Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Grand Plans, Part 2

In a press conference yesterday the President expounded on his thoughts regarding the current status of US immigration laws. He believes we need illegal immigrants to come to this nation to “do the jobs that Americans just won’t do.”

This is a rather interesting position for a President who used to be on the “front line” of immigration. The President, using his experience as governor of Texas as a guide, believes he has a firm grasp of what is needed in immigration reform. He truly believes he is doing the right thing by instructing the INS to look the other way regarding allowing immigrants, undocumented to work low-paying or demeaning jobs here in the land of opportunity. Immigrants taking jobs paying significantly higher than those in their homelands, but lower than a legal worker would be paid, and certainly without benefits demanded by most American workers.

The President spoke warmly of how these immigrants enter our borders looking for opportunity. Hoping to find jobs that will enable them to put food on the table, to help those they have left behind in their native lands. He believes this is truly win-win. The immigrants get what they want, and the Americans employing them get what they want too. Benard Kerik’s recent nanny problems have brought this problem to the forefront.

Most intriguing are the apologists who think hiring an illegal nanny is no big deal. It happened to several of the potential nominees from the Clinton days, and again to President Bush. The London Times “American Soup” column talked about the issue and how hard it was to find a good nanny, especially if you hire a legal one. Why is it that those with the most money and potential to distort the government are the ones who decide they are above the law? If the President does not believe these issues are important he should work hard to truly reform immigration and employment law.

Will this happen? Unlikely. More likely is that the President and his rich and powerful friends will continue to ignore the law and “lucky” immigrants will continue to suffer lower wages and worse treatment than their legal counterparts. Thank God he’s a compassionate conservative.

Monday, December 20, 2004

Grand Plans, Part 1

In a press conference today the President gave a broad outline of what he views are the changes coming to social security. He wants people to be able to privatize a small percentage of their social security savings. He also wants to reassure current social security recipients that there will be “no change in their check.” Eloquent words or at least the most you can expect from this President.

Here are some of the facts regarding the Social Security System. The current fiscal surplus is invested by mandate in Treasury bonds. These bonds in turn help underwrite a vast portion of the existing federal debt. The Social Security Administration currently is the single largest holder of federal debt, accounting holding more than 60% of the government debts. The interest paid on the debt helps pay for COLA’s for the current social security recipients.

Under the current plan for retirees the SSA will go bankrupt in 2042. This seems like a long event horizon, 35 years in fact. What to do to help keep the system solvent? The President wants to privatize part of the system. At its face this seems sensible. But what exactly does it do to help meet the projected shortfall? Nothing. The individuals who opt for private investment will individually reap the profits or potential losses of such a move. This means that even though the overall amount of money within the system may increase, the increase in funding will be specifically earmarked for those individuals who took the risk. It would not benefit all those within the system. Those people who lose money in the private market should not be bailed out by those who did not.

What to do. Unfortunately, we must make hard choices. Sacrifices are required, and if we are not going to ask them of the current retirees already dependent upon their monthly checks, we must ask it of those planning their future retirement. If we allow individuals to privatize part of their Social Security savings they must do so knowing that they are only trying to help ensure the system’s solvency, and garnering themselves only what they had already counted upon.

Other options are seemingly harsh, but given life expectancy rates continue to climb it would not be unreasonable to continue to raise the retirement age at the same rate. Another even less attractive alternative given the current federal budget deficits would be for the government to set aside additional and future revenues to meet the projected shortfalls. Certainly not an attractive alternative, but possibly one that might have to happen as it is the least painful alternative available to risk-adverse politicians.

We have to do something to save Social Security, and while some do not believe that the President must act now, acting today will lessen the pain we will undoubtedly face in the future.

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Values

Let’s try some word association. Republicans – values = religion, hard work, respect. Democrats – values = religious extremism, hatred, morals. Small wonder Democrats cringe when they hear or see the word. Recently the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was successful in their attempt to regain Billy Tauzin’s LA-3 district seat. The day following volunteers read the Sunday paper, mainly to see how the “liberal” media would cover the victory. One volunteer was literally appalled that the local newspaper had a section in the Sunday edition labeled “values.”

What was so objectionable about values? Why has the party become so abhorrent of values? What was also interesting about the campaign is that the party leaders seem to think something of values. What was the pitch we made to prospective voters regarding the candidate’s stand on the issues? He supported traditional Southeast Louisiana values. Admittedly a number of volunteers were shocked to learn that the candidate was not only pro-life but also pro-gun. They didn’t have a problem with his being pro-protectionist in trade stance. It’s becoming more and more interesting deciding what rank-and-file Democrats believe, and harder and harder to determine what values we Democrats do stand for.

Democrats have always had a hard time on trade issues, though it appeared that President Clinton had turned the party around on the issue. Free and fair trade is good for everyone, eventually. Protectionism only hurts our economy, temporarily staving off the inevitable. Free trade allows for goods imported into America more cheaply, and also ensures that American products are cheaper in overseas markets. This creates more jobs for Americans and those struggling overseas. Free trade allows goods to be cheaper for those struggling in America, and those struggling overseas. Isn’t the Democratic Party in favor of these ideals? Of course they are. But they feel beholden to the unions which provide them with nearly unflinching support. Perhaps, though it is time to reevaluate their support. Has their help won the party any national elections, and in fact they may have lost them. Obviously working class union workers do not vote solely for their union’s backed candidates.

We need to determine what issues truly are important to the voters. Issues we can support and take the national lead. And probably more importantly we need to stop waffling. Once we pick an issue we must take a stand on it, regardless of polling numbers. Americans respect politicians who speak their mind and lead the nation, not follow opinion polls. Americans have little use for leaders who cannot determine what issues they believe in and what they support. Trying to be all things to all people all the time only convinces them we are disingenuous to all. Americans have never respected politicians who lie to them; they only respect politicians who try to lead them.

With all politics being local, congressional races will always bring the party candidates who do not conform to a national norm. As the Republicans used to, we must be willing to tolerate candidates who have views differing from the party’s stated position. While allowing some dissent, it is important for the party’s leaders to maintain party discipline on major issues. Members must adhere to a core set of values, be they moral or others. Values are what the party stands for, now we must determine just what those values are.