Archive for the ‘Trade and Immigration’ Category
The Consequences of Our War on Low-Skilled Immigrant Labor
Credit: Chiapas state government website
Authorities in Mexico intercepted two semi-trucks on Tuesday containing more than 500 migrants being smuggled across the border from Guatemala and presumably headed for the United States. An x-ray of one of the trucks that revealed the migrants struck me for its resemblance to those 18th century woodcarvings of slave ships crossing the Atlantic.
That analogy shouldn’t be taken too far, of course. According to the news reports, the migrants voluntarily paid $7,000 each for the chance to be smuggled into the United States. But like the slave ships, the conditions in the trucks were horrific, putting the lives of the men, women and some children in real danger.
People across the spectrum will try to make hay from this, but to me it argues that the status quo is unacceptable. No respectable party is in favor of illegal immigration. The real debate is over how to reduce it and all the underground pathologies that accompany it.
We can continue to ramp up border and interior enforcement, as we have relentlessly for more than a decade, driving low-skilled migrants further underground while driving smuggling fees higher and higher. Or we can expand opportunities for legal entry into the United States, and by doing so shrink the underground network of smuggling and document fraud.
Like the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, real immigration reform would go a long way to eliminating the human bootlegging that was exposed in Mexico this week. A robust temporary worker program would allow foreign-born workers to enter the country in a safe, orderly, and legal way through established ports of entry. It would allow resources now going to smugglers to be collected as fees by our government and otherwise put to work in our economy. It would save the lives of hundreds of people who needlessly die each year trying to re-locate for a better job.
If Congress enacted the kind of immigration reform we have long advocated in my department at Cato, our economy would be stronger and the human smuggling networks a lot less busy.
A New Obstacle to Passing Trade Agreements
Despite previously supporting them, the Obama administration announced today that it would not submit the three outstanding preferential trade deals (with South Korea, Colombia and Panama) for a vote unless and until Congress reinstates an expanded version of Trade Adjustment Assistance, a program of benefits for workers who have lost their job because of competition from imports. Although the basic TAA program (with us since 1974) is still in place, a version expanded by the stimulus package in 2009 lapsed in February amid some Republicans’ concerns about its cost and its false premise: that workers who lose their jobs because of import competition are more deserving than other unemployed Americans. More on TAA here and here.
According to this article by Congressional Quarterly[$], the business community supports the enhanced TAA, seeing it as a worthwhile bribe compromise to secure votes for trade agreements. I understand that logic, even if I don’t support it. But the merits of that argument aside, and as I’ve outlined repeatedly, I’m not sure the deal holds anymore. While it is true that TAA has in the past been used to secure votes for trade agreements, that is not really necessary in this case. After all, if the Republicans all voted in favor of the agreements, then Democratic votes (those most likely to need some sort of assurance on welfare) would not be needed, unless the administration is implying a veto threat. Indeed, it is likely that making an expanded TAA a condition for the trade deals would cost some votes from conservative and tea-party minded Republicans. But the administration wants a larger TAA program in place, and this is their price. Stay tuned.
HT: Andy Roth at the Club for Growth
Celebrating ‘World Trade Week’ by Remembering Smoot-Hawley
Carrying on an annual tradition dating back to President Franklin Roosevelt, President Obama issued a proclamation on Friday declaring this third week in May “World Trade Week.”
Of course, every week is world trade week at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, but in order to do our part as good citizens, we’ve organized a book forum this Tuesday, May 17, at 4 p.m. on a new book by Dartmouth College economist Douglas Irwin, titled, Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression.
The Smoot-Hawley tariff bill is a fitting subject for any World Trade Week. As we note in the invitation:
More than 80 years after its passage, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 still resonates in today’s debate over trade policy. Advocates of trade blame the law for deepening the Great Depression and warn of the economic damage from a reversion to protectionism. Skeptics of trade say its impact has been exaggerated. Economist and historian Douglas Irwin tells the messy and, at times, amusing story of how Congress dramatically raised tariffs in 1930 just as the world was plunging into depression, and analyzes the economic consequences of the most infamous trade bill ever enacted by Congress. Irwin then draws important lessons that can help today’s trade policymakers avoid the costly mistakes of the past.
Professor Irwin will talk about his book and answer questions about this turning point in U.S. trade history. There is still time to sign up here to attend the event in person at Cato’s F.A. Hayek Auditorium, or you can watch the live video feed online here.
Obama’s GM Quagmire
Media are reporting this morning that the Treasury has decided to hold off on selling any of its remaining 500 million shares of General Motors stock until at least July. The Obama administration had hoped to divest as soon as possible after May 22, but GM’s stock price hasn’t been cooperating.
As much as the president doesn’t want the odor of nationalization following him on the campaign trail, the administration is equally concerned about having to explain why it took a $10 billion to $20 billion direct loss by divesting when it did. By deferring sales until July, the administration presumably is hoping for a stock price boost from second quarter earnings. But that is unlikely for several reasons, which I explained in the Daily Caller yesterday. Here’s the gist in a few passages from that op-ed:
The soonest the U.S. Treasury can sell the remaining 500 million shares (according to terms of the initial public offering) is May 22, but the administration would also like to “make the taxpayers whole.” The problem for the president on that score is that the stock price — even in the wake of this week’s earnings report — isn’t cooperating. As of this morning’s opening bell, GM stock was valued at $31.07 per share. If all of the 500 million remaining publicly-owned shares could be sold at that price, the Treasury would net less than $16 billion. Add that to the $23 billion raised from the initial public offering last November, and the “direct” public loss on GM is about $11 billion — calculated as a $50 billion outlay minus a $39 billion return.
To net $50 billion, those 500 million public shares must be sold at an average price of just over $53 — a virtual impossibility anytime soon. Why? The most significant factor suppressing the stock value is the market’s knowledge that the largest single holder of GM stock wants to unload about 500 million shares in the short term. That fact will continue to trump any positive news about GM and its profit potential, not that such news should be expected.
Projections about gasoline prices vary, but as long as prices at the pump remain in the $4 range, GM is going to suffer. Among major automakers, GM is most exposed to the downside of high gasoline prices. Despite all of the subsidies and all of the hoopla over the Chevy Volt (only 1,700 units have been sold through April 2011) and the Chevy Cruse (now subject to a steering column recall that won’t help repair negative quality perceptions), GM does not have much of a competitive presence in the small car market. Though GM held the largest overall U.S. market share in 2010, it had the smallest share (8.4%) of the small car market, which is where the demand will be if high gas prices persist. GM will certainly have to do better in that segment once the federally mandated average fleet fuel efficiency standards rise to 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016.
Deservedly reaping what it sowed, the administration finds itself in an unenviable position. It can entirely divest of GM in the short term at what would likely be a $10-to-$15 billion taxpayer loss (the stock price will drop if 500 million shares are put up for sale in a short period) and face the ire of an increasingly cost- and budget-conscious electorate. Or the administration can hold onto the stock, hoping against hope that GM experiences economic fortunes good enough to more than compensate for the stock price-suppressing effect of the market’s knowledge of an imminent massive sale, while contending with accusations of market meddling and industrial policy.
Or, the administration can do what it is going to do: First, lower expectations that the taxpayer will ever recover $50 billion. Here’s a recent statement by Tim Geithner: “We’re going to lose money in the auto industry… We didn’t do these things to maximize return. We did them to save jobs. The biggest impact of these programs was in the millions of jobs saved.” That’s a safe counterfactual, since it can never be tested or proved. (There are 225,000 fewer jobs in the auto industry as of March 2011 than there were in November 2008, when the bailout process began.)
Second, the administration will argue that the Obama administration is only on the hook for $40 billion (the first $10 billion having come from Bush). In a post-IPO, November 2010 statement revealing of a man less concerned with the nation’s finances than his own political prospects, President Obama asserted: “American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM, and that’s a good thing.” (My emphasis).
The administration should divest as soon as possible, without regard to the stock price. Keeping the government’s tentacles around a large firm in an important industry will keep the door open wider to industrial policy and will deter market-driven decision-making throughout the industry, possibly keeping the brakes on the recovery. Yes, there will be a significant loss to taxpayers. But the right lesson to learn from this chapter in history is that government interventions carry real economic costs.
Distortions versus Outlays
My friend Gawain Kripke at Oxfam posted a very good blog entry yesterday on the proposed cuts to agriculture subsidies. In it, Gawain elaborates on a point that I made briefly in a previous post about Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget plan: that cutting so-called direct payments—those that flow to farmers regardless of how much or even whether they produce—is only part of the picture.
Here’s Gawain’s main point:
Most farm subsidies are price-dependent, meaning they are bigger if prices are low and smaller if prices are high. Prices are hitting historic highs for many commodities, which means the bulk of these subsidies are not paying out very much money. Over time, the price-dependent subsidies have been the bulk of farm subsidies. They also distort agriculture markets by encouraging farmers to depend on payments from the government rather managing their business and hedging risks.
So—these days there’s only about $5b in farm payments being made, and these payments are not considered as damaging in international trade terms because they are not based on prices…
Still, Congress will probably make some cuts. But these cuts won’t really be reform and won’t produce much long-term savings unless they tackle the price-dependent subsidies. Taking a whack at those subsidies could save taxpayers money later and make sure our farm programs don’t hurt poor farmers in developing countries. (emphasis added)
I will be delighted if direct payments are abolished, thereby saving American taxpayers about $5 billion a year. But we should not be content with that, nor should we fool ourselves that we have tackled the main distortions in agricultural markets. If the price- and production-linked programs are not abolished, too, then taxpayers and international markets will pay the price if/when commodity prices fall.
“Let Them [Safety Certified Mexican] Truckers Roll, 10-4”
OK, I took some editorial license on the line from the 1970s song by C.W. McCall about truckers bantering on their CB radios, but the spirit of the song applies to our ongoing dispute with Mexico over access to U.S. highways.
On Friday, the comment period will end in the Federal Register on a pilot program proposed by the Obama administration that would allow qualified Mexican trucks and their Mexican drivers to make long-haul deliveries within the United States. With the exception of a brief interlude from 2007 to 2009, the U.S. has banned Mexican trucks from serving destinations within the United States.
I explain why this is bad for our economy and our reputation as a nation in an op-ed this morning in the Washington Times and in my own comments filed with the Federal Register. As I wrote in the op-ed:
Despite the hundreds of complaints already posted in the Federal Register, the Mexican trucking issue has never been about safety. The proposed pilot program would require Mexican trucks entering the United States to meet all federal regulations on driver qualifications, truck safety, emissions, fuel taxes, immigration and insurance.
Experience from the previous pilot program in 2007-09 demonstrated that Mexican trucks and their drivers are fully capable of complying with all U.S. safety requirements.
An August 2009 report from the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General found that only 1.2 percent of Mexican drivers that were inspected were placed out of service for violations, compared with nearly 7 percent of U.S. drivers who were inspected. In February 2010, the Congressional Research Service reported that recent data provided by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration found that “Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. trucks and that the drivers are generally safer than U.S. drivers.” What the Teamsters and their congressional allies really object to is that these trucks will be driven by Mexicans.
The Obama administration deserves credit for its effort to end this dispute in the face of pressure from its union base. The sooner we allow more freedom and competition in the cross-border trucking sector, the better.
Responding to Critics of Immigration Reform
President Obama is making his first visit to the U.S.-Mexican border today to deliver a speech in El Paso, Texas, on the need to reform America’s immigration laws. I’ll be eagerly awaiting the president’s plan, but in the meantime, the Cato Institute has released a new study this week that examines the major objections to comprehensive immigration reform.
Titled “Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” and authored by Cato adjunct scholar Stuart Anderson, the new study draws on the latest research to address five common objections to expanding opportunities for legal immigration. The issues addressed in the study include the effect of immigration reform on government spending, welfare use, culture and language, unemployment, and incentives for illegal immigration.
After carefully weighing all those concerns, the study concludes that the arguments continue to weigh heavily in favor of expanding legal immigration as the best way to reduce illegal immigration. Here is the study’s conclusion:
The status quo is not acceptable. There is no evidence that continuing—or expanding—the current “enforcement-only” policies on immigration will be successful. The best approach is to harness the power of the market to allow workers to fill jobs legally, rather than to rely on human smuggling operations for workers to enter the United States. Addressing the situation of those now in the country illegally will achieve both humanitarian and economic objectives, including raising the wages of those now working as illegal immigrants. The primary arguments employed against comprehensive immigration reform do not stand up to a review of recent history and predictable social and economic behavior.
Here is the short-form Cato blueprint for immigration reform, and here is the long-form version (PDF).
Will Republicans Come to Grips With Immigration?
Today POLITICO Arena asks:
Given President Obama’s speech today in El Paso, Texas, is immigration a winning issue for Democrats?
My response:
Immigration will be a winning issue for Democrats only if Republicans allow it, which they’re quite capable of doing. Where’s the anti-immigrant part of the Republican base going to go — to the Democrats? Hardly. With so much else at stake, will they sit out the 2012 elections, over this one issue? Please.
If Republicans play it right, this can be a winner. No one seriously believes that the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, most working, can or should be sent back to their countries of origin. So the main issues are paving the way to legalization, better securing the borders, and providing for a rational guest worker program. If Republicans got behind a package like that, immigration would cease to be a Democratic issue. This isn’t rocket science.
Grasping the Full Costs of the Auto Bailout
E.J. Dionne seems perfectly comfortable with the fact that he doesn’t understand economics—as long as the Washington Post continues to allow him to interpret economic events in a manner that comports with his political predispositions. Dionne sees GM’s recent good fortune as evidence of the propriety of government “step[ping] in when the market fails.” Dionne, like others before him, stands slack-jawed, in awe, ready and willing to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, donning narrow blinders and viewing just a narrow sliver of the world, oblivious to the fact that related events are transpiring in the other 359 degrees that surround him. Dionne is the perfect Bastiat foil.
Last week, GM reported first quarter profits of $3.2 billion—its best quarterly performance in ten years and its fifth consecutive profitable quarter. That’s good for GM (although it remains to be seen how GM performs going forward). But that is really beside the point. Dionne creates a straw man, contending that bailout critics thought that the government couldn’t resuscitate GM. But the most thoughtful criticism—my opposition to the bailout, at least—wasn’t predicated on the notion that GM couldn’t be saved by the government extinguishing debt, rewriting ownership, providing cash infusions, and underwriting sales rebates. That opposition was borne of concern that that the government would do just that. And it did.
In the process of “saving” GM (which I still contend would have survived without the intervention and the number of jobs losses in the industry would have been comparable to the job losses that occurred anyway), the government inflicted huge costs on the economy, which—rather than repeat—I cite from an earlier post. After all, my argument that IPO euphoria (from November) was misplaced is nearly identical to my argument that GM’s positive financial statement does not confer a verdict of success on the bailout.
Here’s the real issue. Today’s IPO is nothing more than testament to the fact that the government threw GM a lifeline, enabling the company to expunge most of its debts and firm up its balance sheet on terms more favorable than a normal bankruptcy process would have yielded. That enabled GM to partake of the cyclically growing U.S. auto market in 2010 and turn a profit through the first three quarters. So what? Did anyone really think that a chosen company so coddled and insulated from market realities couldn’t turn a short-run profit? Yes, even GM, under those favorable conditions should have been expected to turn a profit this year.
But at what cost? That answer—even the question—seems to be elusive in the public discussion of the IPO. The cost was not only $50 billion—the amount diverted to GM in the first place. Nor was it that $50 billion minus the proceeds raised in today’s IPO (and minus the proceeds raised later when the government divests entirely of GM — it will still hold 33% of GM after today). In other words, making taxpayers whole does not absolve the Bush and Obama administration’s for the auto intervention. Recouping the $50 billion only gets us partially out of the hole. (And I’m not even sure who “us” includes because the costs are so far reaching.)
Yes, GM is making sales and accounting for market share, but only at the expense of the other automakers. Had GM been forced to severely atrophy or liquidate, the other automakers would have had greater revenues, more market share, and probably higher profits). They would have been able to attract GM’s best engineers and line workers. They would have more money to invest in R&D and to lead the industry into the future. Instead, by keeping GM in the mix, some of those industry resources remain misallocated in a company that the evolutionary market process would have made smaller or extinct.
The auto industry wasn’t rescued with the GM bailout. GM was “rescued.” By rescuing GM, the government overrode market forces, and there are significant costs to assign for that. Witness the stagnant economy with 9.6 percent unemployment. Is it not plausible that businesses are sitting on their cash and not investing or hiring because of the fear inspired by the government interventions starting with the bank and auto bailouts? It’s more than plausible. The regime uncertainty that persists to this day was spawned by the GM bailout and other interventions.
What about the weakening of the rule of law? Doesn’t the diversion of TARP funds by the Bush administration, in circumvention of congress’s wishes and in contravention of the language of the law, represent a cost? How about the property right of preferred bondholders who were forced to take pennies on their investment dollars under the Obama bankruptcy plan? Any costs there? What about U.S. moral authority to dissuade other governments from meddling in their markets or indulging industrial policy? That may be costly to U.S. enterprises. And with the government still holding a third of GM, its hard to swallow the idea that public interest will be the driver of policies affecting the auto industry. And that suggests even more costs.
What Immigration Reform Would Look Like
Utah’s done it (great editorial in the WSJ):
Passed by the state’s GOP legislature and signed by Republican Governor Gary Herbert in March, Utah’s plan is notable because it’s the first in the country that would allow undocumented immigrants to get a permit and work legally, after paying a fine of up to $2500 and meeting other conditions. The program is part of a larger package that includes increased scrutiny of immigrants who break the law. The compromise allows the state to address the economy’s demand for workers—thus reducing the incentive for illegal immigration—while satisfying voters who don’t want to reward those who arrived illegally.
Of course, states can’t just announce their own guest-worker programs — the federal government has plenary power over immigration — so Utah may need a waiver from the feds. Which might not be forthcoming, given politically tone-deaf and legally dangerous statements like this:
In a Senate Judiciary hearing on Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said the law, which combines enforcement measures with a guest worker program, needs to be adjusted or face federal lawsuits. Pressed on whether the Administration planned to sue Utah, Mr. Holder said the Department of Justice “will look at the law, and if it is not changed to our satisfaction by 2013, we will take the necessary steps.”
“To our satisfaction?” What does Holder think an eventual federal immigration solution would look like? Here’s Cato’s proposal, but anything that gets through Congress will have to expand employment opportunities for both skilled and unskilled immigrants, normalize the status of current illegals, and otherwise refocus resources on criminals and terrorists.
But it’s not just the government that’s up in arms about Utah’s sensible legislation:
Like Arizona, Utah is already fending off lawsuits from the left. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center sued to stop the portion of the law similar to the one in Arizona that enlists state and local police in the effort to identify illegal immigrants. In Utah’s version, anyone who is arrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor has to show proof of citizenship.
Good grief! State officials do not violate the Supremacy Clause — or engage in unconstitutional racial profiling — when they enforce federal law, which is what Utah’s enforcement measures, like most of Arizona’s, do. Critics naturally maintain that such enforcement decisions should be left to the feds but that only gets it half right: the federal government, particularly its executive branch, has discretion over how to prioritize enforcement priorities, but those discretionary decisions (which, after all, can change from one administration to another and even within one presidency) cannot preempt state law. Only federal law can do that.
This not a question of policy; while I generally like Utah’s plan, I’ve written before that Arizona’s (very different) SB 1070 is constitutional but mostly bad policy. The larger issue is states wanting to do something in the face of federal abdication. Some of Utah’s laws — the “plan” is actually five separate laws, covering the spectrum of immigration issues from expanding legal immigration (HB469, HB466) to addressing those already here for economic reasons (HB116) to addressing serious criminals (HB116, HB497) — may well end up losing in court, but they at least get national attention and to try to push federal action (SJR12).
As Rep. John Dougall, Vice Chair for Appropriations (#2 on the state budget), has explained to me, a major goal Utah had was to shift the dialogue from “enforcement only” to something more comprehensive, especially expanding legal immigration. A more controversial purpose was to plant the federalism flag, arguing that states share some of the jurisdiction over immigration. For example, Dougall wrote in an email to me that I quote with his permission, “HB469 rests on the belief that citizens should have the right to freely associate with anyone in the world, who don’t pose a public safety threat to others, and those citizens should be able to sponsor those immigrants in UT. A belief that the state should defend a citizen’s right to freely associate from an overly expansive federal government.”
I’m not fully convinced that some of this isn’t preempted — by federal law, not by what attorneys general or secretaries of homeland security say or do – but the goal is laudable and the classical liberal first principles are unassailable. The Utah model could work for other states looking to split the Gordian knot between the extremists on both sides whose “debate” generates into ”amnesty” versus “racism.” Texas Republicans have introduced similar legislation and other states’ lawmakers are also apparently interested.
That’s all to the good: even if you can’t enjoy the “greatest snow on earth” during the summer, anyone interested in innovative immigration reform should book a flight to Salt Lake City.
U.S. Sugar Program Means Higher Prices and Short Supplies
Advocates of the U.S. sugar program like to claim they are protecting our “food security.” It turns out that trade barriers deliver higher prices for consumers while making our food supplies LESS secure.
According to a story in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, titled “Sugar Squeeze in U.S.,” bad weather has curbed the amount of sugar cane produced in Florida and sugar beets in the Midwest. When combined with restrictive import quotas that virtually guarantee U.S. producers 85 percent of the domestic market, domestic sugar prices could soon spike upward.
Americans currently pay more than 36 cents for a pound of sugar, more than 50 percent above the world price. The sugar program not only imposes extra costs on American consumers but also hurts U.S. small businesses and industries that use sugar in their final products, such as bakeries, family restaurants, cereal companies, and confectioners.
Rising prices and constricted domestic supplies have prompted a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in Congress to introduce legislation to dismantle the anti-competitive sugar program and to restore the freedom of Americans to buy sugar at global prices. A bill has been sponsored in the Senate by Richard Lugar, R-Ind., titled “The Free Sugar Act of 2011.” A companion bill has been sponsored in the House by freshman Republican Bob Dold, whose suburban Chicago district has seen its candy industry decimated by high domestic sugar costs; and Democrat Earl Blumenauer, a long-time critic of U.S. farm programs and other trade barriers that disproportionately hurt poor families, such as our scandalously high tariffs on imported shoes.
In a Dear Colleague letter distributed last week, Dold and Blumenauer wrote,
According to a Commerce Department study, for every job protected by our antiquated sugar program, three American manufacturing jobs are lost. By eliminating U.S. sugar price controls and quotas, Congress can reverse this wasteful policy. With accelerating U.S. manufacturing job losses over the past few decades, Congress should no longer maintain an old and inefficient policy that destroys good-paying American jobs.
Here is a Cato op-ed and a Cato Capitol Hill Briefing, both from October 2009, on why the sugar program needs to be abolished.
Cato Unbound: The Politics of Family Size
In the 1970s, economists and demographers worried about the “population bomb” — world population was exploding, and many doubted there would be resources enough for everyone. At least two schools of thought emerged. One held that population needed to be curbed through public policy — perhaps coercively. The other school, always a minority view, held that human beings themselves were “the ultimate resource” — a phrase coined by economist Julian Simon. On this view, more people would mean more productivity and more creative minds brought to the task of providing for the species.
Since then, conditions have changed dramatically and in ways no one predicted. World population growth slowed at a pace far beyond what anyone thought possible, even in countries that didn’t adopt anti-natalist policies. Several countries are now below replacement fertility rates, and even the fastest-growing populations are slowing down.
Those who worried about the population bomb may worry a little bit less, but fans of Julian Simon shouldn’t be so pleased. This month’s Cato Unbound lead essay by Bryan Caplan examines the problem of world population with a framework strongly inspired by the late Professor Simon. Caplan recommends several policy initiatives that will encourage the growth at least of the American population while protecting individual rights and respecting individual choices.
Caplan’s views here, as elsewhere in his work, are iconoclastic. We’ve invited a distinguished panel to discuss them over the course of the month: Economist Betsey Stevenson of the Wharton School, Columbia University historian Matthew Connelly, and historical economist Gregory Clark of UC Davis. Each will address Caplan’s argument using a range of methodological tools and with somewhat different political values.
Do be sure to check back often, or subscribe to Cato Unbound via RSS.
News Items: Internet Gambling and Agriculture
Some items from my inbox:
- The Department of Justice late Friday announced it had indicted 11 online poker executives, charging them with money-laundering and bank fraud. (HT: Jonathan Blanks). This crackdown is far stronger than any seen from the Bush administration, and is disappointing people like me, who had hoped for a better stance on civil liberties from the Obama administration. To quote my former colleague Radley Balko (language warning): “Good to know where the DOJ’s priorities lie. In this case, it’s preventing millions of people from consensually wagering money in online card games, an exchange that causes no harm to anyone else.”
- Ironically Insanely, the indictments came just days after the District of Columbia announced it would allow internet gambling.
- In keeping with the new set of talking points the farm lobby has devised (“we already gave at the office through crop insurance reforms” and “agriculture should face cuts no larger than the average of other programs”), the Democratic members of the House Agriculture Committee on Friday sent out a press release complaining about the “disproportionate” cuts agriculture would face if the House-passed FY2012 budget resolution went into effect. While Agriculture would face a 23 percent cut, they say, other committees’ program areas would face an average cut of 14 percent. And they complain that Defense faces only minimal cuts. I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: all government programs are not created equal. Some — like Defense, although clearly there is significant room for cuts there — are legitimate uses of government’s power. Others — like farm subsidies — are not.
- An interesting article on the non-link between farm subsidies and obesity, by political scientist Robert Paarlberg (co-author of an excellent book on American farm policy). He cites Cato as being one of the groups engaging in “careless thinking” on this issue, and although I have in the past linked farm subsidies to certain food consumption patterns, over the past year or so I have become increasingly skeptical of that view, mainly as a result of reading stuff like this from smart folks at UCDavis.
Arizona Immigration Decision Underlines Need for Fundamental Reform
The legal battle over SB 1070 is far from over, so neither side should cheer or despair. The upshot of the Ninth Circuit’s splintered and highly technical opinion is merely that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining four provisions. The court could not and did not rule on the legislation’s ultimate constitutionality and, of course, SB 1070’s remaining provisions—the ten that weren’t challenged and the two on which Judge Bolton rejected the government’s argument—remain in effect.
But the legal machinations are only half the story. While I personally think that all or almost all of the Arizona law is constitutional, at least as written (abuses in application are always possible), it’s bad policy because it harms the state’s economy and misallocates law enforcement resources. But I also understand the frustration of many state governments, whose citizens are demanding relief from a broken immigration system that Congress has repeatedly failed to fix. Whether it’s stronger enforcement (Arizona) or liberalizing work permits (Utah), states should not be forced into the position of having to enact their own piecemeal immigration solutions while living within a system where the regulation of immigration is a federal responsibility. Congress has dropped the ball in not passing comprehensive immigration reform, despite facing a system that doesn’t work for anyone: not big business or small business, not rich Americans or poor ones, not skilled would-be immigrants or unskilled.
The federalism our Constitution establishes sometimes demands that the federal government act on certain issues. This is such a time and immigration is such an issue.
Farm Subsidies to be Cut?
It’s shaping up to being another good year for farm incomes. As a result, policymakers looking for spending cuts are finally turning an eye toward farm subsidies. An emerging target is the $5 billion in annual payments made to farmers…for basically just being farmers.
From the Wall Street Journal:
With the farm economy booming and Washington on a diet, a program set up in the 1990s that cuts checks to farmers could be trimmed or eliminated next year when Congress writes a new five-year farm bill.
A group of conservative lawmakers has set its sights on these direct payments, and even farm-state Democrats who like the program say high crop prices make the outlays of about $5 billion a year harder to justify. Recently, the National Corn Growers Association, an industry lobby group, urged Congress to revamp the program, fearing it would be eliminated altogether.
As the Journal notes, the 1996 farm bill created these payments as a temporary handout to help “transition” farmers toward greater reliance on supply and demand. Instead, Congress and the Bush administration turned it into a permanent handout in 2002. If ever there was a symbol of Washington’s inability to get farmers off the taxpayer teat, this was it.
However, even the corn lobby seems to recognize that the gig might finally be up for one of Washington’s more indefensible programs:
‘Our members of Congress are telling us that they just can’t support this program anymore,’ said Anthony Bush, a policy expert with the National Corn Growers Association.
‘In times of record-high prices [the government is] still handing out money like this, it’s just politically not possible, feasible or popular these days,’ he said.
Mr. Bush said corn farmers have the most to lose if direct payments are eliminated altogether. He said $2.1 billion of the roughly $5 billion in direct payments go to such farmers.
Corn futures Wednesday settled at $7.63 a bushel, down slightly after reaching an all-time high above $7.70 Tuesday. Prices have more than doubled since last summer on strong export demand, record ethanol output and steady buying by domestic livestock producers.
The National Corn Growers Association voted earlier this month to ‘investigate transitioning direct payments’ into a more politically acceptable form of subsidy.
“Investigate transitioning direct payments”? That’s ironic terminology considering that these payments were originally intended to transition farmers away from reliance on taxpayers. Now the corn lobby wants to transition the transition payments into a “more politically acceptable” handout. Only in Washington.
See this Cato essay for more on farm subsidies.
GE and Obama: A Betrothal at the Altar of Industrial Policy
The angry Left has been calling for President Obama to fire Jeffrey Immelt from his position as head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. I think that would be a good idea, but for different reasons.
Sen. Russ Feingold, Moveon.Org, and the regular scribes at the Huffington Post see Immelt, the chairman and CEO of General Electric, as unfit to advise the president because GE invests some of its resources abroad and, despite worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, paid no taxes in 2010. No illegalities are alleged, mind you; GE — like every other U.S. multinational — responds to incentives, including those resulting from tax policy and regulations concocted in Washington.
But there are more substantive reasons for why Immelt is unfit to advise the president. In particular, GE is a major player in several industries that President Obama has been promoting as part of his administration’s cocksure embrace of industrial policy. With over $100 billion in direct subsidies and tax credits already devoted to “green technology,” President Obama is convinced that America’s economic future depends on the ability of U.S. firms to compete and succeed in the solar panel, wind harnessing, battery, and other energy storage technologies. Concerning those industries, the president said: “Countries like China are moving even faster… I’m not going to settle for a situation where the United States comes in second place or third place or fourth place in what will be the most important economic engine of the future.”
Well, just yesterday GE announced plans to open the largest solar panel production facility in the United States, which nicely complements its role as the largest U.S. producer of wind turbines (and one of the largest in the world). The 2011 Economic Report of the President describes the taxpayer largesse devoted to subsidizing these green industries:
[T]he Recovery Act directed over $90 billion in public investment and tax incentives to increasing renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, weatherizing homes, and boosting R&D for new technologies. Looking forward, the President has proposed a Federal Clean Energy Standard to double the share of electricity produced by clean sources to 80 percent by 2035, a substantial commitment to cleaner transportation infrastructure, and has increased investments in energy efficiency and clean energy R&D.
And Box 6.2 on page 129 of the 2011 ERP conveniently breaks out those subsidies by specific industry, most of which are spaces in which GE competes.
Finally, a Breakthrough on the Colombia Trade Agreement
To no great surprise, the Obama administration announced today that it has cut a deal with the government of Colombia to address concerns about labor protections and to finally move toward enacting the long-stalled free-trade agreement between our two countries. This is welcome news for trade expansion and for strengthening our ties to a key Latin American ally.
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos is expected to arrive later this week in Washington to cement the deal. In exchange for the agreement, Colombia has reportedly agreed to expand its efforts to protect union members from violence and to more vigorously prosecute those responsible.
As my Cato colleague Juan Carlos Hidalgo and I documented in a Cato study earlier this year, concerns about labor protections were never a valid reason for holding up this agreement. The overall murder rate in Colombia has declined dramatically in the past decade, and the murder rate against members of labor unions has declined even more rapidly. A union member in Colombia today is one-sixth as likely to be a victim of homicide as a fellow citizen who does not belong to a union. Meanwhile, the Colombia government has increased convictions for homicides against union members by eight-fold in the past three years.
As Democratic Senators John Kerry and Max Baucus pointed out in an op-ed this week that endorsed the agreement, the International Labor Organization has certified that Colombia is complying with its international labor agreements.
The obstacle of labor violence was just a political smokescreen that had been raised by labor-union leaders in the United States looking for any shred of an argument to oppose the agreement. Even the agreement announced this week is not going to win over the AFL-CIO. The Colombia government could have raised a hundred murdered union members from the dead, and organized labor in American would still chant that not enough was being done.
The breakthrough this week clears the path for Congress to approve, by what I predict will be comfortable bipartisan majorities, the pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
Ryan’s Plan for Farm Subsidies
I thought I would add some detail to the posts my colleagues have already written on Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisc.) 2012 budget resolution.
Interestingly — and, I would argue, appropriately — the agriculture stuff appears in the “Ending Corporate Welfare” section of the plan, most of it on page 36. After outlining the ways that farming America is doing well, Ryan’s plan would cut almost $30 billion (or 20 percent of projected outlays) over the next 10 years from farm subsidies (direct payments, currently costing about $5 billion per year) and crop insurance subsidies. Cuts will also reportedly fall on nutrition and conservation programs, but I will let my colleagues weigh in on those.
The focus on crop insurance is encouraging, because crop insurance is an increasingly important part of U.S. farm policy, especially in recent years when commodity prices have been high: high prices reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on commodity payments, but increases crop insurance premiums, which we all subsidize. They now cost about $6 billion, or more than commodity payments. And, as the blueprint points out, surely farmers “should assume the same kind of responsibility for assuming risk that other businesses do.” Well played, Congressman.
One point on where the cuts fall on the commodity payments side: As a free-marketeer, I acknowledge that direct payments are less market-distorting than price-linked payments, and they are less (although not fully) questionable under World Trade Organization rules. If we are going to shovel money to farmers, in other words, sending unconditional welfare checks is the least distorting way to do it. But there is no money to raid from the price-linked programs because of high prices, so if savings are to be found, we need to raid the direct payment cookie jar. And, really, with $7 corn and red ink from here to eternity, surely this is an ideal time to wean farmers off of the government teat.
Reactions from the farmers’ friends, by the way? Predictable. The Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee dismissed the blueprint’s plans for agriculture as “simply suggestions” and that the Agriculture Committee will write the 2012 Farm Bill, thankyouverymuch. (Ryan himself said that the cuts should start in 2012, implying that the Farm Bill schedule should go ahead as planned).
The National Farmers Union spoke the usual blather about Americans spending less of their income on food than in other nations (perhaps because we are, you know, richer?) for the “safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply in the world,” which has been the favorite line of the farm lobby for years now. The Corn Growers and the National Cotton Council joined them in trotting out variations of the new favorite talking point, about how agriculture has already taken a hit from cuts to crop insurance and that cuts to agriculture’s budget should be no larger than cuts to other areas.
The blueprint is not my ideal plan, to be sure. That plan would have a line in it about removing the federal government once and for all from all aspects of the agricultural market, including by disbanding the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It would at least include something about disbanding the production- and price-determined subsidies, so we’re not all on the hook again if prices fall. But it is a good start.
Easter Bunny’s Burden
From Pennsylvania, bad news for chocolate lovers:
The Hershey Company says it is raising wholesale prices by 9.7% on most of its candy products. The maker of Reese’s, Kit Kat, Hershey’s Kisses and Twizzlers cited increased costs for raw materials, fuel, utilities and transportation.
The costs of two key raw materials—sugar and dairy products—are artificially inflated by federal government policies, the effect of which is to harm U.S. consumers and U.S. food producers, such as Hershey.
Senator Richard Lugar has introduced legislation to reform U.S. sugar policies. His timing is good, as world food prices are rising and some experts predict that sugar prices will soar in coming years.
The best ways to combat rising food prices—which particular harm people with moderate incomes—are free markets, open international trade, and vigorous competition. Unfortunately, those pro-growth and progressive policies are absent in the U.S. dairy and sugar industries, which are subject to Soviet-style central planning. (See here and here).
A consultant study last year (not commissioned by Hershey) indicated that high corporate taxes are also a negative with respect to Hershey’s U.S. production:
Are Farm Subsidies Progressive?
An economist in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the Univeristy of Illinois posted an interesting entry on the FarmDocDaily blog yesterday, claiming that farm subsidies flowing to the biggest farms is a sign of progressivity.
His reasoning goes something like this: because a progressive tax system is one in which the rich pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than do the poor, and because a subsidy is essentially a negative tax, then a progressive subsidy system is one in which subsidies would flow more to farms where the subsidy is a higher proportion of their sales or assets. And, according to Mr. Kirwan, that’s what we see: subsidies make up 10 percent of sales for small farms and only 4 percent of sales for large farms. So far, so progressive.
But here’s the problem as I see it. Mr Kirwan takes a pretty narrow view of what progressive means (when I hear that term, by the way, I reach for my revolver, but we’ll let it slide for now). The question isn’t whether the subsidies are being distributed “progressively” among farmers — although the fact they are not is, I think, one of the valid critiques of U.S. farm policy. The real question we should be asking ourselves is how subsidies are distributed among society, a society that Mr Kirwan claims to speak for when he says that the current income tax structure is “how we as a society have decided to measure the “fairness” of the tax system.”
Farmers are wealthier (second graph from the bottom) and earn higher incomes (fourth graph from the bottom) than the average U.S. household. Their average debt-to-asset ratio is about 12 percent (third graph from the bottom), very low relative to the average U.S. household. Those should be the relevant data for any progressivity test.
And all of this ignores the main critique of farm subsidies: that they are an example of special interest politics at its worst. I’ve yet to hear of a convincing argument as to why farmers deserve taxpayer- and consumer-funded special treatment compared with other small (or large, for that matter) businesses.
