Sen. Jim Ritchie (R-Spartanburg) has introduced an amendment to a pending immigration bill that would require all SC businesses by 2010 to participate in a federal employee verification system. All SC businesses. All of them. Every single one.
As of the 2006 census there were 4,321,249 people in SC. According to The State, the SC Legislature estimates that there are about 75,000 illegal immigrants in SC. For those of you not mathematically inclined my calculator tells me that that means about 1.7% of the people in SC are illegal immigrants.
The unemployment rate in SC jumped to 6.6% in January (source). Thus, assuming that the 6.6% rate applies across the board, we can assume that about 70,050 illegal immigrants are currently working in SC.
My point here is that the only real problem I see with illegal immigration in SC is that finding them will probably cost more than any benefit, whatever that might be, we would realize by removing them from our workforce. It is not as though we share a border with Mexico or Canada, and I don't see any immigrants paddling makeshift boats to Myrtle Beach anytime soon (not that anyone would notice in that eyesore). I simply don't see what is the big deal.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Spin Cycle: Hillary's Faux Victory
This just in...Hillary Clinton wins her second meaningless primary. And celebrates. That's right, hot on the heels of her victory in Michigan over "uncommitted," Hillary Clinton won the delegate-less Florida primary by 17 points. Hey, at least the other candidates' names were on the ballot this time. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote a pretty scathing review of the whole affair here.
Nevermind the fact that all of the candidates agreed not to campaign in the state, or that no delegates were up for grabs, Clinton still deemed it necessary to give herself a victory party. The thing that really sticks in my craw is that she did not give any acknowledgment of her loss in SC, a real primary, with real delegates at stake, in which she got hammered. Just another example of the Clinton machine at work, doing whatever is necessary to look successful. What should not go unnoticed here is that she blatantly violated an agreement with the other candidates not to campaign in Florida and, now that she has won, is trying to get the Democratic party to reinstate both Florida and Michigan's delegates.
Nevermind the fact that all of the candidates agreed not to campaign in the state, or that no delegates were up for grabs, Clinton still deemed it necessary to give herself a victory party. The thing that really sticks in my craw is that she did not give any acknowledgment of her loss in SC, a real primary, with real delegates at stake, in which she got hammered. Just another example of the Clinton machine at work, doing whatever is necessary to look successful. What should not go unnoticed here is that she blatantly violated an agreement with the other candidates not to campaign in Florida and, now that she has won, is trying to get the Democratic party to reinstate both Florida and Michigan's delegates.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
In Case You Didn't Notice, Obama Won SC
And what's more, there was a record turnout in the SC Democratic Primary. And 49% of Obama's votes came from those under 30. Those two figures together tell me that Obama's message is reaching a segment of the population that normally does not care very much about politics. I think Obama is right, that people are tired of politics as usual.
Another interesting thing to note: approximately 530,322 people voted in the SC Democratic Primary. Of those, Obama got 55%, or 295,091. Approximately 425,000 people voted in the SC Republican Primary. (all figures used for this post can be found here)
NOTE: I previously and erroneously posted that 295,000 + people voted in the Republican Primary. Sorry for the misinformation.
"Out of many, we are one."
Another interesting thing to note: approximately 530,322 people voted in the SC Democratic Primary. Of those, Obama got 55%, or 295,091. Approximately 425,000 people voted in the SC Republican Primary. (all figures used for this post can be found here)
NOTE: I previously and erroneously posted that 295,000 + people voted in the Republican Primary. Sorry for the misinformation.
"Out of many, we are one."
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Clinton/Edwards '08?
Anybody else get the feeling that John Edwards was debating to be Hillary's VP last night? I thought the tag-team action against Obama was fairly conspicuous (and onerous).
Monday, January 21, 2008
Vista Farms Disinformation Project
Take a look at the Vista Farms propaganda site here. Both Avery Wilkerson, the mayor of Cayce, and the "new team," who moderates the site, seem to be pushing the tax advantages and control advantages incurred by the citizens of Cayce in annexing the Green Diamond/Vista Farms plot. The project is being touted as a haves (Richland County) versus have-nots (residents of Cayce) campaign.
I have not personally witnessed any animosity between residents of Cayce and those "across the river." However, I find some of the other claims made on the site to be dubious at best. For example, the proponents of the Vista Farms project say that the annexation will lower taxes for residents of Cayce. Yet they site no proposals pending before the City Council to such effect. Further, they say that Cayce will not have to foot the bill for extending public services to the Vista Farms area. Even if the agreement between the developers and the City Council/mayor that the developers will foot the bill for sewer and water line extension is real, there is no mention of the costs of maintenance of those lines, the costs of extending the capacities of the sewer and water systems, or of the cost of providing other essential services to the area such as fire, police, and education. The proponents mention that the costs of services such as education, fire, and policing are a non-issue if the land is never developed and that even if the land is developed that the tax revenue from the developments will cover the costs of the services. What they fail to mention is that residential development tax revenues rarely cover the costs of such services.
Furthermore, the fact that the developers and the mayor who insist that there is no development plan, have also announced a plan to use 2/3 of the property for agricultural and environmental purposes suggests the disingenuous nature of the whole deal. So who will finance the very unprofitable "constructed wetlands" that are so highly touted by the developers? My guess is Cayce taxpayers.
Another problem with the view of the "new team" lies in their conception of the control of the land. They repeatedly mention that the zoning process is a public one and that the citizens of Cayce will have a say in how the area is zoned. Anyone who has attempted to sway the result of a zoning ordinance without bringing a big bag of money to the table can tell you how that turned out.
Finally, the biggest problem associated with the project is the levees. The existing levees were privately constructed to divert water from farmlands. It is well documented that the maintenance of levees is an expensive and time-consuming venture. So who will foot the bill for the levees? Well, the developers want you to think that private landowners will. What they don't tell you is the exorbitant cost of maintaining the levees would most likely prove prohibitively expensive for private landowners. So what will happen? Let the levees decay and endanger the whole development, or appeal the to the civic authorities for help?
Ultimately, as I have said on other occasions, the development of flood plains is a risky and expensive business. As Professor Adam Scales of the Washington and Lee School of Law put it: "maintaining a sinking metropolis that sits several feet below sea level is perhaps the ultimate faith-based initiative; these failures are surprising only in their capacity to shock.” (Adam F. Scales. A Nation of Policyholders: Governmental and Market Failure in Flood Insurance. 26 MISS. C. L. REV. 3. (2006))
I have not personally witnessed any animosity between residents of Cayce and those "across the river." However, I find some of the other claims made on the site to be dubious at best. For example, the proponents of the Vista Farms project say that the annexation will lower taxes for residents of Cayce. Yet they site no proposals pending before the City Council to such effect. Further, they say that Cayce will not have to foot the bill for extending public services to the Vista Farms area. Even if the agreement between the developers and the City Council/mayor that the developers will foot the bill for sewer and water line extension is real, there is no mention of the costs of maintenance of those lines, the costs of extending the capacities of the sewer and water systems, or of the cost of providing other essential services to the area such as fire, police, and education. The proponents mention that the costs of services such as education, fire, and policing are a non-issue if the land is never developed and that even if the land is developed that the tax revenue from the developments will cover the costs of the services. What they fail to mention is that residential development tax revenues rarely cover the costs of such services.
Furthermore, the fact that the developers and the mayor who insist that there is no development plan, have also announced a plan to use 2/3 of the property for agricultural and environmental purposes suggests the disingenuous nature of the whole deal. So who will finance the very unprofitable "constructed wetlands" that are so highly touted by the developers? My guess is Cayce taxpayers.
Another problem with the view of the "new team" lies in their conception of the control of the land. They repeatedly mention that the zoning process is a public one and that the citizens of Cayce will have a say in how the area is zoned. Anyone who has attempted to sway the result of a zoning ordinance without bringing a big bag of money to the table can tell you how that turned out.
Finally, the biggest problem associated with the project is the levees. The existing levees were privately constructed to divert water from farmlands. It is well documented that the maintenance of levees is an expensive and time-consuming venture. So who will foot the bill for the levees? Well, the developers want you to think that private landowners will. What they don't tell you is the exorbitant cost of maintaining the levees would most likely prove prohibitively expensive for private landowners. So what will happen? Let the levees decay and endanger the whole development, or appeal the to the civic authorities for help?
Ultimately, as I have said on other occasions, the development of flood plains is a risky and expensive business. As Professor Adam Scales of the Washington and Lee School of Law put it: "maintaining a sinking metropolis that sits several feet below sea level is perhaps the ultimate faith-based initiative; these failures are surprising only in their capacity to shock.” (Adam F. Scales. A Nation of Policyholders: Governmental and Market Failure in Flood Insurance. 26 MISS. C. L. REV. 3. (2006))
Sunday, January 20, 2008
McCain-o-Mania
Well SC Repubicans, you surprised me. The conventional wisdom, that the evangelical vote would carry the day in SC, was wrong. You did not put your support firmly behind a guy who wants to amend the Constitution to bring it up to God's standards. And you were not charmed by the former imaginary D.A. from Law and Order. Good for you.
McCain's victory got me thinking: what if it came down to Hillary and McCain? Who would I support? Despite any inferences you may make from the title of this blog, I am not a partisan hack. There was a time when I felt very strongly on the side of John McCain (circa 2000). But now, after 8 years of the guy who beat him, well, I'm a bit wary of electing another Republican. Still, though, Hillary...really? I think if it came down to these two, I might well go with McCain.
Here's my thinking: McCain will not torture prisoners, which is a big issue for me. However, McCain will stay in Iraq, an equally big issue for me. But, on the Iraq issue, McCain's experience in Vietnam at least lends his thoughts on Iraq some credibility, whether or not you agree with his proposed policy.
On the other hand, Hillary probably won't torture prisoners either. And she will probably stay in Iraq. So they seem to be evenly matched on my two biggest issues. I guess I'll have to look deeper into their policy proposals.
Let's see, healthcare: McCain proposes what is essentially some sort of "market-based" solution to the healthcare woes of our country. One thing I like, McCain talks about low-cost health clinics, something I think is essential in providing healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, any "market-based" solution for healthcare is a dubious proposition because there is an inelastic demand for healthcare (that is, healthcare demand is not the same as consumption demand, you don't go to the doctor's office to get that stylish new drug you've been shopping around for). Clinton wants to have some sort of optional socialized healthcare system- that is, if you have healthcare and you like it, you can keep it, or you can opt-in to a government healthcare system. One thing I like, it would provide healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, most people receive healthcare as an employer-provided benefit, if they have a choice to opt-into a government healthcare plan, what incentive is there for the employer to continue providing the benefit?
Ok, on to energy issues. McCain's take on US oil-dependence is well-reasoned and he has acknowledged that human activity contributes to global warming. My problem with his proposal is that he buys into the "pollution shares trading" idea, and I simply do not see how that will reduce overall pollution. Clinton says essentially the same thing as McCain on this issue.
Alright, how about the economy? McCain will balance the budget, cut taxes on businesses and cut spending (surprise, surprise). Trickle-down economics remains a force of nature in politics...why, I am not sure. Clinton wants a "progressive commitment to shared prosperity." Sounds like socialism, but let's see where she's going with this...she wants to raise the minimum wage, fix the healthcare system, and promote education. Blah, blah, blah, freakin' blah. Sure, healthcare and education affect our economy, but she will have to work harder to prove to me the causal connections between her healtchare and education policies and economic success. I can see it, but I don't want to infer.
And finally, just for fun, gun control. McCain is all for gun rights and supports instant criminal background checks for gun owners. He doesn't believe that gun ownership is tied to higher crime rates. Clinton wants instant background checks and to extend the ban on assault rifles. I'm all for that. However, her position statement (that can be found here) indicates that she hasn't given much thought to the issue. That could be a good thing.
So, where are we? Well, I am exactly where I started. I don't really like either of them much. I think if I had to vote today, though, Hillary's healthcare proposal, which I'm sure she will pursue vigilantly, eliminates her from consideration. I just don't think socialized healthcare will work without either drastically reducing the quality of healthcare or drastically increasing government spending and taxes. I guess I would go with McCain. Consequently, McCain's issue statements can be found here.
I sure hope Obama wins the nomination.
McCain's victory got me thinking: what if it came down to Hillary and McCain? Who would I support? Despite any inferences you may make from the title of this blog, I am not a partisan hack. There was a time when I felt very strongly on the side of John McCain (circa 2000). But now, after 8 years of the guy who beat him, well, I'm a bit wary of electing another Republican. Still, though, Hillary...really? I think if it came down to these two, I might well go with McCain.
Here's my thinking: McCain will not torture prisoners, which is a big issue for me. However, McCain will stay in Iraq, an equally big issue for me. But, on the Iraq issue, McCain's experience in Vietnam at least lends his thoughts on Iraq some credibility, whether or not you agree with his proposed policy.
On the other hand, Hillary probably won't torture prisoners either. And she will probably stay in Iraq. So they seem to be evenly matched on my two biggest issues. I guess I'll have to look deeper into their policy proposals.
Let's see, healthcare: McCain proposes what is essentially some sort of "market-based" solution to the healthcare woes of our country. One thing I like, McCain talks about low-cost health clinics, something I think is essential in providing healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, any "market-based" solution for healthcare is a dubious proposition because there is an inelastic demand for healthcare (that is, healthcare demand is not the same as consumption demand, you don't go to the doctor's office to get that stylish new drug you've been shopping around for). Clinton wants to have some sort of optional socialized healthcare system- that is, if you have healthcare and you like it, you can keep it, or you can opt-in to a government healthcare system. One thing I like, it would provide healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, most people receive healthcare as an employer-provided benefit, if they have a choice to opt-into a government healthcare plan, what incentive is there for the employer to continue providing the benefit?
Ok, on to energy issues. McCain's take on US oil-dependence is well-reasoned and he has acknowledged that human activity contributes to global warming. My problem with his proposal is that he buys into the "pollution shares trading" idea, and I simply do not see how that will reduce overall pollution. Clinton says essentially the same thing as McCain on this issue.
Alright, how about the economy? McCain will balance the budget, cut taxes on businesses and cut spending (surprise, surprise). Trickle-down economics remains a force of nature in politics...why, I am not sure. Clinton wants a "progressive commitment to shared prosperity." Sounds like socialism, but let's see where she's going with this...she wants to raise the minimum wage, fix the healthcare system, and promote education. Blah, blah, blah, freakin' blah. Sure, healthcare and education affect our economy, but she will have to work harder to prove to me the causal connections between her healtchare and education policies and economic success. I can see it, but I don't want to infer.
And finally, just for fun, gun control. McCain is all for gun rights and supports instant criminal background checks for gun owners. He doesn't believe that gun ownership is tied to higher crime rates. Clinton wants instant background checks and to extend the ban on assault rifles. I'm all for that. However, her position statement (that can be found here) indicates that she hasn't given much thought to the issue. That could be a good thing.
So, where are we? Well, I am exactly where I started. I don't really like either of them much. I think if I had to vote today, though, Hillary's healthcare proposal, which I'm sure she will pursue vigilantly, eliminates her from consideration. I just don't think socialized healthcare will work without either drastically reducing the quality of healthcare or drastically increasing government spending and taxes. I guess I would go with McCain. Consequently, McCain's issue statements can be found here.
I sure hope Obama wins the nomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
