If you've wondered why neither the Administration or Congress can seem to resolve pressing national issues such as immigration, the Iraq War, Social Security; Health Care; Global Warming; Energy Policy, etc., watch CSPAN for a week.
This morning's fare was typical. I began by watching the Senate vote on cloture on the "Comprehensive Immigration Bill." It failed. But rather than continue debate in hopes of reaching additional compromises which might result in a passable bill, Majority Leader Reid simply took it off the table. Thus, one of the most pressing issues facing the country today, from a national security perspective, has been removed from the Senate agenda, as a result of both Parties caving in to their respective special interests. Fundamentally, this means that both Democrats and Republicans who supported the Bill failed the country and that rather than return to their special interest constituencies and tell them that compromise was necessary for the sake of national security, have instead said, in effect: "Sorry, we couldn't get it passed the way you wanted it, but we did manage to kill it.
In regard to Congress, we have two courses open: continue to bombard our representatives with demands that these issues be resolved, even it means foregoing their summer break (aren't we asking the Iraqi Parliament to do the same?) and/or to vote all of them out in the next election. I recommend both.
In regard to Bush, the defeat of the "comprehensive bill," in no way relieves him of his responsibility to begin immediately to enforce the law. I should think that in view of the "War on Terror," that an unwillingness on his part to control our borders and begin registering the 12 - 20 million undocumented aliens now present, represents definite grounds for impeachment.
By failing to settle for anything less than comprehensive, the President is essentially holding national security hostage to a suitable "guest workers" program acceptable to business interests. If the President wants to continue being the "Chief Decider," now is the time for him to place national security above and beyond all other aspects of a new immigration policy.
I have no hard and fast agenda for how we resolve future immigration policy - i.e. who and how many people are approved for future immigration. Nor, do have any agenda for how the 12-20 million undocumented illegals are handled, but I do feel strongly that in the interests of all of us, we must begin immediately to control the borders by whatever means necessary and to begin the documentation of the undocumented. This isn't about economics; its about survival.
If the President fails to move now on these issues, he should be impeached; if he fails to move now, is not impeached and a terrorist attack on this country occurs through a lack of border enforcement and/or because of "undocumented persons," then he must not only be impeached, but held criminally negligent.
Following this morning's vote, the Senate moved on to other issues of pressing national concern: Senator Robert Byrd spoke for twenty minutes telling the Senate how he still felt healthy enough to carry out his senatorial responsibilities at his advanced age. This was followed by Senator Ted Stevens, taking up another 20-30 minutes in calling for a resolution recognizing the heroism of one of his constituents for his actions on December 7, 1941 during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
At that point, I switched to the House of Representatives, to find them debating - for the better part of one hour - over a $127,000 earmark for an economic development project in North Carolina. This debate enlightened me on an apparently excellent book entitled "The Perfect Christmas Tree." The book apparently inspired the development project.
If Congress was a revolutionary group, the revolution would fail; if it were a corporation board, the corporation would fail. Indeed, the majority of their time seems dedicated to passing nonsensical resolutions and standing around their respective chambers waiting for quorum calls.
The leadership vaccum is enormous and apparent.
The Bloomberg departure from the Republican Party and his annoucement as an "Independent," may be the handwriting on the wall. Whatever his politics, Bloomberg is not a dumb guy and his change may be the symbolic move annoucing the failure of our evolved Party system. More should and may follow suit. If the Parties continue to allow themselves to be driven by their respective special interests and ideolouges, then it is up to the majority of us, in the middle and looking for concrete solutions to national problems to go our own way and desert both.
A Note on the Vice Presidency and it's Constitutional role in government.
The fleeting claim of the Vice President's Office that it is neither a member of the Executive or Legislative Branches brings up an interesting point. The brillance of our Constitution, to me, has always been it's extreme concern with "balancing powers." The founders put this thing together prior to the rise of political parties (which began, in earnest, with Jacksoniam Democracy, in the early 1820's).
Initially, the Vice President was not voted upon separately from the President. Rather, the electors simply voted for a President. The person who received the most votes became President; the person receiving the second most votes became Vice President. The Constitution does not actually place the Vice President in the Executive Branch. It merely says that should something happen to the President, the Vice President will take the President's place. Obviously, this role does not mandate that the Vice Presidency be located within the Executive Branch. Beyond this "anticipated" responsibility, the Vice President has only one other duty and its a duty that very clearly places the office in the Legislative Branch of government; the duty to preside over the Senate, as President, and to vote in case of a tie.
It occurs to me that this arrangement may have been another founding father means of inserting "checks and balances." Without Parties, the founders expected the President would be the most respected, prominent, and liked person within the country (who was also willing to "run"). That person would become President and the second most respected, prominent and liked person, who might well hold contrary opinions, would become Vice President. Since, it would be unreasonable to place this person in the same branch as his/her opponent and directly "under" the President, the role of President of the Senate was created as sort of a "parking spot."
At the same time, originally, the Senate was not popularly elected, but rather through the respective state legislatures. The Senate was essentially our counterpart to the British House of Lords and represenative of the collective "establishment" of the times. People who tended to represent "state interests" rather than popular interests and therein the founders wisely again divided power by giving the power of originating money appropriations to the "People's Chamber," the House of Representatives.
Thus, the founders may have intended both the Vice President and the Senate to fullfill the role of "shawdow government" and a means of diffusing political differences, without excluding the minority (minority meaning the "establishment," who held more power, but fewer in number).
The rise of Parties and the popular election of the President and Senate, while more "democratic," may have destroyed the original intent.
Ah...just a thought. Doubt we'll go back to the original intent, but it might be a means of reforming a failed Party system and bringing more honesty to political debate.
I do, however, think that one may easily overdo "original intent." It strikes me that the founders themselves often reached Consitutional compromises, not in some carefully thought out and analytical way to ensure "checks and balances," but simply to "get on with it." Most apparently felt they'd overstayed their Philadelphia welcome, complained of the length of the Convention in the hot weather and wanted to get back to their more personally comfortable lives.
Hmmm? Speaking of which...back to CSPAN.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
More on Immigration
In my last post, I divided the Immigration Bill into three parts and suggested each be addressed separately: border security, what to do with the illegals already here, and future visa/immigration policy. The first is a no-brainier to virtually everyone living outside of the beltway: control the borders. To argue, on one hand, that we are in a global war on terror and NOT do everything possible to control our own borders is an idiotic contradiction, that the dumbest among us can understand (again, outside of the beltway).
I suggested that the second issue, what to do with those already here, be approached carefully, equitably and compassionately. The present bill that suggests a $5,000 fine, learning English, and waiting 8-12 years strikes me as too severe in some cases. I oppose blanket amnesty, but in view of the fact that we have collectively, through our representatives and Democratic and Republican administrations allowed the situation to grow to its present proportions, I believe "selective amnesty" to be appropriate. Congress would establish broad guidelines and turn the matter of the 12 million illegals over to immigration courts (which would need drastic expansion - but the entire judiciary has needed dramatic expansion for some time. In my opinion, this has to be accompanied by some type of national identity card, a temporary visa upon registration and resolution of individual cases within a reasonable time frame, say four to six years. As for English, I would suggest the requirement be "sufficiency such as to pass the standard citizenship test." And, the fine should be a range, from perhaps $500. to a $5000 max. I am afraid that the "path to citizenship" as presented will create obstacles to registration. Criminal illegals either go to or remain in U.S. jails for serious offenses; minor offenses, but not misdemeanors, gets the illegal a ticket back to country of origin. Back taxes need to be collected, at least at a rate of a certain percentage on the dollar. In general, if an illegal alien has been in-country for a substantial amount of time, has a family here, can proof employment, paid taxes and not abused our social services, I would be inclined to grant immediate amnesty or perhaps one involving a slap on the wrist. The further away from the "ideal," the more difficult the path to citizenship.
The "guest worker" program needs to be broken out from other visa types. There will always be political, family, medical, educational, etc. reasons for granting visas. The key in these areas is in evaluating the need and tracking to ensure a continuing situation wherein the visa is still necessary.
I also feel, the guest worker program must have two principal components: the burden for the need should be placed upon business (i.e. no limits, but a rigorous needs test) and such visas should offer a longer, more stringent path to citizenship.
Regarding the former, business should have to advertise for workers within the United States first, for a certain period (say 30 days). If there are no "qualified applicants" (tough to precisely define), then they may apply for an "guest worker visa." In conjunction with this request, they would have to post a "bond," in an amount equal to round-trip transportation costs and the equivalency of one month's additional pay. The Immigration Service would verify all of this and approve a four year visa. The employer would have to pay a "prevailing wage rate" less their costs (the transportation and the additional month's wages). If the person holding the visa proved to be unacceptable or the business need changed, the visa holder would have thirty days to find other employment, under the same conditions, with the employer's burden simply transferring to the new employer, or would lose the visa and be forced to return to the country of origin. The employer, perhaps through a "group insurance plan," would be required to provide basic health care insurance. The American people should not be expected to cover social services for "guest workers." The employer, however, would be entitled to withhold health care insurance costs from wages and be partially reimbursed through an appropriate tax deduction.
Overall, this would reduce the present business advantage to guest worker utilization, but not eliminate it and the reduction of these benefits would encourage employers to find suitable workers within our borders and become more involved in the education and training of U.S. citizens for their future needs.
These are only suggestions for what is, granted a complex issue. However, I believe that the current situation gives essentially a free ride to business (and certainly not entirely to big business) at the expense of taxing the rest of us (by government funding of social and educational services to non-taxing paying, undocumented illegals). My individual social conscience tells me we cannot simply deny these people needed services, but I would like to see a little more "social conscience" on the part of everyone. If, because of competitive pressures, they can't adopt such consciences individually, then that is what government is for, through regulation. Free markets, free trade, de-regulation and the Great Justification of Globalization just doesn't get it anymore, particularly when more often than not, these arguments are simply cover for individual, short term greed.
Finally, from the individual visa holder's perspective, I believe it against our history and values to create a permanent "underclass" of guest workers. In my opinion, one of our greatest strengths has been due to the rise of immigrant classes, from Chinese workers "imported" to build large portions of our railroads, to the Italians, Irish, and Vietnamese fishermen on today's Gulf of Mexico. Material wealth may be an across the board common denominator for most immigrant groups, but it is not the sole motivation. I would like to think that becoming a citizen of the United States means more than only increasing one's net worth. At the end of the guest worker's visa some provision must be made to transition to permanent residency and citizenship for those desiring such. The current bill addresses this issue, but the complex two year guest worker status, with renewal provisions requiring a year's absence in between seems overly complex and extremely difficult to track.
Next, back to Iraq, the War on Terror, the failure of the Bush Doctrine and a discussion of the question facing Congress: Cut Off Funding or Impeachment?
I suggested that the second issue, what to do with those already here, be approached carefully, equitably and compassionately. The present bill that suggests a $5,000 fine, learning English, and waiting 8-12 years strikes me as too severe in some cases. I oppose blanket amnesty, but in view of the fact that we have collectively, through our representatives and Democratic and Republican administrations allowed the situation to grow to its present proportions, I believe "selective amnesty" to be appropriate. Congress would establish broad guidelines and turn the matter of the 12 million illegals over to immigration courts (which would need drastic expansion - but the entire judiciary has needed dramatic expansion for some time. In my opinion, this has to be accompanied by some type of national identity card, a temporary visa upon registration and resolution of individual cases within a reasonable time frame, say four to six years. As for English, I would suggest the requirement be "sufficiency such as to pass the standard citizenship test." And, the fine should be a range, from perhaps $500. to a $5000 max. I am afraid that the "path to citizenship" as presented will create obstacles to registration. Criminal illegals either go to or remain in U.S. jails for serious offenses; minor offenses, but not misdemeanors, gets the illegal a ticket back to country of origin. Back taxes need to be collected, at least at a rate of a certain percentage on the dollar. In general, if an illegal alien has been in-country for a substantial amount of time, has a family here, can proof employment, paid taxes and not abused our social services, I would be inclined to grant immediate amnesty or perhaps one involving a slap on the wrist. The further away from the "ideal," the more difficult the path to citizenship.
The "guest worker" program needs to be broken out from other visa types. There will always be political, family, medical, educational, etc. reasons for granting visas. The key in these areas is in evaluating the need and tracking to ensure a continuing situation wherein the visa is still necessary.
I also feel, the guest worker program must have two principal components: the burden for the need should be placed upon business (i.e. no limits, but a rigorous needs test) and such visas should offer a longer, more stringent path to citizenship.
Regarding the former, business should have to advertise for workers within the United States first, for a certain period (say 30 days). If there are no "qualified applicants" (tough to precisely define), then they may apply for an "guest worker visa." In conjunction with this request, they would have to post a "bond," in an amount equal to round-trip transportation costs and the equivalency of one month's additional pay. The Immigration Service would verify all of this and approve a four year visa. The employer would have to pay a "prevailing wage rate" less their costs (the transportation and the additional month's wages). If the person holding the visa proved to be unacceptable or the business need changed, the visa holder would have thirty days to find other employment, under the same conditions, with the employer's burden simply transferring to the new employer, or would lose the visa and be forced to return to the country of origin. The employer, perhaps through a "group insurance plan," would be required to provide basic health care insurance. The American people should not be expected to cover social services for "guest workers." The employer, however, would be entitled to withhold health care insurance costs from wages and be partially reimbursed through an appropriate tax deduction.
Overall, this would reduce the present business advantage to guest worker utilization, but not eliminate it and the reduction of these benefits would encourage employers to find suitable workers within our borders and become more involved in the education and training of U.S. citizens for their future needs.
These are only suggestions for what is, granted a complex issue. However, I believe that the current situation gives essentially a free ride to business (and certainly not entirely to big business) at the expense of taxing the rest of us (by government funding of social and educational services to non-taxing paying, undocumented illegals). My individual social conscience tells me we cannot simply deny these people needed services, but I would like to see a little more "social conscience" on the part of everyone. If, because of competitive pressures, they can't adopt such consciences individually, then that is what government is for, through regulation. Free markets, free trade, de-regulation and the Great Justification of Globalization just doesn't get it anymore, particularly when more often than not, these arguments are simply cover for individual, short term greed.
Finally, from the individual visa holder's perspective, I believe it against our history and values to create a permanent "underclass" of guest workers. In my opinion, one of our greatest strengths has been due to the rise of immigrant classes, from Chinese workers "imported" to build large portions of our railroads, to the Italians, Irish, and Vietnamese fishermen on today's Gulf of Mexico. Material wealth may be an across the board common denominator for most immigrant groups, but it is not the sole motivation. I would like to think that becoming a citizen of the United States means more than only increasing one's net worth. At the end of the guest worker's visa some provision must be made to transition to permanent residency and citizenship for those desiring such. The current bill addresses this issue, but the complex two year guest worker status, with renewal provisions requiring a year's absence in between seems overly complex and extremely difficult to track.
Next, back to Iraq, the War on Terror, the failure of the Bush Doctrine and a discussion of the question facing Congress: Cut Off Funding or Impeachment?
Monday, June 11, 2007
Monday Morning Blog
I generally watch CNN and MSNBC for news, with the occasional foray to PBS, Fox and CNBC. I would like to note that CNN and MSNBC devoted more airtime to the trials and tribulations of Paris Hilton than last weeks Immigration Bill failure.
Bush finally found a place where he is loved, other than Midland, Texas...Albania. Ah, the world changes fast. The last thing I remember about Albania is that they were a close ally of China, but then its been hard to keep up with things since the end of the cold war.
Powell went on Meet the Press as the apologist for the Administration on the decision to invade Iraq. Curious. I believe that while most of what he said was honest and forthright, Tim Russett (who was once known as a tough interviewer) didn't really throw him many hard questions. Powell's line on the invasion decision was the usual, "we were all wrong," in regard to the WMD argument. No news there. What would have been a better issue to explore with Powell was what does he think about "preemptive war?" Indirectly, he implied he did not agree with it, unless faced with imminent attack, but Russett failed to pursue the issue.
Powell made it clear he was ready to return to government service (presumably after the 2008 elections). I would hope that he does, although his standing with me dropped significantly with his role in the Iraq mess. In view of what I think he believes policy-wise, I felt he should have resigned following the IAEA's request for more UN inspection time, which Bush rejected, leading to the invasion...leading to the mess.
As essentially a "soldier," Powell did say he believed we made significant mistakes in not sending in enough forces, etc. But, for me at least, the whole issue was more complex and threatening to our own democracy than Powell either understands or wished to avoid discussing.
And, then there is the Immigration Bill failure. Dumb...dumb...dumb. We seem to be trying to live in the 21st Century with 19th Century political leadership. Democrats would be wise to elect a new Senate Majority Leader. Failing in a cloture vote, Reid cut off debate himself by withdrawing the bill from the Senate calendar.
This guy whines as if he's just soooo overworked and tortured by it all. To me, Reid served too long in the minority and doesn't seem to grasp that if he can't get an Immigration Bill through the Senate, HE'LL be blamed, not the Republicans. IMO, he should have kept them in session until they'd voted...even if it meant foregoing the "long weekend."
Additionally, the whole approach to the Bill seems to have smelled of "backroom deals" between various "leading" Senators and their respective special interest groups. It was, as Buchanan noted, "a K Street product."
Beyond that, what doomed it was the Bush requirement for a "comprehensive solution." A comprehensive solution was taken to mean a "complex solution."
It's all pretty simple for me. There are basically three parts: border security, the fate of 12 million existing illegal immigrants, and economic issues (both labor and business). So, why not break the Bill up into those parts? First, secure the border. Second, find an equitable solution for the 12 million. Third, arrive at a balanced solution to the conflicting labor and business interests.
On the first, if we cannot devote the resources necessary to control our borders, what makes us think government can accomplish ANYTHING significant? My solution is some type of timetable for reducing illegal border crossings, i.e. taking the current estimates of annual illegal crossings, set goals to reduce such to as close to zero as we can get, over say a five year period.
And, tell the President that we (Congress) consider such a timetable to be essential to national security. Failure to adhere to the timetable will be considered an impeachable offense...i.e. if you can't get the job done, we'll fire you.
IMO, the Bill handled the second issue, what to do with the 12 million, poorly. What clouds the issue is the word amnesty. True, millions "broke" the law to get here, but it was a law only loosely enforced, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. So, I hold the politicians who allowed the situation to occur equally culpable and frankly am more inclined to give the 12 million some sort of amnesty than the politicians.
The problem to me is that these 12 million people need to be addressed almost individually and they range from solid, hardworking families to hard core felons. So, while because they are not citizens and entered illegally, we have a right to sit in judgement over what to do with them, that judgement should be equitable and compassionate, particularly in light of our "wink and a nod" past enforcement practices. Some are certainly worthy of immediate citizenship...amnesty if you will...others a "probationary period," and still others, deportation. Congress needs to set broad guidelines and allow Immigration Courts to determine outcomes on an individual basis. In other words, there is no "comprehensive solution" for 12 million individuals. Learning English, getting to the back of the line, paying taxes, paying a $5,000 fine all may be appropriate in some, even most cases, but not all.
One of the chief arguments against "amnesty" is that it failed to work when we granted such in the eighties. Probably...but this isn't the fault of the illegal immigrants; it is the fault of a lack of border enforcement.
Finally, there are the issues of business and labor. Herein, one has to separate the law of supply and demand from simple greed...on both sides. I would assume that there is a segment of Immigration policy that is NOT economic. There are family concerns, political concerns, education concerns, etc. Putting those aside for the moment, the economic issues fall under the concept of "guest workers," be they doctors, nurses, IT specialists or construction or agricultural workers.
I think the underlying principle for ALL guest workers, consistent with our values and history, is the assumption that all desire American citizenship and should be provided with a path toward citizenship.
Ah, but more on that later.
Bush finally found a place where he is loved, other than Midland, Texas...Albania. Ah, the world changes fast. The last thing I remember about Albania is that they were a close ally of China, but then its been hard to keep up with things since the end of the cold war.
Powell went on Meet the Press as the apologist for the Administration on the decision to invade Iraq. Curious. I believe that while most of what he said was honest and forthright, Tim Russett (who was once known as a tough interviewer) didn't really throw him many hard questions. Powell's line on the invasion decision was the usual, "we were all wrong," in regard to the WMD argument. No news there. What would have been a better issue to explore with Powell was what does he think about "preemptive war?" Indirectly, he implied he did not agree with it, unless faced with imminent attack, but Russett failed to pursue the issue.
Powell made it clear he was ready to return to government service (presumably after the 2008 elections). I would hope that he does, although his standing with me dropped significantly with his role in the Iraq mess. In view of what I think he believes policy-wise, I felt he should have resigned following the IAEA's request for more UN inspection time, which Bush rejected, leading to the invasion...leading to the mess.
As essentially a "soldier," Powell did say he believed we made significant mistakes in not sending in enough forces, etc. But, for me at least, the whole issue was more complex and threatening to our own democracy than Powell either understands or wished to avoid discussing.
And, then there is the Immigration Bill failure. Dumb...dumb...dumb. We seem to be trying to live in the 21st Century with 19th Century political leadership. Democrats would be wise to elect a new Senate Majority Leader. Failing in a cloture vote, Reid cut off debate himself by withdrawing the bill from the Senate calendar.
This guy whines as if he's just soooo overworked and tortured by it all. To me, Reid served too long in the minority and doesn't seem to grasp that if he can't get an Immigration Bill through the Senate, HE'LL be blamed, not the Republicans. IMO, he should have kept them in session until they'd voted...even if it meant foregoing the "long weekend."
Additionally, the whole approach to the Bill seems to have smelled of "backroom deals" between various "leading" Senators and their respective special interest groups. It was, as Buchanan noted, "a K Street product."
Beyond that, what doomed it was the Bush requirement for a "comprehensive solution." A comprehensive solution was taken to mean a "complex solution."
It's all pretty simple for me. There are basically three parts: border security, the fate of 12 million existing illegal immigrants, and economic issues (both labor and business). So, why not break the Bill up into those parts? First, secure the border. Second, find an equitable solution for the 12 million. Third, arrive at a balanced solution to the conflicting labor and business interests.
On the first, if we cannot devote the resources necessary to control our borders, what makes us think government can accomplish ANYTHING significant? My solution is some type of timetable for reducing illegal border crossings, i.e. taking the current estimates of annual illegal crossings, set goals to reduce such to as close to zero as we can get, over say a five year period.
And, tell the President that we (Congress) consider such a timetable to be essential to national security. Failure to adhere to the timetable will be considered an impeachable offense...i.e. if you can't get the job done, we'll fire you.
IMO, the Bill handled the second issue, what to do with the 12 million, poorly. What clouds the issue is the word amnesty. True, millions "broke" the law to get here, but it was a law only loosely enforced, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. So, I hold the politicians who allowed the situation to occur equally culpable and frankly am more inclined to give the 12 million some sort of amnesty than the politicians.
The problem to me is that these 12 million people need to be addressed almost individually and they range from solid, hardworking families to hard core felons. So, while because they are not citizens and entered illegally, we have a right to sit in judgement over what to do with them, that judgement should be equitable and compassionate, particularly in light of our "wink and a nod" past enforcement practices. Some are certainly worthy of immediate citizenship...amnesty if you will...others a "probationary period," and still others, deportation. Congress needs to set broad guidelines and allow Immigration Courts to determine outcomes on an individual basis. In other words, there is no "comprehensive solution" for 12 million individuals. Learning English, getting to the back of the line, paying taxes, paying a $5,000 fine all may be appropriate in some, even most cases, but not all.
One of the chief arguments against "amnesty" is that it failed to work when we granted such in the eighties. Probably...but this isn't the fault of the illegal immigrants; it is the fault of a lack of border enforcement.
Finally, there are the issues of business and labor. Herein, one has to separate the law of supply and demand from simple greed...on both sides. I would assume that there is a segment of Immigration policy that is NOT economic. There are family concerns, political concerns, education concerns, etc. Putting those aside for the moment, the economic issues fall under the concept of "guest workers," be they doctors, nurses, IT specialists or construction or agricultural workers.
I think the underlying principle for ALL guest workers, consistent with our values and history, is the assumption that all desire American citizenship and should be provided with a path toward citizenship.
Ah, but more on that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
