Politicians are often urged to “enlarge the problem” to find a solution. With responses to the larger problem of illegal immigration stalled in Congress and on Beacon Hill, state Rep. John Fernandes has a proposal that narrows the problem a bit, with a nuanced approach that targets the part of the problem that has had Milford up-in-arms for the past year.
Fernandes has proposed, among other things, raising the fine for driving without a license to $5,000, and I challenged him on that when I saw him following a recent legislative breakfast in Natick. I’ve had cops tell me the current fine is nothing but a cash cow for the state and a cost-of-doing-business for the immigrants. They come in for their 30-second court hearing, pay a $300 fine and get back in their cars and break the law again. Isn’t raising the fine just part of the make-them-miserable-and-maybe-they’ll-go-home school of immigration policy?
Fernandes suggested I think of the problem more narrowly. Milford in recent years has seen a sharp rise in immigration from Ecuador, especially a specific rural village in Ecuador. Immigration follows family lines everywhere (I recall being told there are more people in Hudson, Mass. who trace their roots to the Azorean island of Santa Maria than there are in Santa Maria), and many of Milford’s Ecuadorans were imported by a specific roofing contractor.
Culture varies, as we all know. And the culture in rural Ecuador, Fernandes said, is especially accepting of reckless driving and driving while drunk — much more so than among Brazilians or other immigrant groups. Ecuadorans have also been slower to assimilate than other immigrants, he said. It was a fatal accident involving an allegedly drunken Ecuadoran driver last summer that ratcheted up anger over illegal immigration in Milford.
The $5,000 fine for driving without a license isn’t just a punishment, Fernandes told me. It is a tool of assimilation. Think about it, he said. People don’t get pulled over and their drivers licenses checked unless they’ve broken a traffic law. So if they drive safely, don’t drive drunk and don’t get into accidents, they won’t face the $5,000 fine. The message is “don’t drive in America like you did in Ecuador.” The laws and the culture are different here, and if you don’t change your behavior, that speeding ticket will end up costing you more than you could save up in months.
I’m not entirely convinced — I’d still rather enlarge the problem and fix the many things wrong with our immigration laws. But I thought Fernandes’ thinking was interesting enough to share.
- Walter Ramsley
The Obama Administration and its kindred souls in Europe have subsidized the solar industry with hundreds of billions of dollars. It might have been well intentioned. But that strategy of underwriting an uncompetitive technology is backfiring big time. The money should have been spent on R&D. Instead, it went into deployment. Now the money is pulled away and the solar industry has been left hanging out to dry.
A huge build-up took place in response to the various subsidies and tax credits and payoffs. Solar panel production capacity surged from 20 gigawatts to 60 gigawatts between 2009 and 2011. But demand didn’t keep pace. It did go up from 10 to 30 gigawatts. Now it’s heading down again, though, with the loss of subsidies.
The Obama Administration’s latest helping hand is a 30% tarrif on Chinese solar panels. That’s designed to protect American jobs. What it actually is doing is creating a trade war where American equipment makers, the area where we do have a competitive advantage, are getting blocked. So while a lot of the industry’s near term growth potential is shifting to new regions like Brazil, India, and yes, China itself. Our companies likely will be hit by retaliatory sanctions.
Solar had the potential to be a great industry. If the stimulus had been focused on improving the technology itself rather than creating a bunch of illusory Obama-Jobs we’d be on the verge of a major lift-off. As it is the money has been largely wasted, the technology is dicredited in the public’s mind, and a big chunk of industry likely will go bankrupt over the next few years.
Everybody thinks Barack Obama is the best choice for green energy. But look at the record. Look at the stock prices. They’re down 90% compared to the S&P 500 beging up 90%. And the outlook is for continued trouble over the next 1-2 years at least. It sounds counter intuitive but it’s like Nixon going to China. If you believe in a green future there’s a much higher likelihood it will happen under Mitt Romney’s direction.
A guest post by Laura Henze Russell:
Fifty years ago, Rachel Carson ignited the environmental movement by
publishing, Silent Spring. Highlighting the impact of pesticides in
damaging birds’ reproductive cycles, Silent Spring sounded a trumpeter
swan’s call to remove species-killing substances from the environment.
Earth Day was organized in communities across the nation, the EPA
created, and the Clean Air, Clean Water and Toxic Substance Control Act
passed.
Fast forward fifty years. Countless new chemicals and bioengineered
substances have been developed. Laws have not kept pace with rapidly
advancing technology that has gone beyond our wildest imaginations. New
processes like fracking for natural gas are harming the air, water
supply and food chain in new ways. Old poisons like mercury persist in
being put permanently into people’s mouths, and get a free pass by being
labelled a ‘medical device’ in silver-colored amalgam fillings. Flame
retardants are showing up in alarming levels in young children’s blood
samples.
Our immune systems and neurological systems are under constant assault.
When they give way, we become increasingly sensitive, and increasingly
sick. Babies, children, adults, boomers and older adults are all at risk
across the age spectrum, these are equal opportunity toxins.
It is time to shine a bright, penetrating light on the Hidden River of
chemicals, biologicals, bioengineered nanosubstances and toxic metals
and elements running through us. Pass the Safe Chemicals Act, ban dental
mercury amalgam use, and get up to speed on bioengineering risks before
we bet and buy the farm. Not only will we bankrupt the health care
system, we will have a very silent planet.
Laura Henze Russell is part of the MA delegation, Alliance for a Healthy
Tomorrow, attending the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Rally in
Washington DC on May 22nd.
Newark’s mayor Corey Booker on Meet The Press swam against the mainstream of Democratic demogoguery and admitted that Bain Capital was not the boogey man Obama and his henchmen claim in their recent political ambushes. He acknowledged that Bain Capital had done many good things by helping business and refused to jump on the hysterical bandwagon to stupidland. He unintentionally embarrassed the Obama Administration and was forced later in the day to “clarify” his remarks. In any event, the utter futility of this attempt to castigate Mitt Romney never got off the ground. Obama’s attempts to discredit Romney to date have been laughable and show a real ignorance of how to bring objective critiscism to the table. Apparently he has never forgotten how to debate an issue on a high school level.
I offer a few suggestions for the Obama xcampaign which could stick and bring Romney to his knees:
1. It has been rumored that in 1989 he wore odd socks to work causing many of his co-workers to stiffle muted laughter. This could be exploited with the right amount of cash.
2. His dog after a twelve hour ride atop Mitt’s car began to lick his master’s hand and was rebuffed by Mitt. Animal cruelty could be played up bigtime in this instance.
3. In 1994 his secretary sneezed and Mitt didn’t say “God Bless You.” This clearly is a clear case of religious indifference probably due to his Mormon faith.
Mayor Booker is to be congratulated for being truthful and above the aura of cheap politics which has become the Democrat forum. If he survives this episode he should be given at least a pat on the back from both sides of the aisle.
Since my family was big into attachment parenting since 1990 (and it wasn’t new then–it dates back to at least 1967), I’ve been really baffled by the whole tempest in a tea pot that started when Time put a women on the cover breast feeding a toddler. Then came the comment from Liz Moyer in the WSJ who referred to attachment parenting as “the latest fad.” In fact, when we were involved with attachment parenting, we participated in a global email list of attachment parents that predated the world wide web as a communication tool. Homeschooling is at a record high now because attachment parenting peaked in the nineties. Attachment parenting is not a fad and it isn’t new. Maybe it seems a fad because attachment parents are pretty low key (we don’t go around publicly criticizing the poisoning of children with baby formula, which probably leads to a lifetime of obesity and medical problems) and big media has just learned of it, but I can’t figure out why its become a big deal now. anyone have any insight?
I found myself in an interesting discussion this morning around the following question: could the Secretary of State of of a particular state exclude O’Bama’s name from the ballot in November pending proof that O’Bama qualifies as a citizen? Is a candidate required to prove his qualification in every state, or is a finding of one Secretary of State binding on others? And can the Secretary of State make that determination without someone coming forward and asking for a determination? And could the Secretary of State refuse such a demand? and what is the burden of proof? And since he was allowed on the balance once, is a state barred from blocking his placement on the ballot for re election? And is it a state question, as one would always believe, or does Bush v. Gore give the federal courts jurisdiction over the issue? We have a situation for the first time where the place of birth is in doubt, so maybe the question almost becomes academic as a general rule of law, but I wonder if O’Bama would be willing to put the issue to a federal court in Washington to resolve the issue once and for all.
For the curious, the “Character Matters” anti-Obama ad campaign can be reviewed here.
I don’t find it all that shocking; Obama’s been called worse than a “metrosexual black Abe Lincoln.” It’s not surprising that the campaign goes after Obama’s pastor, religion and race; we know how Jeremiah Wright inflames Obama-haters. Nor am I surprised this kind of stuff is being shopped around; more than a billion dollars will be spent on this election. There are plenty of folks in the political consulting industry vying for a piece of that action, and more than a few multi-millionaires at both ends of the political spectrum that may be tempted to bankroll a super PAC campaign.
I’m a bit surprised at how quickly Ricketts and Romney rejected this campaign, but I won’t be surprised if some version of it gets funded.
And I expect it will happen on the other side. Reading the proposal for the anti-Obama campaign, I found myself imaging a pitch some liberal consultant might pitch to say, a mega-millionaire in the entertainment industry — Jeffrey Katzenberg or George Clooney or someone like that:
“Listen man, we’ve got a chance not just to scuff up the Republican nominee. We can hurt him while also paying back the guys who bankrolled Question 8: the Mormon Church.
“We can’t do the Rev. Wright thing, since non-Mormons aren’t allowed in their services, so there’s no footage of some Mormon bishop saying something outrageous we can take out of context. But we can use that mystery against them, showing footage of locked doors and huge temples, with scary organ music. We can use old photos of Mormon polygamists and their many wives. Don’t know if we can get pix of Mitt’s great-grandfather — you know how many wives he had? — but we’ll find a sepia-toned pic that will be sufficient.
“The great thing is that Mitt didn’t just sit in the congregation for 20 years like Obama did. He was a bishop in the Mormon church, even a “stake president,” which is even bigger than a bishop. Did Romney help make policy? Did he have anything to do with the Mormons’ decision to baptize Jewish Holocaust victims? Romney won’t discuss such stuff — there’s that Mormon mystery theme again — so we can insinuate anything we want.
“Rev. Wright never had any authority outside his congregation or outside Chicago — there’s no hierarchy in the Congregational Church — but the Mormons are a worldwide organization, with gazillions of dollars and business and political interests that go far beyond Salt Lake City. Flash to impressive buildings around the world and scary pictures of Mormon elders. We can raise questions about how the church spends money on politics. We know it spent tons to get Question 8 passed. How much will they spend to get Romney elected? What will they want from him as president?
“Can America afford to find out? Is America ready for — try this for a tagline — its first non-Christian president?
“What do you say, Mr. Rich Liberal? A million now and we can start production tomorrow.”
I’ve been reading Alan Brinkley’s new mini biography of JFK, the same series that I’ve been reviewing for the MWDN starting about twelve years ago. My take on these books is that new biographies are great for refocusing the lens on how we relate a historic figure to our times.
I’ve been intrigued by the section on JFK’s attitude toward civil rights. To use the modern parlance, he started out in 1960 being tepid, but he evolved during his first three years into a civil rights champion. As Brinkley notes, RFK made it clear to JFK that once you achieve the status of being an evolved person, you have a moral obligation to do something about it.
Because JFK never had to run for re election, we tend to forget that his civil rights agenda in 1963 flew not only in the face of Southerners, but also a large chunk of JFK’s own party. Nonetheless, by 1963 he was seriously in danger of ruining his chances for re election, or, indeed, of even being renominated by his own party. Why did he do it? Because it was the right thing to do. When you see injustice, you don’t worry about re election, you don’t worry about the fact that the laws won’t make it through Congress, you don’t fret, and ponder and give interviews about your evolution. At that point, you do. you act. Does O’Bama really need a lesson in civil rights activism? In demonstrating courage? In doing the right thing? OHB, you are no John Kennedy.
A Credit Default Swap (CDS) is insurance on loans to insure the lender of payment if default occurs, it’s called hedging, and on Wall Street, they’re easy to buy. First, the companies take out a loan from the bank, then the banks who loan the money and sell the CDS’ buy or sell stock in the borrowers’ company which manipulates the price of the stock and the value of the company.
JPMorgan Chase lost $2 billion in six weeks with depositors money on CDS’. So who’s defaulting on their payments and why aren‘t we hearing about it? Opps, as of tonight it’s up to they think, $3 billion.
The Volcker Rule in the Dodd/Frank law which recently passed allows for hedging of risk, but doesn’t allow banks to use depositors money to make high risk bets, since the deposits are insured by the federal government. CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon urged traders in their London office to take more risk and at the same time saying he didn’t know what was going on, he had people he trusted. Now he’s calling the practice an “economic hedge.” The new definition of a bankers’ casino bets gone bad.
The real risk eliminator on Wall Street has been the US Government, bailing out banks since Nixon was president. Subsequently, and with the implicit backing of the US tax payer, risk knows no bounds on Wall Street. It’s a different story on Main Street, make a bad bet and you lose, no hedging for us. Yet Jamie Dimon won’t even so much as lose his job making bad bets with depositors’ money, as “moral hazard” has been eliminated for big banks too big to fail. But it‘s still held as a major obstacle against a reduction of principal amongst those too small to matter, or can’t afford the lobbyists. Matt Taibi of Rolling Stone magazine said of Wall Street Bank Goldman Sachs, that they’re a “giant squid on the face of humanity”. It’s all the banks, they have become one giant financial system herding people and governments into giving them global fortunes and international power.
The chamber of Congress in which Obama’s party has a majority voted on his budget yesterday. Now both houses have voted on Obama’s budget; the total opposition is 513 votes and the total support is — wait for it — zero. Zip. Nada.
Peter Kirsanow asks some helpful questions for the president:
Yesterday, your budget for fiscal year 2013 was defeated in the senate 99–0. Earlier, it had been defeated in the house by a vote of 414–0. Last year, your budget for fiscal year 2012 was defeated in the senate 97–0. Meanwhile, more than $5,000,000,000,000 in debt has been accumulated by your administration. The federal deficit is more than $1,300,000,000,000. Despite the fact that Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security are the largest drivers of the deficit, you have failed to propose any credible entitlement reforms that effectively address the exploding expenditures. Last year, for the first time in history, the AAA credit rating of the United States was downgraded.
What evidence do you have that your administration has any credibility with Congress in dealing with fiscal matters? What evidence do you have that your administration will be able to effectively deal with Congress on fiscal matters should you win a second term?
Given your belief that you’ll have even more flexibility in a second term, what credible assurances can you provide that you’ll exercise any fiscal responsibility whatsoever in such term?
Meanwhile, on the jobs front:
