I’d be interested in seeing to what degree people who complain about illegal immigrants breaking the law correlate with people who illegally shoot off fireworks on the Fourth of July.
Also, I think it’s worth linking to my Independence Day post from last year.
The following op-ed piece was published in this week’s Bay Times and Record-Observer.
This past week our commissioners have sought input from Queen Anne’s County residents on the proposed budget and tax increases. Now they face the daunting task of finalizing the budget and the county tax rates.
It’s a job none should envy. Passions run high and the end result will leave many, if not all, unsatisfied.
In light of this formidable endeavor, I’d like to offer some advice to the commissioners in the hope of easing their burden.
However, they have far better knowledge of county government than I possibly could, so I won’t try to give specifics on what to cut or how much to reduce a given department’s resources. I’ll limit myself to six simple principles:
1) Don’t Raise Taxes
At every hearing, person after person came forward and made clear that a tax increase will be an impossible burden for Queen Anne’s County families, deterring new people from coming to Queen Anne’s County and pushing out people living on the margin. Tax increases might seem a short-term fix, but they’re a long-term disaster.
2) Cut Spending by Cutting Programs
Most cuts that have been discussed have focused on maintaining the status quo, but doing it for less. That isn’t enough. The commissioners need to look hard at county government and decide what it needs to do and what it doesn’t. If a program isn’t necessary, get rid of it. Permanently. Only by reducing the scope of government activity can we possibly tame the budget.
3) There are no Sacred Cows
While much of county government is worth keeping, no part of it can be shielded from its share of the burden – no one can be exempt from budget cuts, not the Board of Education, not the Sheriff’s Office, not a single department. Everyone enjoyed the excess over the last 4 years, everyone must share in the sacrifice now.
4) Seek Alternate Sources of Revenue
Cuts aren’t enough. The county must pursue bold, outside-the-box approaches to generating non-tax revenue. From the modest, like relaxing ordinances limiting billboards and charging fees for new ones, to the extreme, like leasing naming rights to our county schools, every opportunity must be explored.
5) Cap Future Spending Growth
Our county is in this mess because county government spent the last 4 years turning soaring revenues from the housing bubble into huge spending increases. Never again. The commissioners have to implement rules preventing any future budget from growing in size by more than the rate of population growth plus inflation without a unanimous vote of the commissioners.
6) Mandate Sunsets on all Tax Increases
While tax increases are unnecessary to fixing the current budget woes, if the county commissioners do use them, it’s imperative they have a sunset provision. Any tax increase must come with language such that after two years rates will revert to the current levels, adjusted for constant yield. Indeed, this requirement should be made a requirement for all future tax increases.
While any of these six common sense principles are a useful tool for budget reform, taken together they will be a powerful force for fiscal discipline and a strong guarantee against finding ourselves in the same situation again.
I look forward to seeing the county commissioners’ budget and hope to see all six principles as core components of it.
Ann Miller recently made the case that the MD DREAM Act encourages legal immigrants to become illegal. While I like Ann and think she generally does a good job with her writing, she’s really missed the mark on this one.
In essence, her argument boils down to the argument that because the MD DREAM Act gives a benefit to illegal immigrants but not to legal immigrants, that creates an incentive for legal immigrants to become illegal immigrants.
All other things being equal, that might be true. The problem is, all other things aren’t equal. To paraphrase the great Frédéric Bastiat, we have to consider both those things which are seen and those which are unseen.
The simple fact is, being an illegal immigrant sucks. It’s a wretched, horrible life that imposes massive burdens, both economic and psychological, even for the luckiest amongst them. No one wants to be an illegal immigrant – they’d just rather be an illegal immigrant than trapped in the hellhole that was their former country.
As an illegal immigrant a person:
In light of the recent indictment of Ehrlich campaign consultants Paul Schurick and Julius Henson for voter suppression, I was thinking about the question of voter suppression in and of itself.
The main point that strikes me is the boundaries of voter suppression.
Based off of the indictment, it seems pretty clear that it’s out of bounds to call potential voters and tell them they don’t need to go out and vote because the election is decided. But what else is out of bounds?
There’s a not-small portion of libertarians that are opposed to voting on a mix of moral (it immorally uses the force of the state to impose the majority’s preferences on the minority and the act of voting endorses the use of the force), statistical (the chances of your individual vote having a direct impact on the election are vanishingly miniscule), and economic grounds (in light of the statistical irrelevance of voting there are better uses of one’s resources).
While I am a libertarian, I do not happen to hold with this particular school of thought. But I bring it and its adherents up because they’re a useful counterpoint to political operatives like Schurick and Henson. Furthermore, I’d like to do a little thought experiment considering several scenarios involving them. Note, I don’t know much about voter suppression law so I don’t know the answers to the questions I’ll pose in it and as I said before, I am not endorsing this strain of libertarian thought.
Now, to the experiment. Given the existence of people with an ideological commitment to non-voting:
A). If people who hold these convictions attempt to convince others of that, does that count as illegal voter suppression?
B). What about if some of those people formed an organization to further that message? And if they used that group to create videos or print literature trying to convince people not to vote? Does that count as illegal voter suppression?
C). What if it went a step further and the group made phone calls on election day to encourage people not to go out to the polls? Does that count as illegal voter suppression?
D). And what if a political campaign took the materials made by the organization and distributed them in a targeted fashion designed to primarily hit likely supporters of the opposing campaign? Does that cross the line into illegal voter suppression? (this is assuming all other campaigning laws like disclosure are being followed)
To reiterate, I don’t know much about voter suppression laws, so any input as to which items would cross the line would be most appreciated. However, my guess, informed by nothing but my general intuitions on the matter, would be that scenarios A, B, and probably C would be seen as ok, but D would not.
That troubles me, since it seems to indicate that voter suppression laws have nothing to do with concerns about protecting the democratic process and everything to do with status signalling, namely this:
The following letter was printed in both The Bay Times and The Star Democrat this week:
Elections matter. A lot. Looking at the America of today, government controls far, far too much of our lives and doesn’t seem inclined to stop. Whether it be forcing us to buy health insurance or shredding civil liberties, apparently nothing constitutes an overreach or an assault on our sacred freedom.
If we lived in a different world, if government were toothless, it wouldn’t matter who led it. But that’s not the world we live in. And when elections matter, it matters even more that voters be informed about who they’re electing.
That makes it unacceptable that CNN and the other sponsors of the Republican Primary Debate occurring this month in New Hampshire have chosen to exclude at least one declared presidential candidate, (former) Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico, particularly when they have invited people to participate who have taken no official steps towards a presidential campaign.
Gov. Johnson is a serious candidate with an impressive resume. Prior to entering politics, he started his own business as a handyman and then grew it into one of the largest, most profitable construction companies in the state.
Johnson then brought this entrepreneurial spirit to government, challenging an incumbent governor and defying expectations by winning. During his two terms in office, he removed 1,200 state employee positions, cut taxes 14 times, balanced the budget, and left the state with a surplus. Not to mention, he vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors combined.
This is not an endorsement of Gov. Johnson, however, how are the voters supposed to make an informed decision if they are not allowed to hear from all of the candidates? The American electorate deserves the opportunity to hear from all declared and filed candidates. CNN and the other debate sponsors need to stop trying to decide the election and leave that to the voters.
KEVIN WATERMAN
Centreville
Just got this from Gary Johnson’s campaign and wanted to pass it on:
|
The email doesn’t mention it, but not only is Gary polling at a level easily on par with the likes of Santorum and Pawlenty, he’s one of the only candidates to take individual liberty seriously and he’s the only candidate who can credibly claim real success as a governor.
How many of the ex-governor’s running for the nomination can claim they were elected as Republicans in blue states? And how many them can also state that they were re-elected? And how many of those in turn can proudly state that they were re-elected while still removing 1200 government jobs, cutting taxes 14 times, balancing the budget, and still leaving the state with a surplus?
Near as I can tell that’s a record that stands well above the rest of the crowd. Republicans deserve to hear someone with a real track record and real plan to deal with the financial crisis America is facing. Contact CNN, WMUR, and the Union Leader and demand they invite Gary to participate in the debate.
A few months back I explained that Del. Pat McDonough was spreading untrue claims about the legality of illegal immigrants paying taxes.
I’d hoped this nasty and vicious untruth had gone away, but apparently there is someone out there continuing to push it to people who don’t know better, as one of my own state legislators, Del. Mike Smigiel made the exact same claim at a recent legislative wrap-up.
I hate to repeat myself, but this simply is not true:
What’s the real truth? Something far different.
First, illegal immigrants not only can legally pay federal income tax, according to U.S. law they are obliged to. In the case of James v United States the Supreme Court held that illegally earned income is still considered to contribute to an individual’s total gross income and as such the earner owes taxes on it.
Second, it is quite possible for illegal immigrants to pay federal income taxes without resorting to fraud. The IRS issues Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) to persons without Social Security Numbers so that they can pay taxes. In 2008 alone, over 5.5 million tax returns were filed using ITINs. Now, it’s unlikely that all of those were illegal immigrants, but a large number of them undoubtedly were.
As I said with Del. McDonough, I seriously doubt that Del. Smigiel is repeating this falsehood knowingly, and I feel a bit bad about pointing it out, but it’s a big departure from the truth and has the potential to significantly shift the debate on illegal immigration, so I feel duty-bound to set the record straight.
UPDATE: I’ve spoken with Del. Smigiel about this and he indicated he meant to state that illegal immigrants need a SSN to get a job and therefore they cannot work without one.
He also stated that it was his understanding that you cannot pay FICA without an SSN; I would disagree on this point as I would assume an illegal immigrant paid under the table would be required to pay their FICA contribution as self-employment tax rather than the conventional withholding most people use to pay FICA.
As I’ve indicated before, I’m very excited about the possibility of former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson running for president in 2012. Well based off an email I received today from the Our America Initiative, it looks like that may well moving one step closer to happening very soon:
Dear Friend,
Next week will mark my ninth trip to New Hampshire since I started the Our America Initiative in December 2009. I truly enjoy my visits to the Granite State and look forward to many more in the future.
This upcoming trip promises to be my most exciting yet. Next Thursday, April 21, I’ll be making a special announcement, and I would like for you to be a part of it.
For those of you who can’t drop everything on a dime to come and join me, please follow along on the internet. We’ll be providing more details next week. For those of you who can, lets go!
At 9 AM on Thursday morning, I will hold a news conference on the steps of the New Hampshire State Capitol Building in Concord. Please join me if you’re in the area. It will be a great opportunity to show our support for the message of liberty. Later in the evening at 7 PM, we will be gathering at the Executive Court in Manchester (1199 South Mammoth Road). Please stop by to say hello! I would enjoy the opportunity to hear your concerns about our country’s direction and discuss my suggestions for charting a course toward freedom and prosperity. There will be food, refreshments, and music, so it promises to be a great time. Here is a Google map for your convenience.
I will spend Friday, April 22, in Manchester visiting local businesses and speaking with residents from across southern New Hampshire. If you’re in town, keep on the lookout so we don’t miss each other! I will also be doing a number of TV, radio, and newspaper interviews throughout the day at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm’s College.
On Saturday, April 23, I will cap off my exciting week in the Granite State by skiing Mount Washington’s famousTuckerman’s Ravine. I may not have mentioned this to you before, but I truly love to ski, and Tuckerman’s has long been a challenge I want to tackle. We’ll meet at 8:00 AM at the Pinkham Notch trailhead before beginning the 2.5-mile hike to Hermit Lake Shelter at the base of Tuckerman’s.
As you can see, there is a full slate of events scheduled next week. My days will surely be packed, but it promises to be a lot of fun, too. I hope to see you there!
In liberty,
Gary
P.S. Thank you for your generous support during this past year. I truly appreciate your contribution, no matter the size: http://ouramericainitiative.com/donate.
Maryland is a bit far from New Hampshire, so I can’t make it there, but I highly encourage anyone who can be there to show up and support Gary as he makes his big announcement.
From Reform Immigration for America:
The restrictionist NumbersUSA has put out their yearly “report card” of lawmakers on the issue of immigration.
Chris Christie is given a nice even “F”; Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich all earn “D-minus” grades; Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee come in at “D.” Then comes Ron Paul at “C-minus.” At the top of the list are Tim Pawlenty at “C-plus” and Michele Bachmann at “B-minus.” Both the Minnesotans have come out for eliminating birthright citizenship.
Barack Obama, of course, is given an “F-Minus,” a hitherto unknown point of depth in the grading scale.
President Obama receives an F-Minus for deporting immigrants at record levels and increasing spending on border security, and Michele Bachmann only earns a B-Minus for wanting to eliminate birthright citizenship.
What would make NumbersUSA happy?
The answer of course is simple – stopping all migration so that consumers suffer due to uncompetitive workers being secure in their jobs and people like Roy Beck don’t have to deal with people who look or sound different than he does.
But at least they’re mostly up front about that. Normally you’d have to at least work a bit to scratch the surface and see the anti-market sentiment and xenophobia driving the immigration restrictionists. But lately they’ve been doing that themselves. So thanks for that at least.
How can I say that you ask? Simple, just look at what they themselves are saying.
Why, as recently as today the Center for Immigration Studies came out, again, against doing anything serious to stop illegal immigration.
As noted here in the past, USCIS desperately wants to “streamline” its application processes.
Even if eligibility rules are not changed a bit, modifying an application process to make it faster, or less expensive, or more convenient to the applicant, inevitably makes that process more attractive, and thus it is used more often, and that creates more migration.
A clumsy process, however, tends to discourage marginal applicants.
As I’ve noted before, we’ll never get a handle on illegal immigration without making the immigration process easier, it’s just a matter of basic economics. As CIS recognizes, an inefficient immigration process discourages applicants, but it doesn’t mean people don’t come, it simply means they’re significantly more likely to come illegally.
And contrary to their claims, the so-called strategy of attrition through enforcement that groups like CIS promote certainly isn’t working. Want proof? Just look to Maricopa County, Arizona. If stringent enforcement of immigration law bolstered by highly invasive, anti-free-market programs to make it easier to enforce was enough to stop illegal immigration, then why is Joe Arpaio able to continually discover illegal immigrants?
The answer is that attrition through enforcement doesn’t work and any group that proposes using it and it alone to counter illegal immigration cannot be taken seriously. And that’s even more true when they double down on the lunacy by calling for attrition through enforcement couples with further restrictions on migration – as CIS, NumbersUSA, FAIR, Help Save Maryland and many others do.
Moral of the story? If you think illegal immigration is a problem, stop listening to these groups and start promoting an easing of the immigration process.
Follow on Twitter
Add on Facebook
E-mail Me
Recent Comments