Falling Awake

Just Darts Since 2009

So, am I nuts?

Really, though, am I trying too hard to make sense of President Bush’s immigration fixation?  He could simply feel that it’s the correct moral choice.  (Many, if not most, Catholic bishops would agree with him.)  If that’s the case, then Bush wouldn’t care if it’s the smart thing to do.  It’s not like he hasn’t been accused of a “consequences be damned” attitude before.  (As a matter of fact, that’s something I admire about him.  As a person, if not always as a president.)

Of course, if it is a moral calculation, why is it only Latinos who should benefit?  Shouldn’t we just throw open our borders to every person in the world?

On the other hand, if this is an effort to prop up Social Security, would it work–at least in the short term?  I’ve skimmed the Rector study (a cost/benefit analysis of illegal immigration on taxpayers) over at the Heritage Foundation, and this is the only analysis I found of the impact of immigrants on Social Security:

Do Low-Skill Immigrants Contribute to the Solvency of Social Security?

It is often argued that low-skill immigrants have a positive impact on U.S. taxpayers because they pay taxes into the Social Security trust fund. It is true that low-skill immigrant households pay, on average, around $2,900 per year in Social Security (FICA) taxes; however, the average Social Security and Medicare benefits they receive actually exceed the FICA taxes paid. [ME: That’s true of most people, not just immigrants.  That’s the problem with Social Security.]  Of course, low-skill immigrant households receive many other government benefits as well, receiving ten dollars in total government benefits for each dollar they pay in Social Security taxes.  [ME: That’s not really fair–if you’re going to talk about total government benefits, contrast them to total taxes paid, not just FICA.  That’s what he does in the rest of the paper, of course, but here he’s specifically talking about Social Security.]

Even if low-skill immigrants were net contributors to the Social Security trust fund, it would be a serious mistake to look at Social Security in isolation from other government taxes and expenditures. A household that pays a small amount in Social Security taxes but consumes many times that amount in benefits funded by other tax sources does not contribute to the fiscal health of government. In the final analysis, taxpayers, including many Social Security recipients, will face higher taxes in order to subsidize low-skill immigrant households.  [ME: other government benefits are more easily cut than Social Security, though.  Welfare reform WAS accomplished, and many other entitlement programs could be altered in the same way, if our politicians could summon the will.]

Earlier in the paper, Rector said: “The present analysis adjusts the estimated income and FICA taxes paid by low-skill immigrant households downward slightly to adjust for the “off the books” labor of low-skill illegal immigrants.”  Under the Bush plan the immigrants wouldn’t be working off the books anymore.  At least in theory.  Would this make enough difference to Social Security’s solvency?

Even if it would, I still worry about the cultural consequences.  The same thing’s been tried in Europe, and we’ve seen the results…

Advertisements

3 responses to “So, am I nuts?

  1. Dave June 8, 2007 at 11:16 am

    Currently many illegal immigrants don’t use hospital facilities because they are afraid of deportation. Legalize millions in one fell swoop and why do you think they won’t overwhelm the hospitals? And they can’t pay and they aren’t insured and the hospitals are reqjuired to take them. It makes no sense to legalize them all at once.

  2. Mike Kriskey June 8, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    I understand what you’re saying. I’m just trying to figure out why President Bush seems to think this legislation is such a great idea.

    By the way, Dave: did you happen to come to this site via a link from the Wall Street Journal? I’ve had a number of visitors from the WSJ, but can’t view the page that’s directing them here because I’m not a subscriber. I’m assuming it’s some sort of blog aggregator on the topic of illegal immigration. Is that right?

  3. INFJ June 13, 2007 at 11:57 am

    While everyone is pondering the “if’s, and’s and but’s” of this legislation wouldn’t it make sense to deal with the porousness of our borders as a priority? This seems so obvious.
    No, your not “nuts,” everyone is trying to make sense of Bush’s fixation. Maybe there’s a factor here that none of us are aware of .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s