Partisan Immigration Law Enforcement and the Dream Act

As we know, the Obama administration has attacked the people of Arizona and of various communities for attempting to get federal authorities to identify illegal aliens and to turn those so identified over to federal authorities for possible deportation.  We know also that some such identified illegal aliens are being released back onto American streets rather than being deported by federal authorities.  The Obama gang in control of our federal government has been highly motivated to make claims that state and local government efforts to enlist federal authorities in doing what federal law requires is an usurpation of federal powers.

Compare the issues with the Arizona law to the issue of ten states clearly violating federal law by providing tuition preferences to illegal aliens in state colleges and universities.  This is happening in California, Texas, Oklahoma, New York, Kansas, Illinois, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, and New Mexico.  This is a clear violation of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).  That act states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amout, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

One of the chief ways in which these 10 states defy this federal law is by offering illegal aliens in-state tuition, while demanding that out-of-state citizens and nationals pay the much higher out-of-state tuition.  Where does the Obama gang of hoodlums stand on enforcing this immigration law violation by these ten states?  They are very silent, except that the Democrats have made repeated failed attempts to overturn this provision of federal immigration law.  The most recent attempt is the so-called DREAM Act.

Now, Senator Harry Reid has introduced the DREAM Act earlier this week as an attachment to the defense authorization bill.  It will:

• Provide an estimated 2 million college age illegal aliens citizenship upon completing two years of college studies in the U.S.
• Provide citizenship to illegal aliens who have served in the U.S. military.

Now, I am in favor of such provisions providing alien applicants a fast and assured legal path to residence as a national in the United States, provided they are not illegally in the U.S.  This application would be made from outside the U.S. or could be made by someone on a legal visa to visit or work in the U.S.  The applicant would need to show acceptance at a U.S. college and he would be given a legal student visa, which would be converted into a green card upon his graduation, combined with evidence of employment or an employment contract conditional upon the newly graduated student being given his green card.  Similarly, an alien might be given a one-year or two-year working permit as a visiting worker in the U.S. and if he applies for and is accepted by one of the armed services, he would be supplied a green card upon serving two years in the military.  Alternatively, the one-year or two-year working permit holder might enter college and obtain a green card upon graduation.  The one- and/or two-year working permit visas could be renewed as well, provided the applicant showed gainful employment and was not found guilty of any felonies.  But, all of these paths ought to be for those who are not illegal aliens.  The path to a green card should be a legal path.  Acceptance on a legal path to a green card should be quite generous.

The following Republican Senators are in favor of the easy paths to a green card for illegal aliens under the Democrat DREAM Act:

John McCain, Arizona
Richard Lugar, Indiana
Bob Bennett, Utah, an IIRIRA violating state
Sam Brownback, Kansas, an IIRIRA violating state

Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas, an IIRIRA violating state

Susan Collins, Maine
Olympia Snowe, Maine

Supreme Court Defends Free Speech

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, often called the McCain-Feingold Act, placed severe limits on the free speech of corporations and labor unions for 60 days prior to a general election for ads mentioning the name of candidates for federal office.  It also restricted free speech for 30 days before a caucus or a primary election.  President George W. Bush signed the legislation into law, despite having reservations about the free speech restrictions.  He apparently thought the Supreme Court would strike many of its provisions down, so he abrogated his responsibility to veto the bill.  The Supreme Court, in McConnell vs. FEC, upheld most of the provisions of the BCRA of 2002, though it was also clearly its duty to find the restrictions on freedom of speech unconstitutional.

Finally, yesterday, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, considering Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, ruled that the BCRA of 2002 could not restrict the free speech of persons acting through either corporations or labor unions or other groups.  Quoting from a press release from Chip Mellor of the Institute for Justice, which helped defend free speech in this case:

Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, emphasized that the government’s ban on corporate speech was censorship, pure and simple:  “When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.  This is unlawful.”  He added, “The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

The Court overturned Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell vs. FEC in the process.  Chip Mellor says:

In today’s opinion, the Court ruled that everyone, including corporations, has the right to speak out about issues and candidates.  The government may not restrict the marketplace of ideas:  “The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.”  In other words, the First Amendment rejects government paternalism, instead “entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false.”

 The Institute for Justice also won a case in Arizona on 20 January on free speech and election issues when, according to the Institute for Justice website:

a federal district court judge declared unconstitutional the challenged “Matching Funds” provision of Arizona’s so-called “Clean Elections Act,” striking a blow for the rights of individuals and groups to speak freely during political campaigns.  The Institute for Justice is challenging Arizona’s scheme of publicly financing elections, which drowns out the voices of individuals and groups who wish to support privately financed candidates who run against taxpayer-funded candidates in a misguided effort to “level the playing filed.” If a group makes an independent expenditure in favor a privately funded candidate, the unelected bureaucrats at the Clean Elections Commission dole out dollar-for-dollar “matching funds” to the publicly funded candidate. That means that for every dollar an individual or group spends to support the candidate of their choice, over the publicly funded candidate’s initial government subsidy, the government pays an equal amount of money to the political competition. IJ also seeks to preserve the right of individuals to run for public office without having to accept taxpayer funds. Arizona’s public financing scheme punishes candidates who reject the political welfare of public funding by burying them in red tape and giving extra money to their publicly funded opponents. The case is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where IJ will again demonstrate that "clean Elections" doesn't level the playing field, it levels the players on the field.

A couple of other important freedom of speech court cases are being supported by The Institute for Justice.  SpeechNow.org vs. FEC will be argued before the D.C. Circuit Court of  Appeals on 27 January challenging a federal law that forces people to give up the right to associate in order to use the right to free speech!  Both rights are clearly stated in the First Amendment, so where were the minds of Congress when they passed this law!  The law limits each person joining together to advertise their beliefs to $5000 in contributions to the cause, but acting individually, they would have no such limit.  The Institute for Justice (IJ) is joining the Center for Competitive Politics to represent SpeechNow.org.

In Colorado, a group of neighbors joined together to oppose the annexation of their neighborhood by a nearby town and were sued under a Colorado law which forces any group spending as little as $200 to address a ballot issue to register with the state and disclose all donors making contributions of $20 or more.  IJ is representing these neighbors in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I have long been impressed by the work of the Institute of Justice and have been a contributor for many years.  I urge others to carefully consider supporting their critical work.  They played a big role in eminent domain reform and the Kelo case a few years ago.  They attack onerous professional licensing laws and many other petty attacks upon our freedoms.  They seem to be a very cost-effective organization as well.

Obama's Misrepresentation of Corporate Taxes

As I have pointed out in earlier blog posts, the U.S. corporate tax rate is essentially tied with that of Japan as the highest in the world. This puts considerable pressure on U.S. companies to expand their operations abroad, rather than in the U.S. and it causes them to outsource more work to such countries as India and China. Obama calls this a corporate policy of exporting jobs. Well, it is, but only in response to government policy that corporate taxes should be so high that they are forced, yes forced, to export jobs. What is worse, corporate taxes are actually set above the rates that would maximize corporate tax revenues to the government. What is the point of that? Clearly, it is simply one of demogogery. It is highly irrational.

Obama likes to claim that McCain simply wants to give tax money to corporations rather than to the middle class. HE fails to observe that many middle class people work for corporations or they have corporations for customers (disclosure: I have corporations for customers.). He rails against giving tax breaks to companies who export jobs, but the effective policy to prevent this is to bring our corporate tax rate more in line with those commonly found in other industrial and rapidly developing nations abroad. This is what John McCain is advocating and Obama calls this a $200 billion gift of additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Obama claims that McCain is giving Exxon-Mobil an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.

Alan Reynolds has considered these claims by Obama in an article called "Obama's '$4 Billion for Exxon' Myth," which was published on 1 November in the Wall Street Journal. His major points are:

• The $200 billion tax break for corporations is flat out wrong. An estimate by the liberal Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center based upon a static view of tax revenues is that the cost will be $78 billion per year over the next 10 years. In fact, this static estimate is surely much too high. Lower corporate taxes result in changes of behavior, making more profit available for taxation.
  
• It is very misleading to claim that McCain will give Exxon-Mobil $4 billion of additional tax breaks. He will because he will lower the corporate tax rate for all companies, but he is also taking away tax breaks more specific to the oil industry, which will cause Exxon-Mobil's already very high taxes to go up by $5 billion in 2013.
• In the U.S., the combined federal and state tax on corporate profits averages 40%. In the 97 countries surveyed by KPMG, the average corporate tax is only 25.9% and has been dropping. In the European Union the average is only 23.2%. The decrease of tax rates in the European Union has led to an increase in tax revenues! Countries such as Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark have rates between 12.5 and 25% and collect taxes as a share of GDP which are much larger than the pitiful 2.1% corporations pay in the U.S.
• Jack Mintz of the University of Calgary estimates that combined federal-state corporate tax rates higher than 28% collect less and less revenue as the rate increases. Kimberly Clausing of Reed College thinks corporate tax revenue is maximized at a combined rate of 33%. Kevin Hassett and Alex Brill of the the American Enterprise Institute found the revenue maximizing rate is falling with time and is about 26% now.

John McCain is proposing to cut the federal part of the corporate rate to 30% in 1010-2011, to 28% in 2012-2013, to 26% in 2014, and to 25% thereafter. He is also proposing the immediate expensing of equipment presently written off in 3 - 5 years, though the interest on any money borrowed for the purpose of buying the equipment will not be deductible.

So, if one were to believe that it is important for the federal government to have more tax revenue to pay for its programs, what would be the rational policy to pursue on the corporate tax rate? Well, it would be to decrease the federal rate from the present 35% rate to no more than 25%, since now state rates average about 5%. This would make the combined federal and state rates about 30%, which is a bit higher than the tax maximizing rates according to Jack Mintz and to the AEI researchers.

Obama's desire to keep the corporate tax rate at world highest levels will lead to higher government deficits as he adds program after program to the federal budget and it will force companies to "export American jobs abroad." What kind of idiocy is this? Well, it does play well with the ignorant and the uninformed. It is an effective path to power. This is the point. Obama is not stupid, HE is wrong-headed, but HE is not stupid. HE is without a conscience. HE is committed to promoting socialism, no matter what ills HE calls down upon our society and no matter how many groups HE puts at each other's throats.

Fred Thompson on the Election

I have just seen this excellent video by Fred Thompson on the Presidential election at the excellent Bidinotto Blog. I am going to post it here also.



I hope you enjoyed this and will send it to your friends also.