Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (59830)	6/11/2007 10:43:50 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I have no idea what studies John McCain has looked at. Why/how would I know that? But here's some opinion from those evil free-marketers at the WSJ on the subject (emphasis added), including an answer to another of your questions. REVIEW & OUTLOOK Immigration Heritage June 8, 2007; Page A16 online.wsj.com The Senate keeps grinding away on the immigration bill, making it worse this week by further restricting the guest worker provision. Majority Leader Harry Reid also seems to be walking away from the effort, calling it "the President's bill," which suggests he's preparing to blame Republicans for any defeat. But no matter what happens this year, the immigration debate isn't going away. And among the unfortunate myths that have gathered media attention is that immigrants are a net cost to U.S. taxpayers -- that is, that they use more government benefits than they contribute in taxes. This notion is being sold in particular by the Heritage Foundation, which once favored liberal immigration but now is pitching a study by Robert Rector claiming that households headed by low-skilled immigrants use $89 billion more in government services than they pay in taxes. We'd be worried too if this were true, but a tour of the serious economic literature shows it isn't. The Heritage study calculates the impact only of low-skilled immigrants, those without a high school degree. This group accounts for about one-third of all U.S. immigrants. Higher-skilled immigrants are indisputably fiscal bargains because they have high earnings and pay taxes under the highly progressive American tax code. Even Mr. Rector concedes that "immigrants with a college degree become positive fiscal contributors from the outset; the taxes they pay will exceed the benefits their families receive." Raising the number of H-1B visas for computer scientists, mathematicians and other skilled immigrants should be an easy call. Most studies also agree that the fiscal impact of the overall immigration population -- roughly 30 million people -- is also positive. In a comprehensive 1997 study, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that over their lifetimes immigrants and their children pay an estimated $80,000 more in taxes to all levels of government than they receive in benefits. * * * The debate is over the impact of the lowest skilled immigrants -- the 4.5 million heads of households, legal and illegal, who don't hold a high school degree. The Heritage study, which has become grist for talk radio, overstates the costs of immigrants. First, of the estimated $19,588 of government benefits collected by low-skilled immigrant households each year, $8,462 -- or 43% -- are the cost for educating children. This leads to a strange logic. Under the Heritage cost-benefit framework, children are financial burdens to society and the surest way to balance the budget would be for Americans to stop having kids. One of every four children born in America has an immigrant mother, but Mr. Rector is guilty of single-entry bookkeeping: He counts the costs of educating these children of immigrants but he fails to count the taxes they pay as adults. This is a major oversight because scholars have consistently shown that the children of immigrants tend to be the highest achievers and earners of all generations. A study by economist Adam Zaretsky of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis compared the earnings and taxes of three groups: the native-born, immigrants, and the children of immigrants. He found that "Recent immigrants pay the least [taxes], but their children, who tend to make more money and live in high-income/high-tax states, pay the most." David Card recently showed, for the National Bureau of Economic Research, that "of the 39 largest country-of-origin groups, sons from 33 groups and daughters from 32 groups have higher average educational attainment than the children of natives. . . . Evidence of the intergenerational progress of immigrants' children points to above-average levels of education even for children whose fathers had much lower schooling than native-born fathers." This is powerful evidence of the economic assimilation of the children of immigrant parents. Mr. Rector also reports that the average low-skilled immigrant household collects $4,891 in Social Security and Medicare annually. But even conceding his figures, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Retiree benefits are financed by the payroll taxes of current workers. Immigrants subsidize Social Security and Medicare because they pay taxes for 30 or 40 years without any parent collecting a monthly benefit check. This provides a one-generation net windfall -- an insight first pointed out in a 1984 study by the late economist Julian Simon and published by . . . the Heritage Foundation. The Social Security Administration trustees agree with the original Heritage study (Simon's) and conclude in their latest actuarial report that the unfunded liabilities of Social Security "decrease with increasing rates of net immigration . . . Each additional 100,000 net immigrants increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07 percent of taxable payroll." What does that mean for the Treasury? The net present value of the net payroll taxes paid over benefits received from one million immigrants per year is just shy of $2 trillion through 2080. Even low-skilled immigrants are net contributors to the trust fund. Heritage once made this point itself, notably in a 1998 study by economist William Beach, who calculated that Hispanics -- especially young, single males -- pay far more into Social Security than they receive over their lifetimes. Mr. Beach found that, in 1997 dollars, a typical Hispanic couple would receive $347,000 less in lifetime benefits than they pay in, allowing for a normal rate of return on payroll taxes. Maybe Heritage ought to dust off those intellectual archives, unless it's decided to bend to the fashions of the moment. Correcting for this overstatement of retirement and education costs erases most of Mr. Rector's alleged fiscal deficit. What about the other $30 billion or so a year? Well, it turns out that about six of 10 native-born American households also receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. No one would suggest that 60% of native-born Americans are economic drains; why conclude this of low-skilled immigrants? More broadly, the Rector study ignores that immigrants make economic contributions beyond net tax or benefit payments. One is that immigrants lower costs of production and thus reduce consumer prices, which in turn increase the real income of Americans. A second benefit is that the labor provided by low-skilled immigrants complements the skills of native-born Americans, thus raising everyone's productivity and output. A 2006 National Bureau of Economic Research study noted that "immigrants stimulate investment, have skill sets and educational levels that complement those of natives, and do not compete for the same jobs as most natives." Immigration increased the average wages of all native-born workers in the 1990s by 1.1%, except those who did not have a high school diploma. The President's Council of Economic Advisers recently added up all these benefits, updating the procedures used by the National Academy of Sciences, and concluded that the value of immigrants to the overall economy is a net positive $30 billion a year. Any such number is by its nature a general estimate, but the key point is that immigrants are an overall economic plus, not a drain. * * * A decade ago, Republicans wisely adopted a policy of "immigration yes, welfare no." It has been a great success. Welfare eligibility of immigrants was restricted and the result has been a near-50% decline in welfare use by the foreign born. If low-skilled immigrants are using too many government benefits, conservatives should be fighting to restrict welfare payments, not the immigrants.

To: mph who wrote (59830)	6/11/2007 10:53:12 AM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Look at the year this article refers to regarding McCain's election bid to the senate. Interesting? JOHN McCAIN WILL NOT SEEK REELECTION ARIZONA DODGES A BULLET By: Todd Brendan Fahey Sources close to Senator John McCain, speaking on condition of anonymity, have signaled over the weekend that he will not seek reelection as Arizona's senior elected official in the next election cycle, 2004. Various factors were cited, including health, dwindling popularity amongst the state's GOP voters, and lack of cash-on-hand in his reelection war chest. Mr. McCain suffers from recurrent melanoma, and has undergone several surgeries since his failed year-2000 Presidential candidacy, for treatment and removal of the virulent form of skin cancer. It is not known when Mr. McCain plans to make a formal announcement. McCain succeeded in raising $4,450,544 in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, but his fundraising efforts have ground nearly to a halt in 2001-2002, with only $304,301 having been generated in the current cycle. Directly, CRP records yield Mr. McCain's fiscal condition: 1997-2002 Total Receipts: $4,781,619 1997-2002 Total Spent: $4,891,961 Cash on Hand: $4,421 Date of last report: March 31, 2002 First elected 1986 Next election 2004 Fundraising by Cycle: 2002: $304,301 2000: $26,774 1998: $4,450,544 Source of Funds: Individual contributions $3,148,358 (65.8%) PAC contributions $1,168,419 (24.4%) Candidate self-financing $0 Other $464,842 (9.7%) PAC Contribution Breakdown: Business $1,454,692 (95.5%) Labor $69,000 (4.5%) Ideological/Single Issue $0 Quality of Disclosure: Full Disclosure $15,371,287 (78.4%) Incomplete $251,275 (1.3%) No Disclosure $3,993,388 (20.4%) RollCall.com confirmed CRP's report, stating: "In the last half of 2001, McCain's Straight Talk America political action committee took in $233,410 in contributions, about $1 million less than it had the previous six months. He also pared the previously lavish spending of Straight Talk, dropping a top political adviser from its payroll and registering $425,644 in expenses - less than half of what it spent over the previous six months. As of Jan. 1, there was $2,015 in the McCain for Senate bank account." (Paul Kane, RollCall.com, 2/07/02) McCain's top political strategist, John Weaver, recently tendered his formal resignation from the Republican party, and has announced that he will work, in the future, only for Democrats. McCain has enjoyed substantial popularity in recent years--garnering 66% of the Arizona vote in year-1998 Senate elections; but his 24-month dalliance with left-wing Democrats has taken a toll on his ratings. The American Conservative Union assessed Mr. McCain at a 68% "conservative" ratings, year-2001, while his state's counterpart, Jon Kyl, earned a perfect 100% rating for the second consecutive year. From a 96% as a freshman Congressman, 1982, to his current 68%, McCain's slide to the left is the most dramatic in recorded political history. The erstwhile "maverick Republican Senator" has co-sponsored legislation since year-2000 with Massachussets Senator Ted Kennedy on "HMO reform"; with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman on "closing gun-show loopholes"; and with Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold on the notorious "Campaign Finance Reform" initiative. A two-year survey of conservative news discussion boards, including EtherZone.com, FreeRepublic.com, Lucianne.com, FreeConservatives.com, NewsMax.com, show McCain having lost nearly all of his "grassroots" support. He has, as well, lost the support of Arizona GOP stalwart and former state party chairman Jack Londen and socialite fundraiser Georgette Mossbacher, the ex-wife of former George Bush Treasury Secretary Robert Mossbacher. As recently as June 4, Mr. Londen spoke to Human Events writer John Gizzi, as to the potential of "primarying" Mr. McCain, or rendering him subject to a fierce GOP primary opposition election which, given the mood of Arizona's GOP electorate and the fact that Democrats and Independents cannot vote in Republican party primary elections, he would likely lose: "The tax-cut vote was tragic and I can't imagine how John McCain can call himself a Republican anymore," Londen told Human Events. "He always called himself a `Reagan Republican.' Well, it was Ronald Reagan's tax cut in 1981 that took the rate on the top wage-earner down to 28%. Collections and revenue then went up. And our senator said he would have voted `yes' on the Bush tax cut if the rate on the highest incomes was 36% instead of 35% the President wanted? Come on!" Abandoning ship on McCain's reelection bid is also longtime McCain staffer and stalwart Grant Woods, a former Arizona state Attorney General. Mr. Woods spoke on-record recently as to the combined factors which would spell probable doom for a McCain Senate reelection bid. Those factors were, not surprisingly, opposition to President Bush's tax-rebate measure; support for a tobacco tax; the favoring of a "Patients' Bill of Rights", and support for restricting 2nd amendment rights via the "gun-show loophole" argument. Mr. Woods labeled McCain's positions on each of these issues: "a series of new and unusual stands." A McCain retirement from the Senate in 2004 will open the floodgates of Senate hopesful. Former Congressman Matt Salmon is engaged presently in an expensive and difficult race for the state's Governorship; longtime Congressman Bob Stump will retire at the end of this term, and in his mid-70s is unlikely to run for the seat; Congressmen Jeff Flake, Steve Shadegg and J.D. Hayworth all are popular figures amongst the GOP's grassroots, with American Conservative Union ratings consistently in the mid-90th percentile. A formal announcement of retirement from McCain will be a national news event (old news for Ether Zone readers who were first to know here), but will also issue a sigh of relief from weary Arizona Republicans, who believed John McCain's claims in 1981, that he would be a "Barry Goldwater Republican," but who have known for many years that such was only a campaign promise.

To: mph who wrote (59830)	6/11/2007 10:53:38 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Here's another one for ya': REVIEW & OUTLOOK Immigration and Welfare May 24, 2007; Page A16 online.wsj.com The immigration debate is roaring again, and we're happy to join the fun. One place to start is a myth that has become a key talking point among restrictionists on the right -- to wit, that immigrants come to the U.S. for a life of ease on the public dole. Leading this charge is the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, who argues in a new study that "the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be $1.1 million" for each low-skilled immigrant household. Hispanic immigrants and their families are a net national drain, he says, because they "assimilate into welfare." Mr. Rector and Heritage have done some good social science research in the past, but this time they have the story backward: In most cases immigrants will pay at least as much in lifetime federal taxes as they receive in benefits. One basic flaw in the Heritage analysis is that, as a study by the Immigration Policy Center points out: "The vast majority of immigrants are not eligible to receive any of these [welfare] benefits for many years after their arrival in the United States. . . . Legal permanent residents cannot receive SSI [Supplemental Security Income], which is available only to U.S. citizens, and are not eligible for means-tested public benefits until 5 years after receiving their green cards." Illegal immigrants are also ineligible for any kind of federal welfare benefits -- with the exception of emergency health care. Many of the Congressional proposals to legalize this population would not allow these workers to collect welfare until waiting up to eight years for a green card and five years after that. The "welfare" charge is also refuted by the experience of the federal welfare reform passed 11 years ago. That law reduced the welfare eligibility of new immigrants on the sensible grounds that the magnet for America should be work, not a government handout. Ron Haskins, an architect of that reform and the author of a 2006 book on its consequences, concludes that "the use of welfare by noncitizens has declined rapidly" in the wake of that law. The nearby chart shows how rapidly. Between 1994 and 2004, the percentage of immigrant households collecting traditional cash welfare payments, supplemental security income, and food stamps fell by about half. The decline in welfare use was more rapid for immigrants than for native-born Americans. The exception has been Medicaid, thanks to states that have increased immigrant eligibility for the state-federal program in recent years. However, immigrants have a positive financial impact on the most expensive federal entitlements: Medicare and Social Security. This is because immigrants generally come when they are young and working. Seventy percent of immigrants are in the prime working ages of 20-54, compared to only half of the native-born American population. Only 2% of immigrants are over 65 when they arrive compared to 12% of natives. As a result, most immigrants contribute payroll taxes for decades before they collect Social Security or Medicare benefits. The Social Security actuaries recently calculated that over the next 75 years immigrant workers will pay some $5 trillion more in payroll taxes than they will receive in Social Security benefits. These surplus payments more than offset the costs of use of other welfare benefits received by most immigrant groups. There's no doubt that immigrants draw on public resources, like the roads and the schools. The latter is mandated by a Supreme Court decision, Plyer v. Doe, and in any event would our society rather have these children in school, or wandering the streets? Even immigrants who don't own homes, and thus don't pay property taxes, finance public schools indirectly through rents paid to landlords. As for health care and roads, immigrants who receive paychecks have their income taxes withheld, and they also pay sales tax and other levies like everyone else. Perhaps most important, immigrant earnings and tax payments rise the longer they are here. According to Census data for 2005, immigrants who have just arrived have median household earnings of $31,930, or about 30% below the U.S. average of $44,389. But those in the U.S. for an average of 10 years have earnings of $38,395; for those here at least 25 years, the figure is more than $50,000. Those earnings wouldn't be increasing if most immigrants were going on the dole. They are instead assimilating into the work force, growing their incomes as their skills increase. As Congress debates immigration policy, the Members should keep in mind that the melting pot is still working; that taxes by immigrants cover their use of public services; and that finding a way to let immigrants work in the U.S. legally is the humane and pro-growth solution to the illegal immigration problem.