked one of its own judges to submit a formal statement about whether he has ever felt pressure to favor the agency.

Never mind that the SEC is demanding that defendants use the SEC’s own already shopped-for judges. Never mind, either, the SEC’s cynicism in trotting out one of its employees to speak favorably about that employee’s employer.

International Trade and Hillary Clinton

Recall that the Democrats in the House of Representatives last week blew up their erstwhile favorite, a wealth transfer sub-bill to pay a bunch of money to American workers who would be “displaced” by the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade bill being negotiated by President Barack Obama and 11 other Pacific nations. This in turn blew up the fast track authority bill already passed in the Senate and of which the TAA was a part.

Hillary Clinton, late sitter in the Secretary of State’s chair and current Democratic Party Presidential candidate was asked at her subsequent Iowa campaign rally about that fiasco, and what she thought of the fast track authority and of the trade deal in progress. She said that Obama needs to “listen and work with” Nancy Pelosi to get “the best deal possible.”

The Wall Street Journal characterized her answer thusly:

It’s a classic Clinton non-answer.

The WSJ is being polite. What it really signifies is that Clinton is utterly ignorant of the economics of international trade, or she’s too disingenuous to say what her position is.

Either one means she’s not qualified to be President.

An Argument for Positive Immigration Flows

James Pethokoukis, writing in a different context, presented evidence in his AEIdeas piece for us doing better with our immigration policies. First, see the graph below, with particular attention to the “Increases in the workforce (labor inputs)” part of the bars.LaborProductivityAndImmigration_BetterVersion

Pethokoukis’ argument centered on Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s promise to work toward a 4% GDP growth annual rate if he’s elected; Pethokoukis argued that would be hard to achieve because of shortfalls in the availability of actual laborers.

[A]bout half of US growth in the postwar era has come from higher productivity, and half from a growing labor force. But American society is getting older and working less. Given much slower labor force growth, much higher productivity is needed to make up the difference. If productivity growth just stays at its postwar average—and it’s been much slower lately—the economy’s growth potential is much lower than in the past. As economics blogger Bill McBride writes, “Right now, due to demographics, 2 percent GDP growth is the new 4 percent.”

That’s the evidence and the argument. Pethokoukis and McBride based their argument regarding demographics on birth rates. The fact is, though, birth rates aren’t the only source of new labor. Immigration not only would fill the gap; immigrants would do so promptly: they’re already wanting in (and 11 million of them are already here awaiting some mechanism to let them come out of the shadows and be fully productive—for the US).

We need to quit messing around, and find a way to strictly secure our borders while making it far easier than it is now for immigrants to enter our nation legally (which, incidentally, would put a very serious hole in coyotes’ and other human traffickers’ business), and we need to find a way to help the illegals here already (actually, the majority of them whose only crime is their illegal entry and who have otherwise been solid, productive members of their communities) gain legal status.

And get 4% GDP growth. The idea that “2 percent GDP growth is the new 4 percent” is just the contemptibly defeatist attitude of a quitter.