On Thursday, February 7, a federal judge upheld an Arizona law that effectively mandates that business owners serve as the immigration police.
As the Associated Press reported: “Businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants could face a business license suspension lasting up to 10 days under the new law. Second-time violators would have their business licenses permanently revoked. The law also requires businesses to use an otherwise voluntary federal database to verify the employment eligibility of new workers.”
The judge rejected arguments brought by several business groups that immigration policy is a federal matter – which, of course, it is. The groups plan to appeal.
The AP story also noted: “The law is intended to weaken the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the border and lessen Arizona's role as the busiest illegal gateway into the country. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants account for one in 10 workers in the Arizona economy.”
So, the law places additional burdens and penalties on businesses; mandates that businesses use an untested, flawed federal database; and directly intends to reduce the supply of labor for local businesses.
This and other misguided state and local laws make clear why comprehensive reform is needed at the federal level on immigration – action that both secures the border and secures our economy by expanding legal avenues for immigrants who simply seek economic opportunity and thereby contribute to the U.S. economy.
It is not the job of entrepreneurs and businesses to play immigration police. That’s the federal government’s job.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Tax Rebate History and Economics
As Congress and the White House march forward on an “economic stimulus” package featuring tax rebates, one might wonder: Has this ever worked before? That is, has the government issuing tax rebate checks ever sparked economic growth? The answer is no.
For some much-needed economics and economic history on the issue, check out a January 28 analysis titled “Fiscal Stimulus or Fiscal Folly?” by Stephen Entin, president and executive director of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation. Good stuff.
For some much-needed economics and economic history on the issue, check out a January 28 analysis titled “Fiscal Stimulus or Fiscal Folly?” by Stephen Entin, president and executive director of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation. Good stuff.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Restaurant Owners as the Fat Police?
This story clearly falls into the “I can’t believe this” category. According to a report today by CBS News, a state lawmaker in Mississippi proposed legislation that “would ban restaurants from serving food to obese customers.”
The article continues: “ ‘I was trying to shed a little light on the number one problem in Mississippi,’ said Republican Rep. John Read of Gautier. ‘It was a far-reaching bill, but you're trying to get people's attention to study the proper motive of obesity which is a concern to all of us,’ Read told CBS News The Early Show. ‘Sometimes you have to go a little extreme to get the dialogue started.’”
Golly, and I thought Republicans didn’t like the Nanny State. Remember when Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964 spoke of extremism in defense of liberty? I’m no fan of extremism at any time, but now it’s extremism in the name of government activism against fat. Wow, things sure have changed.
Thankfully, some lawmakers have served up the proper response: “The state House Public Health Committee chairman, Democrat Steve Holland of Plantersville, said he is going to ‘shred’ the bill filed by Read and two other House members, Republican Ted Mayhall of Southaven and Democrat Bobby Shows of Ellisville… ‘It is too oppressive for government to require a restaurant owner to police another human being from their own indiscretions,’ Holland said Monday.”
Hey, here’s a thought for lawmakers. Stop sticking your noses in the dietary decisions of individuals and forcing restaurant owners to become the fat police, and instead, put government on a diet for the sake of business and individual taxpayers?
The article continues: “ ‘I was trying to shed a little light on the number one problem in Mississippi,’ said Republican Rep. John Read of Gautier. ‘It was a far-reaching bill, but you're trying to get people's attention to study the proper motive of obesity which is a concern to all of us,’ Read told CBS News The Early Show. ‘Sometimes you have to go a little extreme to get the dialogue started.’”
Golly, and I thought Republicans didn’t like the Nanny State. Remember when Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964 spoke of extremism in defense of liberty? I’m no fan of extremism at any time, but now it’s extremism in the name of government activism against fat. Wow, things sure have changed.
Thankfully, some lawmakers have served up the proper response: “The state House Public Health Committee chairman, Democrat Steve Holland of Plantersville, said he is going to ‘shred’ the bill filed by Read and two other House members, Republican Ted Mayhall of Southaven and Democrat Bobby Shows of Ellisville… ‘It is too oppressive for government to require a restaurant owner to police another human being from their own indiscretions,’ Holland said Monday.”
Hey, here’s a thought for lawmakers. Stop sticking your noses in the dietary decisions of individuals and forcing restaurant owners to become the fat police, and instead, put government on a diet for the sake of business and individual taxpayers?
Monday, February 04, 2008
Government Pay vs. Private Pay
USA Today on Friday, February 1, served up a few important numbers contrasting state and local government employee compensation to private pay. The key numbers from the analysis based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data were:
• “State and local government workers now earn an average of $39.50 per hour in total compensation, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Private workers earn an average of $26.09 an hour.”
• “Benefits are a big reason for the gap. Companies have trimmed pension benefits and asked employees to pay a greater share of medical costs. Few governments have imposed similar cuts on teachers, snowplow drivers, lawyers and other civil servants.”
• “From 2000 to 2007, public employees enjoyed a 16% increase in compensation after adjusting for inflation compared with 11% for private workers.”
While private sector workers are more productive, it is not surprising that government workers receive higher compensation. Why? Because elected officials are spending other people’s (i.e., the taxpayers”) money, so they have no incentive to rein in costs, or to tie compensation to efficiency or production. In addition, government workers have higher rates of unionization, which further weakens the link between performance and pay.
In the end, all of this means higher costs for individual and business taxpayers. The economy gets hit twice – from higher taxes and due to increased compensation for less-productive government work.
• “State and local government workers now earn an average of $39.50 per hour in total compensation, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Private workers earn an average of $26.09 an hour.”
• “Benefits are a big reason for the gap. Companies have trimmed pension benefits and asked employees to pay a greater share of medical costs. Few governments have imposed similar cuts on teachers, snowplow drivers, lawyers and other civil servants.”
• “From 2000 to 2007, public employees enjoyed a 16% increase in compensation after adjusting for inflation compared with 11% for private workers.”
While private sector workers are more productive, it is not surprising that government workers receive higher compensation. Why? Because elected officials are spending other people’s (i.e., the taxpayers”) money, so they have no incentive to rein in costs, or to tie compensation to efficiency or production. In addition, government workers have higher rates of unionization, which further weakens the link between performance and pay.
In the end, all of this means higher costs for individual and business taxpayers. The economy gets hit twice – from higher taxes and due to increased compensation for less-productive government work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)