Brexit and Immigration: More Millionaires than Terrorists.

Britain just decided, via a close vote, less than 2%, to leave the EU.

This is in my opinion a major mistake.  I am not British, nor am I European, so some may think I have no business talking about it.  That is ridiculous - I have no business voting on it, but I am free to discuss it, just as the British and other Europeans discuss our election.

From an economic viewpoint, larger economies are always better than smaller ones.  It's not just economies of scale, not just saving money by doing things once rather than multiple times (one decision about cigarettes, one decision about food dye #7, etc.).  Nor is it only about having to painstakingly re-do a multitude of treaties.

There is also the innate power of free trade.  It is the great equalizer.  Yes, certain British businesses lose out to more efficient European ones - but the British people benefit from the superior companies. Or they used to.   They won't anymore.

But more importantly, Britain is NOT the 'weaker' part of the EU, as such they are the ones with the better companies that will eat the lunch of the Greece and Portugal.  Yes, separate from the EU, they can set Interest rates and other government regulations to deal just with local problems, rather than European ones, but frankly this is not that big a deal.   If we TRULY knew and understood how to do that then we wouldn't have those issues at all.  Sure, we know enough to prevent extremely high inflation but quite frankly we don't really know the ideal value.  As such, our attempts to control things are misguided.  Yes, they can save a small (relative) amount of cash they contribute to the EU, but they lose out on the economies of scale, etc.

But nationality is not just about economics.  There are also social values.

I could see leaving a Union of the majority of the EU was culturally opposed to the values of Britain.  But that's not really the case.

The main 'cultural' issue that is upsetting Britain is Immigration, and quite frankly most of the EU is anti-immigration and anti-Muslim.  That's not a real difference.  The only real difference is the severity of the anti-immigration movement, which is more so in Britain than in other countries.  Not surprising, as Britain won World War II without being invaded, making them far less sensitive to accusations of tyranny than other European nations, which still the bigotry that the NAZI party forced on them.

But Britain's new bigotry isn't going to help them.   It stops one in a million terrorists, while also keeping out thousands of innovative, brilliant, creative, citizens.   There are more soon-to-be millionaires in those immigrants than Terrorists.   Hard working immigrants outnumber the criminals and give more in taxes than the criminals cost.  The net result is a worse Britain, not a better one. 

 So why do people dislike the immigrants?  They are culturally disruptive. The new millionaires invade the old institutions and demand services.   Those new hard working immigrants take jobs from hard working native born.  And the immigrant criminals steal things the native born criminals wanted to steal.    It's all about the competition, and no one wants it.  Sound familiar?  It is - it's the free market at work.

Just as a free market beats a mercantile one, an immigrant friendly country beats an anti-immigrant one.  It's the exact same principle - let anyone do it and let the market decide who is better.

Britain leaving the EU is a huge mistake.  It's obvious to the financial markets and that's why things are getting bad.    Plus side, good time to buy.

Hyeonseo Lee's story

Some American's like to say the World War II was the last 'good war'.  Granted, that was more popular before September 11, 2001, but it is still said, particularly by the more liberal people.

They are wrong.

The last good American was was the Korean War.   Yes, we did not win, but we saved half a country.   There are currently living in about 50 million people 38 thousand sq kilometers. (Source) This compares to about 24.5 million people living in 46 thousand square miles (North Korea).  Yes, North Korea has about 20% more land, and supports half as many people.  The power of freedom.

Is it such a big deal?  Well, if you want to hear a heart rending story, I strongly suggest you watch Hyeonseo Lee's story.   If it leaves you unmoved, please tell your nearest psychiatrist to check if you are a sociopath.

It reminds me the real reason for two things - why I hate communism and why people become communists.

Free people became communists because they saw huge amounts of suffering juxtaposed with wealthy people not paying their fare share of taxes. They saw the huge suffering caused by shmucks who claim they are 'creating jobs', when all they are doing is letting people suffer and die, because it's not their problem - those suffering and dieing are just a bunch of lazy 'takers'.

I hate communism because it does NOT solve that problem. While it promises to solve that problem, it doesn't do it.  But let's be clear, just because it doesn't solve the problem, doesn't mean that the wealthy should keep their money.

Just because you can die of thirst does not mean you should make people drown.  You need a reasonable mix.  We need some taxes and support for the poor, while at the same time letting people have freedom and the right to make a profit.

In addition, after hearing Ms. Lee's story, and the problems she faced dealing with China and Laos, it is quite clear to me that immigration is the only real answer to tyranny.

That means we need to be willing to accept more immigration.   Frankly, turning Cubans (or other such people) away makes us no better than the Chinese government, sending North Koreans refugees back to North Korea.

As for Dennis Rodman - he can go stay with his friend in North Korea.  We don't need him here.

Immigration Rreform

As it seems likely to pass, I want to talk about Immigration Reform.

One of the main issues is 'amnesty'.  By that, people refer to giving illegal immigrants a benefit, making it easier for them to become citizens than normal people.

I think they should be neither aided nor punished in the new legal system.  

But there are lots of things we do wrong.  Lets start with the first thing:

1. 1)  We have no guest worker program.  Look, America NEEDS cheap labor.  We need farm workers, maids, gardeners, and child care.   We typically hire immigrants to do this hard 'unskilled' labor.  So it needs to be part of the law.
2. We give special preferences to certain countries.  Pure racism.  It should be stopped.
3. We don't let in enough of the very talented workers.
4. We give special preferences to family members - not just husband/wives/children, but also brothers, sisters, etc.

I think we need to fix that.

Here are some numbers.

(Source) In 2011, we got 694,193 new citizens.  They tend to move to California, Florida, New York, Texas and New Jersey (in order)  The top five countries are Mexico, India, Philippines, China, and Colombia (in that order).   By far most are from Mexico, and by far most go to California.

To become a citizen, you must have Legal Permanent Resident status (LPR), be 18, lived here for at least 5 years (3 if married to a US citizen), speak, read, write English, pass a simple Government and History test, and have good moral character.

There are certain exceptions for legal (not biological) children of US citizens and people that served in our military.

Now let's talk a bit more about the various quota methods.

There is no quota on numbers to become citizen.  There are quotas on Legal Permanent Resident Status (Visas).

Immediate relatives (Spouse/widow/widower/children under 21 and parents of an adult citizen).   This includes step and adopted relationships.  There are NO quotas for this category.  An unlimited number of people can get in by marring.

Note children means under 21. Unmarried children means adult children.  Married children are adult children that are married

F1  Unmarried children (and their children, i.e. grandchildren)
F2  Spouses, Children and unmarried children of green card holders. 
F3 Married children (and their spouses and children)
F4  Brothers and sisters, their spouses and children.

First off all, this seems ridiculously complicated to me.  Partly because we seem to be running it as a charity, instead of a country.  Millions of people want to get into the US we should not give it out to the saddest story.    I have no idea why F2 and F4 exist.   People that are not citizens should not be granting benefits to other.  Brothers and Sisters should not get special treatment.


Next are the Employment based quotas.

Here you have:

E1  Extraordinary people  (Athletes, CEOs and other celebrity types)
E2  Professionals  (Doctors, lawyers, Scientists, etc.)
E3  Skilled workers
E4  Special (Clergy, employees of the US government, members of certain international organizations such as Red Cross, etc.)  also their family
E5  Investors  - you can buy in with a $500,000 investment.

That's about it.

OK,   lets talk about how it should work.  We should be offering 4 different types of Visas.

1. Work Card.   Anyone that is not pregnant and not a criminal.   States can put a 'foreign worker' extra tax of up to 25% on those that have it.   They last for a period of 6 months, renewable for another 6 months  - as long as you have not gotten pregnant (pregnancy test required for women - paid for by the US from fees charged to both male and female people that apply).  After 1 year, you must leave for at least 3 months, then you can return and try again.  If you get pregnant while on this, you will never be given another Work Card.  NO QUOTAS.
2. Legal Resident Card.   Usually only granted to spouses, children and parents of existing citizens or people with Professional Card or the Green Card.   Also may be granted to 'hardship cases' (i.e. you are seeking asylum, etc.)   You can only work upto 20 hours a week using this card.   If you are found working more than 20 hours a week using this card, you will never be given any other card (unless you yourself report it within the first month of it happening).  No special taxes.  NO QUOTAS
3. Professional Card.  You can't be taxed different with this.   To get it, you must qualify as what used to be the old E1,E2, E4, or E5.  Note this includes soldiers and other employees of the US government.   NO QUOTAS.
4. Green Card - old E3, F1 and F3.   Quota on how many can get this.   

Make it clear that Work Cards do not grant LPR.  Otherwise keep the same system.

Note, these changes mean that we will get a lot more extraordinarily people, and professionals.  We will have guest workers without being forced to give them citizenship.   Brothers and sisters of citizen and green card holders can apply for and get Work Cards.   Permanent Residency is a luxury item, not a charity item.

The Two GOP's

It is increasingly clear that the GOP has unofficially split into two parties.  The Tea Party and the Skilled GOP.

The Tea Party knows what it wants.  They have no idea how to get it.  They have no idea that democracy is all about compromise. They also have no idea that a lot of what they want is actually impossible.  They have been fed lies by FOX and the Skilled GOP and believe them.

The Skilled GOP is very different.   They no exactly how things work and how to get things done.  They value compromise.  They remember all the lies they told (and convinced Fox to tell).   The problem is, most of the world right blames them for everything.  They failed on so many levels no one trusts them.  Not the traditional GOP base, not the T Party, and definitely not the Democrats.


So what can they do?  What is their path forward?

They need a leader.  A real one.

Like Reagan.  Or Clinton.  Or Obama.  All three of those men grabbed hold of the reigns and marched them in on direction.   Among other things leaders make decisions about which goals to emphasize and which to put off for another day.  Which is the exact thing the GOP needs - they keep trying to go in two different directions.

So lets talk a bit about which direction they can go.


Money:
Deficit Reduction or Tax Reduction.  There are two entirely different themes, no one seriously thinks you can do both.    Pick one and make it your priority.  You can NOT push for both.  It's like trying to build a device that flies in the air and also swims down to the depths of the ocean.

Abortion:
Here there are two paths - 'regulate it to a minimum in as many states as possible' and 'quietly accept the current status quo.'  Let's be honest hear.  The majority of the country considers it to be legal and just. The Supreme Court is on our side, and won't change for the next 4 years - and honestly probably not ever.  The far right never likes to admit it, but most of the country dis-agrees with them on this issue.  The only way they win is on local votes and even then only because most of the people are not energized.  When you talk about abortion, the democrats win national votes.  Every single time the right opens their mouth about abortion, they convince one more independent to turn liberal.

Immigration:
They realize they are a party loved by racists.  As such, they actively try to prevent immigration in general, and Hispanic immigration in particular.  The problem is that while most of the GOP is anti-immigration, the far majority of the country is pro immigration.  Worse, the GOP has consistently used anti-immigration as an excuse for outright illegal, racist discrimination.  From ignoring rape accusations by hispanic women, to calling children whose parents broke the law criminals, to cutting funding for Hispanic books.   They lost votes from this and they know they lost votes. They have given up on the black vote, the Asian vote, the Jewish vote.  They can't give up on the Hispanic vote.  They need to not just  stop blocking immigration reform, they need to cave entirely and end the discussion.

Homosexuality:
This is one area where they can keep their prejudice.   Yes, they are losing ground on this issue, and will continue to do so.  But honestly, their hatred has made such an enemy that even if they turned around today, it would not matter.  The Republicans won't win the majority of Gays votes for the next ten or twenty years even if the GOP ended their discrimination today.  More importantly, gays, unlike Hispanic and Black, do not make up the majority of any congressional district that is not already super-liberal.  The very dispersed, everywhere nature of homosexuality dilutes it's political power. 

Military:

Here again they need to pick one direction.  They can either go for the strong nationalistic super-power of the post World War II times, or the isolationism of the pre war politics.  But trying for both makes gets you nowhere.  Honestly, if they were to move towards isolationism, with a 10% reduction in the military, (either using the savings to cut taxes or cut the deficit - their choice), they could win back quite a lot of independents.  Or they could stop talking about money and insist on greater military spending to 'help the economy' and make the world s safer place.

Pollution:
The 'denial' strategy was always a short term tactic.  It can't win, as times goes by it becomes clearer and clearer that the world is warming, in large part due to man's behavior.  Every day it becomes more and more obvious that pollution is affecting the weather.   They need a new lie, or as they prefer to call it, a new narrative

The GOP's real demographic problem.

Much has been said of the GOP's demographic problem.  Everyone is talking about how the GOP has to get the Hispanic vote.

Here are some basic numbers.

72% of voters were white and they went 40% for Obama ,58% for Romney.

13% of voters were Black and went 93% for Obama and 6% for Romney
10% were Hispanic and they went 69% for Obama and 29% for Romney
5% were Asian, 74% for Obama, 25% for Romney
5% were 'other', 58% for Obama and 38% for Romney.

So that means, out of 100 voters:

30 White Obama fans    vs.   42 White Romney fans
12 Black Obama fans     vs.   1  Black Romney fan
7 Hispanic Obama fans  vs.    3 Hispanic Romney fans
4 Asian Obama fans      vs     1 Asian Romney fan
3 other Obama fans       vs.    2 other Romney fans
------------------------------------------------------------
56 total Obama fans     vs    49 other Romney fans

(as always, the numbers don't add up to 100% because of rounding)


The GOP is worried that they only got 29% of the Hispanic vote.   They have bigger problems.


Honestly, 29% is not that bad.  Not compared to 25% for Asians.  And certainly not compared to 6% for blacks  Blacks outnumber Hispanics.  


OK, so you can't see black people voting against a black president.  Well in 2004 Senator Kerry won 88%  of the black vote and Gore won 90% in 2000. (Source)  It's not because Obama is black, it's because he's a Democrat.

The GOP does not have a Hispanic problem.  It has a NON-WHITE problem.  It's not just the Hispanics.  It's blacks, Asians and even 'other'.  There is NO reason they should abandon the black 13% of the electorate.  The fact that they are talking about fixing their Hispanic problem and not even talking about their black problem is itself telling.   It means they won't even consider trying to get black votes.

It's not just an 'immigration' issue.  Treating it that way will not solve the problem.  Part of it is a   racism issue.   Until they fix that issue, they will never win the majority of a votes of any non-white electorate.

The republicans are just a little bit racist.  Strange, because 60 years ago it was the southern Democrats that were racists.  The DNC got over that mainly because of the actions of two people - JFK and Lyndon B. Johnson.  Those two presidents, mainly Johnson, moved us forward away from racism, leaving the GOP to pick up the old racists.

But being just a little bit racist isn't a horrible thing.  Just ask Kate Monster.   The GOP has an even bigger problem. Right now, I'm about to show just a little bit racism myself.  If you heard a black man voted for Romney - most people would assume "He's rich." Because from my experience, most poor black people don't vote Republican.  Frankly I'm always surprised when I hear about poor white people voting Republican.  As a white Democrat, I wish that poor white people were as logical about their vote as poor black people.  OK, enough of my racism.

It's not just racism, it's class-ism.   The GOP likes to talk about "Class Warfare".  They blame the Democrats, saying when we demand taxes be 'fair', it's class warfare.  Nope.  It was class warfare when you created the unfair taxes in the first place.  The Republicans are the master of class warfare.  As proven by Romney's famous quote.

Here it is: "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."


He refuses to admit that any poor people might actually BE victims.   It has to be their fault.  They can't be worth saving or even worrying about them.   And that's the basic problem with the GOP.  They insist that everyone take full responsibility for every bad thing that happened to them.  I'm all for taking responsibility for things you do.  But not everything bad is caused by the victims.

Get raped? It's your own damn fault, says the GOP.   Get sick and lose your job?   Your fault.   Get denied a job because of your skin color?  It's your fault.     Get beaten up because your gay?  Your fault.  Get hit by a hurricane?   Your fault.
 
The GOP is wrong.  There is evil in this world.  It is not a karmic-ally neutral universe where God punishes you for things you did bad.   Bad things happen to good people.  The government needs to take this into account.


Republicans needs an attitude adjustment.  You can believe in capitalism without insisting on continuing to mistreat people that did not do anything to deserve it.  That is the real problem with their philosophy.

Yes, there are some people in the world that don't try.  Their own misfortunes are caused by their failures.  But it is just as often that their misfortunes are caused by sheer chance, their parents or by other people.

Sometimes you come up with a brilliant idea and make a fortune.  Other times just as you are putting all your money into your brilliant idea, someone else comes up with an even better one.  There is no second place prize in capitalism. Mark Twain went bankrupt betting on a new improved typesetting machine when another, better one came out.  There was this really cool shoe lace holder system for kids that came out just before Velcro.  The guy that came up with that idea lost all his money, as velcro blew it away.  Doesn't mean he didn't work hard or come up with a brilliant idea.   Just bad luck that someone else came up with a better one too soon after he came up with his.

The GOP needs to admit that the government has a place helping down and out people.  They need to admit that being born poor and in the wrong school district is something that does affect your chances.  No, not everyone can overcome it.

It also needs to admit that the Democrats are not fools and traitors, that we have ideas and morals.   That we are part of this country and deserve a fair say.

They need to be a loyal opposition once again.

Political Extortion.

I have heard some people argue in favor of voting for Romney as follows:

1) Romney and Obama are not that strikingly different.  Both are moderates, Obama is a shade more liberal, Romney is a shade more conservative.  In general, I agree with this point, in part because Romney, who during the primary claimed to be a far right zealous Republican, has during the general election, totally flip-flopped and claimed to be a moderate.

2) But the GOP has refused to compromise one bit, insisting on portraying Obama as a radical, making getting rid of him their "#1 job", etc. etc.  In general, I think this statement is also true.

3) Conclusion, as long as the GOP has the house (and it looks like they will retain a majority their, even if they lose a couple of seats), that it's best to have Romney as President in order to get things done.   

But I don't agree with their conclusion.

For the purpose of this argument, let's assume that both assumptions (#1 and #2) are correct  - the candidates are close and the GOP has actively refused to compromise (in reality, the DNC is also partially to blame - although much less so) .  Because if the blame resides on the Democrats as well as the Republicans, then their pro-Romney argument falls apart as the Democrats will be just as annoying and refusing to compromise (and via their Senate majority, just as much a roadblock).

There are several reasons to not bow down to their extortion.

1)  Those 'shades' they mentioned in step 1, are important.  Government/legal progress  is made by baby steps more often than by large steps.  (This is Legal change as opposed to Political change - political change tends to happen in large steps.)  It's the difference between accepting gays in the military and maintaining 'separate but equal'.  It's the difference between getting another more conservative Supreme Court Judge that might be a Roberts (or might be a Scalia) and getting an actual liberal on the Court.

2)  We don't give in to extortion.  If you do, you invite more extortion.  Better to get nothing done and train the the extortionist not to extort then it is to bow down to them and accept their demands.  We are free men, not slaves, and the price of freedom is sometimes high.   If this means we go through some pain now, then we gain far more in the future by having better leaders that have learned from their mistakes.

3)  You can't trust an extortionist. They won't pass reasonable laws even with Romney in charge. That is, first they demand X, when they get it, they then demand 2X.   Better to have nothing done than to have bad things done.

4) If the other party is in fact being that much of an extortionist, it opens up more objectionable actions by the president.  That is, the GOP is not the only one that can act unilaterally.    The president can and will do a lot without their help, particularly if they refuse to act.  A key example of this is the president's ruling on immigration.   When the GOP refused to act on immigration reform, he declared we won't enforce the law against certain people that are clearly not criminals.  (If your parents bring you hear when you are a minor, you have not broken the law, your parents have.)  This frees the executive branch to devote precious and limited resources to pursuing actual, dangerous criminals.

If the GOP never realizes that the Democrats can fight back, that just means the President will have an easier time defeating them.  If they do, they will stop trying to extort us and start compromising.

For these four reasons, it is a bad idea to vote for Romney if your only concern is to get things done.


As a side note, much of our political structure is designed to prevent things from getting done.  That is one of the reasons we have both a Senate and a House. So a stalemate is not quite as bad as people think it is.

The Problem with Personhood Laws

Several states have created person-hood laws, and others are trying.  They are in effect an end-run against the SCOTUS ruling legalizing abortion.   Declare someone to be a 'person' and you can charge anyone that kills them with murder, as opposed to abortion.

First let me congratulate the creators for a well thought out plan.   The question is, why didn't they do this in the first place?  Instead of making abortion illegal, just charge the doctor with murder?   Because if you don't believe the embryo is a person, then abortion should be legal, and the defense just have to prove reasonable doubt.

There only reason they has specific 'anti-abortion' laws was the problem in convincing a jury that an embryo was a person.  They originally solved it by making specific laws against abortion, as opposed to declaring them a person.  Person-hood laws seems on the face to be a superior solution.

But sorry, these laws are unconstitutional.

You see, if the individual states have the legal authority to declare someone a person, than by definition they also have the legal right to declare someone NOT a person and that they therefore do not have any rights.   If you can make it illegal to kill someone by declaring them a person, then the same state could also make it legal to to kill someone by declaring them not a person.

We fought a civil war over this issue.  A bunch of racists declared slaves to not be people - in fact they declared them to be three fifths of a person, as per Article I, Section 2. of the original Constitution, at least for census purposes.

But let's ignore this glaring problem.

So, what US constitutional laws prevent the states from declaring someone a person - and by definition, declaring someone not a person.


Well, The 14th Amendment (passed July 9th, 1868 - just after the Civil War) says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This declares who is a citizen and not a citizen, with the word 'person' a key part of the definition.  You need to have been born or naturalized.  The unborn don't qualify and can't qualify as a citizen.  They clearly are not citizens and have not rights.  But perhaps you could argue that it lets the states decide what the word 'person' means.   But you see, lawyers have tried this trick before.  Hell, even Bill Clinton tried it ("It depends on the meaning of the word 'is'.")  Judges are wise to this trick.

The states can't deny these rights to any person.   This also means they can't give those privileges.  The state of New York can't suddenly declare some random immigrant to be a citizen, the constitution reserves that power to the federal government. 

Let's say I am wrong.  Say the states can decide who is and who is not a person.   Then the State of Montana could declare all cows people.  Montana has 967,440 human and over 2.6 million cattle.  Suddenly, Montana has tripled it's population.  The cows were born  in the US, so by the constition, they become citizens.   Obviously Montana declares them wards of the state and unable to vote.  But the state can insists on getting 3x the number of congressman and 3x the number of electoral votes.  Not to mention Federal money, including Medicaid, unemployment, welfare, etc. all for the benefit of their new 'persons'.

What, cows too ridiculous?  What about living cell samples taken from a live human?  Can the state culture 2,000,000 of them and declare each one a person?  No. Not even if the cells are surgically removed from the womb of a willing woman (technically 'born').

It is fairly obvious why the states can not do this.   It is unconstitutional for the states to define legal language.  They can suggest, they can offer advice, but the judges decide what the words mean.

Article II, Section of the US Constitution gives the Supreme Court Judges the right to interpret the Constitution, NOT the states.  It says "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..."

Judges, not the states, determine the meaning of words for legal purposes.  The states can't override the judges decisions.  The states legislature can try to influence them, but the can not change the legal definition of words that are important to the Constitution.  They can't declare women to be cattle, they can't declare cattle to be people, and they can;t declare unborn embryos to be people.     Which means the states can not decide who is and is not a person.  Because if they could, they could declare cows (or horses, or pigs, etc)  to be people, thus granting them right to be counted under the Census, giving a state too many electoral votes.

The only way to get a legal person-hood bill into law is to over-ride the Supreme Court.  That takes an Amendment to the United States Constitution, nothing less.

An examination of conservative thought process

Dan Mitchell, a top conservative fiscal expert, likes to use a beer tab explanation of why conservatives want to tax the poor and let the rich off scott free.  I find his explanation very misleading, to the point of fraud, but it is helpful in revealing his thought process.   (You can find his incredibly poorly thought out analogy here.)

A quick summary: ten men go to a bar, they have a $100 bar tab, and they split it up in a way similar to the current tax bill.   They get a discount 'because they are such good customers'.  Then they argue about how the discount was divided.  Eventually they beat up the rich guy, who paid over 60% of the original bill because he got about 50% of the discount.  Next time they go the bar, the rich guy doesn't show up, and they can't pay their bill.

This analogy is amazing poor for our current tax system.  It's only true importance is in describing the mindset of a conservative.  For purposes of this piece, I will pretend all conservatives think the way Dan Mitchell does.  Yes, I know that is a bit of a stretch, but in my experience his core beliefs are rather typical.

Conservatives thinks governments are a luxury, not a necessity.  Bars are luxuries, you don't need them.   Governments are a necessity, more akin to a grocery store.  That's why we have them.  No one LIKES government - not liberals or conservatives, we need it.  We do argue about what it needs to do.

Conservatives thinks that country is owned/controlled just by the conservatives, as opposed to all Americans, ignoring the liberals and the moderates.  He had the bar tender willing offer a a discount - but tax cuts are a Republican 'solution' looking for a problem.  It is NOT something Democrats are known for.   To correct the analogy, it it should be the customers demanding a discount, claiming that if they get a discount, they can buy more stuff and it will all even out.  (aka - the core GOP belief that  lower taxes rates grow the economy - higher tax income).

Conservatives refuses to admit that the wealthy are the ones in control, as opposed to the poor.   In the analogy, the rich guy isn't demanding the discount, but in real life, he is.   The top 1% don't sit back and accept what everyone else offers.  Congressmen are almost all wealthy, they give access to the wealthy and most of the money in politics comes from the wealthy.   Ignoring this fact is ridiculous.
 
Conservatives ignore the fact that while they are giving things to the wealthy, they are also taking from the poor.   Because the GOP doesn't just insist on tax cuts, they also want to cut services to the poor.    A better analogy would be if our wealthier patrons insist that the grocers store stop giving away water to thirsty people, claiming it is just a waste of money and they want to get all the money back in discounts, not in free sample.  Suddenly, having the wealthy guy get beat up at the end of the story makes a lot more sense if he was cutting off free water to thirsty people, just to lower his bill.    


Conservatives insists that everyone else is picking on him, during the exact same time that he is throwing punches.  Jon Stewart makes a career of throwing exact hypocritical quotes from Fox back at the people that spew filth out.  Anyone that watches the news or politics hears far more comments protecting the wealthy than the rich guy.  There is not a single comment on Fox news about how bad the wealthy people are - unless they are wealthy Democrats.   Even CNN is more likely to talk about 'job creators' than about 'robber barons'.   In reality, we aren't beating up a poor defenseless wealthy guy -  at the very least it is a fair fight, and many of us think he gets in far more low blows than we get in.

Conservatives love to 'focus the discussion', not acknowledging the counterpoint.   Effectively, it's like saying look how you don't need to spend more on your house because you just had the roof done, even though the foundation is rotten.   If his analogy was fair, the business should have a flat entree fee just to get in the door that everyone has to pay - and it's about the same amount - rich or poor.  In real life, in addition to Federal income taxes, which does tax the wealthy slightly more than the poor,  (except for the very wealthy who pay less tax than the middle class), there are a ton of state and federal taxes that affect the poor far far more than the wealthy - from FICA, sales tax, state income tax, etc.etc. etc.   Our tax system is set up to have the wealthy pay federal income tax and not much else, while the poor pay the majority of other taxes.

(Side note - You shouldn't be fixing the federal income tax first.  A prime example of this is sales tax.  High sales tax directly affects business sales.   When you have a tax holiday, sales go up.   The same can NOT be said about income tax.  Salaries are higher in states with high state income taxes, lower in states with low state income taxes.  Top 5 states with highest income per person are Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, New York.  (average income by state)  The top 6 states with the highest income tax are: California, Hawaii, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island.  (income tax by state).  Note, the low end gets weird because states try to attract retirees and they don't have salaries (Florida most famously.), and we are talking about income tax affecting salaries.)

Conservatives want to kow-tow to the rich to keep them happy.   The 'moral' of his story is that if we keep unfairly requiring the rich to pay an equal share of their wealth as taxes,  then they will pick up and leave.   To that I say, FINE.  As long as we tax their wealth on the way out, I am totally OK with wealthy people deciding they don't want to be Americans.   If they go, that just will create more opportunities for new wealthy people to rise in America.

We are not a cold war communist country with a Berlin wall.  We don't need to keep people in.  If you don't like this country, leave.   If you'd rather live in a third world hell hole where the poor get no services just so that you don't have to pay taxes, then GO THERE, and leave America as it is.   Because we will be just fine without you.   But we will tax your money on the way out - you earned it here, you need to pay your fair share of taxes.   Also, don't come crying to us when the poor people overthrow your government and take your wealth.

Real Americans are Americans not because of greed or wealth, but because we believe in:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note the total absence of reverence for money.    If you value money above and beyond Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, then we don't need you.


I would pay double taxes to stay in this country - as long as everyone else has to do the same thing.   That's a very important thing - because while that single sentence I quoted above makes no mention of money, it does state that all men are created EQUAL.


This is of course the most revealing of all - certain conservatives think money is the single most important thing in the world and the only reason anyone would ever select a country to live in.  They would give up their rights, freedoms, all to get money.  Which quite obviously demonstrates their value system.

Obama's Immigration Policy

The GOP has been expanding the power of Congress for quite some time.  Among other things, they expanded the power of the filibuster and used it relentlessly.

The president can't expand his power.  He can't suddenly decide to do thins they couldn't otherwise get.

But he CAN do is decided not to his job.   He does it all the time.  They decide not to prosecute corporate crimes all the time.  The president has the full power of Pardon, he can pardon anyone and everyone.  Including illegal aliens.  He has that legal authority.

The GOP is trying to claim it's his subordinates power, not his.   They are wrong.   It is his decision to make, no one else's.

Yes, usually he lets other, lower people make those decisions.   But they get the power from HIM.  He makes the decisions, he has the power, they have nothing in and of themselves.  It's his right, not theirs.

George Bush had a basic rule of not enforcing the Clean Air Act.  The Supreme Court kept yelling at him for doing it, but so what?  It was legal for him to do that, and it is legal for Obama to not enforce the immigration law against children. 

More importantly, he didn't just do this.  One of politic's favorite way to lie is to focus everything down to what their opponent did, ignoring everything else.   Obama he tried to get Congress to act, they refused to act out of cowardice.  Note it was cowardice, not politics.   The Hispanic vote is key and they know it.  It's why Romney - who said he disliked the President's order - refused to state he would reverse the order.

If a candidate for congress is so scared he won't admit to reversing an order he publicly said was bad, then that means one thing:

The order can't be illegal and the man that gave it had more courage.


If it was truly illegal or wrong, than Romney would have said he would reverse it.   Obama  acted with courage and decisiveness.

Leadership is not about following what everyone else is doing.  It's not about making the easy decisions.  It's about making the HARD decisions - decisions you know some people will hate.  The GOP has huge issues with immigration.  They hate it and wish everyone would stop trying to enter this country, PERIOD (legal or illegal).

Romney demonstrated no leadership.   Obama demonstrated strong leadership.  He took a stand on an issue that was controversial.  That's the definition of leadership.

Texas Redistricting

Texas is growing.  Well, their Hispanic population is growing.  The whites, not so much.

Total population (from 2000 to 2010) started at 20,851,802 and rose to 26,145,561.  That is a rise of 4,293,741 people, or about 20.6%.  This is a lot - the US as a whole grew only about 9.7%  (source).  When one state grows more than the rest of the country, they get extra congressman - at the expense of those states that lost.  In Texas's case the 2010 Census gave them four new congressmen.


Those congressman get assigned to districts, which are set up by the state legislatures.  They get rid of all the old districts and make new ones - that may or may not bear any resemblance to the old ones.  This is called redistricting.  The state legislatures are pretty free to do whatever they want.  They could keep everything simple and make a bunch of regular shapes - squares, rectangles.  But that would simply be doing their job, without taking into consideration their own personal interests.

Instead they are almost always very partisan.  They come up with wierd shaped districts to do things like put all their opponents in one district, and let themselves get other districts that are easy for them to win.     That is, if you are creating 5 districts out of 3.5 million people, 1.5 million of whom are liberals and 2 million  of whom are conservatives, you could put 700 million liberals in one one district, and then create 4 other districts, each of which has 200 million liberals and 600 million conservatives.  The districts generally have to be continuous - you can't put one house of liberals surrounded by 10 houses of conservatives in separate districts, but they can be very weirdly shaped, like a spiral.  This version of redistricting is called "Gerrymandering".

In fact, there is also one vile practice, legal in Texas (but not all states - New York does not allow it), of counting criminals in prison as 'residents' of the county they are imprisoned in.  Other states, such as New York, use their legal residence, - i.e. where they lived before prison.  Since the prisoners can't vote, are largely non-white, and usually are put in rural areas to save on money, in effect a small white area can count as a district because of all the black and Hispanic prisoners that can't legally vote. 

The rural prison districts quite literally are stealing the votes of their prisoners, votes they very much use AGAINST the interests of those prisoners (for some reason, voters in rural areas near prisons tend not to like the prisoners).  In fact, given that 1% of our population is currently in prison, and we have 435 congressmen in the country, that means that it would be possible (if we moved all the prisoners in the country to Texas), for the GOP to make at least 5 congressional districts out of just the prisoners and the people that work at the prison.  In effect, you steal 5 congressmen.  Whatever happened to one man one vote?  It's not supposed to be one cop = 5 votes (his + 4 prisoners).

All of this is quite legal, even if it smacks of corruption and in my opinion, outright evil.  In effect the politicians are using government authority to benefit their own party, not the country.    It's kind of like someone passing a law that says donations to their own political party are tax free, but not to their opponent. Why is it legal?  Because the politicians that are doing it are also the people that decide what is legal and illegal.


It's not quite as bad as it sounds.  Another reason it is legal, is that it is not that effective.  You can physically move ALL the people into an area, you can just design a really weird shaped ones to get as many as possible.  More importantly, it only really lasts a couple of years.  People move, age, change their party.   So once every 10 years, the party that is in power tends to get a slight advantage for the next two-four years.  After 5 years or so, the shapes are no longer that helpful.  Except of course for the prison districts - people can't move out of them.  Those are permanent 'pro rural/anti-crime' votes.



But you see, Texas has a problem.   While it is legal to put all the Texan democrats (and yes, they do exist) in one district, it is NOT legal to do the same with all black people.  Or all Hispanic people. Because federal voting rights laws (Voting rights act of 1965) prevent you from eliminating a races effective vote.

Guess who are responsible for Texas's 20% growth rate?  I'll give you a hint - it isn't Germans, French, or Irish.


Non-hispanic whites grew from 10,933,313 to 11,397,345 a gain of 464,032 or about 10.6%.  Not that much better than the country as a whole of 9.7%  A growth rate of 10.6 earns you no more congressmen.


Latinos grew from 6,669,666 to 9,460,921 a gain of 2,791,255,  or about 41.9%


Blacks grew from 2,364,255 to 2,886,825 a gain of 522,570 or about 22.1%


(No other racial group had more than 1 million people)

(Click here to download my an excel source from 2010.census.gov/)

So basically, Hispanics, with a bit of help from blacks are entirely responsible for the fact that Texas outgrew the rest of the country and earned more congressional districts.  If it was just the whites, they would have no new seats.


First, let me point out that at their current rate of growth, Texas will be mostly Hispanic by the next census.  9.5 million growing at 42% will beat 11.4 million growing at 10.6%.  And it will turn mostly Democrat BEFORE then.  In large part because the GOP continues to treat Hispanics poorly, despite the obviousness of this trend.  Texas will once again be a Democratic stronghold, not a Republican one, within 10 years.  In fact, I bet that in 2016, when Obama retires, the Democrats will win all of Texas's electoral votes for presidential.  Even with the prison cheat.  Of course, that assumes someone better than Biden is running.


Second, back to the Texas's problem.  You see, while Texas will become Democrat, right now, it is strongly Republican.  As such, the GOP did the redistricting, try very hard to give Republicans more districts and create no new Democrat districts.


That meant they had to work very hard to give the Hispanics no new districts.  So they took mostly Hispanic districts moved the non-Hispanics out and added more Hispanics to them.  Then they carved out enclaves of non-Hispanic districts for the new ones.  To do this they had to put some Hispanics in the 'GOP' districts, but they made sure to keep it light.  They succeeded, in large part because Hispanics tend to be in the same place - cities and SW border sections of Texas.   All the new districts created by the Republicans in the Texas State legislature were non-hispanic majorities.  Every single one.


People noticed.  They sued.  The federal court agreed it was racial discrimination and came up with their own redistricting plan that gave the Hispanics 3 new districts - which were obviously Democrat districts and one district that is probably going to be Republican.


This pissed off the Republicans - they were in power and thought it was THEIR right to gerrymander, not the Democrats.  How dare the Democrats do what the GOP wanted to do?


In fact I have read of Republicans complaining that the judge gave the districts to the Democrats on purpose - all the while ignoring the clear fact that the GOP did exactly the thing they are complaining the Judge did.  In other words - the GOP's complaint is that they have the legal right to be corrupt, not the judge. 


The thing is the Judge is not being corrupt.  He did NOT look for Democrats, he looked for Hispanics - the people that caused the population growth in the first place.


This is not judicial activism, this is outright fairness. You want the extra congressman the Hispanics earned for the state?  Give them to the Hispanics.  No you can't steal them.   Trying to will just make sure you lose their votes for the next 20 years, like you lost them the last 40.


So it goes to the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS)  The question is, will the court say "It is the Legislatures allowed to be a partisan dick and screw over the Hispanics that gave them the new districts."   Or will they say that anti-discrimination laws prevent it?


Honestly, this will only affect Texas for 2-4 more years.  By 2016, the Hispanics will have moved enough to mess up the carefully drawn GOP districts and it won't matter that much anymore.  In fact, I expect Texas to go Democrat a BIG way by then.   But till then, the SCOTUS decision will control about 3 congressmen for the next 4 years.

We need to reform immigration law before we build a fence.

The GOP is flat out wrong about immigration.   Their official policy is to change the law to stop the illegal immigration, then create a policy to let more people in.  They leave the proposed policy up in the air on purpose.  It lets everyone read into it what they want, without committing to anything.


The problem with is four fold:

1.  Ladders are cheaper than fences.  Cripes, even the tunnels the drug cartels use are cheaper than the long fences we would need.   It's not impossible to stop illegal immigration into the US, just prohibitively expensive. When times are good in the US, poor people from other countries spend thousands of dollars to get here for low end jobs.   We can't stop them with pocket change, it requires huge amounts of money.
2. There are already 11 million people in the country - building a fence won't force them out.    The immigration laws focus more on prevention then on kicking people because as hard as it is to block them with a fence, it is even harder to hunt them down and kick them out.
   
3. Their 'goalposts' are movable.    We can never totally stop all illegal immigration.  People can always fly in on a tourist visa and get work.  As such, even if we gave the GOP everything they wanted, they would say it wasn't enough.  We have already strengthened the laws against illegal immigration multiple times and they still won't let us change the policy.
4. We NEED their cheap labor - and their money (source)  As Alabama has shown, without it, our food dies on the vine with no one to harvest it.  Millions of Americans will lose their livelihoods without illegals working for cheap pay and spending their money here. 

You want to stop illegals from entering this country?  Stop hiring them.  Accept either the much higher wages for low priced services such as farm labor, lawn care, maids, nannies, etc or go without those services.

Because the desire for cheap labor to fill those positions is not just the cause of the illegal immigration, it is a separate problem that is far more important than illegal immigration and the illegal immigration FIXES that problem.  If we get rid of illegal immigration we need to also fix that problem.   Look at what happened to Alabama.  It's not that horrible to have produce from one state spoil on the ground.  It is far worse to have it happen to ALL states.

The obvious solution is to create a solid guest worker program.  If we build it the right way, then the illegal immigration problem will go away.  Build the guest worker problem first and it gets RID of the need to deal with the illegal.

I've talked about this before (Arizona law about immigration).   With the right guest worker plan, we can legalize immigrants, get a solid identification of them (to prevent terrorists entering the country), raise money for the federal government (by charging for a green card), raise money for the states (via state income taxes that could be higher for the guest workers than American citizens).

Best of all, if we do it right, we can regulate the workers.  Among other things, we can revoke the right to be in the country for anyone 5 or more months pregnant.   No more anchor babies.

As for 'amnesty' for illegals, that argument is stupid.   What if during Prohibition some moron would to suggest that "we can't legalize alcohol unless we first arrest every single person that drunk alcohol during Prohibition."  No.  That's is not how laws work.   Legallizing something does not mean we have to arrest everyone that used to violate the law.

In fact, a major part of the reason we legalize something is that we recognize that the LAW was as much a problem as the people that broke the law.  If you don't think the law was a bad idea, then we wouldn't change it.  If the law was a bad idea than you can NOT demonize the people that broke it.

Yes, we should not give 'special benefits' to someone that is already in the country illegally.  But that does not mean we have to refuse to let them work here in the future - anymore than if we legallized pot we could then refuse to sell it to people that had previously been arrested for buying pot.

The solution is simple - whatever arrangements we make for the guest worker program should only be done in a US Embassy/Consulate or at the Borders (including ports and international airports).  

Complaints about letting people already in the US apply as a Guest worker should be laughed at just as we would have laughed at an idiot that insisted no one ever arrested for drinnking/bootlegging alcohol be allowed to drink it after prohibition.

Immigration and Chaos: Please come to America and Take Our Jobs.

I recently read a very interesting piece by Rob Asghar. (CNN Opinion)

 In it he analyzes the myth that US has fallen behind.   The heart of his point is that real business innovation is a chaotic process and that is why the US will not (in the foreseeable future) be overtaken by other countries.  He states that invention, innovative growth is a chaotic process and it is the American ability to thrive in the chaos that fueled our growth.

But once the innovations are developed, it is not chaotic.  You can simply copy the winner.   Also, it is cheaper to start out with the best, as opposed to work your way through the earlier inventions.   Build 1000 iPods, as opposed to 100 walkmans, 500 diskmans, and finally 1000 iPods.  

Other countries have been 'developing', not by actually innovating, but instead by copying ideas invented in America and/or refining them.   This works fine - as long as you have someone else to copy.  But eventually, like Japan did, you catch up to the US.  Then you have to break new ground, which is a lot harder and tougher.  It takes new ideas - and a willingness to let people have the new ideas.

Conservatives recognize this and it the basis of their 'anti-regulation' belief system.   The more regulations, the less space to innovate in.  But at the same time, regulations can keep businesses from conspiring against their competition.  That is,no price fixing, not "drive them out of business", etc.    Some regulations encourage innovation, as opposed to preventing it.

But the thing is, you can't just decided to innovate financially.  If you teach your citizens to innovate they won't just build a better music player.  They also demand other freemds.  Speech, religion, civil rights.  Financial freedom goes hand in hand with other freedoms.  It's an entire culture, not a business method.

When the Middle East and Asia tries to create their own financial freedoms, they either fail entirely to create a real culture of innovate or spend half their effort sabotage themselves by preventing the culture from spreading outside the financial zone.

This is America's edge.

It is also a high risk strategy.  In effect, it is the freedom to jump off the a financial cliff that lets us learn how to climb financial mountains.


Rob is pretty sure we are set for the forseeable future.  He is almost right.  The thing about Chaos is that it eventually settles down. The stablest form takes over.  Unless of course it has a constant influx of energy.

Specifically, we need immigrants.   That's good, because we have a large supply of people wanting in.   The forces of stabilization know this and are trying to stop them.   Here their clarion call:

"They took our jobs".

Yeah, THAT'S WHY WE NEED THEM.    Let me make this very clear.  I want all americans to be just a little bit afraid that an Immigrant will come to America and take our jobs.  Mine included.

We need the competition.  Competition keeps us strong.   Not just between corporations, but between employees.  Saying you don't want immigrants to come to this country and take our jobs is like the Heavy Weight Champion of the World saying he only wants to fight people he has already beaten.  You get good by beating other good people.  If America is going to continue to be the best, we need to recruit the best from around the world - and make our own citizens compete against them internally as well as externally.

Now, let me make it clear, I fully expect most of the people that come to America in search of a better job to fail.   I expect them to end up as the 99%, not the 1%.   Americans are very good at what we do, and it is tough for outsiders to compete with us.    But some of them will win.  Some of them will beat us.  And by doing so, they earn the right not just for themselves to be an American citizen, not just for their family, but for their friends and associates as well.

But that ends up with a population growth problem.  There are several ways to handle this, and one of them is a guest worker program.  Not everyone belongs here, but we need to offer them chance. I like the idea of giving people the chance to come to America, work hard, and decide they don't want to live here for the rest of their life.

Arizona Law about immigration

Recently the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) ruled that it is legal for states to revoke the business licenses of companies hiring illegal immigrants.

In general, I am against anti-immigration laws.  But this ruling is just.   SCOTUS  noted that it only penalizes after the second infringement, preventing punishment for infringing by mistake.  More importantly it was not an attempt to punish latinos, as it punished the employers, rather than the immigrants.

In fact, I personally would revoke the federal laws that give amnesty to the employers.  Everyone always complains about giving amnesty to the immigrants, but they allow the government to give amnesty to the employers.  The Federal Law in question prevents "any state of local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ illegal immigrants."

In my mind, we should do it the other way around.  Stop granting amnesty to the American criminals, and start granting amnesty to the immigrants.   The immigrants just want to earn a living wage, doing jobs that americans simply will not do (you try picking vegetables and fruit - their union has a standing offer to let any american citizen that wants to try it out do so).  The American employers are trying to avoid the free markets wage to for citizens.  Yes, they have a tough business, but the way to fix their problem is to change the immigration laws, NOT to quietly let them break the laws and do nothing.

More importantly, it doesn't matter how many immigrants we arrest, as long as we offer jobs, more will come.   The only way to stop the illegal immigration is to stop the employers, not the immigrants.  Of course, I would also legalize a lot more of the work, as we clearly NEED some cheap labor.

My ideal solution to the illegal immigration problem is to do the following:

1. Establish a "guest worker Visa" program.  There estimates for numbers vary between 12 and 20 million.  So offer a set amount of 10 million 3 month visas at any time, up for AUCTION.   Highest bidder wins the right to work in the US for 3 months, expendable for another 3 months if they then pay triple what they paid the first time.  US agriculture (and gardens and working parents) needs these people, pretending we don't is like shooting yourself in the foot and asking why it hurts.
2. Establish a "Desired Citizen" program to offer permanent green cards to any person that has a Graduate Degree (Masters, PHD, MD, MBA, etc.) from an approved list of 'superior' universities.  Let's cut the red tape for the smart people - we want them here MORE than we want someone that just happens to be related to a US citizen. 
3. Offer a 1 year visa to anyone that worked illegally and turned their employer in.  Payable only if the employer is convicted. 
4. Allow the states to add an "Immigrant Employee Tax" to any non-citizen working in their state of however much they want.   But require this tax be to be a set percentage and applied to ALL non-citizens - whether they be doctors or farm workers.

Note this would:

1. Allow businesses to hire the people we need to keep prices down
2. Allow states to discourage this to whatever extent they want - at the cost of losing businesses to states that are more lenient.
3. Make arresting employers a lot easier.   This should stop tax cheats substantially.
4. Kill the "coyote" business of illegally transporting people acress the boarder
5. Make it easier for the smart, hard working people we WANT to get into America.