Yesterday, and since the Krugman interview, Joe Scarborough has called for more short-term government spending along with a long-term plan to deal with entitlements. This morning Scarborough criticized government spending/stimulus and rattled off the amount government has spent over the last 4 years yet we have a report showing a negative GDP number. This is baffling. Perhaps Scarborough is in the camp which proposes the correct type of government spending -- infrastructure and such of which they approve.
Scarborough and the crew spent a lot of time making fun of gun/Second Amendment advocates who are testifying regarding government's gun control efforts following the Sandy Hook tragedy. Morning Joe showed a clip of Gabby Giffords testifying calling on Congress to do something. Regardless of how one interprets the Second Amendment, it's highly unlikely that any legislation will stop multiple killings by deranged individuals, and most likely will create more expensive bureacracy which spends its time justifying its existence and looking for ways to expand. What business is it of Scarborough, or any guest on Morning Joe calling for a ban on certain weapons that hold many rounds, why I would want such a weapon. The Morning Joe crew tried to make the case that people don't need these weapons, but who are they to say what I need? It's not government's reponsibility to tell me what I need or don't need. It's government's responsibility to protect my rights, enter into treaties with foreign... oh well, that was a long time ago.
I think it was Dan Senor who brought up the point that when we look at the particulars of the legislation, it all falls apart. The same holds for immigration legislation. Our welfare state is such that if undocumented immigrants are made legal, and if they are made eligible for social services, poor, uneducated immigrants will rationally use the services. When the choice is between nasty, low-paying jobs and welfare, the rational choice is welfare. This has nothing to with what type of people they are, if the only jobs available are crap jobs that no one can live on, then the rational choice is to access as many social services possible to live better. It's different in a growing economy with a free market -- then immigrants come to America and compete for good jobs, but in a stagnant economy that offers welfare benefits to those who can't get by, immigrants are led into the welfare system where many will be trapped.
Morning Joe criticized the National Review article which made some of these points, but it's not a matter of calling Hispanics welfare leeches -- it's a matter of reality, rational choice, economics and human nature. If millions of poor, struggling immigrants come forward, then they'll not be turned away by our welfare system. I'm not saying they should be turned away -- it's a little late to argue that. I'm saying we have serious systemic problems that are killing our economy and our ability to even fund the welfare state. I'm, of course, for a free market and private assistance organizations, but we're so far from that it's like a dream that periodically comes at night. Our statist system is set for collapse, and legislation like this immigration reform only feeds into the statist system and hastens the collapse.
These unintended consequences of politicized legislation are reasons for the public to push back on the current immigration reform until it's clear what the legislation will cause.