And it turns out it still is true.  We probably need a more sane immigration policy, but we also need immigrants.  The vast majority come to America looking for a chance to better their lives and the lives of their families.  They send money back to relatives who cannot move to America, thus helping a foreign economy.

They work hard and they are ruthlessly taken advantage of by many corporations–something we should stop.  They volunteer to serve in our military and willingly die to protect our freedoms.

In brief, they behave just as all the waves of immigrants before them.  The waves of immigrants who built America.

‘What effect does immigration have on U.S. job markets? “Data show that, on net, immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity. Consistent with previous research, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States” 

That’s the conclusion of a study by economist Giovanni Peri and published in the San Francisco Federal Reserve’s Economic Letter.

Beezer here.  So take a few minutes and read the commentary.  It will make you remember where your roots really are.  Thanks again to economist’s view for bringing this paper to our attention.

The simple fact is that Social Security won’t go broke.  So for those who may be frightened by all the talk of ‘fixing’ social security, here’s the truth.  From Bruce Webb over at the Angry Bear blog.  Of course Bruce has a big advantage over political conservatives.  He knows the math.

“A couple of further notes. If retirement benefits are projected to increase in real terms by close to 100% over the next 75 years, then a projected cut of 20-25% on Trust Fund exhaustion would STILL see those future workers with larger baskets of goods than similarly situated retirees (this is what we call ‘Rosser’s Equation’).

But this real term increase doesn’t come at the expense of younger workers still in the work force, at least not without some forced special pleading. The goal clearly shown in Fig 2 is to keep overall replacement values steady with each future generation just able to hold onto its share of the overall societal increase. This seems fair to me.

There are some that insist that if you ‘really’ look at the numbers you will see that Social Security was simply too generous to earlier generations. How you reconcile this with these graphs showing that each generation will be able to afford a bigger basket of goods than their predessessor would seem difficult. Because arguments from ROI (but I could have had EVEN MORE, and screw Grandma) seem pretty hard-hearted and selfish. But perhaps someone can make the moral case in comments.”

Beezer here.  So if even the math challenged can understand that Social Security isn’t going to go broke, what the heck is going on?  Webb has an idea.

“Nope in my opinion the fundamental motive for opposing Social Security is not driven by greed as such but instead an ideology that depends crucially on the perception that Big Government is always and everywhere a failure, and that the bigger the counter-example the higher the risk to that overall paradigm. If Social Security was just headed for the cliff, its enemies would just stand back and watch it go, arguably this is where they were at in 1993. It is only when they see the coach driver beginning to get the team under control and steer it away from the cliff that they have to jump in and try to spook the horses again.

Which is why people asking why the actions of Social Security opponents don’t seem to be particularly helpful in guiding the stage coach away from the cliff are asking the wrong question, looked at in that way their actions don’t make sense at all. On the other hand if you flip it around a lot of things become clear, there being more than one definition of ‘fixing’.”

Beezer again.  There it is, that damn ideology again.  No matter the evidence.  No matter the math.  No matter the real historical record.  Republicans have so bought into the myth that the government can do no good, only harm, that such a large success like Social Security cannot be let stand.  So spook the horses and drive the program off the cliff.  That’s the only ‘fix’ the Republicans have in mind.

Beware America.  You are being sold down the proverbial river of misplaced ideology.

And as a result, they are rendered speechless much of the time.

True story.  From a C-Span call in show during the health care reform debate.

The caller complained about ‘socialist’ medicine and all the perceived evils of socialism in general and socialism in medicine in particular.  The caller was asked how he got his medical treatment.  His answer?  The Veterans Administration, possible the most purely socialised medical system on the planet.

When asked why he didn’t avail himself of private insurance his answer was “I can’t afford it.”

Liberals listening to this exchange probably didn’t get their jaws off the ground for several minutes.  They were rendered speechless.  No wonder they often lose an argument:  They can’t talk!

And this from a post by economist Maxine Udall that appeared on economist’s view:

“…[T]he spectre of “socialized medicine” prevents us moving to single payer, where the incentives for prudent life cycle management of risk across all age and income groups would be better aligned. Why, when we already have what is in effect single payer for the elderly and the poor, do some believe that single payer is “socialized medicine” and why do they fear it so?

I gained some insight into this recently when an elderly relative started complaining about “Obamacare” and how it would lead to “socialized medicine.” Knowing the person had heart surgery courtesy of Medicare and was receiving ongoing monitoring and care, I said, “I didn’t realize you were so unhappy with Medicare.” To which I received the reply: “I’m not talking about Medicare, I’m talking about socialized medicine.”

“How is Medicare different from socialized medicine?” I asked.

“Medicare isn’t socialized,” came the reply. “I pay for it. I pay every month and when I’ve had surgery, I’ve had to pay some of it. Medicare is like any other insurance.”

“Well,” I said, “I know you’re paying a premium for Part B and I know there are copayments and deductibles, but Medicare is a government run health insurance program.”

To which the reply was: “But I’m talking about socialized medicine. You know that whenever the government gets involved in anything, it never does a good job.”

“I had no idea you were having problems with Medicare.” said I. “I always had the impression you were pretty satisfied with it. And with the VA, too. I know you’ve used the VA for some care recently. What problems have you had with Medicare or the VA?”

“Well, none with Medicare or the VA, but I’m not talking about Medicare. I’m talking about socialized medicine.”

“So you’re happy with Medicare?”

“Yes.”

“Would you mind if your [adult] children could buy into it? Your son is unemployed. Would it be OK if he could buy into Medicare?”

“Well, sure. As long as he has to pay like I do.”

You were all wondering how someone could say, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare?” Well, there you have it. Now that I’ve told you, I’m still not sure I understand it. It was one of the most frustrating and at the same time enlightening conversations I have had in a long time. The person with whom I was conversing is intelligent, educated, and not senile.

I’m just not sure how to use the above information. I was unable to persuade my elderly relative. I confess that since the conversation, I have despaired that the national conversation will ever be much better.”

Beezer.  And so it goes.  Our jaws are constantly resting on the floor from our astonishment.  Liberals need to get used to the American public’s propensity to stab itself repeatedly. 

The ‘It Sucks To Be You’ party (aka Republican Party) is expected to gain Congressional seats this November, primarily because of the continuing recession and stubbornly high unemployment.

Unless, of course, the unemployed and those who can’t get health insurance (those who it sucks to be) begin to realize the true nature of the Republican Party.  Recently the Democrats are seeing some relief from the poor polling results so maybe the population at large is starting to smell something fishy about all the serial Republican “no” votes to reform efforts.

Unemployed?  It sucks to be you.  Got a chronic health problem?  It sucks to be you.  Can’t afford to go to college?  It sucks to be you.  Home underwater?  It sucks to be you.  Clam fisherman on the Gulf?  It sucks to be you.  Hotel owner or employee on the Florida gulf coast?  It sucks to be you.  Sick from salmonella poisoning?  It sucks to be you.  Going to rely on Social Security?  It sucks to be you.  Depend on Medicare for your medicine?  It sucks to be you.

This is a pretty long list.  Possibly a majority of voters.  Maybe when they realize that it sucks to be them, they’ll fight back.

Beezer can’t take credit for this line of reasoning.  It came from a friend who is an elected official in Virginia.

Declare general election day a national holiday.  That way labor can get to the polls.  The CEO always has the time to vote.

We’ve spent a lot of time, and posts, writing about the current economic malaise.  We’re in a severe recession where traditional monetary tools (lower interest  rates, pump cash into the economy etc) have run their course.  They have had some positive effect, but it appears doing even more easing won’t accomplish much.

So in an effort to spell out what can yet be done, here are some observations.

• Create jobs.  The private sector can’t create them right now because of several reasons, but most of the reasons can be summed up by the phrase “lack of demand.”  Without this demand, productive capacity is taken off line (including people being thrown out of work) to wait for a better day.  There are $2.2 trillion in public goods (infrastructure primarily) that will need to be built.  Might as well do them now because they will create private sector jobs for a minimum of three years, and it might take that long for the private sector to regain its footing and start creating jobs independent of government largess.
• Reduce the trade deficit by imposing tariffs on imports.  Just because foreign competitors can make some goods more cheaply because of currency manipulation and millions of low cost laborers, doesn’t mean we should buy those goods.  Instead, we should protect the manufacturing industries we now have, and expand back into the industries where we allowed jobs to disappear only to re-appear on foreign soil.   The reality is the majority of Americans need to work with their hands.  That’s simply a fact of life.  If the country continues to export manufacturing jobs, that will guarantee high unemployment for many Americans.  We cannot afford all those hands to be idle.  The overall goals are to protect employment and to achieve balanced trade.
• Immigration reform.  We do need farm labor, after all.  Our immigration system needs to be more robust and legally allow in sufficient numbers of migrant farm labor, at the least.  America was built by immigrant labor and nothing’s changed in that regard.  Second, allow more highly trained professionals to come to America.  We are in a global, competitive world today.  We should allow the world’s best and brightest to come to our shores and work with us.  It will guarantee our advantage in innovation.  It will make more millionaires and produce more private sector jobs.
• Let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule.  All of them.  Just as with the other monetary tools’ usefulness, tax cuts are inefficient right now.  Restoring marginally progressive rates that were in place under President Clinton (a period of strong job and wage growth) will have little effect on the economy, but will show that America is willing to seriously reduce its deficits.  Oddly, so-called  fiscal conservatives won’t even commit to this minor effort to reduce deficits.
• Change the health care delivery system.  The first reform effort is flawed in many ways, but the impulse was and still is correct:  Our current system is based on fee for service which is inefficient and far too expensive to maintain.  The simple fact is the system that works best is results based.  It’s not how many procedures you do, it’s the results that count and for which you get paid.  Necessarily that means the administration of payments needs to be done by non profits, i.e. what in our system today remains with for-profit insurance companies.  That has to change.  Also, we need to expand the population allowed to become doctors.  That means a subsidized system of scholarships open to competition where the winners get a free degree (other than the incredibly hard work required) but in return agree to a salary or at minimum some guaranteed hours working for those covered by Medicare or Medicaid:  Effectively the vast majority of Americans.  This will have huge positive consequences not only for the population’s health, but for the taxpayer’s pocketbook.
• Wind down overseas military engagements.  We cannot afford to be the world’s Robocop.  We cannot afford to nation-build around the world.  We have an $800 plus billion military industrial complex in America, and more than $200 billion of that is spent on overseas engagements, primarily in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  If we can get that down to $100 billion, it saves us a cool trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
• Put in a cap and trade system directed at removing inefficient use of fossil fuels.  Right now that would probably mean old coal plants will be idled and new, gas fired plants built.  Which would generate new jobs and help bridge the necessary transition to more sustainable base energy systems, which can gain subsidies derived from the cap and trade revenues.
• Maintain robust regulation of major industries.  The cheapest expenditure you can make is to have an honest, career oriented, regulator.  A major cause of our current problems came about due to poor regulation of our financial infrastructure.  Financial regulation already passed will help restore confidence in banking.  But what about better regulation of offshore drilling?  Or better inspection of food processing?  Or better inspection of mining?  Capitalism is great, but capitalists will compromise regulation if they can and we’ve seen clearly the negative consequences of allowing that to happen.  It’s cost us trillions in taxpayer money, millions of jobs, and ecologic damage that will no doubt be in the billions from the BP offshore disaster.
• Restore some sanity and fairness to our political process by severely limiting lobbying activities and restraining both individual and corporate contributions to campaigns–particularly at the federal level.  This has become a foundational problem.  A problem  made even worse by the recent Supreme Court decision reversing a century of Supreme Court decisions that restrained direct corporate campaign contributions, both money and in-kind.   Just turn on the TV today.  The screen is literally shouting at you with political ads not paid for by candidate campaigns, but by invisible and un-named corporate fronts.  This will inevitably control public information, swamping open and honest discussion and debate with marketing spin paid for by large, often multi-national, corporate treasuries.  This may turn out to be even worse for America than the current recession.
• Restore competitive markets in critical industries.  Right now American industry is dominated by oligopolies–near monopolies that use government power to stifle competition.  The problem is evident in banking, in agriculture, in energy production and in health care.  Banking has undergone some reform.  As has health care.  But both have come in weak form.  These efforts need to be continued until there is real competition in these industries.  It’s astonishing how well these non-competitive markets have convinced many Americans that they are, in truth, competitive.  And as for Congress and the White House, companies that control these markets have apparently consolidated their influence everywhere.  It may need some good old fashioned trust busting by Attorneys General, both federal and state, to unwind this decades old effort to buy government.  

There’s much more that we’ve recommended, not the least of which is to stop subsidizing corn and to subsidize organic farming instead.  But these are the major areas where America, according to a liberal, has gone far astray and is paying a high price for doing so.