Yep. Even liberals think that the government is too big. According to this Rasmussen poll:
Voters in states run mostly by Democrats are more likely than those in GOP-run states to feel their state government is too big, but all give similar performance reviews to those governments. ... 36% of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the job performance of their state government as good or excellent. Twenty-six percent (26%) think their state government does a poor job.
I don't have an account, so I cannot get access to the entire poll (or the percentage of voters who feel that the government is too big). But the result is telling: even the Democrats don't like what the Democrats are doing. Sadly, they will continue to vote that way because that is what they have done throughout their entire adult lives.
Rand Paul has vowed to make sure the NSA spying program expires. Rand Paul has made an issue statement here. According to the statement:
I have fought for several years now to end the illegal spying of the NSA on ordinary Americans. The callous use of general warrants and the disregard for the Bill of Rights must end. Forcing us to choose between our rights and our safety is a false choice and we are better than that as a nation and as a people. ... I acknowledge the need for a robust intelligence agency and for a vigilant national security. I believe we must fight terrorism, and I believe we must stand strong against our enemies. But we do not need to give up who we are to defeat them. In fact, we must not. There has to be another way. We must find it together. So tomorrow, I will force the expiration of the NSA illegal spy program. I am ready and willing to start the debate on how we fight terrorism without giving up our liberty. [emphasis added]
I actually do agree with Rand Paul: I think the PATRIOT act is unconstitutional; the NSA spying program must stop. I think he is being a bit hypocritical, though. He opposes executive action because it gives so much power to one man. Isn't this the same thing? Sure, I suppose he is talking about the executive branch. And doing this can even the playing field. And we aren't a democracy. We are a republic. So it doesn't matter if the majority opposes him and he does this alone. Can he do it? Sure. Should he do it? Absolutely. And I oppose executive power, too, but I think it is a tad bit hypocritical to get angry at executive orders and then, singlehandedly, go against a bill the majority of legislators want. But at least he is protecting the constitution--more than Obama can claim to say--and I support him for that.
If you follow the news, most pundits seem to have reached consensus: if the GOP does not move towards the center on social issues, it is bound to fail. The population has turned against the right on the issues of abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage. Unfortunately for the pundits making these predictions, they are simply untrue.
Take the death penalty. Liberals love to claim that support for the death penalty has fallen and will harm the GOP. But the evidence does not support this claim. An Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found the death penalty support at 86%. Adding the group that feels the death penalty is always acceptable (22%) to those who say it is sometimes acceptable (64%), the total support reaches an astounding 86%. Since 2011, there was an 8% increase in support for allowing prosecutors to rely on the death penalty for murder cases. Of course, these statistics may be skewed: you need to measure support for capital punishment versus support for life without parole. People may support the death penalty, but in the end favor alternative punishments. The majority still remains when this is done. According to the poll, 59% favor capital punishment over life without parole, a 3% increase since 2011. Support for life in prison was a mere 25%, a two percent decline.
A Pew Research poll supports the pundit's claims. The poll shows a declining support for the death penalty since the 1990s, but a strong majority still exists: 56% support the death penalty versus 38% who oppose. Not much of an election killer! For those who want to reverse this trend, there are a few important details in the Pew poll. The poll broke down reasons people may oppose the death penalty and measured how many people of each group supported the death penalty and how many people opposed it. I will list the three main objections to the death penalty they questioned about, and I will discuss why each objection is wrong.
First, a large objection to the death penalty is that it may lead to innocents being executed. The risk is not very large. Lawyer Joshua Marquis found a rightful conviction rate of 99.72%. Only 0.28% of those executed are potentially innocent. Marquis furthers his argument by noting that those in the medical profession kill 10,000 people by accident each year--a higher number than those executed in total since 1976--yet no one wants to ban medicines. The solution is to fix the problem, not end the system.
Second, another objection is that the death penalty does not deter crime. This isn't really an objection, but a refutation to the claim that it does decrease crime. Statistics continue to show that capital punishment does reduce the murder rate. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has tallied up the papers showing deterrence and those showing no effect. Seventeen papers show deterrence, five show no deterrence, and two are inconclusive. You may stumble upon a National Research Council study claiming no effect, but the review ignored half of the research showing deterrence. The editors of the report are both well-known anti-death penalty advocates and one of the authors (Daniel Nagin) made sure to display a study of his own published in the American Law and Economics Review, which found no effect, but ignore a paper by Paul R. Zimmerman who published a study in the same issue of the journal but came to the opposite conclusion. Nagin, who was surely aware of the Zimmerman study, did not provide any reasoning for the decision to exclude the study from the NRC review. It could be that Nagin simply was unaware of the study and, by mere coincidence, the study happened to disagree with his viewpoint. But if that is true, and the NRC is not guilty of ignoring pertinent evidence, it means they are guilty of bad fact checking and the inability to properly collect the research. The objection--that the death penalty does not deter crime--does not hold up to evidence.
The final objection is that the justice system is more likely to execute people of color. This is one of the more potent objections to the death penalty because the issue of race is impossible to argue against. If you claim that the justice system is not biased, you are labeled a racist. But like most claims of racial bias that liberals make, this too is false. The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, uses the race card against the death penalty, "there has been substantial evidence to show that courts have sentenced some persons to prison while putting others to death in a manner that has been arbitrary, racially biased, and unfair." Their first line of evidence is that about half of those on death row are African American, despite making up a mere 13% of the population. But African Americans are responsible for 37.7% of the homicides in this country versus 32.5% for whites. There is a large percentage, 28%, of murders where the race of the offender is unknown. If we assume the percentages carry over (37.7% of the unknown category are black), we get can add 10% to the 37.7% previously. This means African Americans commit almost half of the homicides in the United States--proportional to the amount on death row. The ACLU counters with multiple studies on the issue and the finding that the race of the victim matters as well. According to the ACLU, 77% of those on death row are guilty of killing a white person. But the numbers don't add up. The best constructed study on the issue was created by the RAND Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. The RAND study was more like three separate ones. Three sets of researchers, using different methods and datasets, all studied the same question: is the death penalty unfairly applied towards people of color. Looking at the raw data the researchers had disturbing results. The death penalty was racist. If the offender was black and the victim was white, the defendant was doomed to die. But the researchers took heinousness into account and controlled for it. Once done, there was no race effect. The death penalty was not applied because of race; it was applied due to the heinousness of the crime. If a crime is very gruesome, and the defendant happened to be African American and the victim happened to be white, an execution would result. But the studies found that race had nothing to do with it--it only had to do with how gruesome the murder was. If the offender happened to be white and the victim black, a death sentence would still occur. The death penalty isn't racist. It is just applied to the worst crimes, which by mere chance happen to occur to white victims and African American offenders.
The three objections: innocence, deterrence, and race are just flat out wrong. The death penalty still is seem as favorable among most voting blocs, so it probably won't hurt the GOP in the coming election. And some polls find increasing support, not decreasing support. Of course, in the world of statistics both may end up being wrong, but one thing is for certain: at least for the next election cycle, the death penalty will be a feather, not an ankle-weight, for the GOP.
An article written by Times magazine attempts to explain why the death penalty (DP) is dying. I will try to discuss why I hope the DP does not die.
Times: "Support for capital punishment has sagged in recent years."
Response: This is true, and it shows that the DP may be on the course of death. But I don't think the trend is irreversible. According to Gallup, the death penalty support fell to a mere 42% in the 1960s, with the amount opposed at 47%. The trend reversed itself with 80% support in 1994 versus 16% opposed. Support has since fallen to 63% in support and 33% in opposition. The majority continues to support the death penalty, despite a steady decline since 1994. Though the plummet in support and rise in opposition in the mid 50s led to a dramatic rise in death penalty support. It should be noted that support increased during periods of high crime. Crime has fallen since the mid 1990s, so it is no surprise that support has fallen. What is ironic--as I will explain later--the DP may be (in part) responsible for the crime decline causing the support to fall. So it seems that DP support may track crime rates and not some political shift Times seems to assume. But they are right; support has fallen since the 1990s.
Times: "Americans have stuck with grim determination to the idea of the ultimate penalty even as other Western democracies have turned against it. On this issue, our peer group is not Britain and France; it’s Iran and China."
Response: Well... Japan, one of our closest allies and also a functioning democracy, has a death penalty. Belarus has a death penalty. Singapore has the death penalty, as does the Bahamas. South Korea has a DP moratorium, but has 60 people on death row and convicted someone to death in 2009, though the last execution was in 1997. There are discussions to bring it back. So merely having a death penalty does not mean we are somehow evil--other democracies have it (or are discussing bringing it back). Japan has 80% death penalty support, but no one is equating them to China or Iran. Even if all "civilized" democracies legalized prostitution, slavery, or murder, it would not make it right to simply do the same. This is another bandwagon fallacy--the first point was, too. Regardless, I pointed to multiple countries (which were not China or Iran) which continue to uphold the DP--or may bring it back.
Times: "The shift is more pragmatic than moral, as Americans realize that our balky system of state-sanctioned killing simply isn’t fixable. ... The reality is that capital punishment is nothing more than an expensive, wasteful and risky government program."
Response: Wrong.
(1) It is fixable. The reason it takes so long is because we allow anti-DP groups like the ACLU, among others, to support murderers participate in a countless number of appeals in order to get life sentences. This causes an immense number of costs. Even the liberal DPIC says that pretrial, trial, and posttrial costs are the reason the DP costs more. There is no reason this should be the case. Liberals always say this: put them in jail forever and throw out the key. So why should a DP case receive more attention than that? It is arbitrary and could easily be reformed. The trials also should cost about the same for LWOP cases since it involves putting a man in jail for life. Forever. But that is exempt for some reason. Liberal logic! And posttrial costs and trial costs are often zero if you take into account plea bargians.
(2) Plea bargians! If you take this into account, the cost of the DP is diminished greatly. Before this is taken into account, the DP costs 2.45 times as much as equivalent LWOP cases. After it is taken into account, the DP only costs 1.5 times as much, according to one study. Simply taking that into account can change the numbers tremendously.
(3) A study by Sherod Thaxton shows that the DP costs much more than LWOP. If you take into account a few things, the results aren't as impressive. Each year in prison costs about $30,000 according to CBS. The average time on death row, according to the DPIC, is 15 years. So the DP incarceration costs are about $450,000. Thaxton says the DP cases cost $2 million more in trials. So assume the LWOP trial costs 0 and the DP case costs 2 million--same ratio but easier numbers. Say a prisoner on LWOP is in jail for 50 years. He costs the state 1.5 million dollars versus 2.45 million for the DP. If you add on the plea bargaining effect, you can take off .4 million from the DP side, making it 1.5:2.05. Using that estimate, the DP only costs 30% more.
(4) The effect is very small on budgets. I wrote the numbers here a while ago. I used them above, too. The DP in a state like Texas, who executes the most people, only takes up 0.024% of the state's budget. You can object that Texas is super rich, so it would take up more of the budget for other states. Virginia, who has executed the second most people but is not as wealthy as Texas, has an even smaller percentage. The DP only takes up 0.005% of the state's budget.
(5) Deterrence. If the death penalty deters only one murder it makes up for budget shortfalls. Each murder costs $17-24 million to the state through trial and societal costs (lost productivity, etc.) according to one study -- the most violent and gruesome cases can cost in excess of $150 million. Another study had the cost of a murder at $1.2 million dollars in tangible costs (e.g. trials) but $8 million in intangible costs (e.g. lost productivity), making the cost of each murder about $9 million. Either way, the DP deterring one murder could save $9 - 150 million dollars--more than any plausible DP case.
This was a response to the arguments they had *before* their list. I may touch on the list a bit tomorrow--but one of them says crime, which is what I hypothesized above. I responded to reason 4 (government's going broke--only takes up a tiny fraction of costs, may cost the same or less in the long run). Their final reason is the Justices, but I doubt that has caused enough awareness to have an impact. And it is a bad reason anyway--will liberals become pro-choice because Roe, who argued in favor of abortion in Roe v Wade, became pro life? Or maybe because Doe, who argued in favor of abortion, in Doe v Bolton became pro life? I am pro life, but it is simply a terrible argument to make. It is an appeal to authority. Plus, the reasons they change may be totally different than why you support it. Say you support gun control because guns are dangerous. If John Lott became pro gun control--despite saying control causes crime--because the Second Amendment somehow bans gun ownership (it doesn't, but go with my weirdness)--would that make you want to support gun control more? No, because it has nothing to do with what you think. And, of course, they could always end up being wrong. If I feel the need I will respond to them point by point tomorrow. But I think I did a good opening statement here.
There are two studies which I see frequently cited to prove that claim. It is untrue--abortion is not safer than childbirth.
The first is Christiansen & Collins, 2006. The abstract can be read here. The claim is that the study found the death rate of childbirth to be ten times higher than undergoing an abortion. But the study itself has no data on abortion-related deaths. It merely compares rate of death when the woman became pregnant versus the rate of death among life childbirths, but that does not mean those who did not undergo live childbirth had an abortion. Some of them may have had abortions, but not all, and probably not even a majority, actually went to get an abortion. The study defined pregnancy-related death--which was their "abortion" group--as, "the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the cause of death." (p. 11) So... They didn't even compare women who had abortions to women who hadn't! So citing that study as proof that abortions are safer than childbirth is simply untrue.
The second is a newer study by Raymond & Grimes, 2012. A summary of the study is here. The summary stated that "[t]he risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion." So have I lost? Not exactly. The study was disputed by Priscilla K. Coleman, a professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University. The Raymond study relied upon data provided by the CDC, but Coleman argues that the CDC underestimates abortion-related deaths for multiple reasons, "1) abortion reporting is not required by federal law and many states do not report abortion-related deaths to the CDC; 2) deaths due to medical and surgical treatments are reported under the complication of the procedure (e.g., infection) rather than the treatment (e.g., induced abortion); 3) most women leave abortion clinics within hours of the procedure and go to hospital emergency rooms if there are complications that may result in death; 4) suicide deaths are rarely, if ever, linked back to abortion in state reporting of death rates; 5) an abortion experience can lead to physical and/or psychological disturbances that increase the likelihood of dying years after the abortion and these indirect abortion-related deaths are not captured at all. The authors acknowledge underreporting, but they make no attempt to address the factors associated with this shortcoming, nor do they discuss the magnitude of the problem." The reliance on the CDC data, therefore, is unable to provide an accurate representation of the truth. The study is flawed at its core due to underreporting of abortion related deaths, which may close the gap or even reverse the findings if accounted for. Coleman also notes how the Raymond study does *not* measure abortion-related deaths after the first trimester. Second and third term abortions are rare, but it is those which likely produce the largest chance of complication. It should be noted that Raymond found the chance of death during childbirth was 8.8/100,000, but the mortality rate at 13-15 weeks of gestation during an abortion is 14.7/100,000 and 29.5/100,000 at 16-20 weeks. The rate jumps to 76.6/100,000 after 21 weeks. So an abortion at 13-15 weeks is 1.6 times more deadly than childbirth, 3.3 times more deadly at 16-20 weeks, and 8 times more deadly after 21 weeks. So it is much less safe to have an abortion after the first trimester, and the data for the first trimester may be very flawed.
As Coleman noted, the study does not take into account future deaths which may have been caused by abortion (possibly suicide). Coleman argues that there is a huge amount of data showing how childbirth prevents breast cancer and suicide. Thus, depraving childbirth from women may benefit them in the long term and outweigh the short-term finding Raymond and Grimes found. Other studies have not Reached the Raymond conclusion. One study found that abortion was four times as deadly as childbirth, and increased the risk of suicide. Another study found that abortions cause Ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are responsible for 10% of pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester. 12 studies in India have shown that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer. In the US, 19/24 studies prove the abortion breast cancer link. I would not go so far to say that the cancer link is proven--many researchers are skeptical, but some evidence does seem to exist.
The new Quinnipiac poll can be seen here. There is a five way tie in the Republican primary: Rubio, Bush, Walker, Huckabee, and Carson at 10%. At least in the last election cycle there was a front runner, Bachman, even if she ended up losing. Everyone predicted a Romney win. Now, it seems like any of those guys can pull it off. Bush has the most money, but the others have well-funded PACs. And Rubio might have the Obama zeal. Republicans may look down on that, but having the political skill of Obama is not a bad thing; it may give us the best chance to beat Hillary.
The poll also included theoretical match ups. Rubio and Paul did the best against Clinton, only losing by 4 points. The margin of error was 2.6%, so they could only be behind 1.4%. This is surprising because Hillary has near 100% name recognition, whereas Rubio and Paul likely are behind. She leads Christie by 9%, Huckabee by 7%, Bush by 10%, Walker by 8%, Cruz by 11%, and Trump by 18%. It seems as though Rubio and Paul, in these early polls, do the best against Hillary.
It should be noted that a FOX poll shows Jeb ahead by 1%, and a second FOX poll (3/29-2/31) shows them tied. But the RCP average shows Jeb behind by 8.1% and Rubio behind by 7.6%. Paul is behind 7.7%, according to RCP, a tie with Rubio.
Remember, it is too early to tell who will win the primaries or whether or not Clinton will win or lose. But Rubio and Paul seem to be the best in a theoretical fight with Clinton--and this is before Rubio can go onto Univision and speak Spanish to the growing minority and spread the word. I can't find a modern poll, but a 2014 poll shows 40% of Americans not knowing who Rubio or Cruz even are. As name recognition increases, Republicans often do poorly. But Rubio--who is conservative--seems to be able to run as a moderate. His background, speaking skills, and likable persona may reverse the trend of awareness harming the candidate. I am of the firm opinion that Rubio is the most electable candidate--despite being one of the most conservative ones--the GOP has fielded. And I think he can beat Hillary; only time can tell.
To put this in internet slang, anytime I read the comments, I get cancer.
All these comments are in response to Krauthammer saying that Rubio will win the nomination. (LINK) He is probably my first choice, followed by Jeb. I don't think Jeb is as likable, though.
Comment: "[Krauthammer] knows Conservatives do not like Rubio and the liberal Republicans do not like Rubio."
What are you talking about? Rubio is the most liked by pretty much everyone. He has the highest approval rating in all parts of the party. This commenter likes Ted Cruz. Sure, he is the conservative favorite, but a huge portion of Republicans wouldn't vote for him. I would, but I wouldn't like it. According to the Wall Street Journal, he is actually the most acceptable candidate in the party. 75% of Republicans say they could back Rubio, with only 15% saying they would not, the lowest number of all the candidates. So... He is actually the most liked. Followed by Bush at 70% and Walker at 61%. 41% of voters say he is their first or second choice--ahead of both Bush and Walker. Again. So it seems as though extremists and moderates alike are fond of Rubio. So stop saying dumb things. You are empirically wrong. Ted Cruz, if anything, is the one that everyone dislikes. Cruz was actually under 60%. Only Huckabee, Christie, Perry, Carson, and Fiorina score worse. Perry is an old face who has no chance, Carson and Fiorina are unknown, and Christie is marred by dumb scandal allegation which he probably had nothing to do with. So, sorry my friend, but Rubio is the most liked by pretty much everyone.
Comment: "Nope Marco, your RINO horn is sticking out of your forehead like a second nose; same for Romney, Jeb, and Christie."
What?! He was a tea party favorite until he came out in favor of amnesty. Rubio governs as a conservative. His congressional voting record is actually more conservative than the average Republican in 2013-2014. Only two people--Ted Cruz and Rand Paul--who are considered major candidates are more conservative than him. So, assuming this ranking is correct, Rubio is the third most conservative running. And you think he is a "RINO"? lol. I don't think conservatives are dumb--I am one--but you sure are, pal.
SMART Comment: "Other than immigration what the heck are you talking about. Check his votes; they are as conservative as they come."
Tis true. This person has a brain.
DUMB Comment... Again: "Amnesty will fundamentally change America for the worse. So it really doesn't matter about his other votes." Or another, "[amnesty] will lead to more crime, larger government, higher taxes, and a larger welfare population. Amnesty flies in the face of every conservative principle out there."
Conservatives not only need to be pro amnesty to win the latino vote--a voting bloc I am part of--but also realize that they are wrong. I was against amnesty (I am half Puerto Rican, so my family was born with citizenship, so no immigrant bias). Well, I was against it until I was wrong. But I think the second comment gives us more to refute. The first is saying it will harm us in some abstract sense. The second gives us actual criteria. If it does not cause those things, it is not against "every conservative principle out there," and conservatives can finally support amnesty.
(1) More crime: Actually, research has found that amnesty reduces crime. Since illegal immigration is, in and of itself, a crime, I suppose that illegal immigration causes crime; but amnesty would get rid of that semantical loophole. And actual violent crime would decrease if we naturalized foreign workers, Stanford economists have found. Side note: I am taking economics there this summer. The study found that initiatives like Obama's amnesty could lead to 50,000 fewer crimes each year. To put in different terms, if you legalized 1% of a county's population, crime falls 2% per capita. The reason for this is simple. Legal immigrants are more likely to cooperate with the police because they do not fear deportation, and making the police more effective means crime can be combatted. And an effective police force is the strongest deterrent we have. Legal immigrants are also more likely to live with their family. Which matters because family men are less prone to crime. So amnesty has two effects: (1) Reducing the amount of crime immigrants commit because they become "family men", and (2) Reducing the amount of crime through police cooperation. Both of those reduce crime. So the crime argument is refuted.
(2) Higher taxes: I actually do not see how this works. The only argument is that it may increase welfare spending and, therefore, cause more taxes. But this can go the other way: more legal immigrants means they will actually pay income taxes rather than avoiding them when they are illegal. So, if anything, legalizing immigration would mean more revenue which could theoretically mean fewer taxes. So you can't automatically assume that immigration reform would increase taxes. We must first analyze the impact of immigration on spending.
(3) Bigger government: Crime decreases, so government won't grow there. I will discuss spending in a bit--but the government won't get bigger there. You may be skeptical of this White House publication, but if their benefits turn out to be true, government would shrink. They say amnesty would lead to economic growth. Economic growth reduces poverty (see, e.g. this study), which would mean smaller government because the government would spend less to help the poor. The report also says it would increase wages and productivity. If wages increase, calls for big government minimum wage increases would disappear. So... This is not true. And if you disagree with the White House, maybe you would be less skeptical of this conservative Manhattan Institute study, which has many of the same results. Or maybe this conservative American Enterprise Institute blog post, or a libertarian CATO study. So conservatives actually agree: amnesty = more economic growth. And more growth = less poverty = less spending = smaller government.
(4) Welfare/spending: This argument is the most important one. If I lose, both (3) and (2) are anti-conservative. But if I show that immigration does not cause this... Well... Both (2) and (3) Are refuted. I will make a few points:
a) Immigration leads to growth. This was already established. I will try to only use conservative sources because, well, I want to convince conservatives. I was convinced by both liberal, conservative, and academic publications. But I think conservatives who read this will be surprised to hear that most conservative think tanks (save the Heritage Foundation, though even they have many amnesty supporters, including Stephan Moore, their Head Economist) support amnesty. According to the CATO study posted above, "Comprehensive immigration reform generates an annual increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent. This amounts to $1.5 trillion in additional GDP over 10 years. It also boosts wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers." Economic growth is important to, well, everyone. And would reduce fiscal burdens that call for more spending. So no, immigration reform would not increase spending.
b) Cost of enforcement: We must all remember that enforcing anti-immigration laws cost money. So, in many ways, anti-immigration laws are the embodiment of big government cronyism. According to this CATO post, responding to the Heritage report on immigration, enforcement costs $18,000 per immigrant. Plus, as CATO notes, the economic distortion from apprehending workers of many companies would harm the economy by raising prices for the consumer and increase costs for the businesses themselves.
c) Welfare use: This is the biggest argument against immigration reform. But it is always overblown. According to another CATO study, immigrants use welfare at much lower rates than native born citizens. Some measures show naturalized (e.g. post amnesty) immigrants use more services than native-born and illegals (illegals usually score the best at avoiding welfare), but these three graphs tell a big story:
Few things: Naturalized citizens use SNAP benefits less, and the amount they use is also substantially lower. Also important is that a citizen whose parents are foreign--second generation immigrants--also use SNAP at a lower rate and cost less money. So this means immigrants use *fewer* SNAP benefits than native citizens. But not only that, their kid use it less often. So they actually *reduce* the welfare burden and will not significantly increase welfare costs. And this is important because, according to the Heritage Foundation, programs like SNAP are the fastest growing welfare programs. So... Immigrants are not significantly evil when it comes to welfare spending. Naturalized citizens still tend to not only use benefits less, but also use less of the benefit when they receive it, and their kids are less likely in the long run to use welfare. So immigrants are not so bad after all.
There are also benefits to immigration when it comes to social security. Immigrants come here at the beginning of their working lives. Social Security, whether you like it or not, is a ponzi scheme. It *only* functions when there are more workers than receivers. In the long term it will probably collapse because each worker ends up breaking even (benefits cancel out how much they pay in), but they can cause it to last longer. I read an AEI piece saying it couldn't save social security--it probably can't--but it will make it last longer. It increases the amount in the working pool which means for people receiving benefits (or who will reap the benefits soon), it will benefit those people. More immigrants won't "save" our crisis, but it is impossible to deny that they will have some positive impacts. But this one study by NBER did find that immigration would increase the longevity of social security. So social security, like most ponzi schemes, may be doomed to fail; but immigration is not to blame, and will probably make it last a lot longer than it otherwise would. So, in this respect, immigration reduces the fiscal impacts of a social security collapse as well.
d) Immigrants are entrepreneurs: According to Bloomberg News, research indicates that immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs. A study by the Small Business Administration also finds that immigrants are more likely to start a small business than non-immigrants. Why does this matter? Small businesses--and being an entrepreneur--means you create employment. When you create something, like a corporation, you benefit everyone. You give people products that they want. If you make a small business you also employ people--99.7% of employers are small businesses. Almost half of our workforce is employed at a small business, and small businesses are much more likely to be innovators with 16 times more patents per employee, according to Inc Magazine. As immigrants prop up small businesses, the backbone of our economy, they create jobs and higher wages. This means fewer people are poor. The economy grows. People are better off. And the fewer people who are poor and want help from the government, the smaller the government is, not the bigger.
e) Immigrants increase wages: I probably sound annoying, but more jobs, growth, and higher wages all led to a smaller government. Immigrants increase wages not only through more productivity, growth, or entrepreneurship, but also in a more indirect manner. Demand. Say they increase the supply of labor--which they do. A basic model would show wages fall all else being equal. But immigrants change everything. By definition nothing is equal. They increase demand at the same time they increase the labor supply. With their new jobs (which they didn't "steal," but I will give them that as a hypothetical) they get higher wages. And if they are naturalized their wages increase. A lot. So the increased demand for goods causes growth. And the economic growth they cause--which I have spammed above but also spam here--means new jobs for those displaced. And the productivity gains they produce mean higher wages.
So, conservatives, Rubio is not a moderate. And amnesty is not against everything conservatives stand for. It is actually *exactly* what conservatives should stand for. And for a party preaching liberty, it seems unfair to prevent people the freedom of movement. I hope I did my job.
I don't know how social conservative I am anymore. I am still pro-life. I am still pro-guns. I also support the death penalty. But my support of amnesty and my views on marriage--which have become more moderate--may put me at odds with many social conservatives. I have taken the more apathetic Chris Christie approach to the issue. "It will be decided this June," or something along those lines, is what he said. And I agree. If the high court finds it unconstitutional to prohibit homosexuals from marrying, I wouldn't really doubt it. We are, in fact, 'discriminating' against them. I wouldn't rate it as bad as prohibiting interracial marriage, but I could get the discrimination argument. And we need a good reason to do so. I have always been a fan of the procreation argument--it is still the best argument on this issue--but I don't think it is a "compelling" reason. It is merely better than what the other side has to offer. I think this is not a Federal issue. But it can be a constitutional issue. And the Supreme Court could change my mind on the issue.
Also, I don't really care. Sure, some harms will come from gay marriage. Of the literature I have read, the effects of gay marriage were negative in the Netherlands. However, we must compare it to the harm done by prohibition. I think the harms tend to be exaggerated, but harms nonetheless exist. They are discriminated against which, naturally, leads stigma. But we also need to have laws--like the religious freedom laws attacked by the media--passed in conjunction with gay marriage. In Canada, Massachusetts, and elsewhere homosexuality is taught as normal, and oftentimes preferable, to heterosexuality in schools. When a parent objects they get punished, and in extreme circumstances, jailed. So I think laws which specifically allow children to opt out of those classes are a good compromise. I am not saying that it would happen on a national level, but in some jurisdictions it is bound to happen, and we would need laws to protect the religious community who remains in opposition to homosexuality. I suppose school vouchers could also remedy this problem if you oppose religious freedom laws.
Now, of course, I do not want stigma to exist against homosexuals. And legalizing their marriage would likely help them to some degree. But I think the effects would be negligible when it comes to suicide rates. In the Netherlands, for example, homosexuals are still victimized and rejected by their parents and peers, which leads to suicide. Since stigmatization causes suicide, and legalizing SSM would reduce stigmatization, suicide rates would decline. But the Netherlands is one of the most accepting societies in the world and they still have discrimination. So legalizing marriage would not have a dramatic effect. The study found that programs which promote the acceptance of homosexuality best reduce suicide rates--not marriage legalization. Though, as noted, those with *religious* beliefs should be allowed to opt-out, and those classes must refrain from promoting homosexuality as normal. I would say that it is 'normal', but I think you can promote acceptance (and the belief that is normal will come naturally if you promote acceptance) without saying that it is normal. I personally feel that it is normal, and that they should be accepted, but I think outright preaching that would cause a lot of unrest among religious communities and cause more harm than good. And according to this study, homosexuals have higher rates of mental disorder in the Netherlands. Will SSM help? Sure. Will it cure the problem? No.
So we must weigh two things. (1) SSM will *modestly* harm the institution of marriage, and (2) SSM will *modestly* reduce stigmatization. With empirical harms pretty much even, we must weigh in morality. And this is where the Supreme Court comes in. They do not create morality, but they can make an argument for it. So I am fully willing to change my opinion on their decision alone--if I find their reasoning sound. Instead of being in the Santorum opposition camp, I am more in the Christie "I don't care, it isn't my body, let the courts decide" camp. I may not be an extreme social conservative anymore, but I still think the name of the blog represents (more or less) my views on society.
http://www.gofundme.com/tnfe6kk
I am going to Stanford to take Macroeconomics over the summer, and I cannot afford to pay the tuition. So any help is appreciated. I talk a bit more about the program in the link above.
Thanks,
Alex
Last Tuesday the Court heard oral arguments in favor and in opposition to legalized same sex marriage. I am not a big fan of this whole same-sex marriage craze. I do not think the comparisons to interracial marriage really make sense nor do I think that same-sex marriage is totally immoral -- in part because I am secular (I am still a social conservative, of course, but I reach those conclusions through secular argumentation). I will outline a few brief points for anyone who wants the Supreme Court to rule in favor of gay marriage.
1) It will not help homosexuals
I mean, it will, sure. But the benefits people (like the APA) think homosexuals will receive is overblown. They think that banning gay marriage causes stigma, depression, and suicide. I can buy stigma. But the other two, really? And even then gay marriage bans only cause stigma because the arguments in favor of the ban tend to be oriented towards religion -- God dislikes homosexuals -- or silly arguments like that. A ban which is founded upon reasonable arguments as to what marriage is should not cause stigma. And this ignores the stigma Christians receive when gay marriage is legal. Evidence from the Canadian experience are here, and from Massachusetts here.
The arguments that it will help homosexuals mentally I disagree with. I have written before (albeit I wasn't a very good writer then) that same sex marriage laws probably won't reduce gay suicide rates. Homosexual men in the Netherlands, a country open to homosexuality, are 8 times more likely to commit suicide. A study in Australia found that gay men had higher AIDS and promiscuity rates. Another study in the Netherlands finds that homosexuals are more likely to be diagnosed with mental disorders. Some underlying issue is causing homosexuals distress, not social stigmatization. There is little stigmatization in the aforementioned countries, yet mental issues persist. Legalizing same-sex marriage will not prevent gay suicide or reduce incidence of mental disorders.
2) Children fare best when raised by a mother and father
I am confused why this is so controversial. I have been raised by two married heterosexual parents, and if I was asked which I needed the most, it would be impossible for me to say. I am of the belief that gender does, in fact, matter. The last three decades of social science confirms that children need both mothers and fathers, and being fatherless leads to many negative outcomes.
Studies on gay parents find similar results. Probably the best study was done by Donald P. Sullins of The Catholic University of America. Using a random sample -- 500 children raised by homosexuals -- he found that the differences in mental health were astounding. He found that children raised by homosexuals were twice as likely to experience emotional problems. When he controls for biology there is almost no difference. That means that gender does matter.
Mark Regnerus, also using a random sample, found many negative outcomes for children raised by gay parents. Regnerus responds to criticisms here. HE didn't use "stable" gay households because they usually don't exist. If a random sample finds zero stable same-sex households, it tells us that there is some degree of instability in same-sex households. A study of married Swedish homosexuals found that both male and female homosexuals had higher rates of divorce. So "marriage" does not fix the issue. Instability (probably through gay norms) seems to be very common in their familial structures. This, Regnerus argues, is the cause of the worse outcomes. So comparing stable homosexuals to stable heterosexuals is an ideological methodology not founded upon actual science. If two random samples show a difference, then there is a difference. If nonrandom samples selecting *only* stable same-sex households find little to no difference, it is selective methodology to fit political purposes.
There are others, like the study by Douglass Allen finding lower graduation rates, Loren marks who debunks a lot of pro-gay research, Lerner and Nagai who criticize the pro-gay research, and research by Daniel Potter who confirms a lot of the Regnerus findings, it seems to be difficult to seriously defend the 'no difference' hypothesis.
Gays will always be able to raise children. And that is fine. Even assuming the findings above are correct -- which they are -- there is no reason to discriminate or harass homosexuals who raise children. In many cases, it is the *best* option for children who would otherwise be raised in the system. I support ending stigma and discrimination. But allowing same-sex 'marriage' fails to accomplish that goal. All rights given through marriage can be obtained through civil unions, and that would prevent the possible societal harms from gay marriage. (Those harms can be researched a bit here, here, and here).
