Redstate

Secure the border first, but after that we have got to import more labor. The unemployment rate is 4.4%! That is absolutely unsustainable if we are to keep the economy roaring ahead. Pence's plan makes sure that after we secure the border, we only let in those who are not criminal or terrorist threats in order to meet our labor needs.

Part of the reason that we have the illegal immigration problem that we have is that we have a labor shortage. Pence's plan would ensure that we take the individuals that we WANT instead of just whoever happens to make it past border patrol.

Anyone who thinks that Pat Buchanan's call for a new "economic nationalism" is a good idea is someone who thinks that economic stagnation is a good idea. It's complete lunacy.

Mike Pence is exactly the Minority Leader that we need.

Pence has exactly the right plan, secure the border first and make guest workers dependent on certifying that the border is secure. No trillions needed for guest workers.

Pence has exactly the right plan, secure the border first and make guest workers dependent on certifying that the border is secure. No trillions needed for guest workers.

That is not Pences plan. His plan calls for unlimted numbers of "guest workers", and there is no dependency on the border being secure first, or ever. Where do you people get this stuff? I seem to be the only person posting here who has actually read his plan.

The trillions of dollars is for education and medical care for the guest workers and their families. It's not avoidable, assuming we go for ten million or so "guests".

At Pence's website right here, and that is exactly what he says.
http://mikepence.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=2146

So quit quoting the drivel put out by the lying media. The numbers of guest workers who abide by the law should be equal to those that are needed by industry. What's wrong with that? We do want a growing economy, not some socialist pit like the EU, don't we?

Did Rep. Pence actually introduce an immigration bill in 2006?

www.smashleftwingscum.com and www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com

Hundreds of trillions of dollars will be produced by those legal immigrant workers- thus more than paying for the "trillions" for education.

Please note that these proposed guest workers are LEGAL immigrants. Is it the immigrants you are opposed to? or is it the illegal immigrants. Me, I oppose the illegal immigrants (who because of their illegal nature are both less productive and more expensive- not to mention the fact that the flouting of the law is insulting), but I support the legal immigrants.

Let Mexico send us the pick and flower of their labor force- We'll be the richer for it.

"A rising tide lifts all boats." -R. Reagan

I want the best Mexico has to offer - as well as the best every other country has to offer. Let us drain the world of as many good people as we can get. But let's secure the border so that they can keep their scum.

Maybe some of them will then go back and teach their homelands the American Way. :-)

but wrong you are.
Mexico is sending us their criminals and gang members not the "pick and flower of their labor force". But that's the problem of uncontrolled boarders. The costs of housing these career criminals along with the associated police and emergency medical costs will be a crushing burden on our economy.

Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum

A fence along the border to keep the criminals out, and gates with checkpoints to let hard-working Mexicans in, slowly.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

I second the motion!

Let's make that the new slogan.

I thought the part of the Pence plan quoted below is very interesting:

"Private worker placement agencies that we might call Ellis Island Centers will be licensed by the fed­eral government to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers. U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers. In a matter of days, the private agencies will be able to match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appro­priate information to the FBI and Homeland Secu­rity so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department. The visa will be issued only outside of the United States.

Outside of the United States is a key point; it is the provision that will require the 12 million illegal aliens to leave. Now, some of you are thinking to yourselves that 12 million people aren’t going to pack up and leave just to get a visa to come back legally. I believe most will.

The process that I just described to you will take a matter of one week or less. That is the beauty of the program. Speed is so important. No employer in America wants to lose employees for an extend­ed amount of time. No worker who is earning mon­ey to feed and clothe a family can afford to be off the job for long."

Here is a link to a transcript of the entire Pence speech to the heritage Foundation on June 2, 2006: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/hl943.cfm.

Pence's plan will allow millions of illegal aliens to leave the United States for one week or less and come back to the United States with legal status.

Having read it my only reaction is Does Pence live on planet earth? NO ONE will leave a job and a home here to go back to Mexico and then reapply. Furthermore, since we have zero compliance to any of our immigration laws by any officials federal, state, or local right now, what pray tell will suddenly make them want to enforce the new laws.

Hey EZ, can my city Houston send you the bill for all the wonderful workers we have in our jails, in our emergency rooms and wrecking our school system? You and the other pollyanas at the Wall street journal and Kristols magazine. YOU all need to help us pay for the immigration you so adore.

As for the simplistic economic argument, Hey we need workers!
Do we? I mean sure we could use more educated workers from places like India and Eastern Europe, but do we need more uneducated third world workers, or will stemming the tide of illegals merely raise wages for legal wage earners?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The second time, I also questioned which planet Pence calls home. That's not to say he should be disqualified as Minority Leader, only that it raises serious questions about his judgment on that particular issue.

I have two thoughts regarding Pence's ideas. First, it seems to me that there is within them an abandonment of the American spirit of innovation, a caving in to the lowest denominator in pushing a basically bottomless guest-worker to future-citizen program. What is "conservative" about that?

I'd rather see him first ask the question, "What would our forefathers have done in the same circumstances if there were no easy short-term way out?" They'd innovate. Not carp. Not complain. Not break the law. And surely prudence would not have us remake the law to accommodate a new underclass, toward who knows what end for our future generations.

Secondly, since when has it been deemed wise to have foreign-citizens determine who is safe to allow into our nation? Yes, Pence has American companies doing the outsourced verification, but who exactly do we really think will be making these decisions on the ground? Won't it be, mostly, Mexican citizens who live in Mexico? Is there really any conservative wisdom in such a process? Or are we naive enough to think that Mexico is going to change its restrictive laws and allow American citizens to move there to run such a program? And if they did, shouldn't we question the allegiance of those who would pick up and move to do such work?

It's got a pretty paint job, but I suspect theres a rustbucket lurking underneath. My dad always advised me to walk away from the man in the poorly-fitted polyester suit. And it's some version his advice I hear in my head the more I think through what Pence would like to do.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

Simplistic arguments are not always wrong. True, immigration isn't a completely simple issue, but it's not that difficult either.

The general principles that any rational person with any understanding of both the needs of the American economy and American national security should be:

1. We must have air-tight control of our borders

2. We must allow employers to go out and get the labor that they need and have a more free labor market

3. Laborers from outside the country should have to pass RELIABLE criminal background and national security checks.

4. The cost of bringing the labor here should rest fully on the employers:

from paying for the government background checks, paying the authorized private employment firm for the employment placement services, buying a health insurance policy so that local hospital ERs don't have to eat the costs, and paying the school district the full amount per pupil that the district spends to educate a child. If the job in No. 3 is done properly, there should be negligible further criminal enforcement costs.

These are all hurdle costs that employers would then have to plug into a cost-benefit calculation and determine if it's better for them to bring someone in from another country or to offer a little bit more to an American to do the job. Or maybe bring someone from another country, but tell them to leave the wife and kids at home.

What employers and foreign laborers would decide, I don't know. But there should be a path for them to go either way. We need a free labor market. The Pence Plan adheres very well to these principles, I think.

NO ONE will leave a job and a home here to go back to Mexico and then reapply.

If they don't, they won't have a job to stay at because the employer can simply get legal employees.

Furthermore, since we have zero compliance to any of our immigration laws by any officials federal, state, or local right now, what pray tell will suddenly make them want to enforce the new laws.

Well, yea, but that problem exists in any case. If we created a way for employers to get the employees they want legally, it will be much easier to enforce the law. There won't be nearly as much political pressure to look the other way on illegal immigration. Right now ICE can't bust an employer without first checking their campaign contributions.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

When you know Illegals who speak better English than the majority of our Citizens, It makes you wonder about the fear in the American heartland. In Arizona, you had a firebrand Anti Immigration Republican shot down in flames in a republican leaning district. America wants both security and reform. Sure, slow down the influx, but Be honest about it, American businesses crave more workers.

Why uproot families who have broken no other laws, who are paying taxes, and are otherwise remaining within the system? If you want to rail against the businesses that pay "Under the Table", go right ahead, but understand a significant amount of Illegals are paying taxes and are not gaming the system.

If they can prove they've paid taxes, I think it would be wrong headed and disruptive of businesses and communities to ship them outside the country to force them to come back in again.

(and what do you do with someone from Peru? Make them fly down and fly back as if this were some grand game of "Tag"? how about Poland? or Norway? There are Tens of thousands of Illegals from Europe.))

There isn't a simple answer that would be Moral or right on either end of the spectrum. Find that middle ground.

"The Bass, the rock, the mic, the Treble, I like my coffee black, just like my metal." - MSI

we cannot send them all back, simply cannot be done. But FIRST we must halt all illegal immigration, and then increase Legal immigration, But that will require employer sanctions.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

you are advocating the law-breaking of illegal immigrants. While I understand and can agree with enforce first, then let in those that want to work, I can not agree with allowing non-enforcement of specific laws (which we are doing all the time with the illegal immigrants - who cares if some are terrorists). Either change the law or become lawless.

I'm all for changing the current immigration laws to allow easier immigration (with checks) to allow those into the country that are needed and desired (no criminals or terrorists - thank you), but, you cannot keep ignoring the current law and expect compliance with other laws to continue...indefinitely!

first I would greatly increase legal immigration, maybe double it. Then I would get tough on emloyer sanctions, but allow illegals to apply for a two year work visa (after a background check, so its only good for those who didn't commit crimes other than immigration). Then they could also apply for citizenship if they want it. If they apply then they can continue to stay until
they enter the system.

Under my new laws preference would be given to those with degrees and not so much emphasis on family unification. but I would still put aside a good percentage to process the former illegals for a few years anyway.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I would vote for you as President... where have you been? Actually, I love you response and just wish that the politicals in power thought the same... Time for you to run for office...

Watch your attitude.

Part of the reason that we have the illegal immigration problem that we have is that we have a labor shortage.

There is no labor shortage. What will it take to get this through to you people? There is no labor shortage. If there was then wages would be skyrocketing. Its not happening. Labor in America is plentiful and cheap. The 4.4% "unemployment" number is a joke. I know of no employers unable to find workers, in any part of the country.

Unadulterated illegal Mexican immigration is simply a way of "outsourcing" only this time the labor pool is let into the country, paid below minimum wage, and left to fend with the bleeding heart social program handouts after that.

I agree - there is no shortage of U. S. labor at a fair wage; there is a big shortage at the wages paid to Mexican illegals.

much higher to attract more legal labor. Entry level jobs that could use young, inexperienced, poorly educated, or poorly acculturated workers pay in the $15 -25K/yr. range for fulltime work (2080 hours). In most of the West and in the other industrial states, welfare pays well into the thirties or low forties if one uses all the benefits available. Crime pays even better, but you have to be invited and there are job security issues.

I think the "disillusioned worker" is mostly a Democrat/Union scam to try to thwart good economic news made by Republicans, but I do think there is a large cohort of what I'd style "disaffected workers" who would prefer to scam social services benefits and dabble in crime to getting up and going to work at the wages they can command. Here is where the illegal issue has the greatest impact. The wages for those low skill and entry jobs will never come up as long as illegals can be employed with relative impunity. The other side of that is, costs thus prices will go up if those wages go up. The choice then for the productive members of society is whether we pay for dealing with this out of our discretionary budget with higher prices or out of our taxes for all the social welfare.
In Vino Veritas

is not data.

Jon, no one really cares about your personal experiences when you are arguing against a pretty authoritative number. This is doubly true as the "discouraged jobseeker" number has continued to decline.

At 4.4% we are below statistical full employment. Wages have increased at the fastest rate since 1982.

So while I agree with you that the "shove it" comment was out of line, don't try to deny reality based on the people you happen to know.

The construction companies in our neck of the woods -- They have essentially stopped construction for lack of workers -- not dregs, real construction workers.

But if there is no excess need for workers, then I guess we won't have that many guest workers then will we.

I assume you prefer guest voters, like those in JD Hayworth's district, right.

Guest workers who pay taxes and support local schools and services will be self paying. It's only now, with the under the table crap that it is not self funding. Making it all legal and above boards will eliminate the problem of not collecting taxes, like today.

The nonsense about not being able to do anything with the people here is just so much nonsense. If you make it a requirement to be legally in the system before you can hire, the problem will go away. So you just tell our current guest workers, register and become legal or else no job, and fine the shit out of employers who violate the terms.

then according to the principles of capitalism, the wages for these jobs should rise until the point where labor is found to do them.

there is an infinite quantity of workers and a finite quantity of jobs.

Wages will rise enough to attract workers to fill the jobs, the workers just might be illegals.

And would even more so, were it not for the vast throngs of illegals depressing the wages by willingly working for less...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

We have an illegal immigration problem because we have an open boarder with Mexico and the economy there is bleak. But that's not an excuse to let anyone in regardless of criminal record.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Jon wrote:

I know of no employers unable to find workers, in any part of the country.

OK, well now you know one.

In looking for commercial drivers, I stopped scraping the bottom of the barrel, tipped the barrel over, and started digging under the barrel. In looking for laborers, I was able to find Americans who said that they'd work, but put a shovel or a chipping hammer in their hand, and you get virtually no production. Give that same equipment to a Mexican, and he'll work hard and steady all day and get the job done.

Dana
Common Sense Political Thought

You got your labor from Mexico and sent the bill for their education, health care and all the other social costs to the American public, Isn't that special.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

She said she Could do that.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

does cost you... If you are looking for cheap reliable labor at a lower cost, I'm sure you can find it in illegal immigrants (as you seem to be doing). After all, the wages you are willing to pay are probably way below scale for most Americans. Thankfully for you, you can get good labor at low cost and make a great profit (using illegals).

If you actually raised your wages and employed citizens, you would probably lose much of your profits and rightfully should go under as all unprofitable businesses should.

So, I guess the question is why are you trying to start/continue a business that does not employ American citizens? If the answer is that you can not afford the wages, you should not have started the business. If you are depending upon illegal immigrant wages, then you are an anti-American business trying to take advantage of illegals for profit.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

that I've gotten a 5've from anybody... so have to say thank you very much. Usually, I get a yawn... Hey, there is a first time for everything...

If there is a labor shortage, then why is it every time a new walmart opens, there are tens of thousands of applications for a hundred jobs?

Maybe the reality is that there are no Americans willing to work at the salary the employer wants, not that there are no Americans who could do the job?

Even if they keep the drug benefit in some form, it needs some changes.

While the Hastert Congress and Bush thought a drug benefit would be a crowd pleaser, it hasn't been one for much of anyone but the pharmaceutical companies.

The whole thing about not letting governments negotiate for better prices is absurd, and sums up perfectly the problems with the last Congress. Stick it to the seniors, stick it to the taxpayers, and transfer vast sums of wealth to the corporate benefactors of the congressional elite.

Beyond that, the program as implemented was tremendously confusing. A fair number of seniors have gotten no benefit from it because it was just too hard to figure out the fine print and comply with it.

The Dems are certainly going to go after the no-negotiation part of it, and it looks like they might have the votes to get that through both houses if they stick together. Vetoing something that would cut costs for taxpayers and seniors is what would be a non-starter. The Republicans would be smart to get in front here, and, if they can't kill the program altogether, at least fix it so it comes closer to delivering some return on investment to someone other than Swiss based drug manufacturers.

The growth rates of the big three 'mandatory' items are not sustainable. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: pick one to start with.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

lies the rub.

We have to slow the growth rate of one of those programs otherwise it's going to suck in a couple of decades.

You've been around long enough to experience the "starving the old folks" smear. One of the reason that Bush was able to avoid that in 2004 was the expanded drug benefit. Customer surveys indicate that the program has become very popular with seniors.

Most of the guys on The Hill remember what happened when a Democratic congress tried to create a Medicare benefit that was portrayed as costing seniors money. They aren't going to touch the drug benefit except to expand it.

I'm sure that something like that will be the talking points for the pharmaceutical lobbyists. It's always tough to roll back a benefit once granted, and even tougher when an army of industry lobbyists stand ready to defend it in every possible forum. Big pharma will fight for this one to the death, with astroturf fake consumer groups, fake blogs pretending be from real seniors needing their pills, lobbyists strategically scattered as grassroots posters on existing blogs, and so on. It's going to be hard to tell what's real commentary, and what's bought and paid for advocacy.

Setting aside what would make the correct policy choice, I'll say this - in planning my own retirement, I have assumed zero contribution from the federal programs for people of my income and wealth level. Particularly with Dems in Congress, look for means testing to be a big part of what happens to address the demographic impossibilities. It isn't fair, in that I have paid more than my fair share of payments toward programs that probably won't pay out toward me, but as a prudent man I'm betting that's what happens first.

the first thing that must happen, but probably wont, is to change the CPI because it overstates inflation, That would actually eliminate about 20% of the problem.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

But that's what conservatives want to hear.

Medicaid would be a better option. Combine that with an anti-corruption charge of our own: Various fraud aspects. Add in tougher penalties. Nibble around the edges (for instance, a refundable tax credit for health insurance - no bureaucracy, just take it off the taxes).

...that those who are so against the Pence Plan didn't do so well on the Economic Literacy Test. :-)

Pence is an all-star on every issue important to conservatives, including immigration.

Trust free market economics people. Trust it. It works every single time to make us wealthier, not poorer. The losers in an increasingly free market world are those who fight it. Pence's plan aims to meet our labor needs in keeping with a free market tradition all the while making sure that the people we bring over are people who we will welcome gladly, with open arms, as our friends, neighbors, and fellow Americans - not just whoever had the best coyote running them accross.

have nothing to do with immigration. Anyone who imagines otherwise does not know economics.

Immigration is tilting the county ever more to the left. How that advances free market economics is something no immigration backer has ever been able to explain.

More open immigration is a good idea.

For immigration to work, however, the immigrants have to make a commitment to this country and its values, and you don't get that with temporary guest workers.

Europe over the last 50 years is a textbook case of why guest worker programs are a Bad Idea.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

This is a pretty good summary from wikipedia = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_economics

"Economists see the labour market as similar to any other market in that the forces of supply and demand jointly determine price (in this case the wage rate) and quantity (in this case the number of people employed).

"However, the labour market differs from other markets (like the markets for goods or the money market) in several ways. Perhaps the most important of these differences is the function of supply and demand in setting price and quantity. In markets for goods, if the price is high there is a tendency in the long run for more goods to be produced until the demand is satisfied. With labour, overall supply cannot effectively be manufactured because people have a limited amount of time in the day, and people are not manufactured. A rise in overall wages will, in many situations, not result in more supply of labour: it may result in less supply of labour as workers take more time off to spend their increased wages, or it may result in no change in supply. Within the overall labour market, particular segments are thought to be subject to more normal rules of supply and demand as workers are likely to change job types in response to differing wage rates.

"Many economists have thought that, in the absence of laws or organizations such as unions or large multinational corporations, labour markets can be close to perfectly competitive in the economic sense — that is, there are many workers and employers both having perfect information about each other and there are no transaction costs. The competitive assumption leads to clear conclusions — workers earn their marginal product of labour.

"Other economists focus on deviations from perfectly competitive labour markets. These include job search, training and gaining-of-experience costs to switch between job types, efficiency wage models and oligopsony / monopsonistic competition."

Whatever your position, while the labor market has its own peculiarities, it is a market nonetheless. Anyone who says otherwise is the one who knows nothing about economics. My position is that the more free the market economy, the wealthier the society will be. I believe that the labor market is no exception. I believe that the Pence Plan would vindicate this thinking.

A truly free market economy with absolutely no controls allows people Gates and (I can't think of his name) that Steel guy from the early 1900s and others like them to rape the economy.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

The key to free market economics is having just enough regulation to preserve a true functioning market. Which is why we break up monopolies and have strict rules against oligarchies.

But even if you were conserned about "a point" where people were taking advantage of things, with regard to the labor market, we have not even come close to it.

We must secure BOTH of our borders. We can make them water tight, and we must. Thereafter, we need a free and robust labor market where companies are able to go out and get the labor that they need.

If it is worth the hurdle costs of seeking employees in another country, paying the fees they'll have to pay to have the government process their paperwork, and they should also be forced to take out health insurance policies, etc. until such time that the person is naturalized to be sure that the taxpayers aren't left footing the social costs to subsidize their imported labor, then...obviously the company really needs the labor and can't find what it is looking for in the U.S.

I was merely adding a caveat to the "the freer the market, the more productive it is" comment.

Everything in Moderation.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

My economic training, and yes I have a degree, tells me that anything which is subsidized is not a free market. Our current problems amounts to a subsidy of low wage second class workers (slave is such a biased term). Pence's plan is little better as it would give a subsidy of a free employment service guaranteed to continue to artificially depress the wage market by dumping.
Furthermore, it won't work for the reasons I gave above. There is no incentive given to actually enforce the law.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You may have a degree, but obviously not very much of it was spent in study of economics. lol.

What should happen is that private companies should have to apply for a license to act as a clearing house for matching employers with employees. Employers who use the services of these companies should pay for it just like they pay any other employment agency. And, additionally, I think that employers should be forced to buy health insurance and have the full burden of the costs - social and otherwise - shifted to them. Besides, just letting workers over doesn't mean that we have to allow their whole family to come over.

If you even had any remote mastery of this issue, you would recognize that the Pence Plan may have some very limited shortcomings that are easily cured - and then offer solutions. But instead you just seem to think that the best policy is to keep them all out. If we do that, the economy will become dire.

People who are hostile to the Pence Plan aren't just anti-ILLEGAL immmigration, they're anti-ANY immigration. That's not just anti-American, it's economic nonsense.

And the plan seems to need more than just tweaking.

I dont want to keep out everyone, I want INCREASED LEGAL immigration, done the right way, you know, background checks, TB shots, citizenship classes, not the cheap and low rent way you advocate, one which, by the way has failed in other countries.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

There is plenty of historic and very American experience in static - equilibrium or near equilibrium - immigration. See the years 1924 to 1965 for legislative example, then see, basically, the first 60 years of this land as a nation and a republic.

It is the mass immigration experienced in the years since about 1970 that are anomalous. The numbers and percentages we see today have never before been a part of our experience - and can be easily categorized as "anti-American" or at least "contrarian-American." Please don't insult those of us who Conservatively refuse to place economics on a pedestal above veneration of the time-tested and effective processes that got us here. None of them have anything to do with the sort of Benthamite immigration schemes being bandied about here, including Pence's.

It's merely conservative, not idealogical, to ask difficult questions: Never mind my future, aside from profit for some, what else comes with the package Pence offers? What sort of America might it mean for my child and her children and her children's children? Why has it become improper to even have such concerns in the presence of those imbued with the culturally Marxist ideation du jour?

Precisely when did it become "anti-American" to have concern for future generations? It was this very concern that fomented a revolution against a King that wanted to take what 175 years of colonial experience had created, perhaps Providentially if you read to understand that age of contemporary mind.

Sigh. But they don't teach that stuff in gov'mint skools these days.

The banter on this issue comes across to me as if there are those who believe wholeheartedly that there is something wrong with anyone who desires keeping a "nation of Americans" rather than succumbing to the fallacy of the "nation of immigrants" meme. But the same voices apparently have no problem with there being a "nation of British, French, Germans, Turks, Mexicans, etc." Why's that fact always absent from arguments posited by the purveyors of economism as the proper agent of deity?

Anti-American indeed...

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

Are not conservatives and Conservatism matters. Newt is only one now i can think of. But we have no Robald Reagaan. mcCain would be just like electing a Democrat

I tend to agree with you a little, but I think that Mitt Romney is going to be the best of the bunch.

John McCain has looked very old and very tired of late. I just don't think that that he has a run for the White House left in him. He certainly doesn't look like he has enough energy to convince me that he's a real conservative.

Giuliani is just too liberal on social issues, God bless him. I want to believe him about his commitment to federalism, but only if I have to.

That leaves Mitt Romney. He may be pandering a bit on social issues in his lurch to the right, but I'll take it as long as it's an 8-year pander.

The most effective tact against embryonic stem cell research is to argue efficacy - even before you reach the question of morality. It's a bunch of snake oil and needs to be exposed as such. Hopefully Mitt will take this route in fighting it off and fully embracing adult and umbilical cord stem cell research.

I fear he would be more like Caligula or Nero, or Mad King George III

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Is that there was overwhelming support from the Hispanic population through all this for "Secure The Border First."
The Legal Immigrants are incredibly insulted by the establishment's suggestion that Illegals are just as good as Legals...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

i work all day with Hispanics, all my neighbors are, and I talk to them, they all want to halt illegal immigration and are even more outspoken than I am.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The Democrats in Congress have had as their top priority for the last 6 years to block anything the Republicans do. Pelosi even had an unwritten caucus rule requiring all members to vote against Republican initiatives.

Given this, what incentive do Congressional Republicans have to go along with anything the Democrats propose, since the Democrats are now in power because of their opposition to Republican proposals?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Blocking the GOP agenda WAS the Democrats' agenda for the past 12 years. They offered no constructive proposals. Obstruction, obstruction, obstruction is all we got. They felt that it wasn't their duty. They felt it was their duty to simply oppose - and Nancy Pelosi said as much in almost those exact words.

Well, now it is time for Nancy to get a taste of her own medicine. I hope the pill tastes bitter on its way down.

I'm unaware of a single piece of legislation that Nancy Pelosi has ever talked about that would be good for the country. Therefore, it would absolutely be Leader Pence's duty to oppose it all.

However, there are issues that are, if not exactly black and white, then very deep and very light shades of gray. Any Republican leader will spend a great deal of his time blocking the Pelosi agenda.

Now, I am not one who believes we lost this Congress because we betrayed conservative values. However, I think that Pence is a principled, smart leader, and is the right choice for Minority Leader at this stage in the game. Shadegg as Whip? I'm not entirely sure.

Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.

I thought your post was thoughtful, and deserved more than it got in the way of response, but then it is the day after the election and feelings are still running pretty high.

The Republicans have no duty to cooperate just to be nice. Nor, if they are wise, will they reflexively oppose every Democratic move (and it's not quite fair to claim that's what the Democrats did; both sides bear responsibility for the highly partisan tones of recent Congresses.)

What Pelosi should do, and what the Republican leadership should do, is look beyond partisanship and look to the needs of the country. As patriots, both sides should put the country's agenda ahead of their partisan agenda.

I have little faith that Pelosi is going to do that, and not much more faith that the Republican leadership will. It's just not the way things are being done these days in Washington. With a massively important election coming up in 2008, I don't think this is the Congress that is going to get beyond partisanship.

So, I expect your side to issue subpoenas to half the Bush administration, so long as a political point can be scored by doing so, whether it's good for the country or not. And, I excpect the GOP leadership to play the time honored role of the loyal opposition, not rolling over, but testing and debating every proposal that comes from the majority.

The republicans are going to roll over, for a long time before they find some spine. Remember you heard it here first, from me.

Hell, they were mostly a pack of cowards even when they were in the majority. What makes you think they will change now?

Maybe if Pence becomes another Newt, and gets a good whip, but its unlikely.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Surely they have learned their lesson. I expect both Republican minorities to question anything coming from the President a lot more than they have in the past, and to assert their ideological differences with the Dems at every fair opportunity.

It wouldn't surprise me, however, to see the President rolling over. He certainly signalled today that he's interested in governing with them instead of against them.

I hope so...

I'm not saying the Democrats weren't guilty of this -- I've written letters to my Democratic senator urging him to help nurture bipartisanship, though I doubt it'll help -- but I've heard reports of microphones being turned off, staffers being fired needlessly, secret meetings, etc. It's probably too much to hope for, but I hope that Republicans have a hand in crafting legislation in both houses, not because I agree with the conservative point of view but because half of America does. This is undoubtedly a bad place to say it, but it would be nice if the Democrats in Congress could be convinced to do this early on. Some responses to my earlier post talked about getting Pelosi to taste her own medicine, but (a) there was nastiness on BOTH sides and (b) perpetuating the nastiness by reversing which side does which nastiness is against our real interests as a nation, of being unified. Just honest discourse. That's all I ask for. Clean politics now; no embarassing apologies needed for past behavior.

Going in for the kill should not be the Democrats' reaction to winning this election, and I hope that principled compromise (no 3/5ths of a person), not resentment, is the Republicans' reaction.

Romney has been very active in positioning himself as social and fiscal conservative.