Jun 01 2007
Noonan’s Nonsense
Peggy Noonan is now blaming Bush for the far right’s three years of attacking moderates and attacking Bush on issues ranging from Miers, to Dubai Ports (another grand example of nativism which cost us cargo container inspection machines across the globe – paid for by our allies in the UAE) and now immigration reform:
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.
Sorry Peggy, but those who used the word RINO and who would keep the status quo on immigration at any cost (and with lots and lots of vitriol added in) are the ones who tore the conservative coalition apart. Don’t blame Bush. He didn’t accuse Miers of being a closet abortion rights activist, based on the muttering of one David Fromm who apparently had a personal vendetta against Miers. Bush did not go overboard when he allowed a perfectly legtimate business acquisition go forward simpy because the acquiring company was in the Middle East. A country that provides security and port services to our Navy and Marines in one of our largest overseas ports.
And Bush is not the one who will tank a bill that would finally allow us to deport immigrants who commit crimes (no – you cannot do that now since the law doesn’t allow it – which is why the cries to enforce the laws on the books are so naive). Those of us who support the guest worker program have been pilloried, while the far right goes on a hysterical tear claiming we are for open borders (no one is) and voting rights for aliens (no one is). And here is the essence of the insanity from the immigration hypochondriacs. While the Bill we want passed will finally allow us to remove the violent criminal immigrants (legal and illegal) from our streets, it is being held hostage by people who want more than a fine and back taxes from honest hard working people. Yep, that’s right. The bizarre logic on the right is it is beter to let the criminals roam around our streets so we can meet out more punishment on those fixing houses, doing women’s hair, landscaping, watching our children. When confronted with this cold, objective picture the far right goes on an even larger rampage. Don’t believe me? Watch the comments on this post and others.
Right now the far right has lost all credibility. I know droves of conservatives who are turning off talk radio. They can’t take the vitriol and self aggrandizing anymore. Radio microphones do not make one omnipotent. I can predict that the talking heads are going to see a huge drop off in loyal listeners. The fawning fans will still be there in some numbers, but the critical thinkers will have moved on. When a group of people would allow violent criminals even a month more in this country because the fines and penalties for the workers who toil beside us day in and day out is not a severe as they wanted then their priorities are screwed up. And yes, they are NOT doing what is right for America. Anytime we decide to let crime fester we are not doing right for America.
So Peggy, don’t blame Bush. He is still making sense. He would compromise with Dems to secure the border, get rid of criminal aliens and make it easier to find and detect terrorists. It is the far right who would throw all this away for some extra pound of flesh. Just like some liberals want to throw away the NSA monitoring program to get a pound of flesh from Bush. Peggy says Bush broke with them. I am here to say loudly I have broke with them too.
Update: Read more about dumb far right tricks. When you can be counted on to screw things up, then you cannot be counted on to govern well. Clearly the conservative movement that is aligned now repeatedly against Bush is out of gas. Their patience is exhausted and they are tired of compromise because it delays the coming of their perfect world. A vision they did not realize was not shared by all in every detail.
What we have going on here if you look at the bigger picture is political gamesmanship.
Kennedy is has for over 40 years supported every form of amnesty or something near that is driving this bill.
So what are we seeing, more of a failed policy that is now supposed to fix all the problems.
The practical result is different.
The bill is an obvious wedge issue on the right, but no one is saying how much of a wedge issue it is on the left or the center.
If Kennedy gets his way, the eventual factors will give his party more strength and control and if it goes down in flames he gets another anchor baby to throw around the necks of his opposition.
So he is sitting in the catbird seat and just smiling.
It is regrettable to see that it could almost be concluded that AJ is appearing to take the position that there are those he deems to portray as saying “My way or the highway” and then apparently saying “My way or the other highway”.
It is a loss for all if we are down to picking between which highway to chose .
I sincerely hope I am wrong in this interpretation.
Swift Packing was a prime example of how a company CAN hire legal Americans and make money. Their last quarterly report shows a sturdy profit, even with having been closed down for a few days. What this is proof of is that market forces work. When companies have to adjust for market wages, they will do so. So the stock holder gets a $1.00 less in dividends. No one will object when the savings down the road (in killing the need for increases taxes) are to their benefit.
But all those newly minted legals who will be unemployed are of no concern to AJ.
Like I said; all politics are personal. AJ has just not revealed what dog he has in this hunt.
I guess there is a constiuentcy [sic] in this country that wants us to have higher prices, an economic depression, high unemployment, high inflation because that’s what we’re gonna get from the naysayers…or worse. Misery loves miserable company. Or how ’bout this: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Actually, some of us would like the Entitlement Programs to be there for US, when we retire!
The problem with the foregoing is that it is not at all clear that those results would follow from a reduction in the number of illegals working (mostly off the books) in the US. The reduced cost of law enforcement and health care from removing the illegals might well offset the increased costs to consumers. We simply don’ t know. It is clear that the prices of some commodities would increase, but it is not clear what other costs would go down. All that signifies, in economic terms, is a change in “factor prices” — some things cost more, others will cost less.
As to the sustainability of the retirement system: if the only way to sustain it for the boomers (and that includes yours truly) is to bring in massive numbers of illegals and legalize them — ignoring the long run effect of so many more people who will ultimately draw on the system (after all, as Keynes said, in the long run, we’ll all be dead, so it doesn’t matter once we’re through…), then we’d better deal with the problem now rather than simply kicking it down the road another generation or two.
BTW
In case any one wonders, I could care less about the political advantage positioning impacts of the bill, I am just about what is best overall about what will continue to advance our country into the future generations.
GWB at least got that part right, but maybe in another context.
AJ: I warned you a couple of weeks ago buddy!
You’re a good guy AJ, your heart is in the right place, you’re a smart guy, you’re a patriot, you call about America, you “get it’ on the Jihadis and the GWOT terror, you’re a decent analyst, and you have a neat Blog.
Those things alone, seperate you from the Leftist nutbags who hate America, and are Pro-Jihadi; who want to see the President, and America, fail, either because they hate their own country, or they just hate Bush so bad, they can’t see straight!
You AJ, you are NONE of those things, of course!
But I warned you several times before, and this is coming from a person who is a REAL analyst, who’s a trained analyst, and who has been an analyst for a living, and when people’s lives were on the line: do NOT fall in love, with your OWN analysis!
You have done that!
And you painted yourself into a corner, as a result!
“Falling in love” with your own analysis, is the reason we’re so screwed up in the ME and Iraq right now; because for 30 years, CIA analysts, fell in love with their own analysis on the WMD programs of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and others.
I, and cohorts of mine in the Marine Corps and Navy IC’s, used to spend copious amounts of time Debunking bogus CIA “intel” about the WMD programs of Syria, Iraq, etc.
And we usually won every argument.
Despite that, the clueless incompetent CIA “analysts”, were in love with their crap; and they put it for 30 years, and wouldn’t stop, and we happened to have a President, and a command stucture who finally believed them, and they sold a war to the American Public, based almost completely on that, and it turned out to be wrong, and as soon as it proved to be wrong, the traitorous bastards backstabbed the President and the country, by leaking crap that they didn’t believe their OWN stuff, that they had been pushing for THIRTY YEARS!
But I digress, my point is, don’t EVER fall in love with your own analysis, and you’ve done that on this immigration issue, and you’re stuck now!
And because you’re stuck, you’re becoming more and more hardline in your own position, calling people names, casting aspersions, and turning against the very people who support you, just to maintain your position, and you’re ignoring common sense advice, and evidence to the contrary, and shooting the messengers who deliver it!
I would suggest, with al due respect AJ, you need to listen to the “smart” people on this board (NOT me, I’d never include myself in that category); but people like Bikerken, and LE, and Cato, Apache, and RO5; listen to what they’re saying and asking you; it’s not unreasonable, and they’re trying to have a Discussion with you, and asking you questions.
Instead of answering, because you fell trapped by your own analysis, you’re lashing out and attacking them!
Just a suggestion, from someone who’s been there, and seen it…
No my sole reason for not following the Purists is this:
We want Enforcement first! = Box’em up and Ship’em home.
and, paraphrase,
A bad deal is worse than Staus Quo, so Status Quo it is.
Status Quo is bad, real bad as you all have pointed out quite well. This package addresses a lot of the problems we have today. You all have to learn you are only going to get half of what you want right now. You have to be carefull so as not to stretch yourselves out so far as to never be effective as a voting block again.
Teddy is gonna you beat you like a dead horse with this for the next 20 years… He doesn’t want this bill, can’t you see that? Spare me I know his name is on it. It is a feint, a set up, you are in a loose loose position here. Think and try to mitigate your loses.
Cato
Consider that even if we took the usual example trotted out of the cost of lettuce.
If you automagically threw out all the illegal lettuce pickers the meme goes lettuce would rot in the field and the cost of lettuce due to the shortfall would skyrocket.
Two problems here.
We are not the only place that grows lettuce, the price would only rise to world market prices including import cost overhead. Do you think for a minute that Walmart is going to pay 7 bucks a head for home grown lettuce if it is available for import at 80 cents a head wholesale except for a short term disruption?
If we can harvest tomatoes from developed special breeds that were just created for their ability to be machine harvested, how hard would it be to create a harvester for lettuce that is not a tender product and only simply has to be cut off at its base?
I would like to make some quick points and set the record straight.
1. I have not been personally affected by illegal immigration. This isn’t a personal issue for me.
2. I was however, personally offended by millions of people marching in the streets, waiving the MEXICAN flag, and demanding rights that they have no right to. I found that very offensive. I will be honest about that and admit it up front.
3. I am approaching this issue solely from a what is best for America (and the American people) perspective. But I will admit that is a complicated perspective. At least it is complicated for me. Because I don’t feel that a firmly entrenched Democratic majority will be good for America. I have been to socialist countries. You don’t see a lot of smiling faces in countries that lean heavily socialist. Those people are not happy campers. If anyone doubts that, simply go visit one. Don’t take my word for it. Additionally, I think the Democrats will capitulate to the terrorists, and I think that is a really bad strategy.
4. While I would like to see everyone who has entered this country illegally, go home and apply for legal entry, just like everybody else, I do realize that is never going to happen. So, as much as I don’t like it, I am willing to compromise (which is something I have not seen from AJ) and grant a path to citizenship for those already here. I do however think that we should set a some sort of standard on who gets to apply for that citizenship.
5. I do think this bill can be fixed. And I am willing to discuss what changes could be made that would make the bill more palatable to me. Sadly, I haven’t seen any of the proponents that want to even discuss compromising on this bill. The proponents have adopted a “their way or the highway” stance.
MOS2: you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO right about the whole Teddy Kennedy issue!
My point exactly, from the other day.
IF Teddy Kennedy, and LaRaza (someone said this yesterday) support this bill, SOMETHING is WRONG with it!
Teddy Kennedy, over the past 40 years, has done EVERYTHING in his power, to hurt this country at EVERY opportunity; there is NO WAY he’d support this bill, if it was GOOD for America, and good for the Republican party!
What I can’t understand, is the number of Republicans, willing to commit political suicide for their party, by agreeing with him on this bill!
It’s like the Left and their overt support for the Jihadis!
IT …..IS …..LITERALLY…….INSANE!
Peggy Noonan has gone way off the track for many. You just have to have read lucianne.com in the past several years. It has nothing to do with her “calmness.” Content is the issue.
And as far as the attitudes of those who are attacking this bill are concerned, they remind me of this:
A car driving down the road. You are on the sidewalk at the intersection that the car is approaching. The light turns red. You have the “Walk” sign in green. You walk across the street. The car doesn’t stop at the light. You get run over. Killed. Even though you had the “right-of-way”, you are dead. Dead right. What a great place to be.
Being dead right is not going to end the madness that is happening right now in regards to illegals coming here. This is a very complex issue that involves more security issues than just closing the border. How about ECONOMIC SECURITY at a time of extremely low unemployment (thank you George Bush for this spectacular economy after terrorists have tried to take it down)?
MerlinOS2:
You’re probably correct: what I should said was that some factor prices would rise perhaps temporarily as other substitutes or alternative sources of supply were identified.
Most people don’t realize that agriculture of all sorts is subsidized, and the low prices resulting from the use of illegal alien labor is just another form of subsidy. Instead of being paid for directly in the form of price supports or the like, it’s paid for indirectly through the increase of police, health and other costs, as well as the intangible price of the destruction of respect for, and the rule of, law.
TomAnon
You are lumping the box and drop crowd which is the smallest slice of the pie here as what is the non reality.
At best it is the box and drop the problem children like all the illegals who ALSO happen to be gang members, convicted criminals etc.
The number of blind cornered box and drop or “declare open hunting season with a 30 bag limit” contention is just pure horse pucky.
The discussion here seems to be that any one who wants border closure first to stem the flow is against the comprehensive follow up measures at the same time.
I submit that defies the reality.
This bill talks about border first triggers to put all the other stuff in motion, but many of the triggers hang on the thin thread of being funded by future legislation and not being mandated if you read the bill.
So as the bill is written, if passed the illegals get probationary status and if no funding to support the trigger requirements comes forth in following years then the triggers can never be met and the rest of the bill is moot.
Please explain to me how that is a fix.
Cato: don’t even get into all that! I’m a farmer’s son; in fact, my family, going back to the mid 17th century, are Farmers!
Our family (direct line) by the way, are farmers back to the mid-17th century, and in fact, our family got title deed to land from William Penn directly, that later became the Eisnehower farm in Gettysburg PA!
Our family farm now, all 413 acres of it, is just 90 min away from that, on the Juniata river!
Anyway, the point is Farm Subsidies; yes, we have ’em, ILLEGALS are another form of them, we spend over $40 Billion per year on Farm Subsidies (not counting the ILLEGALS); and then we spend another $10B – $20B per year, either storing the EXCESS stuff we produce, or GIVING it away for free, overseas!
It’s a CRAZY system, and if I was GOD for a Day, I’d end it overnight!
Nuts, nuts, nuts, but then, that’s another issue..
Cato and Dale
So can either of you explain to me how the subsidy of 4 cents a head on labor cost for example is not offset by 24 cents per head of social program cost shifting to the public sector?
BTW the numbers could be researched, but these are just example figures.
I would like to make some quick points and set the record straight.
1. I have not been personally affected by illegal immigration. This isn’t a personal issue for me.
2. I was however, personally offended by millions of people marching in the streets, waiving the MEXICAN flag, and demanding rights that they have no right to. I found that very offensive. I will be honest about that and admit it up front.
3. I am approaching this issue solely from a what is best for America (and the American people) perspective. But I will admit that is a complicated perspective. At least it is complicated for me. Because I don’t feel that a firmly entrenched Democratic majority will be good for America. I have been to socialist countries. You don’t see a lot of smiling faces in countries that lean heavily socialist. Those people are not happy campers. If anyone doubts that, simply go visit one. Don’t take my word for it. Additionally, I think the Democrats will capitulate to the terrorists, and I think that is a really bad strategy.
4. While I would like to see everyone who has entered this country illegally, go home and apply for legal entry, just like everybody else, I do realize that is never going to happen. So, as much as I don’t like it, I am willing to compromise (which is something I have not seen from AJ) and grant a path to citizenship for those already here. I do however think that we should set a some sort of standard on who gets to apply for that citizenship.
5. I do think this bill can be fixed. And I am willing to discuss what changes could be made that would make the bill more palatable to me. Sadly, I haven’t seen any of the proponents that want to even discuss compromising on this bill.
More on my lettuce example.
Consider a small family farm but still big enough that the family alone is not going to harvest the lettuce and requires labor to do the job.
If you did a full spreadsheet on the farm you would see the larger portion of cost we be fuel, seed, taxes on the land and water costs.
The labor portion is only a small part.
You have a crop you have worked over for several months and for most cases have for the farm example I am familiar with around here maybe have 10 or 12 workers in the field cutting the lettuce or cabbage and throwing it into the trailer your tractor is dragging around behind them.
Then you take it to a place that hires people to bag your crop at a packing house so you can put it on the market.
Looking at all the costs, the field hands are almost in the round off error.
Do the research and analysis and you will see that it is true.
Any one want to quote the price of a new tractor these days and figure out how many man days of labor it would take to come up with the same number?
Temporary Workers [John Derbyshire]
Dan Griswold, and other enthusiasts for the Senate immigration bill, lay much emphasis on the temporary worker program. as if this was a wonderful new development in U.S. immigration practice.
But we have had temporary workers programs for ever. There are currently six categories of visa covering temporary workers, listed on the USCIS website follows:
H-1B: Specialty occupations, DOD workers, fashion models
H-1C: Nurses going to work for up to three years in health professional shortage areas
H-2A: Temporary agricultural worker
H-2B: Temporary worker, skilled and unskilled
H-3: Trainee
H-4: Spouse or child of H-1, H-2, or H-3
So the right question to ask is not “Do we need a temporary worker program?” but “Why do we need another temporary worker program?” If, for instance, we need more fruit pickers, why doesn’t Congress just up the H-2A quota?**
And of course, as the immigration wonks have told us till they’re blue in the face, there is nothing temporary about temporary workers. Once you’re in, you’re in.
Case in point: me. I came here in October 1985 as a temporary worker, on an H-1B visa—good, in theory, for only six years.
I’m still here.
“Temporary worker program” is hogwash. There are no temporary workers, only settlers. I’m here to tell you.
———
**Answer: Because employers don’t want lawful, visa-ed temporary workers. They want illegal immigrants, who are cheaper.
06/01 11:12 AM
amazing what there is to learn out there….
still no reply….
The Sound of Silence
By The Editors
They never call, they never write. So far we’ve heard nothing official from the editors of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. They haven’t contacted us, nor have they posted another videotape from one of their editorial conferences, nor have they written anything in their pages or on the web about our debate challenge.
It’s funny: You almost get the sense they don’t want to debate immigration with us. This is odd, and a little disappointing. Odd because just the other day our friends at the Journal seemed absolutely certain that they could take all comers on the issue, that opponents of the bill had no real arguments for their position.
Disappointing because the Journal editorial page hosts an excellent and thoughtful crew of writers and reporters, who produce a robust and fearless page every day. In short, these are the type of people who ordinarily you’d expect to welcome a challenge and a good old-fashioned intellectual rumble. But maybe not on this issue.
Again, what we’re proposing is a Firing Line-style debate, two or three of us versus two or three of them in a public forum in Washington where both sides get to engage on the substance in an extended fashion. This would be a more substantive exchange then you can get on radio or TV. And heaven knows, there’s enough invective and sound bites to go around on both sides of this issue. This would be a way to elevate the discussion.
Judging by the response to our challenge in the blogosphere and talk radio, there is a real appetite for this kind of substantive, public debate. We’re ready to go. But from the Journal? Only silence.
I believe there is also a “EB-1” visa for highly skilled, world-renowned, and indispensable talent. At least according to Charles Krauthammer, there is. I should research that.
MerlinOS2:
Don’t misunderstand me, I think that the amount of the actual indirect subsidy is significantly greater than direct benefit of reduced commodity cost – though I confess I did not know the .04/.24 ratio and would like to see the source for that.
Dale:
My agricultural roots go back to the 1630s in the US and considerably further in Europe… and are as recent as my parents generation as my mother grew up on a ranch in Oregon and my father’s family has had ranches and wineries in California since before the turn of the 20th century. We’ve both benefited from and been harmed by, depending on the ranch/farm and the time and place, by federal farm subsidies and programs.
The system is crazy, but you don’t turn down “free money”… when you’re getting more of a benefit than you’re paying in burden.
Of course, that’s the problem with this illegal immigration problem: individual business and employers believe (probably wrongly) that they are getting an immediate, significant benefit, while the burden is being hived off onto others, at least for the most part.