Tag Archives: political economy

A Thought on Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

Greg Ip has a piece on demographics in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal.

Next year, the world’s advanced economies will reach a critical milestone. For the first time since 1950, their combined working-age population will decline…and by 2050 it will shrink 5%. The ranks of workers will also fall in key emerging markets, such as China and Russia. At the same time the share of these countries’ population over 65 will skyrocket.

There are two competing factors that dominate those statistics: people are living longer, in particular in retirement, and women are bearing fewer children over their lifetimes. As Ip put it,

[C]ompanies are running out of workers, customers, or both. In either case, economic growth suffers.

The solution to this, of course, is immigration. Blocking immigration because—pick a reason—means we won’t have the labor force we need for, among other things, saving our retirement safety net in substantially its current form or privatizing it.

We’ll have to get our immigration kit in order promptly, though, and be prepared actively to compete for them, much as our private enterprises already have to compete for employees.

By 2050, the world’s population will have grown 32%, but the working-age population (15 to 64 years old) will expand just 26%.

The competition will sharpen:

Among advanced countries, the working-age population will shrink 26% in South Korea, 28% in Japan, and 23% in both Germany and Italy….

That competition cannot be based on how many goodies our government can hand out; our existing and unaffordable Progressive/Democrat welfare state is the outcome of that. No, our competitive advantage is, and must be, centered as it always has been, on our individual liberties and the opportunities our freedoms create.

This is a national security matter, too. Absent a growing, vibrant labor force, we won’t have the economic wherewithal to fund a capable military establishment, much less equip it with the technology required to stay globally dominant—or even strong enough to defend us.

Certainly, we need to secure our borders, and we need to do an efficient, prompt job of vetting those we let in. And those we let in do need to either be satisfied with green cards/work permits, or they need to assimilate into American culture as part of their gaining citizenship.

But we must have those immigrants, just as we’ve needed—and gained—them at critical junctures throughout our history.

Trust is a Two-Way Street

Posted on by
Reply

Of necessity, trust must flow both ways. If one does not trust another, the other cannot rely on the one even to behave in a predictable manner toward that other, much less be trustworthy in turn.

The IRS has begun pushing 501(c)(3) nonprofits—the sort of nonprofits that the IRS has been caught targeting punitively conservative versions of—to give up the social security numbers of their donors.

Under the proposed rule, the IRS would create an optional filing for 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Those participating would, as part of their yearly report, turn over the Social Security numbers of any donors who give $250 or more to a charity in a given year.

The IRS’ claimed rationale for this is to simplify the ability of donors to claim the deductions on their tax returns by allowing the IRS to “verify” donors’ claims on their returns.

No. Since the IRS cannot be trusted by American taxpayers, it’s in no position to worry about the trustworthiness of an American taxpayer. There is no legitimate rationale for this “voluntary” reporting.

Further, for those who think this “optional” form of reporting will remain voluntary, I may know of some beachfront property north of Santa Fe in which you might also be interested.

Inversions

Posted on by
Reply

Corporate inversions occur when a business in a high tax country gets bought out by a company in a low tax country and the bought-out company moves its own headquarters to the buyer’s country. This is occurring increasingly with American companies laboring under US’ usurious corporate tax code.

The Treasury Department—the Obama administration—demurs from these, and it has written, and it is writing more, rules to interfere with such moves. For instance,

The government still is working on tighter rules for a corporate tax-avoidance technique known as earnings-stripping and could release them in the coming months.

And this one:

One aspect of the rules, which limit companies’ ability to transfer foreign operations to a new foreign parent company, will apply to future transactions by all companies that completed inversions since Sept 22, 2014….

Such moves are things that a Progressive, Democratic Party-dominated government would love, but they’re anathema to liberty—interfering with the private decisions of American business owners as they do—and to a free market, which at the core of liberty.

The correct move, although it would restrict the personal power of government officials and their cronies and lobbyists, is to lower the corporate tax rates to globally competitive levels so that inversions of American companies become unattractive and so that other countries’ businessmen want to come here. With the job opportunities for Americans such additional businesses would represent.

Political Experience

Posted on by
Reply

As the terrorist threat becomes ever more apparent—Paris, for instance—political experience in a Presidential candidate would seem to be at a premium, according to political…pundits. I agree: given the US’ role in the world, even after President Barack Obama’s seven-year retreat, a retreat actively supported by the Democratic Party, political experience is highly important. Especially with the damage done by that retreat, political experience is highly important. So is an ability to learn policy issues and rationally to form policy and adjust it as empirical data flow in.

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is often touted as unbeatable in the Democratic primary campaign—she is—and she’s just as often touted (a few too early polls notwithstanding) as virtually unbeatable in the general election. Her political experience is the support for that unbeatability.

Let’s see, then, what are some highlights of her political experience?

  • HillaryCare
  • Bimbo Eruptions
  • For the Iraq War before she was against it (sound familiar?)
  • Successfully passed three Senate bills: created a historic site, named a post office, named a stretch of highway
  • For Keystone XL before she was against it
  • Foreign government “contributions” to her (and her husband’s and daughter’s) Clinton Foundation while sitting in the Secretary of State’s chair
  • Communications security and classified material handling while sitting in the Secretary of State’s chair
  • Libya
  • Benghazi

Clinton has remained steadfast in all of these, save for her flip-flopping on Iraq and Keystone. Especially, she has remained steadfast on Obamacare (née HillaryCare), security matters, Libya, and Benghazi.

She should run on her political experience. The Republican Presidential candidate should run on her political experience.

Democrats and the VA

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written a number of times about the Veterans Administration and the need to get rid of this dysfunctional government entity.

Now we get Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doubling down on this failed VA and on her desire to expand Big Government further and to extend crony capitalism to a new arena.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is offering her vision for veterans’ health care, promising to fight full-fledged privatization while proposing the government contract with private providers for a range of health services.

Government has shown its incompetence in matters of health (among others), so her answer—the typical Progressive Democrat answer—is to have more of it. Crony capitalism has shown its profitability for politicians of any stripe, so this Progress Democrat wants more of that pie for herself. She wants Big Government to stay involved in the health care of our nation’s veterans, but she wants to shift that involvement to the health providers her administration will favor.

This would be foolishness if it weren’t dishonesty.

Veteranos administratio delende est.