Redstate

for a long time, at the the national level. At the state level the GOP is still competitive, but the lack of fresh candidates with new ideas is starting to tell. Dick deVos was a hopeless case (come on-- the Amway heir? That company has a horrible reputation as almost everyone in Michigan has a friend or relative who got snookered by its pyramid scheme marketing). In fact this is probably true everywhere not just Michigan: the GOP badly needs some new ideas. Just as the Dems ran out of gas finally when Depression-era issues ceased to matter, so too the GOP needs to come up to the 21st century and stop flogging dead horses from the glory days of 80s.

You're making yourself look bad by basically making the same post in two threads.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

don't mention reducing the size and scope of government.

I don't know specifically what you are referring to when you mention regulation of strip clubs and prostitution, but here in AZ the cities have very strict laws about where strip clubs can be located. That's a good thing. I'd be happy to debate the concept of "victimless crimes" like prostitution on another thread if that's a hot button for you.

With respect to your "draconian drinking law" comment, you're the first person I've ever seen get upset about blood alcohol levels. I would recommend that you stay far away from AZ, here you'll do jail time for .08. And rightly so. Again, this is not the topic of this blog and I won't comment further here.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The Republican social agenda has a heck of a lot more to attract blue collar types than the economic agenda. If I were to generalize, these guys don't trust markets. They think private enterprise abuses customers, employees, shareholders, and everybody else. They don't like free trade. They think the rich don't pay "their fair share" of taxes (which is presumably somewhere north of 90%). So much for the "libertarian" angle. Many of these same guys are pro-life and really don't care for SSM.

draconian drinking laws that put a limit of .08 (two beers!!) blood alcohol leve

That's not a SoCon issue. Unless people like Teddy Kennedy and Barbara Boxer count as SoCons.

Banning vice in the form of internet gaming sends precisly the wrong signal to these hard working stiffs.

It was already banned. It's been banned since before the advent of the internet. They simply took a common sense step to enforce the law. I'm not a big fan of the prohibition, but I'm even less of a fan of having laws on the books that we have no intention of enforcing.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Is consistent with the current state of enforcement. I am not a fan of just finding some people to make an example of and throwing them under the bus. Not when we don't give employers the tools to detect people using fake SSNs, and then, when we notice the SSNs dont match up, we send them letters telling them not to fire those who are using the fake SSNs, but to continue to let them work.

They also go after the biggest name, but least responsible parties when they are trying to make examples for the purposes of #3. Wal-Mart, for example. They hire a bunch of contractors. Some of those contractors staff their business with illegals. Wal-Mart can't know if these people are illegal or not. The contractor certainly isn't going to tell them. And they didn't hire the employees. But somehow it's Wal-Mart's fault that someone else hired illegal employees. That would be like going after a homeowner because they hired a roofing contractor who employed some illegals. That's not justice. That's not enforcement. That is abuse of government power for the sole purpose of making the news.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"They" may be doing all sorts of bad things. But as Johnson points out, allowing rich people to flout the law in return for campaign contributions is the very essence of corruption, and is seen as such by everyone.

I gather that some people are trying to dissuade businesses from complying with the law.

I am not a fan of just finding some people to make an example of and throwing them under the bus.

Then you must disagree with all laws, because they all operate in exactly this fashion. Some law-breakers are singled out and punished, in order to send a message to everyone else. That is how the law works. You read in the paper about someone sentenced to ten years for tax evasion and you decide that you'll pay your taxes after all. It's crude but effective.

What "we" are you referring to?

We meaning the United States and its government.

Then you must disagree with all laws, because they all operate in exactly this fashion.

I don't have a problem with fair enforcement of the law.

I have no problem going after those who don't even bother to jump through the minimal hoops that we've put in place (get SSN, fill out I-9 and keep on file, report wages to IRS), but I don't favor going after those who did jump through all those hoops and still ended up hiring illegals... something that is much too common under the current regime, and something that anybody can end up doing, no matter how well intentioned they are.

I also really have no interest in going after those who hired those who hired the illegals or those who hired those who hired those who hired those who hired those who hired illegals. So no more Wal-Mart type operations just to make headlines.

Some law-breakers are singled out and punished, in order to send a message to everyone else. That is how the law works.

But you have to send the right message. The message shouldn't be. "Wow, it sucks to be Microsoft. I guess they didn't make enough political contributions." or "Wow, it sucks to be Wal-Mart. I guess that's what happens when so many on the left hate you reflexively." Those are not useful messages to send out. They are counterproductive. A useful message would be to target some agribusinesses that are blatantly flouting the law while making big protection payments to members of Congress... of course we know what the odds of that happening are.

I got no problem with a crackdown as long as those conditions are met... unfortunately, I already know that none of them would be. We are talking about an arm of the Federal government here, after all. Fair and just are not what they are best at.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Re: when we notice the SSNs dont match up, we send them letters telling them not to fire those who are using the fake SSNs, but to continue to let them work.

As I have pointed out whenever this comes up, this is necessary because there are a non-trivial number of errors in SSA's database and you can't just fire people on that basis alone since a fair number of the victims will be legitimate citizens who have done nothing wrong. If you really want to get the voters good and mad at you, start taking away their jobs based on some bureaucrats flub.

As I have pointed out whenever this comes up

But that doesn't make it any more true. We don't ever deal with those mismatches. Sitting around and doing nothing about them is not an attempt to deal with the problem. Give the employee a chance to explain why they don't match, then fire them if they can't come up with a good reason (and the documentation to prove it) in a reasonable amount of time.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Re: Give the employee a chance to explain why they don't match, then fire them if they can't come up with a good reason (and the documentation to prove it) in a reasonable amount of time.

My point is that there is no single database which can, with 100% accuracy, prove someone is or is not a US citizen. Nor will there ever be. So, really, any such verification will have to allow multiple documentation to be used: not just SSA records, but DMV records, school records, credit records etc. And, of course, common sense. In short, basically what we do already with the current INS form.
But how complicated do we want to make this? Can small businesses afford to do mass background checks? Do we want to tie up our economy in red tape? I'm something of an immigration hawk, but I worry that employment is simply the wrong place to attack the problem, lest we turn our economy into a fascimile of the Soviet Union at its worst, where employers large and small must await Almighty Government's benediction to do business. I'm OK with some level of employment enforcement, at least against employers who are blatantly violating the laws with malice aforethought. But I've worked in enough small businesses to know that they really don't have the resources to vet their employees with the thoroughness of the FBI, and I really dislike imposing any more federal mandates on them.
How about just enforcing the things at the border and, when we do run across an illegal in the normal course of things (traffic stops) etc, tossing him out of the country?

My point is that there is no single database which can, with 100% accuracy, prove someone is or is not a US citizen.

Hello. What do you think I meant by "if they can't come up with a good reason (and the documentation to prove it) in a reasonable amount of time?" If they changed their legal name, there is a legal record of it. One that the employee can obtain from the relevant authority if they didn't bother to keep a record of it or file the change of name with the SSA. It doesn't have to be in any "single database." And we don't have to accept dry cleaning tickets as documentation.

So, really, any such verification will have to allow multiple documentation to be used: not just SSA records, but DMV records, school records, credit records etc. And, of course, common sense.In short, basically what we do already with the current INS form.

That's not at all an accurate description of the current I-9 process. We ask for a SSN card, real or fake, it doesn't matter. That's about it. It has nothing to do with common sense, credit records, school records, or anything else.

But how complicated do we want to make this? Can small businesses afford to do mass background checks? Do we want to tie up our economy in red tape?...But I've worked in enough small businesses to know that they really don't have the resources to vet their employees with the thoroughness of the FBI, and I really dislike imposing any more federal mandates on them.

That's quite an inferno of burning straw men you've created there. Who said anything about mass background checks? Who said anything about red tape? What's so complicated about demanding the employee come up with a rationale and documentation that explains why their SSN doesn't match if they want to keep their job? We already collect and check their SSNs... we just don't do anything about it right now except send letters saying "don't fire this person... their number doesn't match their name."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman