Glibertarians.com 2017 Archive

Author: “Tulsi Gabbard Apologist”

  • Caddyshack Explains Our Politics

     

    It is a scientific fact that Caddyshack is the best movie of the 1980’s.  Not only does the movie accurately depict the summer of my junior year in college spent as a ranger on a golf course, it also showcases some of the best comedic talent of the era.  Chevy Chase as Ty Webb, a simple-minded millionaire playboy with a natural gift for golf.  Bill Murray as Carl Spackler, a dim-witted groundskeeper who engages in an ever-escalating war with a gopher that’s burrowing holes throughout the course.  And Rodney Dangerfield as Al Czervick, a boorish millionaire whose gaudy lifestyle and off-color remarks draws the ire of the club’s blue-blood establishment, as best personified by Ted Knight’s character, Judge Smails.

    Throughout the movie, our hero, caddy Danny Noonan (whose last name will forever be remembered by golfers who have heard it whispered to them mid-stroke as they putted) tries to impress the stodgy Judge Smails in order to win a caddy scholarship while also trying not to betray his true self.  It is a coming-of-age morality tale interwoven between campy sexual references (“Hey everybody, we’re all getting laid tonight!”), silly, but effective, turn-of-phrases (“Thank you very little”), drug references (“Cannonball!”), and pure Bill Murray (“So I got that going for me.  Which is nice”).  But, the movie also highlights a clash between the nouveau riche, as embodied by Dangerfield’s character, and the established upper class, as embodied by Judge Smails.  A conflict that is being played out in our national politics.

    Dangerfield’s character is rude and uncouth, much like our orange-tinted president whose tastes defy gaudy and uncultured, along with his public persona being impolite and offensive.  But, at the same time, the caddies and other staff on the golf course don’t seem to detest Dangerfield’s character nearly as much as they do Judge Smails.  His gruff remarks convey a degree of honesty.  Though he is no less a liar than Judge Smails, his lies are so clearly transparent that no one feels deceived. And his unwillingness to be polite hides no ulterior motives.  Everyone knows what Dangerfield’s character thinks because he declares it for everyone to hear, much like our president via Twitter.

    They were also in Tron.

    In contrast to Dangerfield’s character, Judge Smails is presented as part of a self-important and corrupt establishment that cares little about people not of their class.  Much like the public views the president’s enemies as dismissive of those beneath them.  Smails is well polished and presents himself as someone who upholds the rules of respectable society, but in actuality, everyone knows he cheats.  In much the same way that the American public at large believes that their betters are liars and cheats.

    At the movie’s climax, the protagonist, Danny Noonan, is presented with an option: either help Dangerfield win a golf bet against Judge Smails and lose his college scholarship or fall in line with an established order that he detests for his own personal gain.  Judge Smails advises him against helping Dangerfield, but Noonan ignores his advice, much like voters in 2016 rebuked the advice of the ruling class.

    In the final scenes of the movie, the two sides of the golf bet are even.  Noonan needs to sink his final putt in order for Dangerfield to win the bet.  After a comically long moment of anticipation, Noonan’s putt wins the golf bet for Dangerfield and the workers at the golf course are ecstatic.  Everyone from Noonan’s love interest to a fellow caddy who he has sparred with throughout the film crowd around him in a raucous celebration.  The victory is actually Dangerfield’s, who was the principle of the bet against Judge Smails, but he is seemingly ignored.  Dangerfield, much like our President, served as only the vehicle for these workers to register their frustrations with the golf course’s blue-blood establishment.  The workers gained nothing from Judge Smails losing his bet: Noonan will not be able to afford college without the caddy scholarship that he’s forsaken and the rest of them will go back to the same jobs the next day.  Their celebration is surely fleeting, but for a moment they take enjoyment in besting their betters.

  • As Long as the Re-education Camps are Private, I See Nothing Wrong with Them

     

    Some self-described ‘libertarians’ have been trumpeting the cause of ‘free speech’ and ‘tolerance of differing opinions’.  Yet, they don’t seem to know what any of those words mean.  They complain about the silencing of bigoted speakers on college campuses, like Milo or Anne Coulter, and they fear that European laws against ‘hate speech’ will soon reach this country.  While I don’t necessarily support ‘hate speech laws’, I don’t feel the need to defend the right of others to speak.  What value does Milo or Anne Coulter bring to a debate?  What is gained by using misogynistic or homophobic words?  The most perplexing thing that these self-described ‘libertarians’ complain about is ‘political correctness’ and a phenomenon known as ‘call out culture’.

    Certain alt-right denizens who claim to be ‘libertarian’, like Tom Woods or Jeff Deist, seem awfully concerned with ‘political correctness’ (or, more aptly called ‘being polite’).  Woods, himself, always begins his podcast of hate by declaring that the listener should ‘prepare to set fire to the index card of allowable opinion’.  How ridiculous.  What is ‘libertarian’ about questioning popular opinion?  Of course, Woods, always targets the most mundane and inconsequential issues of the day, otherwise, what would he have to talk about?  For instance, a recent post by Woods on Twitter bemoaned the firing of a Google employee who created an inflammatory report suggesting that women are not underrepresented at the tech company because of discrimination, but instead because, based off of college majors, women are predisposed to want to study other fields besides engineering and computer sciences.  Woods and his fellow travelers think that the employee’s firing proves the point that Google does not value diversity of opinion.  Ok, so?  When did diversity of opinion become more important than diversity of race, sex, or gender?  Opinions (especially those that are wrong) can and should be changed, but a woman cannot change being a woman and a transgender man cannot help being a man.  The notion that libertarianism should only view people as individuals, which, therefore, should negate the lived experiences of minority communities is childish and fueled by bigotry.

    These faux libertarians are also the same people that got worked up about other alt-right cause de celebre, such as Brendan Eich being forced out as CEO of Mozilla in 2014 after an uproar began because of his past opposition to same-sex marriage.  I’m not sure if Woods and his Mises colleagues genuinely hate gays (considering how many of them are congregants of the reactionary Roman Catholic Church, it wouldn’t surprise me) or if they are just insincere asses.  For those who don’t recall, Eich was a bigot who donated $1,000 to a campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California through Proposition 8 (rightly dubbed ‘Proposition Hate’).  Though the proposition was eventually approved by voters, the courts later overturned the results and our country rightly began denouncing the religious fanatics and heteronormative reactionaries (redundancy between the latter and the former) who forced their religious views onto marriage.  To be sure, Woods and the alt-right blowhards at the Mises Institute do support gay marriage, though they disagree on whether or not there is a constitutional right to such a union, if states should decide the qualifications for marriage, or if the government should be involved in marriages at all.  All of these arguments are insincere efforts to maintain a marital status quo that was indiscernible from the Jim Crow South.  And they do in fact support the notion of ‘separate but equal’, otherwise they wouldn’t defend Christian zealots who don’t want to serve gay weddings.  It is not libertarian to oppose the natural right to have a government contract recognizing your marital union.  And yes, anyone who opposes that right, or has in the past, will and should face consequences by their employer.  Eich got what he deserved and the market, fueled by professional agitators, worked.

    I sincerely believe that the opposition to the firing of Eich and the Google employee is a symptom of the Mises Institute’s disdain for democracy and the market, along with their latent bigotry.  Both Eich and the Google employee were fired due to outrage by consumers.  How is that not the free market functioning as it should?  Sure, mobs can be a dangerous phenomenon, but not when they support just ideas.  A mob of ignorant drug-addled hicks propelled a racist buffoon into the White House with a message of isolationism and scapegoating immigrants.  That was bad.  But, a mob that insists on tolerance by stamping out vulgar ideas that question the progress of society is good.

    I’m glad that there are more tolerant voices within the Libertarian Movement today.  Voices like Nick Sarwark of the Libertarian Party who rightly pointed out via Twitter that Murray Rothbard was a bigot.  Sarwark has also been good about respectfully engaging with members of Antifa about their radical ideology supporting violence against racists who spew hate speech.  These are thought-provoking conversations, unlike Mises Institute events which discuss inane topics such as an imagined ‘right of conscience’ and a ‘right to free association’.  Brink Lindsey, with the CATO Institute, has also been excellent in his criticisms of the ‘Paulista Cult’.  He’s noted, recently via Twitter, that “Ron Paul’s xenophobia was a hideous corruption of libertarian ideas and puts his movement in the Trumpism family tree.”  Yes!  And he went on “But the most prominent libertarian voice of recent times, Ron Paul, opposed all trade agreements and promoted anti-trade conspiracy theories.”  I’m glad that someone said it.  Naturally, the ‘Paulistas’ promptly attacked and noted that Brink Lindsey has supported nearly every American conflict since the 1990’s, including both Iraq Wars.  As if supporting the expansion of state authority to engage in armed conflict is somehow a greater ‘sin’ than Paul opposing NAFTA.  How ill-informed must one be to honestly believe that supporting our military is bad?

    I’m hopeful that the reactionary brand of libertarianism, as embodied by Tom Woods and the Mises Institute will soon be relegated to the trash bin of history.  No more will we true libertarians be inundated with ridiculous remarks about the ‘non-aggression principle’ and how dividing people into identity groups somehow betrays the message of ‘individualism’ (whatever you say, George Wallace).  And things are moving in a positive direction, especially after the tolerant campaign message furthered by great libertarians like Bill Weld and Gary Johnson.  So long as we libertarians focus on the important issues at hand, such as promoting Uber and food trucks, we won’t need to be bogged down in culture war issues like free speech and diversity of opinion.

  • An Apologia for the Non-Interventionists that Voted Trump

     

    Non-interventionists of every stripe from libertarians to paleo conservatives to standard anti-war types have had their dreams dashed this past week after the president announced a troop surge in Afghanistan.  To be fair, the president had already been offering mixed results to non-interventionists.  Some actions were commendable, such as ending the CIA program that was arming Syrian opposition groups (BBC News), while others were the same interventionist impulses that we’ve seen from every post-World War II administration, such as bombing Syrian airfields (CNN).  But even those who justified their support for President Trump’s election by noting his less militaristic foreign policy never truly believed that he would fulfill their long held dreams of closing overseas military bases, and ending American support for quasi-wars undertaken by our allies (such as the conflicts in Yemen or Syria).  Writing in the American Conservative (a publication founded by anti-war conservatives opposed to the Iraq War) Robert Merry noted that based off of polling “it seems that the preponderance of public opinion ran counter to both of those foreign policy philosophies [neoconservative and liberal interventionism]. Donald Trump, in his often crude manner, captured this opposition view.”

    Relationship status: It’s complicated.

    With Trump, it was believed, we would finally have a conversation about our relationship with Russia, which some have argued has been overly hostile and counterproductive since the end of the Cold War (The National Interest and the American Conservative).  With Trump we could finally ask the question of whether it is worthwhile to pledge open-ended military support, through NATO expansion, to countries such as Montenegro with little benefit to our own security.  With Trump we could finally discuss the cost, both financially and morally, of engaging in and supporting barbaric wars against Yemen and Syria (to name a few), which pose no threat to our country.  With Trump, some dreamed, we might finally come to debate the words of President Eisenhower who warned of the unchecked powers being acquired by the ‘military-industrial complex’ or, even better, we might rediscover President Washington’s warning about ‘foreign entanglements’.  But, why did these non-interventionists hope that these conversations might be possible, but only with Trump?

    President Trump is not a principled or moral man.  He is a thrice married, petty man who finds it more important to engage in school yard taunts with his opponents rather than arguing over policy.  He is no scholar, as he himself has admitted that he rarely reads (The New Republic) and, with regards to foreign policy, he has said that “I’m speaking with myself [about foreign policy], number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things” (POLITICO).  He is, on nearly every issue, malleable.  But, since the 1980’s, when Trump first flirted with the idea of running for political office, he has been consistent on two topics: foreign affairs and trade.  As early as 1987, during the height of the Cold War, Trump stated that the US “should stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves” and advocated for nuclear disarmament (NY Times).  During the 2016 campaign, Trump’s advocacy for non-interventionism became a topic of debate, as it was alleged that he had voiced support for the Iraq War, based upon an exchange between himself and Howard Stern.  Some Republicans who had voted against the Iraq War, such as former representative John Hostettler, defended the real estate magnate and said “Last night, in the midst of the first presidential debate, the moderator prefaced a question about Sen. Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq War with the suggestion that Donald Trump’s comments to a shock jock prior to Sen. Clinton’s vote was equivalent to that vote” (Washington Examiner).  There is little evidence to suggest that Trump was ever an interventionist, whereas he has made statements in the past and during the 2016 campaign that delighted non-interventionist advocates throughout the country, such as his skepticism about NATO commitments and opposition to continued military involvement in Syria.  Even his recent declaration about a troop surge in Afghanistan was preceded by numerous reports stating that Trump was rebuffing the requests of his generals, and fellow Republicans, who were requesting that surge (The Intercept and POLITICO).  It is quite logical to understand why some non-interventionists saw him as a preferable option than the status quo offered by his opponents.

    Yet some supposed non-interventionists have gone about berating others who had hoped (and some still hope) that, at the very least, the Trump administration would be nominally better than sixteen years of intense interventionism.  These supposed non-interventionists have gone about declaring that they have been vindicated and they have begun pondering whether those who oppose war and voted for Trump are ‘gullible’ (Reason).  This is a rather odd assertion to be made, considering that most of these people did not vote for even a nominal non-interventionist in 2016.  Of Trump’s 2016 opponents, only Jill Stein was more stringently opposed to adventurism overseas than him.  Yet, beyond Stein, the other two major candidates were significantly more predisposed to war than Trump.  Specifically, I would highlight the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson, who was the preferred choice for many of the supposed non-interventionists that are sneering now.

    … Also complicated.

    In 2012, when Johnson first ran for the presidency, he offered a mixed bag with regards to foreign policy in an interview with the Daily Caller.  He suggested a 43% reduction in defense spending, but he also said that “he supports America’s efforts to aid African troops in tracking down Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and that he wouldn’t rule out leaving behind American bases in Afghanistan” (Daily Caller).  Around the same time, in an interview with the Weekly Standard, Johnson also said that he supported the notion of the US waging war on humanitarian grounds (Weekly Standard).  These positions are almost indistinguishable from the long-forgotten breed of warmonger once known as the ‘Rockefeller Republican’.  Make war, but on the cheap.  As if cost is the only issue to consider when waging unnecessary wars.  More recently, in 2016, Johnson tried to avoid foreign policy issues and became less hawkish and more non-interventionist in his attitude to conflicts.  He told CNN in 2016, that in order to solve the conflict in Syria he believed that “There is only one solution to Syria, and that’s being hand in hand with Russia diplomatically to solve that” (CNN).  A position, ironically enough, that was nearly indistinguishable from that of Trump.  But beyond a few flubs, of which the media exaggerated, Johnson spent little time discussing his foreign policy vision in 2016.  So if the contention of these supposed non-interventionists sneering at Trump voters now is that Trump’s past statements, and those during the 2016 race, were not sufficient enough to conclude that Trump would be a non-interventionist than why were Johnson’s decidedly pro-interventionist positions supposed to have made him a better alternative?  The only ‘gullible’ voters in 2016 were those who refused to accept what they were hearing.

    At this time, it would appear that President Trump is behaving as a standard Republican president with regards to foreign policy, with a few exceptions.  Nine months into his administration, we cannot determine if Trump will correct his way and become non-interventionist or continue with the interventionist foreign policy that has dominated Washington since the end of World War II.  More likely than not, Trump will end up being more restrained, in some regards, than his two immediate predecessors.  Which, some might argue, is still preferable than a continuation of the status quo.  In hindsight, it appears that the only moral vote a non-interventionist could have made in the 2016 election was to either vote for Jill Stein or abstain.  But at the time, in November 2016, there was good reason for non-interventionists to be hopeful about the prospect of a Trump presidency.  And no one should fault them for the choice that they made, based upon the information that they had available at the time.

     

  • California Dream’n

     

    Ten years ago, there were numerous articles written about the poor financial state of California during the governorship of Gray Davis and, later, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The State’s financial position deteriorated to the point that bond rating agency Moody’s downgraded the state to the ‘BBB’ range, or just above ‘junk bond status’. This was the first time in the post-Great Depression era that a US state was assigned such a low rating. Since that time, the State has raised taxes to stabilize its finances, and Illinois’ poor financial position has become the topic of conversation. However, California still faces some obstacles going forward, which are primarily driven by its massive Medicaid system (estimates suggest that one in three Californians are enrolled in the Medicaid system) and the State’s reliance on capital gains taxes.

    California’s Current Financial Position

    I’m sure this is so battered because it’s been used a lot…

    As of the end of the 2016 fiscal year, the State boasted a positive General Fund balance. This is the first time that the State has recorded a positive fund balance in more than ten years and represents a marked improvement from the State’s weakest financial position in fiscal year 2012, when it held a General Fund balance representing negative 26% of total revenue.

    The State’s largest source of revenue is its personal income tax which represents 46% of total revenues. Intergovernmental revenue, which is primarily revenue provided by the federal government (mainly Medicaid funding), represents 42% of total revenue and sales taxes represents 12% of total revenue. For the current fiscal year, the State forecasts a slight increase in sales tax receipts and no growth for income tax and intergovernmental revenues. Those projections are 2% lower than previous estimates.

    The State’s largest expenditure is Health and Human Services (Medicaid) which represents 52% of total expenditures. Education represents 32% of total expenditures and is the State’s second largest expenditure. For the current fiscal year the State now forecasts total expenditures to grow by 2.5% over previous projections, including 4% growth for Medicaid and 2% growth for education.

    The State’s largest pension system, the State Teacher’s Retirement System, is 63% funded. Total pension, other post-employment benefits, and debt service costs account for 10% of total State expenditures, which is an average fixed cost. Due to recently passed legislation, the State, local communities, and school districts will face increased pension contributions going forward. At 3.2%, the State’s debt levels, in comparison to other states, are above average.

    Current and Projected Deficits

    Deficit projections for the current fiscal year come in between $400 million to $1.6 billion (representing roughly 1% of total revenues). Additionally, budget estimates for the upcoming fiscal year are forecasting another deficit. The projected imbalances are being driven by the above-referenced flat to possibly declining income tax revenues coupled with growth in the State’s Medicaid system.

    Declining income tax revenues are driven primarily by declines in the State’s capital gains tax (which accounts for 10% of the State’s revenue). Over the past two years capital gains revenue has dropped more than 7%. California’s reliance on capital gains taxes has long made the state susceptible to the variability of market conditions and any economic downturn is expected to negatively impact the State’s overall revenues.

    Spending reduction is for chumps

    Growth in State expenditures is largely being driven by tremendous growth in the State’s Medicaid system. After the passage of federal healthcare reform in 2010 California’s Medicaid system has seen substantial enrollment growth, including a 14% increase in enrollment between 2013 and 2016. Current estimates suggest that one in three Californians are enrolled in the State Medicaid system. Any federal funding reductions to Medicaid would have a substantial negative impact on the State’s financial position.

    To address these budget imbalances Governor Brown has proposed reductions in State revenues for local school districts and state universities. In the past, the State has pursued a similar strategy to address budget deficits. The reductions in State revenue are expected to have a disproportionate impact on school districts that rely heavily on state funding and are already financially weak. These school districts likely will face state funding reductions combined with state mandated increases in pension payments.

    Conclusion

    The State’s financial position remains adequate, though some financial deterioration may occur in the near term. Local California governments that would be most impacted by reduced state funding would be local school districts that are already reliant on state support and have already been experiencing financial strain. Proposed federal funding reductions for the State Medicaid system would pose a significant challenge for California and would further exacerbate expected deficits.

    If no federal reductions in Medicaid occurs, the State’s financial position is expected to remain adequate, but deficits are likely in the near term. Local school districts (which are heavily reliant on state funding) are most likely to be effected by any State deficits going forward.

  • Forget it–it’s Chicagotown

     

    You may have read about the City of Chicago’s financial difficulties. More often than not, the news coverage on this issue often looks for a single cause of the problem, such as pension underfunding or the fact that Democrats are uniquely bad at math. This commentary is too simplistic and overlooks the fact that major cities are complex. Yes, Chicago’s pension system is woefully underfunded, but this doesn’t explain the City’s consistent budget deficits (pensions are long-term liabilities and current costs are relatively small in comparison to other expenditures). Yes, Democrats are astonishingly bad at understanding arithmetic, but this wasn’t always true about ‘Chicago Democrats’ (RIP) who, unlike their Midwestern peers (St. Louis, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc.), cobbled together strong financial performance during the 1970’s and 1980’s while manufacturing jobs and population declined precipitously in the City.

    I have provided a very brief summary of the issues contributing to the City’s poor financial position, along with providing an overview of the financial difficulty faced by Chicago Public Schools (which is a separate government from the City of Chicago).

    Deficits and Debt

    For over ten years, the City has maintained a budgetary imbalance. Though these deficits have declined over the past four years, they are still expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

    The result of these deficits has been a significant decline in reserves, with the City currently holding just 4% of its revenue in reserve. In general, a local government is considered to be fiscally healthy if it holds no less than 10% of its revenue in reserve. For the current fiscal year, the City of Chicago is projecting to completely exhaust all of its reserves.

    The City has also issued debt to close its budget gaps over a period of several years. This has resulted in an $8.3 billion debt load for the City ($3,080 per resident), which represents a 75% increase in debt between 2005 and 2014. The use of debt to correct these budget imbalances has also increased the City’s fixed costs. For fiscal year 2016 nearly a quarter of all revenue will be used for the payment of debt service. Most local governments with healthy finances dedicate no more than 10% of revenue toward the payment of debt. Historically to manage this large debt load, the City has often employed financial gimmicks such as ‘scoop and toss’, whereby new debt is issued with a longer maturity to repay existing debt outstanding. For the 2016 fiscal year the City has avoided employing this tactic.

    Significant Long-Term Pension Liability

    The City manages four pension systems: the Municipal Employees Fund (MEF), the Laborers Fund (LF), the Policemen Fund (PF), and the Firemen Fund (FF). These pension systems’ current funding levels are 41%, 64%, 26%, and 23%, respectively (actuaries consider a pension system ‘healthy’ if funding levels are at or above 80%). The poor funding ratio and large combined liability of $20 billion is due to the City having failed to adequately contribute the full annual cost to its pension systems since the mid-1990s, due in large part to the unrealistic 7.75% rate of return assumptions in these pension systems (returns have averaged just under 6%).

    To rectify this situation, the City enacted modest pension reform to reduce the annual contribution and slightly reduce the long-term liability for only the MEF and LF pension systems. This reform legislation was eventually ruled to be unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court.

    In order to make its annual contribution to its pension systems, the City raised its property taxes and instituted a 29.5% utility tax. The tax on water and sewer services will be incremental with a 7.7% increase occurring in 2017; an 8.4% increase in 2018; an 8.2% increase in 2019, and a 5.2% increase in 2020.

    Chicago Public Schools

    The City’s school system, Chicago Public Schools (CPS), is also financially weak. At the end of fiscal year 2015, CPS had operating reserves representing roughly 7% of total revenue and liquidity representing roughly ten days cash-on-hand. In general a school district is considered to be financially healthy if it holds no less than 10% of its revenues in reserve and liquidity is at least fifty days cash-on-hand.

    Additionally, CPS faces challenging demographic issues similar to those that face the city (below). Enrollment at CPS schools has dropped roughly 5% between 2000 and 2010. Further, the percentage of school-aged children in the City (ages 0-19) has declined 17% between 2000 and 2010 suggesting that enrollment is unlikely to grow in the future. In 2016, CPS reported a decline of 3.5% from the previous year. In spite of these enrollment declines, CPS’ total expenditures increased 10% between 2010 and 2015.

    Many of the rising costs that CPS faces are connected to labor contracts that limit classroom sizes and mandate costly employee healthcare and retirement benefits. These labor contracts exert the most pressure on CPS underfunded pension system. In fiscal year 2016, CPS will have to make a $676 million pension contribution which will consume 10% of its total budget. This cost will continue to rise as CPS is under a state mandate to achieve 90% funding in its pension system (which is currently only 58% funded) by 2058.

    To a large extent, the underfunding of the pension system has been due to CPS failing to make its annual contribution payments in recent years. As recently as 2001, CPS’ pension system was more than 100% funded.

    CPS faces labor unrest due to the school district seeking concessions from its teachers’ labor union. Points of contention primarily center on pay increases, health insurance benefits, and teacher pension contributions. Currently, teachers only contribute 2% of their salary in pension contributions while CPS would like to increase that amount to 9% of a teacher’s salary. The teachers’ union went on strike in 2012 over these concession demands.

    Declining Demographic Trends

    Currently the City’s unemployment rate is higher than both the State average and the national average. Additionally the City has experienced declining population for five of the past six decades. Between 2000 and 2010, the City’s population declined by 6.9%. Estimates since the 2010 Census indicate that the City is experiencing one of the largest population declines of the twenty-five largest cities in the country. A high unemployment rate and declining population will further constrain the City’s financial health as it loses taxpayers.

  • I’m For Open Borders, So Long as it Doesn’t Threaten My Son’s Employment

     

    We have a white nationalist administration in the White House. A conclave of priestly bigots, reactionaries, anti-semites, and racialists. And one of their chief objectives, along with forcing their misogynist and heteronormative world view on the country, is to keep out brown people. At no time has this been clearer than when they unveiled their new proposal for immigration reform.

    This new ‘reform’ will prioritize so called ‘skilled immigrants’ who speak English above others. When I heard this proposal, I took it personally. My maid, Conchita, immigrated to this country from Honduras a few years ago. If she would have tried to immigrate under the administration’s new proposal, her lack of English proficiency or a skilled trade would have relegated her to the back of the line. Whose job does Conchita’s presence in this country threaten? What American would take her job to be paid eleven dollars an hour? In fact, before Conchita, I couldn’t even find anyone who would clean my home and watch my children for less than twenty-five dollars an hour. I couldn’t pay that and nor should I be forced to when there are immigrants like Conchita that are willing to work for less. I mourn the possible loss of opportunity for people like Conchita and myself, if this immigration ‘reform’ is passed.

    Even more personally for me, though, is that this new bill has worried me about my oldest son’s future. My son, Tim, graduated from Stanford a few years ago and got a job working in computer engineering at a nearby manufacturer. He started out making a good salary, for a recent college graduate, and everything seemed to be going good for him. But over the past three years he hasn’t received a raise and he’s noticed that his company has started employing people who aren’t local. For instance, he told me that his new supervisor, Sanjay, just immigrated to the US from India. I’m happy that the company has brought diversity to their workforce, but I don’t understand why they had to import management. I don’t claim to be intricately familiar with the engineering profession, but Sanjay is a graduate of Mumbai University (hardly a well-known name within the engineering field) and yet he is supervising six other employees that have all graduated from Stanford, UCLA, and Boston College. I can’t help but think that Sanjay was hired because of the lower than average salary that he was willing to accept. To me, this is a dangerous precedent that not only suppresses wages, but also cheapens the expertise needed in these professional fields. Do we want to reduce the quality of engineers in order to save a few thousand dollars? If you’re OK with that, then would you say the same about accountants? Or architects? Or even doctors?

    Pictured: artist’s interpretation of Sanjay, the bad egg

    And besides the obvious skills deficit between a graduate of some foreign university versus our own renowned institutions, there is also the question of timing. Our college graduates today are burdened with high debt and struggle to find even entry level employment in their chosen fields. Why should we be making this situation even more difficult by importing ‘skilled immigrants’ that will undercut their wages and reduce their employment prospects? It’s one thing to have immigrants like Conchita who provide Americans with affordable service, but it is quite another to undermine American expertise. I had thought that we, as a country, had already come to this conclusion, before an uprising of drug-addled bigots in other parts of the country surprised me by electing a buffoonish racist.

    We cannot allow this sinister piece of legislation to redefine our country. I say we allow in more Conchitas and less Sanjays. It’s just good economics.

  • Who are the protectionists?

    Shortly after President Trump’s election there were commentators who bemoaned the effect that the new president would have on free trade. And there were reasons for concern. One of the first acts of the administration was to end the Trans Pacific Partnership- a long negotiated free trade pact. This was followed in short order by the administration threatening economic consequences to businesses outsourcing their operations. The president also took to Twitter attacking China as a currency manipulator and reiterated his desire to ‘re-negotiate’ NAFTA. The president also surrounded himself with noted trade protectionists, such as Daniel DiMicco, who is currently a trade representative in the administration. Through his words and actions, President Trump has shown that he is no fan of free trade.

    But the same people who once worried about a revival of high tariffs and onerous sanctions on trade partners are now some of the most vocal proponents of more trade restrictions. To be sure, they are advocating that trade restrictions only be imposed on the right ‘bad guy’ (Iran, North Korea, and particularly Russia) with a bipartisan bill quickly moving through Congress. The bill is unique, in the fact that Congress, which has historically ceded trade authority to the executive branch, has imposed a caveat in this legislation that would prevent the president from unilaterally lifting the trade sanctions. Certainly, the fair weather free traders that support ‘sanctions for me and not for thee’ assert that these three countries pose a unique military threat to the United States and its allies. North Korea is an erratic dictatorship that possesses nuclear weapons; Iran is getting closer to developing its own nuclear weapons (so we’re told); and Russia continues to occupy parts of Ukraine, along with having ‘interfered’ in the most recent presidential election. Respectable society has decided that free trade is important, but not with those who pose an existential threat to our nation.

    Ignoring the question of whether or not these three ‘bad guys’ actually pose a threat to the United States, it’s glaringly obvious that the justification for these economic sanctions, coupled with opposition to others, is rooted in pure hypocrisy. These same ‘free traders’ were just recently lecturing the administration that we should not retreat from opening trade with Cuba, even though that country remains a despotic hell-hole and props up the man-made disaster that is Venezuela by providing arms and personnel. These were the same people that were alarmed every time President Trump talked about penalizing China for currency manipulation and supporting the Kim regime in North Korea. If North Korea poses a unique military threat to the United States, then why are we imposing more meaningless sanctions on that state, while ignoring its Chinese benefactor?

    The response regarding China and Cuba from these selective ‘free traders’ is always the same: engagement is more successful than isolation. Then why doesn’t that philosophy apply to North Korea, Iran, and Russia? It’s clear that neither President Trump, nor his detractors, are particularly keen on actual ‘free trade’. Each one wants to trade with some, while excluding others. The only difference is in who they don’t want to trade with and why. The president, as if ignorant of David Ricardo, wants to restrict trade with countries that enjoy trade surpluses with the United States, while his opponents want to restrict trade with countries identified as the ‘baddies’ by The Weekly Standard. Even those who have whittled the notion of ‘libertarianism’ down to nothing more than ‘free trade and free migration’ seem to be embracing The Weekly Standard mentality. So, since it is obvious to any casual observer that we are all trade protectionists now, can we stop pretending as if the president is the only one that threatens liberal trade?