Obama’s Immigration Boomerang Gives Republicans an Opportunity


The growing crisis of thousands of unaccompanied minors flooding into the U.S from Mexico has revealed President Obama’s immigration policy boomerang. He lamented the need for immigration reform with emphasis on amnesty while downplaying the calls for reinforced border security. However his political strategy of hoping that the emotional and humanitarian appeal of seeing thousands of children on the southern border would hasten the push for the liberal version of immigration reform, has backfired and come back around like a boomerang. It instead has justified an immigration measure he has vehemently opposed. That is, border security as a perquisite before any further immigration reform.

President Obama’s decision to avoid going to personally see the border crisis while he was in the Texas region attending fundraisers, speaks of his disregard to the border security issue. He has attended 393 fundraisers since his presidency compared to the 216 attended during the same time period by President G.W. Bush during his tenure. It also speaks of his inability to act as an executive to propose viable solutions as he would rather be in a perpetual campaign mode.

When pressured as to why he did not go to the border, he reverted to the same game plan of blaming Republicans for not passing immigration reform and asking Congress for billions of dollars to spend on areas that will not actually address the real causes of the issue. If he really feels failure to pass immigration reform is to blame, he could easily have passed one when he had an overwhelming majorities of Democrats in the House and Senate during his first term. Maybe some Democrats did not want immigration reform either and would rather wait to use it as a political tool to blame Republicans.

The president cannot with credibility blame Republicans for the border crisis when they have consistently said they are for immigration reform, but would rather start with border security. He also loses credibility because he and Democrats in congress have stonewalled such efforts. In addition, Republicans have been proven right in their warnings that any reform without meaningful border security measures will encourage more people to enter the U.S. as undocumented immigrants.

This point has been reinforced as the number of unaccompanied minors entering the U.S. has spiked from about 8000 annually and is now climbing towards 60,000 after President Obama unilaterally took steps to modify immigration laws regarding undocumented immigrants brought in as minors. He ignored warnings about the effects of this law since 2011 from many including Texas Governor Rick Perry. This law does not apply to these new unaccompanied minors, but the perception purported in Central America is that if they reach the U.S., it will. President Obama’s unilateral actions to change parts of laws he does not like rather than to lead in getting bipartisan legislations done, further underscores the likelihood that he cannot be trusted to enact and enforce future laws.

Republicans, however, also need to expand and communicate what they are for in a wider U.S. immigration policy. In addition to maintaining their stance on border security and why, they also need to work to dispel the perceptions that Republicans are against immigration in general and cohesively lay out a plan about what happens after border security is achieved. This includes how they will address the millions of undocumented immigrants already here, since it is not feasible to deport everyone.

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The New Pitch For Keynesian Obamanomics

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Recently, President Obama vowed to focus on income inequality in the U.S while calling for an increase in the federal minimum wage. He reasserted his defense of government’s role in stimulating economic mobility. Mr. Obama also said that rising income inequality and decreased economic mobility “pose a fundamental threat” to American prosperity.

This may have been an appropriate pitch if it was made in 2008 during a campaign rally, but it has been 5 years of Obamanomics that was promised but failed to stimulate a sustained growing economy while enhancing economic mobility. As such, the fundamental threats to American prosperity are actually the President’s policies. President Obama, in his renewed focus on economic mobility and inequality, is now pitching that hiking the minimum wage is a means of achieving those goals. This only speaks volumes on how this administration has lowered the bar and dismissed what it actually takes to grow an economy.

The resurgence of populist chants of ‘inequality’ and hedging on the emotions of activists (some of which demand doubling the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour) only indicate that President Obama wants a platform to double down on the failed no-growth Keynesian Obamanomics of the last five years. In 2011, I wrote a detailed piece titled ‘Failed No Growth Keynesian Obamanomics versus the Reality on Taxes and Spending’. As I predicted then, 2013 would be the year for other attempts at a Keynesian binge; only this time, it is coupled with more coercive regulative attempts such as a drastic hike in the minimum wage.

The President again called for more ‘investment’ and stimulus supervised by government. This is just a precursor to justify calling for more tax hikes in future budget deals. So far, he and other liberals in Washington have proven inept in investing the money they have already collected from taxpayers or borrowed from other countries. Look for his plans to require more. They have failed to provide any return of vibrant economic growth. There is no shortage of capital or money in the private sector to invest in economic growth and ensure upward mobility. There is only a shortage of coherent government policies and leadership to motivate such investments, while reducing the economic uncertainties that hinder them.

Democrats, after President Obama came to office in 2009, had an advantage by also having both the House and Senate. They took the opportunity to unleash their ideological dreams with a barrage of hyper Keynesian spending experiments and massive growth in government. This included the almost $1 trillion in stimulus, a surge in temporary and targeted programs such as cash for clunkers, tax credits for home buyers, over 99 weeks of jobless benefits, clean energy grants, subsidies to states (which have already run out and caused budget shortfalls), and much more.

The Keynesian ‘theoretical multiplier’ supporters of stimulus programs said that every $1 of this spending would lead to $1.50 of economic output. Some liberals like Nancy Pelosi and newly elected NYC mayor Bill de Blasio think that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, while denouncing reforms that require welfare recipients to actively look for jobs while receiving benefits. The results of this Keynesian spending binge have led to the hangover of fiscal consequences: temporary increases in demand, then a continuation to economic downturn when the funds dry up–leaving a higher national debt tab and limited mobility for citizens.

In addition, the other sobering reality is that Keynesian approaches normally fail because they do not provide permanent predictable incentives to save and invest in the long term. Predictable incentives, as opposed to tax hikes, are the key motivating factors that have been proven to spur economic growth, jobs, and increased mobility. This reinforces the earlier point of my predictions in 2011 about what to expect in this time period. The recent push by the President is setting America up for another Keynesian spending binge, and a hangover from which America may find it difficult to recover from.

Due to Keynesian Obamanomics, we still have an unemployment rate of 7%, the lowest labor participation rate in 35 years of 63%, and anemic economic growth. Going forward, the opportunities for growth will depend on how much capital will be controlled by a Keynesian driven government, versus allowing expanded economic freedom and the free movement of capital to areas where they will be most productive and create well paying jobs.

Pro-growth tax reform has been repeatedly shunned by the Obama administration. The Democratic Senate led by Harry Reid has not taken up for a vote over three dozen pro-growth and jobs bills passed by the Republican House, even though some had bi-partisan support. Not only does the U.S now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39% (which encourages global companies to invest elsewhere); profits earned on subsidiaries overseas and already taxed there are also taxed again if repatriated back to the U.S. Thus, billions of dollars that could return and be invested in the U.S remains where it is generated. Most developed countries do not have this ‘double tax’ scenario for repatriated profits. The Obama administration has repeatedly said no to the Keystone Pipeline from Canada to the U.S, which would also have boosted jobs, tax revenue, and a safe source for more energy. Instead, the Canadian companies are preparing to build a pipeline to their west coast and export the oil to China. More recently, the effects of Obamacare are becoming more apparent on job creation due to the mandates and the increased costs it adds to hiring. In addition, the Fed has contributed to uncertainty with its shifting policy targets with quantitative easing, which in turn reduces business risk takings for investment and hiring.

The President’s inequality argument also aims to re-ignite the populist passion of class warfare to fuel and galvanize the efforts of his supporters to help his cause. The chants of ‘inequality’ implies that those who do well do so at the expense of keeping others down, so government efforts are needed to ‘close this gap’ through redistribution. However, demonizing success actually curtails it and the prosperity the nation can benefit from when the successful do strive. These populist rants of inequality also ignore the reality of economic facts that contradict the basis of their argument.

The more successful one is, or the more disposable personal wealth one has, the more likely a higher proportion of that wealth will be saved or invested in economic activity that further grows that wealth. Thus, the ‘richer’ one is, the more likely they will get ‘richer’ or be able to weather an economic downturn. The less wealth one has means that a higher proportion of that will be used for consumption and not investment. As such, they will be more susceptible to increases in cost of living, unforeseen circumstances, or limited mobility due to a slow growth economy–like we have now.

The minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage but the entry wage for a low skilled worker who eventually earns more as they acquire more experience. It is the first rung of moving up an economic ladder. If the President and his supporters are so adamant to make more people comfortable on this ‘first rung’ of the economic ladder, it does not instill confidence that his economic policies will give them the mobility for them to rise above that rung.

President Obama’s own Labor Department reports that only 2.9% of American workers paid by the hour and over the age of 25 are earning minimum wage. Most of them are not raising families on it. However, what is often ignored is that earning $15,000 per year is not their sole income. Food stamps, earned income tax credits, and Medicaid–which this income group may qualify for– actually means that their real income could be almost double that. Measuring economic inequality often leaves out such transfers of benefits, as Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor who directs e21 at the Manhattan Institute, recently explained in an article: The Income Inequality Problem is Overblown.

More so, an increase in the minimum wage means increasing the cost of low skilled labor, which means less people might actually be hired. As Jared Meyer of the Manhattan Institute explains in an article, ‘Minimum Wage is not a Win Win,’ low-skilled workers are disproportionately affected by increases in the minimum wage. The U.S teen jobless rate in October was 22.2%; and for black teens, it was 36%, which reinforces the observations in Mr. Meyer’s article.

The mantra by many liberals about ‘inequality’ and mobility often ignores how their actions to prevent school choice limits the educational opportunities that would enhance the income mobility of students, especially for those who are poor or are minorities. The most valuable capital is human capital, like maturing young students; and the best way to invest such capital is by young people being free to access the best educational opportunities for them. See my previous article: NYC de Blasio joins other Dems against a 21st century civil right, school choice.

If President Obama is serious about increasing economic mobility and preventing inequality, there is a lot of self-evaluation he will need to do about his own policies. First, he should face the reality that populist Keynesian and class warfare tactics are no substitutes for pro-growth economic policies. Unfortunately, President Obama’s ideological mandate to himself normally supersedes such rationale.


Photo credit: terrellaftermath

How Property Rights Made Thanksgiving Possible

Obama Economy Thanksgiving Cornucopia Spead Wealth SC

We are familiar with the first main celebration of Thanksgiving by the Pilgrims in the fall of 1621. But what were the significant elements that contributed to the pilgrims being able to survive and celebrate Thanksgiving thereafter? These elements are property rights, free market ideas, and early forms of capitalism, which fostered individual upward mobility and economic prosperity for centuries to come.

William Bradford was governor of Plymouth Bay Colony for about 30 years between 1621 and 1656. He wrote ‘History of Plymouth Plantation” which was first published in 1856. After the pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620, they established the Plymouth Bay Colony named after their point of departure in England. They endured harsh winters in the first few years due to insufficient crop yields and lack of productivity in the preceding planting seasons. As a result, many died from starvation; and some resorted to stealing from others to survive.

Significantly contributing to this, when the colony was founded, all the property was taken away from families and transferred to the “comone wealth”. This was due to a practice brought over by the Pilgrims called “farming in common”, where everything produced was put in a common pool and was re-distributed through harvest rationing.

Governor Bradford observed that when the pilgrims did away with private property, it discouraged the young and able from work for others “without any recompence” or being productive. Some who were unable to produce their own food actually became servants to the Indians. In addition, many who claimed to be too old, ill, or unwilling made little effort to contribute in the planting season. They felt ‘entitled’ to the production made by others since it was part of the ‘comone wealth’. This led to the transition of more ‘takers’ than ‘makers’. Soon, the output of too few ‘makers’ was not enough to sustain the whole colony and subsequently led to an increase in starvation and chaos as well as no harvest, necessary to survive the winter.

At the beginning of the spring planting season of 1623, Governor Bradford tried an experiment. He re-allocated land to each family who had theirs previously taken away. He also re-established private property rights to encourage creativity and increased productivity. This experiment worked very well in helping the Pilgrims have enough food for the winter and improve the colony’s self-sufficiency. This was because members became industrious, as they were motivated to enjoy the fruits of their labor from their own property.

They were free to innovate within their own specialty or preference. They were also able to trade the surplus they created for other commodities they wished to consume. In addition, competition further increased productivity on a whole for the colony. Even those who previously did not take part in planting and harvesting (because they claimed they were too unwilling, old, or ill) became involved in producing so they could enjoy the results of property ownership.

Given the incentives attributed to having private property rights, the Pilgrims experienced a successful harvest in the fall of 1623 and set aside “a day of thanksgiving” to thank God for their good fortune. So successful was Governor Bradford’s experiment that he noted in an entry done in 1647, the last year covered by his history, “Any general wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day”.

An essential lesson from this part of Thanksgiving history is that free individuals with property rights can make better decisions regarding his or her property to ensure prosperity than when it is controlled by an exceedingly powerful few in government. However, many still believe in the premise that these ‘few’ in government can ensure the ‘common’ good for all.

This topic of conversation would re-emerge during the founding of America. Founders debated the virtues of limited government in The Federalist Papers over 180 years after the first Thanksgiving. A general conclusion was that man is “not infallible” and therefore not perfect or absolutely trustworthy and exempt from liability to error. Thus, unlimited power in the hands of a few in government is not a good idea.

Today, almost 400 years after the first Thanksgiving, collectivist members of the political class think that economic prosperity will succeed if the ‘fallible’ few in a powerful overreaching government can be trusted to decide the redistribution of property for the ‘common’ or collective good of everyone. In essence, they will barter away individual freedom and resources for the presumed security of a government-provided safety net.

As the Pilgrims learned centuries ago, a limited people deprived of the liberty of opportunity, and also deprived of the ability to succeed on one’s own merits, is corrosive to the well-being of a society. It is easy for a culture of entitlement to manifest into chaos and economic stagnation when the State runs out of resources to redistribute. Eventually, there are not enough people to tax to pay for this redistribution. The unrest in welfare States like Greece and other places in Europe is a warning of what could happen here when this reality unfolds.

The road to socialism is paved by the emotion of populism that promises equal outcomes through collectivism, often propagated by charismatic leaders who predict that this will ensure prosperity and abundance, but actually accomplishes neither.

Today, the implications of Obamacare remind us of what the early settlers learned centuries ago. Beware of property being transferred to the ‘comone wealth’ under the guise that it will collectively help everyone equally.

The key lessons about the origins of Thanksgiving do not only show that the ideas of economic freedom and free markets worked almost 400 years ago to ensure prosperity. They also show that since that period, whenever steps are taken to reject or undo those ideals have failed with great consequences.