Increasing Border Patrol is Pointless
by Bill Simon
The following is an e-mailed newsletter I get from a Republican in Oklahoma. His slogan, “An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone”, was inspired by our 2001 Georgia GOP state chairman’s race. 🙂
Craig Dawkins has been putting out Modern Patriot Chronicles for about 5 years. He’s not real regular (like I am…ha!), but I admire Craig for his very insightful viewpoint on things and this article hits the nail on the head:
Modern Patriot Chronicles
An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone
Vol. 5, Issue 7
April 3, 2006
By Craig Dawkins
Increasing Border Patrol is Pointless
Copyright@2006, All Rights Reserved
I could pretty much stop with the headline. But then some of you might get the wrong idea. Illegal immigration cannot be stopped. Not by the U.S. government patrolling our borders. Not by the giant money sucking behemoth that is our federal government. The INS lacks resources, manpower, infrastructure and focus. But even if it got all four of these in line, it would not be able to stop illegal aliens from crossing the Rio Grande. Our government lacks any kind of political will to stop it.
Complaints of the immigration problem have fallen on deaf ears for many years. Hispanics have now achieved political power and politicians who wish to stay in office are listening and pandering. And they are not just pandering to those who are illegal. They are pandering to business interests. Making a profit is the only hardened ideological concern of most business people. That’s probably as it should be.
But many decades of failure in fighting the drug war have shown that enforcement will not get the job done. Our prisons are bursting at the seams with drug offenders and still we have illegal drugs proliferating in our country. So what is the answer to curbing the illegal immigration problem?
First, decrease the time it takes for a person to gain a decision as to whether they can legally migrate to the U.S. for migrant work. The government should say yeah or nay on a person within 90 days. This would encourage people to submit legal documentation for entry into the United States .
Who can blame people from Mexico and other Central American nations that want a better life for coming to the U.S.? Most people living in this country would not be here if their ancestors hadn’t immigrated here. But even if we decrease the waiting time for permission to enter the U.S. , some will still come here illegally. How do we deal with them?
We put employers and their violating employees in jail for violating employment laws. Anyone responsible for hiring, and who knowingly violates employment laws by hiring illegal aliens should go to prison and spend time with all those drug dealers, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and thieves. This is the only thing that will stop employers from hiring illegal workers in the long term.
The U.S. government’s war on drugs hasn’t even been successful enough to keep drugs out of prisons. Recently it was discovered that the Lawton Correctional Facility had a drug ring that was trafficking marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. Over 100 inmates were estimated to be using the drugs at the facility. If we can’t even stop the drugs from getting into our prisons, what in the world would make anyone believe they are capable of stopping illegal aliens from getting into our country? Are we ready to give up additional freedoms? The only way to stop illegal workers from coming to the U.S. is to dry up available jobs for them. I don’t believe our government really has the will to do this.
Do you?
(You can write to Craig directly: Craig Dawkins or post a comment on this blog)
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:25 am
Craig,
The truth is we were told that passing NAFTA style trade deals would decrease illegal immigration by both parties. The real issue is we are now in completion with overseas slave labor in countries like China, Mexico, etc. The way American business competes is hiring illegal immigrants, legal immigrants willing to work much cheaper and outsourcing to foreign countries via cheap labor. The combination has created declining real wages while healthcare, childcare, college costs, and energy prices are out of control.
The solution is to renegotiate are trade deals to equalize labor and environmental standards, while at the same time enforcing our current immigration laws. Also we need to secure our borders.
Ross Perot on Immigration
NAFTA will encourage illegal immigration
[It is a myth that] NAFTA will reduce illegal immigration. As manufacturing in northern Mexico expands, hundreds of thousands of Mexican workers will be drawn north. They will quickly find that wages in the Mexican maquiladora plants cannot compete with wages anywhere in the US. Out of economic necessity, many of these mobile workers will consider illegally immigrating into the US. In short, NAFTA has the potential to increase illegal immigration, not decrease it.
Source: Save Your Job, Save Our Country, by Ross Perot, p. 72 Jan 1, 1993
NAFTA lets Mexican professionals work in the US legally
Today, foreign professional workers can enter the US labor market, but only “temporarily†& only if an employer gets a certification that a qualified US worker cannot be found. Also, the existing US immigration laws place a numerical limit on the number of temporary workers. Put another way, American workers have priority for American jobs.
NAFA radically alters this entire concept. Under NAFTA, Mexican and Canadian workers in 63 designated categories may be hired in the US, even if qualified American workers are available.
Under NAFTA, Mexican and Canadian entrepreneurs will be able to provide US drug stores with pharmacists, hotels with managers, and so on. As a result, hundreds of thousands of professional American workers are going to be put under intense pressure to cut their wages and benefits. [Lower-skilled workers] are going to lose their jobs to low-paid foreign contract workers. While no one was watching, US NAFTA negotiators radically revised the nation’s immigration laws.
Source: Save Your Job, Save Our Country, p. 90-2 Jan 1, 1993
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:13 am
John,
Are you in favor of tariffs? Isolationism? I’m not. More free trade, not less is what’s needed. I say, let’s buy as much oil from Mexico as we possibly can. Mexico just announced a major oil find in the Gulf. Let’s buy more oil from Mexico and less from the middle east.
If Mexico and Central America were more prosperous, fewer people from those countries would want to come here.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Buzz,
I am for smart trade. The way frame the question is why I have made a good living cleaning up after business people who do not understand the difference between gross and net. You cannot find many economist that will tell you that the trade debt is sustainable. National and personal debt is growing faster than GDP, while we keep having record trade debt.
The reason our national debt is out of control is America is importing poverty (illegal and legal immigration) to compete with $2 to $5 dollar a day wages. USA Today did a article of how entitlement cost to working poor is the fastest growing part of the budget. This is why many Republican conservatives like Pete Peteterson, Warren Buffett , Paul Craig Roberts, Lou dobbs.Charlie Norwood, Ron Paul,Walter .. Jones…… are all speaking out.
Phil Kent made a point at ,last Saturday Cobb Republican breakfast about how Tom Price was the deciding vote on CAFTA which is encouraging our legal and illegal immigration problem.
We should buy more oil from Mexico instead of the Middle East, but you are kidding yourself with 50 % of the people making less than $5 a day that oil purchase will have any meaningful help.
Tom Price’s solution to out regulate, tort reform and tax structure countries like communist China is a game America would not want to win.
We most do what former Republican Treasury Sectaries like Pet Peterson and Paul Craig Roberts recommend and take wages, regulation, environmental standards all in consideration when negotiating out trade deals. Charlie Norwood made great point in the two press releases.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga09_norwood/WTO.html
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga09_norwood/WTO.html
By the way Mexico wages and poverty went backwards after the passing of NAFTA.
Buzz, I do like your website as well as your posting on other sites. You are way to smart to fall in the trap of calling people Isolationist or non Free traders to over simplify an argument to make a point. This is a slippery slope that leads to people calling like me a racist , because of my positions on immigration and the UAE deal. I would like to hear your comments
April 6th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
“This is a slippery slope that leads to people calling like me [sic] a racist , because of my positions on immigration and the UAE deal.”
John, no one called you a racist. Or even an isolationist. Buzz asked you whether you favored tariffs (presumably against goods from “slave labor … countries like Mexico and China”) and isolationism. Please answer him without putting words in his mouth.
As for your position on immigration, what exactly is it? Do you support or oppose the current Senate proposal for a three-tiered treatment of illegals? If not or if so, why? And if not, do you have an alternative? Inquiring voters would like to know.
Re the “UAE deal”, perhaps you can clarify your position there, too? Nearest I can figure from our prior discussion is that you opposed it because China employs slave labor and Tom Price wants us in a “race to the bottom”. Did I miss something?
Best,
Bob
April 6th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Bob,
I never accused Buzz of calling me a racist. My point was that using words like isolationism are a slippery slope to words like racist. And they are simple talking points and not thought out positions on issues. I have been called a racist for speaking up on immigration , trade and UAE port deal. Anyone who has seen Chip Rogers,Phil Kent or myself on panels talking about trade and immigration would not make your challenge. I will point out non of the panel members have ever called me a racist. Once we both agree you misrepresented what I said we will go on and I have no problem answering your questions. Bob I had to deal with people like you who throw multiple mud balls and never deal with a particular false charge you make.I would be surprised if Buzz would say , that I , in anyway implied that he called me a racist.
This was sent to me after I pointed out that Cesar Chavez testified before congress that immigration is tool to drive wages down.That his brother Manuel, and him ran the first Minuteman project.In 1969 MLK successor Robert Abernathy, Walter Mondale and the Chavez brothers demonstrated to block boarders. I ask are all of them racist ? I have heard similar type comments on multiple occasions.
Stop your racist propaganda
In 1969, Chavez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valley to the border of Mexico to protest growers’ use of illegal aliens as strikebreakers.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
“Bob I had to deal with people like you who throw multiple mud balls and never deal with a particular false charge you make.”
I didn’t call you a racist either, John. Nor did I “throw … mud balls.” I merely pointed out that your “slippery slope” comment was a non sequitur. Buzz wasn’t even remotely close to that slope you were warning him about, much less sliding down it. If you go back and reread his post, Buzz was asking about your trade policy views, not your immigration views. And the word “isolationism” has nothing to do with racism, John. Look it up.
Why are you so defensive, anyway? You’re the one campaigning here. Surely you can say what policies you support or oppose when asked about a particular issue and coherently justify your positions. Right?
April 7th, 2006 at 6:55 am
Bob,
There you go again , I never accused you of calling me a racist. Bob you are manipulating the story because you got called on the carpet.
As far as immigration and trade not being tied together that is ridicules. In the early 90’s both parties promised that trade policy would fix illegal immigration. Read for yourself. You will change the argument again like both parties did after we ended up with 20mm illegal immigrants and counting, after trade deals like NAFTA,CAFTA,CHINA WTO……………
Ross Perot on Immigration
NAFTA will encourage illegal immigration
[It is a myth that] NAFTA will reduce illegal immigration. As manufacturing in northern Mexico expands, hundreds of thousands of Mexican workers will be drawn north. They will quickly find that wages in the Mexican maquiladora plants cannot compete with wages anywhere in the US. Out of economic necessity, many of these mobile workers will consider illegally immigrating into the US. In short, NAFTA has the potential to increase illegal immigration, not decrease it.
Source: Save Your Job, Save Our Country, by Ross Perot, p. 72 Jan 1, 1993
April 7th, 2006 at 10:23 am
There you go again, evading the questions asked of you. Defensiveness in place of coherent policy positions is not a good campaign strategy.
As for Ross “giant sucking sound” Perot, NAFTA did not create Maquiladora plants. They have their origins in the Mexican “Border Industrialization Program” begun in 1965 to attract foreign investment and create jobs for Mexicans in Mexico. It was begun in response to the US government’s termination in 1964 of its “Bracero Program” whereby Mexican agricultural laborers could work legally in the US on a seasonal basis.
Ross’s argument is based on a false premise.
Besides, his “giant sucking sound” warning at the time was not that more Mexicans would come to the US for jobs. It was that jobs in the US would disappear in favor of jobs in Mexico. He was wrong on that score, too.
In short, “trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, CHINA WTO” [sic] didn’t cause “20mm illegal immigrants and counting” to come to the US.
Or even the 11 million figure most reasonable people cite.
Strong economic growth and job creation in the US did that. Economic growth and job creation the Perotistas said would disappear in a “giant sucking” action to Mexico.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Bob,
Many of us are tired of politicians plug and play strategy with numbers to make points about the economy. I listen to people like you and Tom Price from NEOCONS to Liberal open boarder supporters make it up as you go. You cannot have a honest conversation until you guys stop lying to yourself about the problem. Read one more respected conservative treasury employee who is speaking out. I predict you will go to character assassination on Bruce Bartlett,like you guys have done with Republicans, Paul Craig Roberts, Paul O Neal,Pete Peterson, Warren Buffett, lou Dobbs……..
Columns Finding the right man
Apr 4, 2006
by Bruce Bartlett ( bio | archive | contact )
Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A According to press reports, the first job for Josh Bolten, the new White House chief of staff, will be to find a new treasury secretary. President Bush believes that he has not gotten enough credit for the good economy and that Treasury Secretary John Snow has not done enough to make sure he gets that credit.
All I can say is that if Snow is not enough of a cheerleader on the economy, then no one is. In my view, he has allowed the federal government’s second-ranking department to be downgraded into little more than a PR shop. Half the Treasury’s press statements seem to be nothing but raves about some obscure economic statistic or another.
It has always been my belief that what really determines peoples’ perceptions about the state of the economy is what they see in their lives, neighborhoods and workplaces. They don’t pay any attention to the gross domestic product numbers or any of the lesser figures released on almost a daily basis.
If people have jobs, if their wages are rising, if they can pay for the things they need and have a little left over to invest, then they are happy about the economy. If they are unemployed or fear layoffs, if their wages are stagnating and they are wary of losing benefits, and they are having to go into debt rather than save for the future, then they are going to be unhappy about the economy no matter how great the data are or how hard the White House and Treasury hype the numbers.
Of course, the president is entitled to have the Cabinet secretaries he is most comfortable with, and if he wants someone new at Treasury, then he and his new chief of staff should move with dispatch. Snow has already been hung out to dry long enough.
It’s worth remembering that there have been rumors about Snow’s imminent sacking almost since he came on board in 2003, after his predecessor, Paul O’Neill, was fired. Just a year later, The Washington Post reported that the White House was already looking for Snow’s replacement. The White House denied it — he could stay as long as he liked, “provided it is not very long.”
With a vote of confidence like that, it is a wonder that Snow is still around. Apparently, it was only the White House’s inability to find anyone of sufficient stature to take the job that saved him. Why it thinks it will have a better chance of finding that person today is a mystery. There is really no time left to do much of anything in terms of economic policy, and Bush’s two previous secretaries were forced out. Anyone coming in now will have to know that they are just going to be marking time and will have no meaningful influence.
It has been obvious for some time that President Bush relies totally on a trusted few advisers, and everyone else is pretty much occupying space. And he doesn’t even treat the few trusted ones with much respect. In his book “The Price of Loyalty,” journalist Ron Suskind recounts how Bush once ordered White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, a former Cabinet secretary, to run out and get him a couple of cheeseburgers. “He all but raced out of the room,” Suskind reports.
Now, Bush is paying the price. As people leave his administration, some are starting to open up about its utter dysfunction and the problems it created. For example, Andrew Natsios, former director of the Agency for International Development, recently told Newsweek magazine that his agency’s efforts to help rebuild Iraq were totally undermined by a lack of planning and competence at the Coalition Provisional Authority, which handled the occupation of Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government.
Michael Brown, the ousted head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was blamed by the White House for all the mistakes following Hurricane Katrina. But he is starting to make a persuasive case that those well above his pay grade — including Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff and even President Bush — share a lot of that blame.
Not surprisingly, The New York Times reports that the White House is having great difficulty finding a new FEMA chief. It seems that everyone qualified to do the job has turned it down. Oddly, the prospect of a job where one would have to take full responsibility for everything that goes wrong but have little power to actually run the agency seems unattractive to them.
Unlike FEMA, the Treasury still has some cachet — it’s cool to know that you are sitting in Alexander Hamilton’s chair. So the White House will eventually find someone with a name to do that job. But I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
Bruce Bartlett is a former senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis of Dallas, Texas. Before joining the NCPA, he was deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department, where he served from September 1988 to January 1993. In 1987 and 1988, Bartlett was a senior policy analyst in the Office of Policy Development at the White House.
From 1985 through 1987, he was a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
Between 1976 and 1984, Bartlett held numerous positions on Capitol Hill. In 1976, he served on the staff of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas as a legislative assistant. In 1977, he joined the staff of Rep. Jack Kemp of New York as a special assistant and staff economist. While with Kemp, Bartlett helped draft the famous Kemp-Roth tax bill. Between 1979 and 1980, he worked for Sen. Roger Jepsen of Iowa as chief legislative assistant. In 1981, Bartlett joined the staff of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress as deputy director, becoming executive director in 1983. Bartlett is a prolific author, having published over 900 articles in national publications, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, as well as many prominent magazines such as Fortune. In 1996, one of his columns inspired Bob Dole’s 15 percent tax reduction plan.
Bartlett has also written for important academic journals and published four books, including Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action, published in 1981.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Bob,
This was a comment direceted at me.
Stop your racist propaganda
In 1969, Chavez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valley to the border of Mexico to protest growers’ use of illegal aliens as strikebreakers.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
“This was a comment direceted [sic] at me.”
You posted it – what’s your point?
“I predict you will go to character assassination on Bruce Bartlett,like you guys have done with …”
Wrong again, bud. Besides, that column has nothing to do with immigration OR trade. What was the point you were trying to make by posting it?
April 7th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Bob,
The point is Bruce Bartlet points out that we have a problem with real wages for the average American family. This is why I do not support the guest worker program , as well ,they will be a drain on our economy, not fair to legal immigrants,amnesty………..
As far as your original question on how the UAE deal has anything to do with trade, please read the following article.
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer Sun Mar 19, 1:29 PM ET
WASHINGTON – The furor over efforts by an Arab company to buy U.S. port operations has focused attention on a little noticed economic fact of life: America increasingly is foreign-owned.
From the ritzy Essex House hotel in Manhattan, owned by the Dubai Investment Group, to the nationwide chains of Caribou Coffee and Church’s Chicken, owned by another company serving Arab investors, foreigners are buying bigger and bigger chunks of the country.
The U.S. must borrow more than $2 billion per day from foreigners to finance its huge trade deficits. In 2005, for example, there was a record deficit of $805 billion in the current account, the broadest measure of trade.
Foreigners sell their televisions, cars and oil to Americans and hold dollars in return. Those dollars are invested in stocks, bonds and other assets, including real estate and factories.
Foreigners already own half of the U.S. government’s publicly traded debt. As of January, some $2.19 trillion in Treasury securities were in the hands of central banks, including China and Japan, and private investors abroad.
At the end of 2004, the total foreign direct investment in this country — actual factories, office buildings and other tangible assets as opposed to stocks and bonds — came to $1.53 trillion, 8.2 percent more than in 2003.
That investment shows up in all of the 50 states.
In Oakland, Maine, it’s a customer service center for T-Mobile USA Inc., which is a subsidiary of German-based Deutsche Telekom. In Glendale, Calif., it’s the U.S. headquarters for Nestle, the Swiss-based food and beverage company.
Arab investment has gotten the most scrutiny of late because of the now-withdrawn bid by a Dubai-based company to buy operations at six major U.S. ports. But statistics show that Arab investments represent only a a fraction of the total direct investment in the U.S. by foreigners.
European nations accounted for $977 billion, or two-thirds, of the $1.53 trillion of foreign direct investment, according to figures compiled by the
Commerce Department.
By contrast, Arab countries in the Middle East accounted for $9.3 billion, led by $4.7 billion in investment from Saudi Arabia. The United Arab Emirates was second among Middle East Arab countries with $1.8 billion in investments, according to the data.
DP World of Dubai said last week it intends to sell its U.S. operations to an American-owned company. But that has not stopped some members of Congress from seeking to overhaul the way such deals are reviewed by a secretive government panel.
A bill by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record) of California, would bar foreign ownership of U.S. infrastructure deemed critical to the national security.
“To those who say this is protectionism, I say — America is worth protecting,” Hunter said.
Opponents say his proposal would mean the fire sale of billions of dollars of assets now in foreign hands and end up hurting the U.S. economy.
Consider that for more than a decade, French tire maker Michelin has been the exclusive supplier of tires for NASA’s space shuttles. DSM, a Dutch company, makes body armor for U.S. troops, while French-owned Sodexho provides meals for the troops at a number of military installations.
Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States.
“People don’t understand how integrated the U.S. economy has become with the global economy, how dependent we have become on other nations,” said Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategy Institute, a Washington think tank.
Some analysts believe such realities are getting lost as politicians try to respond to growing anxiety about the trade deficits, the loss of nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since mid-2000, immigration problems and the threat of more terrorist attacks.
“We have to be very careful that we don’t overreact in the legislative process and enact economic policy masquerading as national security policy,” said Todd Malan, head of the Organization for International Investment. The Washington group represents foreign companies that do business in the United States.
To the puzzlement of some economists, the current debate centers on direct foreign investment, the most stable type of investment. Yet the far larger share of foreign investment is in Treasury securities, corporate bonds and stocks.
If foreigners suddenly decided to reduce their holdings of these assets, the dollar could plunge in value, interest rates could soar and stock prices could suffer a big blow.
David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor’s in New York, cited the 51 percent share of foreign ownership of the federal government’s debt — and that share is rising.
“That strikes me as scary,” Wyss said. “When you make yourself so dependent on inflows of capital from the rest of the world, the question is what happens if the inflows slow down.”
The amount of federal debt that must be financed each year is climbing because of the budget deficits. On Thursday, Congress acted to raise the debt ceiling — the amount the government can borrow — by $781 billion, to nearly $9 trillion.
April 7th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
“The point is Bruce Bartlet points out that we have a problem with real wages for the average American family.”
No, he doesn’t. Not in that article, anyway. The article was about Secretary Snow and speculation of his impending replacement. Did you read it before you posted it?
And even if you read that somewhere else, it is incorrect as I’ve shown you before. Real wages for the average worker – not manager, executive or Hollywood celebrity – are significantly higher now than when Bush took office and have been in an uptrend since the mid-1990s after declining significantly throughout the 1980s.
Oh, I forgot. You don’t like government economic statistics – at least when they conflict with your beliefs. What is it you call them? Oh, yeah – “plug and play numbers.” LOL.
“As far as your original question on how the UAE deal has anything to do with trade, please read the following article.”
That’s not what I asked. Of course foreign direct investment and trade are related. As my teenage daughter would say, D’uh!
What I asked, perhaps too subtly, is what the UAE has to do with “slave labor” in China or Tom Price wanting a “race to the bottom.”
April 8th, 2006 at 4:47 am
Bob,
You really are not arguing that Bruce Bartlett as well Paul Craig Roberts are not questioning the integrity of the statements and numbers coming from the government about economic data ? Bob I have talk to allot of people in the 6th district, you will find most people know that healthcare,childcare,college cost energy prices are growing 2 to 4 times faster than their wages.You and Tom Price can spin it any way you want, but Bruce Bartlett’s point is people know if they have money.
BRUCE BARTLETT
“All I can say is that if Snow is not enough of a cheerleader on the economy, then no one is. In my view, he has allowed the federal government’s second-ranking department to be downgraded into little more than a PR shop. Half the Treasury’s press statements seem to be nothing but raves about some obscure economic statistic or another”.
“It has always been my belief that what really determines peoples’ perceptions about the state of the economy is what they see in their lives, neighborhoods and workplaces. They don’t pay any attention to the gross domestic product numbers or any of the lesser figures released on almost a daily basis.”
“If people have jobs, if their wages are rising, if they can pay for the things they need and have a little left over to invest, then they are happy about the economy. If they are unemployed or fear layoffs, if their wages are stagnating and they are wary of losing benefits, and they are having to go into debt rather than save for the future, then they are going to be unhappy about the economy no matter how great the data are or how hard the White House and Treasury hype the numbers”.
As far as Ross Perot , U.S. companies moved factories to Mexico from our country with American tax payers subsidies loans to build sweatshops.You are saying because he did not name the exact industry he is wrong about what would happen with illegal immigrants swarming our country ?
Tom Price and the RACE TO THE BOTTOM trade policy he supports. U.S.companies are competing with countries who pay people $2 to $5 dollars a day,with no regulations(child labor sweatshops) and environmental standards. To compete we recruit illegal immigrants, legal immigrants or outsource jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. The victims are the American middle class with wages dropping,social service expense of illegal immigrants(schools,healthcare,food…..), Immigrants sending money out of our economy, and the clean up cost of Mexico dumping pollution on our soil.
The winners are multi national corporation who profits are way up at the expense of the middle class..
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — U.S. corporate profits have increased 21.3% in the past year and now account for the largest share of national income in 40 years, the Commerce Department said Thursday.
Strong productivity gains and subdued wage growth boosted before-tax profits to 11.6% of national income in the fourth quarter of 2005, the biggest share since the summer of 1966. See full story.
For all of 2005, before-tax profits totaled $1.35 trillion, up from $1.16 trillion in 2004 and just $767 billion in 2001.
Meanwhile, the share of national income going to wage and salary workers has fallen to 56.9%. Except for a brief period in 1997, that’s the lowest share for labor income since 1966.
“It’s a big puzzle,” said Josh Bivens, an economist for the Economic Policy Institute. “If this is a knowledge economy, how come the brains aren’t being compensated? Instead, the owners of physical capital are getting the rewards.”
Despite the flood of cash coming in the door, corporations are investing comparatively little in expanding their operations. Capital spending has been below average, especially considering the strength of the economy, the level of profits and the special tax breaks given to boost investment.
In the fourth quarter, business fixed investment increased just 4.5%. In the past year, investment has risen 6.8%. The growth rate has been falling for the past four quarters.
Some economists are counting on the corporate sector to pick up their investments in the coming year, to replace the economic stimulus that will be lost as the housing market cools.
Profits have been so high because almost all of the benefits from productivity improvements are flowing to the owners of capital rather than to the workers.
While profits are up 21.3% in the past year, labor compensation is up just 5.5%. After adjusting for inflation, population growth and taxes, real disposable per capita incomes are up just 0.5% in the past year.
Competition, tight labor market may force rise in labor income
But as the labor market tightens, labor’s share of income will likely rise, economists say.
“Capital spending will stay strong,” said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomic research at Moody’s Economy.com. He theorizes that, to maintain productivity growth in a hypercompetitive world, companies will be forced to invest in capital as labor becomes relatively more expensive.
Corporations certainly have the means to invest, but they’ve been cautious, said Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board. In 2005, corporations retained $460 billion of their profits, while handing back $514 billion in dividends.
Consumers, as always, hold the key. If labor income rises enough, consumers could keep up a healthy pace of spending even if they lose ready access to their home equity as a source of purchasing power, Goldstein said.
But consumers are very wary of rising prices. So far, their incomes have not kept pace with inflation. Goldstein expects consumer spending to slow this year.
And if consumer spending slows, corporations will become more hesitant about expanding their productive capacity. Unless there’s stronger demand from overseas markets.
Goldstein figures there’s less than a 50-50 chance that business investment will rise significantly in the coming year. The Conference Board expects the U.S. economy to grow 2.5% in the next four quarters, after growing 3.5% in the past four quarters.
That’s not horrible, but it’s not a boom either
The happy scenario could still play out. But “there are a lot of ‘ifs’,” Bivens said.
Because Congressman like Tom Price support THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM trade policy we are selling off our country brick by brick.
David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor’s in New York, cited the 51 percent share of foreign ownership of the federal government’s debt — and that share is rising.
“That strikes me as scary,†Wyss said. “When you make yourself so dependent on inflows of capital from the rest of the world, the question is what happens if the inflows slow down.â€
The amount of federal debt that must be financed each year is climbing because of the budget deficits. On Thursday, Congress acted to raise the debt ceiling — the amount the government can borrow — by $781 billion, to nearly $9 trillion.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:06 am
Bob,
Selling Out – $1.3 Trillion of American Companies Sold to Foreign Corps
The following staggering amount of our wealth producing companies has been sold to foreign owners in the 10 years from 1995 through 2005. Below is a partial list of the 8,600 U.S. companies sold.
It is critical to understand that even if these are not all familiar corporate names, they are all very valuable strategic companies with vast amounts of technology, assets, production facilities, tax base, and employment attached to each one. In fact, many of the smallest, most unfamiliar acquisitions represent some of the most significant strategic and proprietary technology losses to this country. Many of these companies took decades, and in some cases generations, to build to their size and scope prior to acquisition. Not only does the US lose control of the assets and technologies of these companies as of the date they were acquired, the US also loses all future profit and title to all future advancements of these companies.
These companies were the means through which America created much of its present wealth. With the loss of these companies and having no comparable replacement, it’s easy to see that our future will not be as good as our past, especially since the countries that acquired these companies are now able to compete with us in almost all industries. Why are we doing this? Don’t we have alternatives? Who is responsible, demand answers from your congressperson.
The following table lists only a few of the 8,600 foreign acquisitions during this period. The $1.3 Trillion figure and complete list can be verified at the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Oil and Gas; Petroleum Refining
Amoco Corp British Petroleum Co PLC United Kingdom $48.174 Billion
ARCO BP Amoco PLC United Kingdom $27.224 Billion
Texaco-US Refining & Marketing Shell Oil-Western US Business Netherlands $3.964 Billion
Pennzoil-Quaker State Co Shell Oil Co Netherlands $2.909 Billion
Texaco Inc-Refining Operations Saudi Refining Inc Saudi Arabia $1.280 Billion
Amerada Hess-St Croix Refinery PDVSA Venezuela $0.932 Billion
Chevron Corp-Port Arthur,TX Clark Refining & Marketing Inc Canada $0.825 Billion
Monsanto Oil Co(Monsanto Co) BHP Petroleum(Americas)Inc Australia $0.745 Billion
CITGO Petroleum Corp Propernyn BV Netherlands $0.662 Billion
Other $29.603 Billion
Total $116.317 Billion
Telecommunications
AirTouch Communications Inc Vodafone Group PLC United Kingdom $60.287 Billion
VoiceStream Wireless Corp Deutsche Telekom AG Germany $29.404 Billion
AT&T-Worldwide Assets,Ops British Telecomm-Worldwide United Kingdom $5.038 Billion
GE Americom Communications SES Global SA Luxembourg $4.326 Billion
Cellular Communications Intl Kensington Acquisition Sub Inc Italy $1.688 Billion
Loral Space-Satellites(6) Intelsat Ltd Bermuda $1.100 Billion
QUALCOMM-Land-Based Wireless Kyocera Corp Japan $1.000 Billion
GE Capital Spacenet Services Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd Israel $0.228 Billion
Lockheed Martin Corp-World Intelsat Ltd Bermuda $0.120 Billion
Other $43.239 Billion
Total $146.429 Billion
Transportation Equipment
Chrysler Corp Daimler-Benz AG Germany $40.466 Billion
ITT Inds-Automotive Electrical Valeo SA France $1.700 Billion
AlliedSignal Auto-Braking Busn Robert Bosch GmbH Germany $1.500 Billion
Blue Bird Corp Henlys Group PLC United Kingdom $0.665 Billion
Motor Coach Industries Intl Consorcio G Grupo Dina’l’ads Mexico $0.335 Billion
Dana Corp-Driveline Business GKN PLC-Driveline Assembly United Kingdom $0.108 Billion
Mack Trucks Inc Renault Vehicules Industriels France $0.104 Billion
Delphi Automotive Sys-Magnaque San Huan Group Inc China $0.070 Billion
General Motors-Assembly Line China-General Engine Factory China $0.017 Billion
Dana Corp-Kirkstall Forging Bharat Forge Ltd India $0.006 Billion
Other $9.247 Billion
Total $54.217 Billion
Printing, Publishing, and Allied Services
Harcourt General Inc Reed Elsevier Group PLC United Kingdom $5.603 Billion
Simon & Schuster-Educ,Prof Pearson PLC United Kingdom $4.600 Billion
West Publishing Co Thomson Corp Canada $3.425 Billion
Macmillan Inc Maxwell Communication Corp United Kingdom $2.522 Billion
Houghton Mifflin Co Vivendi Universal SA France $2.272 Billion
Ziff Davis Media Inc Softbank Corp Japan $2.100 Billion
CBS Records Group(CBS Inc) Sony Corp Japan $2.000 Billion
Random House Inc Bertelsmann AG Germany $1.300 Billion
Doubleday-Publishing&Printing Bertelsmann AG Germany $0.500 Billion
Harper & Row Publishers Inc News America Holdings Inc Australia $0.293 Billion
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co Pearson Inc(Pearson PLC) United Kingdom $0.273 Billion
Other $31.483 Billion
Total $56.371 Billion
Mining
Magma Copper Co BHP Australia $2.432 Billion
NERCO Inc Kennecott Corp(RTZ Corp PLC) United Kingdom $1.162 Billion
Cyprus Amax-US Coal Mining Ops RAG International Mining Gmbh Germany $1.100 Billion
Getchell Gold Corp Placer Dome Inc Canada $1.079 Billion
ASARCO Inc Nueva Grupo Mexico SA de CV Mexico $1.073 Billion
Other $12.281 Billion
Total $19.126 Billion
Insurance
John Hancock Finl Svcs Inc Manulife Financial Corp Canada $11.063 Billion
TransAmerica Corp Aegon NV Netherlands $9.691 Billion
Farmers Group Inc BATUS Inc(BAT Industries PLC) United Kingdom $5.200 Billion
CIGNA Corp-US & International ACE Ltd Bermuda $3.450 Billion
American Bankers Ins Group Inc Fortis AG Belgium $2.630 Billion
Providian Corp-Insurance Aegon NV Netherlands $2.624 Billion
Other $51.261 Billion
Total $85.917 Billion
Electronic and Electrical Equipment
AMP Inc Tyco International Ltd Bermuda $10.736 Billion
DII Group Flextronics International Ltd Singapore $2.591 Billion
Silicon Valley Group Inc ASM Lithography Holding NV Netherlands $1.561 Billion
ChipPAC Inc ST Assembly Test Services Ltd Singapore $1.459 Billion
VLSI Technology Inc Koninklijke Philips Electronic Netherlands $1.163 Billion
GTE Electrical Prods-Sylvania Osram GmbH Germany $1.000 Billion
Artisan Components Inc ARM Holdings PLC United Kingdom $0.933 Billion
Exide Electronics Group Inc BTR PLC United Kingdom $0.583 Billion
Westinghouse Elec-Power Equip Asea Brown Boveri(ABillion Asea) Sweden $0.370 Billion
Zenith Electronics Corp LG Electronics Inc South Korea $0.186 Billion
Natl Semiconductor Corp-Bus VIA Technologies Inc Taiwan $0.167 Billion
Natl Semiconductor-Chip Plant Matsushita Electric Industrial Japan $0.100 Billion
Other $40.773 Billion
Total $61.622 Billion
Drugs
SmithKline Beckman Corp Beecham Group PLC United Kingdom $7.922 Billion
Marion Merrell Dow Inc Hoechst AG Germany $7.265 Billion
Syntex Corp Roche Holding AG Switzerland $5.307 Billion
Rorer Group Inc Rhone-Poulenc SA France $3.476 Billion
SICOR Inc Teva Pharma Inds Ltd Israel $3.401 Billion
Genentech Inc Roche Holding AG Switzerland $1.530 Billion
Chiron Diagnostics Corp Bayer AG Germany $1.100 Billion
Other $30.301 Billion
Total $60.302 Billion
Computer and Office Equipment
IBM Corp-Hard Disk Drive Hitachi Ltd Japan $2.050 Billion
Kingston Technology Corp Softbank Corp Japan $1.071 Billion
Amdahl Corp Fujitsu Ltd Japan $0.925 Billion
Maxtor Corp Hyundai Electn Industries Co South Korea $0.228 Billion
Quantum-Recording-Head Bus Matsushita Kotobuki Electn Ind Japan $0.200 Billion
Proxima Corp ASK AS Norway $0.083 Billion
Other $28.337 Billion
Total $32.894 Billion
Machinery
United States Filter Corp Vivendi SA France $6.318 Billion
Westinghouse-Conven Power Gen Siemens AG Germany $1.525 Billion
Rexnord Corp BTR Dunlop Holdings(BTR PLC) United Kingdom $0.815 Billion
Progressive Tool & Industry Co Fiat SpA Italy $0.630 Billion
Detroit Diesel DaimlerChrysler AG Germany $0.581 Billion
Pinnacle Automation Inc FKI PLC United Kingdom $0.425 Billion
Ingersoll-Rand-Drilling Bus Atlas Copco AB Sweden $0.225 Billion
Other $13.588 Billion
Total $24.106 Billion
Metal and Metal Products
Triangle Industries Inc Pechiney SA France $3.658 Billion
Lucent Tech-Optical Fibre Unit Furukawa Electric Co Ltd Japan $2.127 Billion
Inland Steel Co Ispat International NV Netherlands $1.427 Billion
AlliedSignal Laminate Systems Rutgers AG Germany $0.815 Billion
Cargill Inc-Cert Steel Asts Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc Canada $0.266 Billion
Other $14.722 Billion
Total $23.015 Billion
Investment & Commodity Firms,Dealers,Exchanges
PaineWebber Group Inc UBS AG Switzerland $12.243 Billion
Aetna-Fin’l Svcs & Int’l Bus ING Groep NV Netherlands $4.933 Billion
PIMCO Advisors Holdings LP Allianz AG Germany $1.930 Billion
Scudder Stevens & Clark Inc Zurich Versicherungs GmbH Switzerland $1.667 Billion
AIM Management Group Inc Invesco PLC United Kingdom $1.599 Billion
Dain Rauscher Corp Royal Bank of Canada Canada $1.354 Billion
First Boston Inc Credit Suisse First Boston Switzerland $1.100 Billion
Brinson Partners Inc Schweizerischer Bankverein Switzerland $0.750 Billion
Warburg Pincus Asset Mgmt Credit Suisse Asset Management Switzerland $0.650 Billion
Dillon Read & Co(UBS AG) SBC Warburg(Swiss Bank Corp) Switzerland $0.600 Billion
Other $39.379 Billion
Total $66.205 Billion
Commercial Banks, Bank Holding Companies
Bankers Trust New York Corp Deutsche Bank AG Germany $9.082 Billion
Republic New York Corp,NY,NY HSBC Holdings PLC{HSBC} United Kingdom $7.703 Billion
Banknorth Group Inc,ME Toronto-Dominion Bank Canada $3.813 Billion
Centura Bank Inc,NC Royal Bank of Canada Canada $2.320 Billion
Mellon Fin-Retail Banking Bus Citizens Financial Group,RI United Kingdom $2.100 Billion
Other $18.572 Billion
Total $43.590 Billion
Motion Picture Production and Distribution
MCA Inc Matsushita Electric Industrial Japan $7.406 Billion
Columbia Pictures Entmnt Sony USA Inc(Sony Corp) Japan $4.792 Billion
MGM/UA Communications Co Pathe Communications Corp Luxembourg $1.709 Billion
All American Communications Pearson PLC United Kingdom $0.500 Billion
RCA Columbia Home Video Columbia Pictures Entmnt Japan $0.350 Billion
Other $3.546 Billion
Total $18.303 Billion
Chemicals and Allied Products
Nalco Chemical Co Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux SA France $4.063 Billion
American Cyanamid Agri Product BASF AG Germany $3.900 Billion
Quantum Chemical Corp Hanson PLC United Kingdom $3.220 Billion
Loctite Corp Henkel KGaA Germany $1.289 Billion
Merck-Crop Protection Business Novartis AG Switzerland $0.910 Billion
Other $37.249 Bil.
Total $50.630 Billion
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co Bridgestone Corp Japan $2.533 Billion
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co Michelin SA France $1.500 Billion
Gates Corp Tomkins PLC United Kingdom $1.400 Billion
Johnson Controls-Plastic Div Schmalbach-Lubeca AG(Viag AG) Germany $0.650 Billion
General Tire Inc(GenCorp) Continental AG Germany $0.625 Billion
Other $9.716 Billion
Total $16.424 Billion
Food and Kindred Products
Bestfoods Unilever PLC United Kingdom $25.065 Bil.
Ralston Purina Co Nestle SA Switzerland $10.479 Bil.
Miller Brewing(Philip Morris) South African Breweries PLC United Kingdom $5.574 Billion
Pfizer Inc-Adams Cadbury Schweppes PLC United Kingdom $4.200 Billion
Gerber Products Co Sandoz AG Switzerland $3.686 Billion
Dr Pepper/Seven-Up Cos Inc Cadbury Schweppes PLC United Kingdom $2.367 Billion
Slim-Fast Foods Co Unilever NV Netherlands $2.300 Billion
Snapple Beverage Group Inc Cadbury Schweppes PLC United Kingdom $1.450 Billion
Beringer Wine Estates Holdings Fosters Brewing Group Ltd Australia $1.447 Billion
Tropicana Products Inc Joseph E Seagram & Sons Inc Canada $1.200 Billion
Other $26.150 Billion
Total $83.917 Billion
Credit Institutions
Household International Inc HSBC Holdings PLC{HSBC} United Kingdom $15.294 Billion
CIT Group Inc Tyco International Ltd Bermuda $9.341 Billion
AT&T Capital Corp(AT&T Corp) Investor Group United Kingdom $2.129 Billion
Genstar Corp Imasco Enterprises(Imasco) Canada $1.842 Billion
Peoples Bank-Credit Card Bus Royal Bank of Scotland Group United Kingdom $0.518 Billion
HealthCare Financial Partners Heller Financial Inc Japan $0.485 Billion
Other $2.584 Billion
Total $32.193 Billion
Electric, Gas, and Water Distribution
PacifiCorp Scottish Power PLC United Kingdom $12.600 Billion
Niagara Mohawk Holdings Inc National Grid Group PLC United Kingdom $8.048 Billion
American Water Works Co Inc RWE AG Germany $7.726 Billion
LG&E Energy Corp PowerGen PLC United Kingdom $5.426 Billion
New England Electric System National Grid Group PLC United Kingdom $4.217 Billion
Tejas Gas Corp Shell Oil Co Netherlands $2.166 Billion
United Water Resources Inc Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux SA France $1.845 Billion
Gas Transmission NW Corp TransCanada Corp Canada $1.703 Billion
Other $11.892 Billion
Total $55.622 Billion
Business Services
Ernst & Young-Consulting Bus Cap Gemini SA France $11.774 Billion
LHS Group Inc Sema Group PLC United Kingdom $4.338 Billion
Nielsen Media Research Inc VNU NV Netherlands $2.788 Billion
ACNielsen Corp VNU NV Netherlands $2.341 Billion
Sensormatic Electronics Corp Tyco International Ltd Bermuda $2.203 Billion
Shared Medical Systems Corp Siemens Corp Germany $2.058 Billion
Safety-Kleen Corp Laidlaw Environmental Services Canada $1.804 Billion
Combustion Engineering Inc Asea Brown Boveri(ABillion Asea) Sweden $1.795 Billion
MCI Communications Corp-Whl Cable & Wireless PLC United Kingdom $1.750 Billion
Experian Corp Great Universal Stores PLC United Kingdom $1.700 Billion
Manpower Inc Blue Arrow PLC United Kingdom $1.328 Billion
Primark Corp Thomson Corp Canada $1.081 Billion
Island ECN Inc Instinet Corp(Reuters Group) United Kingdom $0.543 Billion
Zenith Computer Group(Zenith) Cie des Machines Bull France $0.496 Billion
Knight-Ridder Information Inc MAID PLC United Kingdom $0.420 Billion
Pinkerton’s Inc Securitas AB Sweden $0.383 Billion
Other $72.510 Billion
Total $109.312 Billion
Source: http://www.economyincrisis.org
April 8th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
“U.S. companies moved factories to Mexico from our country with American tax payers subsidies loans to build sweatshops.”
They did? Got a source?
“You are saying because he did not name the exact industry he is wrong about what would happen with illegal immigrants swarming our country ?”
Hmm. Reading comprehension’s not your strong suit, is it? That’s not remotely what I said about Perot’s Maquiadora/NAFTA/”giant sucking sound” argument.
“The victims are the American middle class with wages dropping…”
Again with the falling wages mantra? Repetition doesn’t creat its own truth, John.
“Immigrants sending money out of our economy…”
And that is bad because … ?
“the clean up cost of Mexico dumping pollution on our soil.”
That’s interesting, too. Gotta source?
“U.S. corporate profits have increased 21.3% in the past year and now account for the largest share of national income in 40 years…”
Don’t tell me you’re on a “big greedy corporations make too much money” kick, John. Should we raise taxes to take back some of their “windfalls”?
John, you realize who owns most of these big corporations (and thousands of smaller ones), don’t you? Half of US households, do, John. 56.9 million households as of last year, up 14.4% from 1999, own stock in public companies.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/wellspent/archives/2005/11/stock_ownership.html
Are you seriously suggesting that record corporate profits are a bad thing?
Oh, BTW, perhaps you missed these lines from your own post:
“After adjusting for inflation, population growth and taxes, real disposable per capita incomes are up … 0.5% in the past year…
But as the labor market tightens, labor’s share of income will likely rise, economists say.”
Hard to claim falling real wages when your own choice of articles says otherwise.
“Selling Out – $1.3 Trillion of American Companies Sold to Foreign Corps”
Oh, my! Foreigners want to invest in the US! Frightening!
BTW, John, you seem to like this economyincrisis.org website. Do you know who is behind it and why they go to such great lengths to hide their identity? They even hide the ownership of their domain name. Rather odd.
April 8th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Bob,
A Former economist for the banking industry like you would know of the import/export bank loan guarantees, which runs in the billions every year. G.E.as well as other corporations have used the money to move factories to Mexico, while they shut them down in the U.S. The import/export bank is a program that uses U.S. tax payers dolllars. The World bank is the other program that has U.S. tax dollars and China gets about 3 to 4 billion a year. If you really are a former economist in the banking world like you claim , I am shocked you would not know about the programs.
I am also surprised, because most economist would of been shocked about the lack of investment in America of major corporation after record profits. This is called a key indicator, most rational business people , would look at to test the future strength of the recovery. Bob , if you are a economist , you should send your resume to the Bush White House. As Bruce Bartlett pointed out they are looking for reckless cheerleaders , who do not care about their reputation. Since it is no secrete they are having a hard time finding real economist to spin the numbers , you might be perfect.
April 8th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Bob,
This is from the Department of health and Human Service for the U.S. Government.
Residents living along the U.S.-Mexico Border experience greater rates of communicable illnesses such as tuberculosis and vaccine preventable illnesses than other groups of people across the Nation. High rates of hepatitis and other intestinal infections, due to a lack of clean water and proper sewage disposal, are also a concern. Frequent movement between both countries and within the U.S. compromises continuity of health care for residents of this area. Additionally, the four States in the border area have some of the highest rates of poverty, unemployment, and uninsured people in the Nation.
Border Region
The U.S.-Mexico border region is 2,000 miles long, stretching from San Ysidro, California, to Brownsville, Texas, and extending 62 miles north of the border in to the U.S. This border is approximately half the length of the U.S.-Canada border, and represents the distance from Washington, DC, to Phoenix, Arizona, in direct miles.
The border area consists of 48 counties in four states. Some of the poorest counties in the United States are located in this border area. More than a third of U.S. border families live at or below the poverty line. An estimated 350,000 people live in colonias, which are un-zoned, semi-rural communities without access to public drinking water or wastewater systems. The unemployment rate along the border is 250-300 percent higher than in the rest of the country.
——————————————————————————–
Border Health Issues
Sanitation:
The sanitation infrastructure deficiencies of the border area are enormous. Forty-six million liters of raw sewage flow daily into the Tijuana River. Another 76 million are dumped in to the New and Rio Grande Rivers. The management of water use is governed by treaties, but they do not deal with pollution management, such as sewage and pesticide runoff. Communities that use this water for cooking and drinking face serious health threats.
Air Pollution:
Air pollution is also a very serious problem in major metropolitan areas like El Paso/Cuidad Juarez, where meteorological conditions often fail to sweep the atmosphere of pollutants. Industry compliance with environmental regulations is spotty, and the poor often burn highly polluting materials for cooking and warmth. As a result, high lead levels in children and frequent respiratory illnesses are common.
These environmentally linked problems contribute to overall health conditions along the border that resemble those of many Third World countries. According to measures developed by the National Association of Community Health Centers, 10 of 24 counties evaluated along the U.S.-Mexico border are in “double jeopardy” because they are both medically underserved and poor. These counties face both a poor overall health status among their residents and a shortage of primary care physicians.
Access to Health Care:
Lack of access to health care is a significant problem along the border. While the access problem is in part due to a lack of insurance, especially among the Mexican-American population, it is also attributable to non-financial barriers to access. These include an uneven distribution of physicians, other health professionals, and hospitals; inadequate transportation; a shortage of bilinqual health information and health providers; and culturally insensitive systems of care. Standard health indicators bear out the consequences of this lack of access.
Communicable Diseases:
Hepatitis A is two to three times more prevalent along the border than in the United States as a whole. Tuberculosis, a growing threat in the U.S., appears along the border at twice the national average. In addition, non-communicable diseases such as diabetes are problems in the border area because they have a high incidence among Mexican-Americans, who make up over 50 percent of the population of the U.S. border counties. These diseases can be controlled through early intervention and the provision of consistent health care.
The public health problems of the U.S.-Mexico border region are longstanding and profound. Of critical importance to understanding their significance today, however, is the fact that border counties continue to experience rapid population growth. During the 1980s, this region experienced a 25 to 30 percent increase in population, compared to a less than 10 percent increase for the U.S. population. Accounting for this higher increase in population are a higher fertility rate, lower age-specific death rates, and a high rate of immigration. The population on the border is also younger than that of the respective border states and the nation as a whole.
The most immediate implication of this demographic pyramid is a higher birth rate and an increase in the existing need for maternal and child care services. But high dependency ratios and population growth rates also have serious implications for the poverty, environmental pollution, and disease that now plague residents struggling without adequate housing, sewage management, water, and health care in a region whose growing industrialization draws increasing numbers of the desperately poor.
The incidence of several types of communicable diseases is very high in border areas. The areas show high incidences of water borne diseases, such as shigellosis. The rates of hepatitis A infection, tuberculoss, and measles are also very high when compared to the general U.S. population. The incidence of AIDS is partcularly high in San Diego. In general, the ranking of leading causes of death is higher for accidents, diabetes, and infectious diseases in this region than in the rest of the country.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Bob,
The A-list to Replace Treasury Secretary Snow
Daniel Gross is pretty sure he won’t have to eat his words concerning John Snow’s A-list replacement:
Snow’s Job, by Daniel Gross, Commentary, Slate: …Ever since Josh Bolten replaced Andrew Card as White House chief of staff, speculation has heated up as to who might replace long-suffering, long-serving, long-ignored Treasury Secretary John Snow. … Many Bush loyalists have long blamed Snow for the failure of the administration to receive proper credit for what they view to be a brilliantly performing economy.
Unnamed Republican insiders are said to be hoping that an A-list CEO, preferably from Wall Street, will be willing to take the job. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal tagged Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson as a potential Snow successor. The Financial Times has noted interest in Morgan Stanley’s John Mack and here, in Richard Parsons of Time Warner. Stan O’Neal of Merrill Lynch is occasionally mentioned in such conversations. …
The probability of Bush being able to draft any of these guys—virtually all of whom have signaled their disinterest—is incredibly low. Why? For starters, it’s a great time to be the CEO of a Wall Street firm. … Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and their peers are making money hand over fist. …
By contrast, Treasury offers only downside. The Bush presidency is hobbling to the finish line. Republicans may lose control of the House or Senate this fall. In the 1980s and 1990s, when Wall Street types like Donald Regan, Nicholas Brady, and Robert Rubin eagerly served, the Treasury secretary had a great deal of policy power. By contrast, the Bush theory of Cabinet government is that secretaries take dictation from the White House. Snow has survived as long as he has largely because of his willingness to stifle any thoughts that stray beyond the confines of White House talking points. …
Working as a Cabinet secretary in the Bush administration is a great gig for career politicians and bureaucrats who haven’t struck it rich. Participate eagerly in the process of crafting, selling, and executing policies—regardless of their merit, efficacy, or honesty—and you can make some money on the flip side as a lobbyist. It worked for John Ashcroft. By definition, however, Wall Street CEOs don’t need to worry about their financial future. So, if their work calls upon them do something distasteful, or if they find it annoying to have their speeches scrutinized by low-level White House staffers, they can just retire to one of their many homes. …
What’s strangest about the Bush fantasy names is that they just aren’t in synch with today’s Republican party. Paulson is a notorious tree-hugger; he’s the chairman of the Nature Conservancy. Richard Parsons is a member of that nearly extinct species, the Rockefeller Republican.
Finally, … the … dissatisfaction with Snow stems from the fact that he doesn’t seem to convince enough Americans that it’s raining when they’re getting pissed on. Sure, the headline figures on gross domestic product, inflation, and the unemployment rate look fine. But median income hasn’t budged in several years, and the tax cuts aren’t trickling down. The richest of the rich are getting richer. … As people who rely on wage income are subject to the slow-motion wage and benefits cram down, Snow—and the Bush administration—have had nothing to offer except health savings accounts, income inequality, and capital gains tax cuts. …
John Snow will have a replacement, and he may very well come from the corporate world. But if it’s an A-list Wall Street CEO, I’ll buy a copy of Dow 36,000 and eat the first chapter.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Bob,
The above arlicle is from a good economic blog. Good Luck
April 8th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
“If you really are a former economist in the banking world like you claim…”
Wrong again, John. I claimed no such thing.
“the lack of investment in America of major corporation after record profits. This is called a key indicator…
Yes, it is a key indicator, John. That’s why it has its own NIPA table. 5.3.6 to be exact.
Now, how does an increase every quarter since Q1 2003 in domestic non-residential private investment – a 25.5% increase over that time – constitute a “lack of investment”, much less mesh with your “economy in crisis” hypothesis?
PS: Engaging in personal attacks on a public blog is not a good campaign strategy. Why don’t you leave me out of it and stick to the issues?
April 8th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Wow, is this a blog duel to the death? Let’s take a quick break in the action and see where we stand (before somebody gets hurt):
Bob, you have vigorously defended yourself against the charge of being an economist, but that really wasn’t necessary. Your tedious tactic of denying well-established realities by requesting more and more evidence tipped us off.
Wages for the vast majority of working Americans have been relatively flat for years and are now falling. Just accept it and get on with your life. If you really need more evidence, try doing a search on “America wages fallingâ€, or I’ll save you some time. Here’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeat_econindicators_wages_20060131
And, nitpicking about the inception date of the Maquiladora plants doesn’t alter the fact that mass quantities (to quote the Cone Heads) of American manufacturing facilities and jobs have been moving to Latin America and overseas because of cheap labor and lower costs of doing business (i.e. weaker environmental and labor standards). The trade deficit, dearth of “Made in America†labels, and job statistics are evidence enough of that.
John, you’ve obviously got the facts on your side, but you are hereby forbidden to copy-and-paste anymore long articles for at least 48 hours.
You have both violated the unwritten but all-important rules governing the maximum reasonable number of comments under one blog diary. Get back on topic (Increasing the Border Patrol is Pointless) or better yet, do us all a favor, and move on. Thanks.
April 9th, 2006 at 7:29 am
Bob,
This is what you posted on your background.
Finally, re “what [I] doâ€, let’s just leave it general – my background over the last couple of decades is banking, corporate finance and economics. And right now, I’m spending way too much time following this discussion from one change of subject to another with no end in sight. Good luck with your business endeavors.
And now you say the following.
Author: Bob
Comment:
“If you really are a former economist in the banking world like you claim…”
Wrong again, John. I claimed no such thing.
I am confused, by your answer. You represented yourself as a knowlgeable person on banking, corporate finance and economics in a post.Now when you are caught ,not knowing or refusing to recognize basic concepts ,which anyone would know in your industry ,you suddenly forget your resume.
Bob please read Bruce Bartlett article again. You will see this is not a political issue it is about integrity. This is why so many conservative business and economic experts, like Warren Buffett, Alan Greenspan,Paul Craig Roberts,Lou Dobbs,Pete Peterson,Paul O Neal, Bruce Bartlett… are all speaking out. “THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE”
April 9th, 2006 at 9:36 am
“Bob, you have vigorously defended yourself against the charge of being an economist”
Nope, haven’t done that either. John claims I said I was a “former bank economist.” He is mistaken. I am a former banker. I was never a bank economist and never said I was.
“Wages for the vast majority of working Americans have been relatively flat for years and are now falling… Here’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics:”
1) Your link doesn’t work.
2) it’s not to the BLS.
3) “Relatively flat” and “falling” are not the same thing. Real wages being flat means wages are keeping up with inflation. Falling, as they did throughout the 1980s, means they are not. “Relatively flat” is meaninglessly vague.
4) Here’s the latest BLS nominal and real wage data: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
This report shows real wages up very slightly in the last year while nominal wages have risen by 3.4%. Real wages do fluctuate up and down on a short term basis, but that does not establish a trend.
It is also worth noting that real wages are often flat to even down slightly during a recovery. They rise only later in the cycle as labor markets tighten. They are nearing that point now, I think. At least, that’s what the market and the Fed seem to think as the unemployment rate falls.
Longer term, where one can identify genuine trends, real wages are up 9% in the last ten years while nominal wages are up 39%. You can verify that at the BLS website as well.
And remember, these are wages for production and non-supervisory workers, so they are not distorted by executive pay or anything else that John has ridiculously suggested.
“nitpicking about the inception date of the Maquiladora plants doesn’t alter the fact that mass quantities … of American manufacturing facilities and jobs have been moving to Latin America and overseas”
First of all, it isn’t nitpicking to say that a major premise of Perot’s argument – i.e. that NAFTA-created Maquiadora programs would attract workers into the US illegally – is false. Even if Maquiadora programs did do that – a ridiculous notion on its face – that has NOTHING to do with NAFTA, which is what he was arguing against. In addition, he was saying that NAFTA would “suck jobs” out of the US. If that were so, then how is it also going to draw workers TO the US? It’s just not logical – it’s pure political doubletalk.
“job statistics are evidence enough of that.”
Oh? You mean the statistics that show 20 million more Americans working on private, non-farm payrolls since NAFTA was passed? That’s 113 million Americans working in private sector, non-farm jobs – an all-time record.
BTW, the civilian labor force participation rate is pretty much exactly what it was before NAFTA and the percent of population employed is higher than it was then.
So tell me, what job statistics are you referring to as “evidence” that Ross Perot was right about either side of his doublespeak argument?
April 9th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I see neither of you took Marked’ advice…
April 9th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Nope, and if he doesn’t like the debate, he doesn’t have to read it. Besides, we aren’t even close to the 43 reply count on the customers shouldn’t pay for pipelines thread.
As for getting off topic, everything seems to come down to NAFTA, slave labor and Tom Price’s “race to the bottom” with John. Look at the first reply on this thread. You thread kick-off was destined for hijacking from the start.
FWIW, I agree with your friend Craig on his main points – i.e. that we need to improve the process for legal immigration, including for seasonal or temporary workers, as well as to focus enforcement more on employers of illegals if we ever hope to gain control of illegal immigration. Building 700 mile fences and increasing border patrols won’t do the job.
I’d add that even adding the employer crackdown (which we’ve tried before, BTW) on top of boosting all kinds of enforcement spending won’t actually stop the flow without great economic cost to Americans – costs well beyond the direct tax-funded enforcement costs. Enforcement is only part of the solution. The other part is a legal means for farm workers, landscape and construction laborers, and the like to immigrate when there is demand for their labor.
Unless, of course, you WANT heavy taxation to pay the huge enforcement cost AND to simultaneously shrink the labor supply in the US, raising labor costs so that jobs disappear while our cost of living rises, all so more Americans can drop out of high school to pick lettuce and mow lawns. 😉