Obama v. Welfare Reform: Destroying What Works

A poll this month by The Hill found that while two-thirds of Americans believe Obama has indeed transformed America, 56% of those voters believe Obama changed the country in a negative way. Only 35% believe he changed the country for the better. And if you want an example of the types of things Obama has done to generate this kind of animosity, consider what he’s doing to welfare reform.

For decades, the Republicans pushed the idea of welfare reform. Specifically, they wanted to encourage people to get off welfare and start working. The Democrats, however, flat out refused to allow any attempt to make such a change. Indeed, any time the issue came up, they would whine that the Republicans were looking to throw single mothers and their children out into the streets to starve.

In 1994, the Republicans finally got control over the Congress for the first time since 1952. Along with a Republican Senate and a weakened and unprincipled Bill Clinton in the White House, they set out to change America. One area they targeted was welfare reform. To that end, in 1996, they passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This fundamentally changed the way welfare works in America by:

● Ending welfare as an entitlement,
● Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid from federal funds,
● Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of benefits,
● Encouraging two-parent families, and
● Enhancing enforcement of child support.

This bill also gave the states vast discretion in how to achieve these rules. Clinton signed this bill after vetoing the first two attempts. And while liberals hated the reform at the time, it’s now been recognized as a significant success, having cut the number of welfare cases by 53% and reversing an unabated upward trend which began in the 1960. Clinton even claims it as one of his biggest achievements.

So guess what Obama wants to do now? Obama has started handing out waivers to states to eliminate the work requirements contained in the bill. Unbelievable. He is attacking a bill which everyone except the extreme left admits worked magnificently. And in a perverse bit of reasoning, Team Obama claims this change is intended to help parents “successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment.” So by eliminating the requirement that people find work, we are helping them prepare to find work. Huh?

Fortunately, the Republicans aren’t sitting still for this. Romney said on Friday:

“The success of bipartisan welfare reform, passed under President Clinton, has rested on the obligation of work. The president’s action is completely misdirected. Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan charged that, “President Obama will make it harder for Americans to escape poverty. He is hurting the very people he claims to help.” Others are calling this “a blatant violation of the law.” Rep. Dave Camp called this move “a brazen and unwarranted unraveling” of the law that “ends welfare reform as we know it.” And Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina said,

“You don’t improve people’s lives with handouts, you improve people’s lives by showing them, as I learned growing up in the inner city in a single parent household, that you can think and work your way out of poverty.”

It’s amazing how Obama keeps trying to refight the battles the left lost in the past and how he doesn’t care that history has proven his side wrong. It’s even more amazing how ready he is to trap a whole new generation on welfare. But keep in mind, there is method here. As we’ve discussed before, almost 50% of Americans now draw their living from government benefits in some form. These people are much more likely to vote Democratic because that is the party who promises to keep the spigot flowing. This weakening of welfare reform is nothing more than an attempt by Obama to add more people to the government dole, much like Obamacare was an attempt to increase the number of people on Medicaid and to hook the middle class on health care subsidies. Obama is trying to snare people into government dependence.

This needs to end.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Jobs Bill: The Obama Is In The Details

Things are not going well for Obama’s jobs bill. First, there was no bill, even though Obama insisted there was. Then there was a bill, but no Democrats were willing to sponsor it. In fact, they hate it. . . they fear it. Then Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert came along.

Obama’s jobs bill seemed destined for failure the moment Obama even announced it. The bill is a disaster of recycled, failed ideas which no one really thinks will do any good. The left hates it. The right hates it. Rasmussen says that only 38% of the public supports the bill. Even among Democrats desperate to do something. . . anything, this bill has been about as popular as the plague.

● Sen. Jim Webb (Va): “Terrible.”

● Sen. Mary Landrieu (La): “That offset is not going to fly, and [Obama] should know that. Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

● Sen. Tom Carper (Del): “I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan. That’s better than everything else the president is talking about combined.”

● Rep. Raul Grijalva (Az): “There is serious discomfort with potentially setting up Social Security as a fall guy.”

That’s why no Democrats have been willing to sponsor the bill.

Enter Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert. Gohmert has represented Texas since 2005. In 2008, he offered an alternative to the stimulus that would have given the country a tax holiday. In 2009, he cosponsored a bill that would have required presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate. Now he’s gone after Obama’s jobs bill, and what he’s uncovered is pretty shocking.

First, Obama’s bill would turn the unemployed into a protected class similar to ethnic minorities. Thus, if an unemployed person applies for a job and is not hired because someone who currently has a job is hired instead, that person can sue the company for discrimination. Seriously.

This is HUGE! Think about what this would do. The effect would be to (1) freeze everyone in place at their current jobs because no one would hire anyone who has a job, (2) stop all but essential hiring because of the risk of litigation, and (3) spur tons of frivolous litigation in the hopes of striking it rich or getting bought off. This would become the “Unemployed Litigants Enrichment Act.” You would literally see unemployed people bringing an avalanche of suits in the hopes of squeezing some cash out of local businesses.

This would destroy American business.

Secondly, there is a clause in this legislation which provides that any state that accepts federal money under any program will automatically waive its 11th Amendment protections (called “sovereign immunity”). That means states could then be sued for employment discrimination. Combine this with the unemployment bit above and you’ve got a recipe for the unemployed enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. Even without the extra employment bit, this still would be a goldmine for employment lawyers.

These provisions are insane, which is why Obama is trying to create a sense of urgency to get the bill passed before anyone reads it. Hence, he spent the day talking about the “employment crisis” and our “national emergency.” Fortunately, this will never pass a Republican Congress. Heck, I doubt it could pass a Democrat Congress.

Finally, you should know that Gohmert has struck again. Since the Democrats have been unwilling to introduce the bill, Gohmert stole the name of Obama’s bill and introduced his own “American Jobs Act.” This is a two page bill that eliminates the corporate tax!

So yes, Mr. President. . . let’s pass the American Jobs Act now!!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Taxes: Main Street v. eStreet

Today’s topic involves an issue about which I am conflicted. Should states be allowed to “tax” internet merchants? I put “tax” in quotes because that's not actually what's going on. The real question is: should states be allowed to force internet merchants to collect sales taxes from customers? This is a much more complicated issue than it seems at first glance. Here is the problem as each side sees it:



1. The State View: Americans buy about $10 billion a year from the internet (and growing). But as a practical matter, states can’t tax this. Technically, they can and do tax it, but they can only collect the tax from the purchaser. Indeed, most states have laws requiring you to report what you purchase and pay tax on that. . . fat chance.



From the state perspective, this is lost revenue. To solve this problem, states keep trying to force internet retailers (e-tailers) to collect sales taxes just like bricks and mortar retailers do. Right now, e-tailers don’t do that, and states don’t have the power to force them.



The reason states can’t force this is the way jurisdiction works in the United States. To be able to regulate (and tax) a business, that business must have some “nexus” to the state. But the term “nexus” isn’t clearly defined. Operating a warehouse within a state clearly constitutes a nexus. Having a retail operation does too. But what if people buy from your catalog or off your webpage? So far, the courts have always said that is not enough to form a nexus. Thus, states can’t force e-tailers to collect sale tax for them. . . though they keep trying.



California is the latest state to try. What they’ve done is to declare that any e-tailer who deals with local sellers has a nexus to the state. Amazon falls into this category because it partners with small businesses all over the country including California. Because of this bill, Amazon has begun terminating its relationship with all of these people if they are located in California (10,000 were terminated in July). Amazon is also trying to get this bill repealed by referendum.



2. The Main Street Retailer View: Main Street retailers hate companies like Amazon. They have no choice but to collect the sales tax imposed by the state. Thus, they are at a disadvantage to the e-tailers, and the disadvantage can be serious. In liberal states like Illinois, for example, it can reach nearly 12% with local surcharges. That’s a significant handicap when the e-tailer doesn’t have to collect those taxes.



Extending this argument to its natural conclusion, retailers argue that if this situation is not remedied, then e-tailers will eventually wipe out retailers. But keep a couple things in mind. First, these are the same retailers who wiped out the mom and pop shops two decades ago. . . so their argument rings a little hypocritical. Secondly, there are other benefits the retailers get (like property tax breaks) that are not given to the e-tailer. Third, the retailer business model may be defective, and rather than trying to force a tax hike on e-tailers, maybe they should be looking for new services to lure customers back into their stores. Fourth, some products simply aren't amenable to the e-tailer model.



3. The eStreet Internet Retailer View: The e-tailer response is twofold. First, to allow states to force them to collect the tax would make them a special case that violates 200 years of jurisprudence. It’s the business equivalent of letting New York haul you into court just because you sent a letter to someone who lives in New York.



Secondly, e-tailers make a practicality argument. There are 8,000 different tax jurisdictions in the US, each with different rules, procedures and rates, which change at a moment’s notice. Moreover, these jurisdictions don’t align with zip codes. Thus, it would be a practical nightmare for a company like Amazon to assess and collect the right amount of tax. It would be impossible for smaller e-tailers. This change could effectively kill off all but the largest e-tailers.



4. My View: Politically, I am conflicted on this. As a firm believer in federalism and the 10th Amendment, I generally favor letting states handle their own affairs. . . even if they make a mess of it. So they should be allowed to tax whatever activity goes on inside their borders provided they don’t discriminate against out-of-state companies. But that argument really doesn’t apply here because they can tax these transactions, they just can’t get it collected the easy way. States have a right to regulate themselves, they don’t have a right to regulate outsiders just because it makes things easier for the state.



And practically speaking, I think it would be disastrous to allow 10,000 tax regimes to force themselves upon e-tailers. What’s more, how can we then be sure they are being treated fairly (i.e. that there is no discrimination against out-of-state companies)? Suppose a single sales tax is imposed on both retailers and e-tailers. That sounds fair, but what about the property tax breaks, utility discounts or other things the retailer gets that reek of local favoritism?



I don’t care for the idea that in the long run we are likely to end up with most retailers going out of business in favor of e-tailers (e.g. book and music stores). But on the other hand, these e-tailers have been very good for consumers even beyond the sale tax issue and the death of the retailer may be inevitable unless retailers find some way to improve their business model.



Right now Senate Democrats are trying to come up with a bill (the Main Street Fairness Act) to “solve” this problem. Amazon supports it, eBay opposes it. Frankly, this sounds like it will impose a fairly heavy regulatory burden on e-tailers. I suspect Amazon likes it because it will make it hard for smaller competitors to enter its market. eBay probably opposes it because eBay relies on thousands of small sellers, who would likely end up violating the new rules.



There may be no good answer, but when in doubt, I find myself coming down against any solution offered by Democrats with the support of the biggest company in the field and with the support of trade groups looking for a little protectionism for their members. So if I had to vote right now, I would vote to leave the system as it is.



What do you think? How would you solve this problem?



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Has The Supreme Court Solved The Immigration Problem?

America changed last Thursday. While everyone was dreaming of hotdogs and television marathons, the Supreme Court quietly issued a decision that may end up solving the illegal alien problem. In a 5-3 vote, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law from 2007 that penalizes businesses that hire workers who are in the United States illegally. Democrats and big business should be very afraid.

The law in question is the Legal Arizona Workers Act. This law provides that Arizona employers who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal aliens will have their business licenses suspended or revoked. The loss of a business license in most states means that a company cannot transact business, cannot bring lawsuits or defend itself in court, and cannot do things like participate in workers compensation schemes (i.e. have employees). It is essentially, a death sentence for a business. But, you ask, what keeps employers from just turning a blind eye to avoid the “knowingly” requirement? The law further requires that employers must use the federal “E-Verify” system to confirm the eligibility of workers for employment.

This law, signed by Gov. Janet “The Village Idiot” Napolitano in 2007, was challenged by the Chamber of Commerce (a theoretically conservative organization), with backing from the ACLU (a known America-hating outfit). They argued that the law was illegal because immigration law is exclusively within the power of the federal government. Thus, Arizona has no right to pass any laws involving immigration.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Roberts shot this down. He wrote that Arizona’s employer sanctions “fall well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.” In other words, Congress controls the nation’s immigration laws, but it has allowed the states some powers and the power to punish employers who hire illegals is one such power. Each of the leftist judges voted against this except Kagan, who recused herself because she had challenged the law on behalf of the Obama administration.

So why is this important?

Well, let us be honest about illegal immigration for a moment. To convince you that they are tough on illegal immigration, many conservative politicians pound the table and loudly proclaim that if only we (1) built a wall and (2) deported all the illegals, we could solve the immigration problem. This is pandering.

The truth is that a majority of illegal aliens do not cross illegally over the border. Most overstay visas. Thus, putting up a wall will do nothing to stop them. Moreover, as long as they can climb over the wall, dig under it, go around it by boat or plane, or get passes to visit the US even on day trips, no wall will ever be effective. It’s a fantasy to think otherwise.

Deporting them is an equally false solution. There are 12 million illegal aliens in this country with more coming every single day. Last year, we deported 380,000 people. That is 1/31 of those who are here. It took 21,000 officers to do that. Imagine how many officers it will take to get the other 30/31 and tell me if paying for those officers is politically sustainable? Moreover, finding these people is not easy and will breed massive resentment as it would require neighborhood sweeps and a police state that rivals East Germany. And even if we can ultimately find them all, there is nothing stopping them from simply turning around and coming back. You would if you were dumped in Mexico overnight, so why would anyone think they won't?

The only realistic solution to this problem is one that prevents illegal aliens from wanting to come to the United States. There is considerable evidence that they do not come when and will not stay here if there are no economic opportunities for them. Indeed, during the last recession, nearly two million went home.

In light of that, consider what the Supreme Court has done. It has given states the power to take away the economic opportunities that attract illegal aliens. As Republican states one by one make it dangerous for employers to hire illegals, employers will stop hiring them. Liberal states will need to follow suit or get flooded by illegal aliens. As the economic opportunities in the US dry up, illegal aliens will stop coming to the US and those that are here will start to leave. It won't get rid of all, but it will make this problem infinitely more manageable.

Thus, while the federal government pretends to act and offers placebos in the hope of distracting the public from its complicity in working to bring in substitute labor and votes, the states can now fix this problem all on their own.

Even better, as far as Republicans should be concerned, this avoids the political damage of being seen to be the party of mass deportations. Better yet, while everyone is focused on the flashy new law Arizona passed in 2010, this one will silently go about its job of fixing this issue with little fanfare.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republicans Pushing Boldly Ahead

The November 2010 election was a major triumph for Republicans across the country. Capturing a net six governorships and net 680 state legislative seats (blowing away the post-Watergate record 628 seat swing), Republicans now control 29 governorships and 25 state legislatures (the Democrats control fifteen, ten more are divided or nonpartisan and the other seven are imaginary). So what have the Republicans done with this victory? You might be surprised.

No doubt, you’ve heard about the brouhaha in Wisconsin between Governor Walker and the unions. But that’s only the beginning. Indeed, Wisconsin Republicans are now pushing through their entire agenda before recall elections can rob them of control of their Senate. This includes (1) plans to legalize concealed weapons, (2) deregulation of the telephone industry, (3) expanding school vouchers, (4) undoing early release of prisoners, (5) requiring photo ID from voters before they can vote, (6) circumventing the court imposed stay and stripping public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights, (7) cutting one billion dollars from the budget, and (8) passing a redistricting plan to implement the 2010 census. The consequences of this could be enormous. And Wisconsin is not alone:

● Twenty states are currently taking up or completing measures designed to limit the power of public sector unions. These efforts should ultimately result in a neutering of public sector unions, who use their position to support Democrats, both financially and with volunteers. As an aside, even the Democrats in Massachusetts just took away the unions’ rights to bargain their health care . . . oddly, there were no protests or death threats when the Democrats acted.

● Eighteen states are trying to pass right-to-work laws to join the 22 states that already have them. New Hampshire passed such a law, but it doesn’t look like the Republicans can overcome a veto by the state’s Democratic governor. Right-to-work laws make closed shops illegal and prevent unions from forcing employees to pay union dues. This generally kills off unions once employees are given a genuine choice. Passage of more of these laws could spell the end for private sector unions, who are near death in most states already, and will further cripple the Democratic Party.

● Another thirty states are cracking down on illegal immigration. This has the potential of robbing the Democratic Party of its base of illegal voters.

● Another thirty states are trying to pass laws requiring voters to produce a drivers license or official picture identification before they can vote. Since Indiana’s law on this point was upheld by the United States Supreme Court 6-3 in 2008 (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board), seven other states have enacted similar laws: Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota. Kansas just passed such a law. Ohio’s House has passed a similar law, which is expected to pass their Senate and be signed by the governor. Wisconsin will pass theirs as well. And 27 more are trying.

The Democrats are, of course, furious. They are making all kinds of false claims about the horrible consequences of passing these laws. For example, they are trying to claim this change could cost millions in training costs for poll watchers. Of course, that ignores the fact that poll watchers get training already and adding a line that says “check their drivers license” won’t add a penny. They are claiming this will intimidate minorities, which is also garbage. Any minority “brave enough” to appear at a voting booth should be brave enough to bring their drivers license. They are claiming this will keep people without drivers licenses from voting, which deliberately ignores the fact that each of these laws allows people without drivers licenses to provide alternative proof. . . which, to the horror of angry Democrats, does not include college IDs.

What’s really going on here is that this has the potential of eliminating a good deal of Democratic voter fraud, see e.g. ACORN and Wisconsin, where Democratic groups pretend to be other registered voters. This could eliminate the Democrats' ability to magically find an extra 1-2% during close elections.

● Wyoming and Missouri have barred their courts from applying Sharia law or foreign law.

● And there’s more. Gun rights are being solidified, conservative social policy issues are being passed, taxes are going down, spending is being cut and states are regaining their financial health. And redistricting is starting and it looks like a total disaster for the Democrats.

That's not a bad return on an election that only happened a few months ago.

Naturally, liberals are very upset. They are so upset that liberal mouthpieces like the New York Times are actually encouraging people to sue or protest or do anything else they can to stop these evil Republicans. Even funnier, their most recent talking point has them all whining that this “goes way beyond what Republicans campaigned on. . . they campaigned on jobs. . . not any of this!” Aw, poor babies. I guess elections do have consequences after all.

So, what else have you heard about and what else would you like to see (or not see)?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Boiler Room Elves On States' Rights

By the Boiler Room Elves
(edited by AndrewPrice)

To keep our internet connection working, Commentarama employs a team of unionized elves to stoke the boiler. These elves are an opinionated (and militant) group, and they constantly send us expletive-laced diatribes about various political topics. But sometimes, these diatribes are kind of interesting. So we’ve decided to share some of them with you. Without further ado, I give you the most recent rant from our Boiler Room Elves. . .


To: Management
Re: States' Rights MEANS States' Rights

If states' rights mean something to conservatives, then we must stand up for states rights. We cannot pick and choose when we want states rights to apply and when we don’t. If one is in favor of smaller government and states' rights as the best way to govern, and we are, then that belief should not stop once one's favorite pet issue comes up for debate.

I'm thinking of the recent attempt by Republicans (and joined by a surprising number of Democrats) to add an amendment to a military defense bill that would have required states to recognize concealed carry permits granted by other states. The amendment fell just short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

This amendment bothers me. I have nothing against concealed weapon permits. I would like to see all states make them available. But this isn’t the way to go about it. All over talk radio, I heard pundits arguing: “hey, if the liberals want to insist that Tennessee must recognize a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts, then they should be willing to give the same privilege to concealed gun permits.” But that is precisely backward!

If conservatives DON'T want to force Tennessee to recognize a marriage performed in Massachusetts, then conservatives cannot turn around and insist that gun permits should be recognized nation-wide. States' rights must mean something always, not only when the other guy raises an issue. If we pick and choose when the concept applies, then all we do is weaken the concept.

There are plenty of permits and licenses granted in every state that don't cross borders. If you are licensed to teach or practice law or medicine in one state, you have to apply and go through hoops when you move. Even your drivers' license, while recognized in other states if you pass through, must be replaced by a proper license from the new state if you move to that state. And this often requires retesting, and exposes you to the risk that the new state won’t issue the new license. Concealed weapons permits should be no different.

Nor does it matter that gun ownership is a constitutional right. First, it’s not obvious to me that ownership also means that you have a constitutional right to carry the weapon concealed. The Second Amendment does not say “right to bear concealed arms.” Secondly, we have historically decided that states CAN impose regulations within states, even on supposedly absolute constitutional rights, for reasons like health, safety and the public welfare. For example, we let states and cities restrict free speech by requiring permits before groups can assemble or march, and by punishing people for yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

If we are to respect states’ rights, we should let them put in place whatever restrictions they think are appropriate, provided they don’t violate the Constitution. To do otherwise and to attempt to impose one rule on the states runs counter to the arguments conservatives routinely make about the left attempting to foist leftish ideas on the states in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

That’s why we oppose the idea of this amendment.

Signed,
Boiler Room Elves

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...