Tag Archives: welfare state

A Better Solution Than Trump’s Border Wall, by Ron Paul

The US welfare state is a magnet for illegal immigrants from the south, and the drug war and foreign military interventions send refugees to this country. Make it impossible for illegal immigrants to get benefits, junk the drug war and foreign interventionism, and immigration problems would disappear. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.com:

Just one week in office, President Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His January 25th executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the US-Mexico border. While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.

First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will of course hurt the poorest Americans the most.

Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Though President Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

To continue reading: A Better Solution Than Trump’s Border Wall

Advertisements

Fascism: A Bipartisan Affliction, by Ron Paul

SLL WILL BE ON A BUSINESS TRIP 6/15-6/17 AND WILL NOT BE POSTING. POSTING WILL RESUME 6/18.

By most definitions of fascism, both neoconservatives and progressives are fascist. From Ron Paul on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

If neoconservatives and progressives truly understood fascism, they would stop using the word as a smear term. That is because both groups, along with most political figures and commentators, embrace fascist ideas and policies.
Fascism’s distinguishing characteristic is a “mixed economy.” Unlike socialists and communists who seek to abolish private business, fascists are content to let business remain in private hands. Instead, fascists use regulations, mandates, and taxes to control business and run (and ruin) the economy. A fascist system, then, is one where private businesses serve politicians and bureaucrats instead of consumers. Does the modern American economy not fit the definition of fascism?

Fascism benefits big businesses that can afford the cost of complying with government regulations, unlike their smaller competitors. Big businesses, which have more political influence then entrepreneurs or small businesses, also significantly benefit from government subsidies. In order to maintain their power, big businesses finance the “deep state” — the network of lobbyists, journalists, think tanks, bureaucrats, and congressional staffers who work behind the scenes to shape government policy.

Obamacare is an example of fascism that is often mislabeled as socialism. Obamacare did not create a government-run “single payer” system as would exist under socialism. Instead, Obamacare extended government control over health care via mandates, regulations, and subsidies. The most infamous part of Obamacare — the individual mandate — forces individuals to purchase a product from a private industry.

Modern America’s militaristic foreign policy aimed at policing and perfecting the world is another example of fascism that enjoys strong bipartisan support. Both right-wing neocons and left-wing humanitarian interventionists claim our supposedly noble goals justify any and all actions taken by the US government. Thus, these supposed human rights champions defend preemptive war, torture, and presidential kill lists.

Many politicians supporting a militaristic foreign policy are more concerned with spreading largesse to the military-industrial complex than with spreading democracy. This is why some supposed free-market conservatives sound like Paul Krugman on steroids when discussing the economic benefits of military spending. Similarly, some anti-war progressives will support large military budgets if some of the money is spent in their states or congressional districts.

Mass surveillance and limits on personal freedom are additional hallmarks of fascist regimes. While there is a movement to “reform” the police state, few want to abolish mass surveillance, civil asset forfeiture, police militarization, and other police-state policies adopted in the name of the wars on terror and drugs. The federal government has even used force to stop people from selling raw milk! Attempts by progressives to silence political opponents are more examples of how many supposedly anti-fascist Americans are embracing fascist policies.

The growth of the welfare-warfare state has been accompanied by an increase in presidential power. This centralization of power, and the support it receives from the political class, is one more indication of the fascistic nature of our current regime. Of course, many in Congress will fight to rein in the executive branch, as long as the occupant of the White House is of the opposing party. Even the fiercest opponents of excessive presidential power instantaneously become lap dogs when their party wins the White House.

For all their alleged anti-fascism, today’s neoconned conservatives and progressives both support the use of force to reshape society and the world. This is the defining characteristic not just of fascists, but also of authoritarians. The true anti-fascists are those who reject the initiation of force. The true path to real free markets, peace, and individual liberty starts with rejecting the bipartisan authoritarianism in favor of the non-aggression principle.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/06/14/fascism-a-bipartisan-affliction/

The True Black Tragedy: Illegitimacy Rate of Nearly 75%, by Walter E. Williams

The title says it all. From Walter E. Williams on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

Hustlers and people with little understanding want us to believe that today’s black problems are the continuing result of a legacy of slavery, poverty and racial discrimination. The fact is that most of the social pathology seen in poor black neighborhoods is entirely new in black history. Let’s look at some of it.

Today the overwhelming majority of black children are raised in single female-headed families. As early as the 1880s, three-quarters of black families were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black families were two-parent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father.

Today’s black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent. It had risen to 25 percent by 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” and was widely condemned as a racist. By 1980, the black illegitimacy rate had more than doubled, to 56 percent, and it has been growing since. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.

Much of today’s pathology seen among many blacks is an outgrowth of the welfare state that has made self-destructive behavior less costly for the individual. Having children without the benefit of marriage is less burdensome if the mother receives housing subsidies, welfare payments and food stamps. Plus, the social stigma associated with unwed motherhood has vanished. Female-headed households, whether black or white, are a ticket for dependency and all of its associated problems. Ignored in all discussions is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.

Black youth unemployment in some cities is over 50 percent. But high black youth unemployment is also new. In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens was slightly less than that of their white counterparts — 9.4 percent compared with 10.2.

During that same period, black youths were either just as active in the labor force or more so than white youths. Since the 1960s, both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate of black youths have fallen to what they are today. Why? Are employers more racially discriminatory today than yesteryear? Were black youths of yesteryear more skilled than whites of yesteryear? The answer to both questions is a big fat no.

The minimum wage law and other labor regulations have cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If I must pay $7.25 an hour — plus mandated fringes, such as Social Security and workers’ compensation — would it pay me to hire a worker who is so unfortunate as to possess skills that enable him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most employers view that as a losing economic proposition. Thus, the minimum wage law discriminates against the employment of low-skilled workers, who are most often youths — particularly black youths.

The little bit of money a teenager can earn through after-school, weekend and summer employment is not nearly so important as the other things he gains from early work experiences. He acquires skills and develops good work habits, such as being prompt, following orders and respecting supervisors. In addition, there are the self-respect and pride that a youngster gains from being financially semi-independent. All of these gains from early work experiences are important for any teen but are even more important for black teens. If black teens are going to learn anything that will make them a more valuable employee in the future, they aren’t going to learn it from their rotten schools, their dysfunctional families or their crime-ridden neighborhoods. They must learn it on the job.

The bulk of today’s problems for many blacks are a result of politicians and civil rights organizations using government in the name of helping blacks when in fact they are serving the purposes of powerful interest groups.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/05/29/the-true-black-tragedy-illegitimacy-rate-of-nearly-75/

Here Comes Donald!: Duck. by Fred Reed

Mexico gets blamed for a lot of things that are the US’s fault. As SLL has said repeatedly, a welfare state is incompatible with open immigration. Mexico doesn’t set the level of US welfare state benefits, and neither is it responsible for enforcing US immigration law. From Fred Reed at theburningplatform.com:

8 U.S. Code § 1324a: (1)In general It is unlawful for a person or other entity—

(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3))….

Oh God. Oh God. It’s Hillary or Trump. The first, a loathsome Gorgon paddling about in the bubbling corruption and fetor of Washington, a political hooker in a plastic miniskirt crooning “I’ll l do anything for a donation to my foundation.” On this soiled caryatid we are going to rest the weight of the nation?

But…Trump? A huckstering bully growling, “I can whip any man in this bar.” He doesn’t seem to have looked around the bar very carefully. I’ll vote for him because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate, but…but….

I read with astonishment his proposed policy toward Mexico. Truculence, ignorance, carney showmanship, and a weird view of Mexico. He sees it as both an enemy country and as a malign being, sentient, diabolical, bent on hurting the United States. This seems to parallel his approach to the rest of the world.

His goal regarding Latinos–the prevention of illegal immigration and the repatriation of illegal immigrants–is commendable. A country has the right to determine who enters. Some of his plans would effect this end. Yet he seems to have little understanding of the problem and believes that Mexico, which he despises, is the cause.

How so? America’s immigration mess is entirely self-inflicted. In 1965 the United States changed its laws to encourage immigration. Mexico didn’t change America’s laws. Ever since, American businessmen have knowingly, eagerly hired illegal immigrants in large numbers and exerted influence to maintain the influx. The American government under Obama encourages illegal immigration, and former administrations have looked the other way. The Democrats push for naturalization explicitly to get the votes. States give illegals driver’s licenses, health care, and schooling. “Sanctuary cities” openly defy laws as, again, does the federal government. Border patrols have been ordered, by Obama, virtually to stand down.

None of this was done by Mexico.

He is mad about the use of welfare by illegals. Trump quote: “U.S. taxpayers have been asked to pick up hundreds of billions in healthcare costs, housing costs, education costs, welfare costs, etc.”

How much sense does this make? America offers these things and then complains when they are accepted. If you don’t want illegal aliens on welfare, don’t give them welfare. Is this a difficult concept? Why is Mexico to blame for America’s stupidity?

Yet we have Trump eagerly planning ways to punish Mexico.

From his web page: “There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs….”

Fact: American businesses have moved factories to Mexico. Mexico did not force them to do this. In the United States, American businessmen intentionally give jobs to illegals. The illegals accept them. They do not “take” them. How could they? At gunpoint?

Trump is either dishonest, naive, or thinks like a ten-year-old.

To continue reading: Here Comes Donald!: Duck.

Illegals Dwarf American Households in Welfare: “Obama Seeking $17K For Every Illegal Minor” by Mac Slavo

The welfare state is incompatible with open immigration. Hand out free stuff and people show up to claim it, even if they have to hop a border to do so. From Mac Slavo at shtfplan.com:

Who exactly is the burdensome, broken and disturbingly unsensible welfare system being run for?

A new study found that both illegal and legal immigrants, who typically work low wage jobs, receive more in government assistance each year than struggling American families do.

via the Washington Examiner:

Illegal immigrant households receive an average of $5,692 in federal welfare benefits every year, far more than the average “native” American household, at $4,431…

The Center for Immigration Studies, in an analysis of federal cost figures, found that all immigrant-headed households — legal and illegal — receive an average of $6,241 in welfare, 41 percent more than native households. As with Americans receiving benefits such as food stamps and cash, much of the welfare to immigrants supplements their low wage jobs.

The total cost is over $103 billion in welfare benefits to households headed by immigrants.

Not only is this staggering cost a source of contention with American taxpayers, but it is something of a hidden boon for corporations who can get away with paying workers, many of whom are illegal, less money in wages because their livelihoods are being supplemented by welfare.

For traditional non-immigrant families, it is a double blow to an economy that has forced many native Americans on welfare as well while they watch good jobs slip away and an increasing number of desperate people from all backgrounds race to the bottom.

Though there are many employers benefiting from government largess, Walmart is the classic example of the company that pays its workers minimum wage, only to encourage them to apply for food stamps and other welfare benefits – which are largely then spent inside their own store walls.

But worse than the already over-sized dependence upon the federal government by new arrivals and undocumented immigrants, is that the pace set by the amnesty president who clearly wants to break the system Cloward-Piven style.

Obama is apparently calling for a huge increase in welfare benefits for minors, who according to the Washington Examiner, are often being used by their illegal immigrant parents for household income:

The new report follows another that found President Obama seeking $17,613 for every new illegal minor, more than Social Security retirees get.

While millions of average citizens are struggling and watching the American dream die in front of them, the government is doing all it can to break the back of the real economy, and hand off money from the dole to the very competing workforce that is undermining the effort of Americans just to make it and hold on to what they have.

Stay vigilant, the squeeze is on.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/illegals-dwarf-american-households-in-welfare-obama-seeking-17k-for-every-illegal-minor_05092016

He Said That? 12/15/15

From Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), Austrian economist, philosopher, author, and classical liberal, Planned Chaos (1947):

In fact, however, the supporters of the welfare state are utterly anti-social and intolerant zealots. For their ideology tacitly implies that the government will exactly execute what they themselves deem right and beneficial. They entirely disregard the possibility that there could arise disagreement with regard to the question of what is right and expedient and what is not. They advocate enlightened despotism, but they are convinced that the enlightened despot will in every detail comply with their own opinion concerning the measures to be adopted. They favour planning, but what they have in mind is exclusively their own plan, not those of other people. They want to exterminate all opponents, that is, all those who disagree with them. They are utterly intolerant and are not prepared to allow any discussion. Every advocate of the welfare state and of planning is a potential dictator. What he plans is to deprive all other men of all their rights, and to establish his own and his friends’ unrestricted omnipotence. He refuses to convince his fellow-citizens. He prefers to “liquidate” them. He scorns the “bourgeois” society that worships law and legal procedure. He himself worships violence and bloodshed.

Angry Belgian Muslims and the Price of Welfare Statism, by Pater Tanebrarum

From Pater Tenebrarum at davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

In the wake of recent revelations about the identities of the morons involved in the horrific Paris attacks (happily, most of them shuffled off the mortal coil as well, thereby improving the aggregate degree of moral clarity and intelligence in the world), a friend pointed us to an article at Unz Review that asks: “Why Does Belgium Have Such Angry Muslims?”

Our instinctive, immediate reaction was to argue that the bland, boring Belgian welfare state simply makes people angry by virtue of its existence. What is Belgium? It is that useless, additional stretch of flat land you are forced to cross on your way from Paris to Amsterdam. Just driving through it probably makes people angry.

Then we became aware of the following statistic from an article at QZ, which shows the European countries providing the largest numbers of foreign fighters per capita to ISIS (not surprisingly, Belgium heads the list):

European countries providing the largest number of foreign fighters per capita to the battleground in Syria and Iraq

In case you haven’t noticed dear reader, the list contains the most famous socialist paradises of Europe. The countries Bernie Sanders would love to emulate, such as Sweden, Denmark, France, Belgium, etc.

We will take it as a small piece of evidence that welfare statism leads to moral decay and deadens people’s souls. As we have pointed out in our comment on the refugee crisis, there are a number of statistical facts that cannot be denied. By way of example, we presented the following data points:

The vast bulk of refugees arriving in Europe does end up firmly attached to the teats of the European welfare state (as an aside, economic refugees are at present indeed exploiting the fact that the number of genuine war refugees is exploding; there is e.g. a brisk trade in fake Syrian passports in places like Turkey and Egypt). As the European press reports , in Norway it takes on average seven years before a successful asylum seeker finds a job. 85% of Muslim immigrants to Switzerland become recipients of social welfare. Practically all refugees from Chechnya, Afghanistan and Somalia residing in Vienna are receiving “needs-oriented basic welfare provision” (in this case, approx. $9,950 per person per year, plus extras like a top-up for heating costs in winter and free healthcare).

As we have noted elsewhere, many Muslims in Europe are ending up as economically marginalized ghetto-dwellers. We don’t want to minimize their personal responsibility, especially as statistics also suggest that refugees from some other areas of the world (such as Vietnam) tend to exhibit a great deal of social mobility, and are prepared to work extremely hard for becoming successful and well-integrated members of society. As an aside, one can of course not generalize. “Many” is by no means the same as “all”. Keep in mind when reading this that there are many individuals who have managed to escape the trap we are describing below.

To continue reading: Angry Belgian Muslims and the Price of Welfare Statism