The Economic Consequences Of Our Feckless Immigration System

The Economic Consequences Of Our Feckless Immigration System

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

Free-market economist Milton Friedman was hardly anti-immigration. He acknowledged that, pre-1914, immigrants came “for a better life for them and their children. In the main they succeeded,” broadly benefiting their adopted country.

But there was an important caveat. “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare.” Immigrants dependent on public benefits don’t boost their host country. They have the effect of “a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level.”

Leftists may not like it, but Friedman was right. We’re about to learn the lesson good and hard.

The tens of millions of “undocumented” immigrants now arriving in America have a much different outlook than immigrants of a century ago. In short, today’s immigrants don’t work that much.

A study of Census data by the Atlanta Federal Reserve reported that while over half of new jobs created in the last two years have gone to illegal immigrants, so many have come that barely half of working age, non-college immigrants are in the labor force. Five of six native Americans 25 through 64 regularly work.

The Border Patrol recorded over 10 million illegal immigrants processed during the Biden years plus countless millions not detected. Yet foreign-born employment increased by only 2.32 million. So, who is supporting the rest? We are.

California is the poster child for dependent illegal immigrants. There they get taxpayer-funded health insurance, food stamps, housing allowances, and myriad other benefits, costing $22.8 billion in state and local taxes alone, according to the pro-immigration Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Yet this for a population that generated just $8.5 billion in income.

Moreover, many of the programs are direct federal subsidies which means we all participate in their funding. Beyond all this is the escalation in spending by NGOs and philanthropic agencies to house, clothe, and feed the millions of “newcomers” being bused around the country, again at our expense.

The increased pressure on the federal budget, which immigration “hawks” warned against not long ago, has already been normalized. The discussion has subtly passed from whether illegal immigrants should be included in public benefits to how this should be accomplished. Deportation, once assumed for those who failed their asylum hearings (which most do), is now regarded as logistically and morally impossible.

It’s no mystery why our welfare system is a worldwide magnet. Average benefits received by working age households have risen from $7,352 in 1967 to $64,700 in 2022, adjusted for inflation. Welfare spending now consumes 72.6 percent of unobligated revenues (an accounting which doesn’t count payroll taxes or mandatory interest payments) while defense spending has fallen by half.

Most Americans don’t realize that official poverty statistics distributed by the Census Bureau don’t count as income. 88% of the transfer payments made to alleviate poverty. As noted by Gramm and Arrington in the Wall Street Journal, “The census doesn’t count refundable tax credits, food stamp debit cards, free medical care through Medicaid or benefits from about 100 other transfer payments as income.”

When these benefits are deemed to be income, 80% of those today who are counted as poor are no longer poor and the bottom three income quintiles in the Census Bureau all have approximately the same spending power.

With the abundance of means-tested transfer payments available, the percentage of working age persons in the bottom quintile who work has fallen from 68% to 38%. For about the same income, 2.4 times as many workers in the second lowest quintile actually work—and on average work 85% more hours than those in the bottom quintile.

Welfare beneficiaries in the main aren’t liars or cheaters. They are making rational decisions in an irrational environment. America is unfortunately a nation deeply in debt, living on anticipated income from the future. We spend money as if we still had it. The kids will figure it out.

The driving motive behind immigration policy is still to permanently alter the political landscape. The ultimate victims may be the migrants themselves, attracted by promises that in the long run can’t be kept.

As Friedman pointed out, we can’t enrich others by impoverishing ourselves. We all just become more poor.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

For The Health Of The Republic, We Need Believable Fraud Protections

For The Health Of The Republic, We Need Believable Fraud Protections

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

American elections were once comparatively modest affairs. They were conducted in the autumn every fourth year, beginning about Labor Day until Election Day, when everyone voted.

We went to a designated polling place and cast our confidential votes under the watchful eyes of fellow citizen volunteers. The ballots were transported under strict chain-of-custody procedures to be counted by election officials.

Accommodations were made for those physically unable to vote, but most Americans didn’t regard voting as especially onerous. We were grateful for the privilege and willing to overlook minor inconveniences. There were racial and gender barriers to voting for too long, but those are now thankfully corrected.

Elections are the process, in our democratic republic, by which we choose our governing officials. But they also play an important role in ensuring the unity of citizens by providing a process for fairly reconciling our differences.

Americans have always had strong, often contrasting opinions about how they should be governed. It once took a catastrophic war to resolve our differences but normally elections serve well to determine our way forward. Ideally, all sides get their say, nominate the best candidates they can find and then we vote. The results are conclusive and binding until the next election.

Customs change, rules evolve, and elections today look very different than a few decades ago. Yesterday is never going to come back, but it’s worth remembering that not all changes represent progress. Our elections could use a thorough overhaul.

Campaigns simply last too long. The presidential campaign is now continuous, with candidates beginning to compete by the previous Inauguration Day.

As one result, campaigns have become horrendously expensive. They are endurance contests in which the most successful fundraiser is favored. Insiders can’t get enough of the “horse race,” but ordinary citizens become bored. Considerations of ongoing policy decisions are filtered through their possible effect on the campaigns and the ever-present polls.

Perhaps this extended attention could be justified if the result was more carefully examined and higher-quality candidates. But recent elections have featured generally weak choices. This year’s candidates are widely considered to be laughingstocks, the least qualified candidates in memory. Each is fortunate to have the other for their opponent.

More importantly, Americans have lost faith in the integrity of our election processes. Fully one-third of all Americans believe Biden was not legitimately elected in 2020. In another poll, 81 percent believe democracy to be threatened.

“Not my President” buttons sprouted after Trump’s surprise victory in 2016, and left-wing pundits freely disputed the legitimacy of his presidency. Four years later, rule changes attributed to the COVID lockdowns resulted in looser security procedures and widespread suspicion of fraud. Almost half of Americans and a clear majority of Republicans believe fraud may have been extensive enough to alter the result of the elections.

This level of distrust is toxic to a government “of the people.” Whether or not you believe fraud is widespread, “innovations” like vote counting long before election day, poorly monitored drop boxes, ballot harvesting, slipshod or absent identification procedures, citizenship verification by affirmation only, and voter rolls puffed up by automatic registration at welfare offices leave many non-partisan observers skeptical. Election officials deny any problems and brand those with honest doubts as “deniers.”

The gaping hole in our defense against slipshod practices is bulk-mail voting. There is no possible way we can mail out millions of unsolicited ballots to poorly maintained voter rolls, addressed to people who presumably once lived there, and then count all the ballots that are mailed back and pretend we have a reasonably secure system.

Signature matching, far from perfect, is our main defense against cheating. Yet no signature can possibly assure the vote inside was made without undue influence by a mentally competent person for whom the ballot was intended.

Reliable data is unavailable for logistical reasons, but in a recent survey about one-fifth of bulk-mail voters admitted to some illegal behavior in their handling of the mailed ballots – and those were the ones willing to admit it.

Your precious vote only counts if it is not canceled by fraud. We need Easy to Vote, Hard to Cheat.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

Democrats Have To Choose Between Unions And Students

Democrats Have To Choose Between Unions And Students

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

“I am not a charter school fan,” Joe Biden declared in his 2020 presidential campaign. That’s disappointing, but not surprising, coming from the self-declared “most pro-union president” in history.

His would-be successor, Kamala Harris, claims to still be equivocating, as is her wont, over her position on charter schools. But she has the enthusiastic support of the teachers’ unions, so that’s a bad sign too.

Her dilemma is that the teachers’ unions, the political partners of the Democrats, are dead set in their opposition to charter schools for two reasons. They expose the education failures of the union-dominated district schools, and most charter school teachers aren’t unionized and therefore don’t pay union dues.

Charter schools, first created in the 1990s, are publicly funded but independently administered. They don’t charge tuition and aren’t allowed to “cherry-pick” the best students.

Charter school opponents once could claim that charter schools “don’t work” to improve academic outcomes. But we know now that this is simply not the case.

Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) released a 2023 report tracking charter school outcomes over 15 years. The study covered 2 million charter school students in 29 states with a control group in district schools. It is arguably the most comprehensive, credible study ever done of charter schools.

The conclusion was decisive. Most charter schools “produce superior student gains despite enrolling a more challenging student population.”

CREDO’s first study in 2009 showed no improvement in student outcomes from charters, a result still cited as evidence that charters fail to help those deemed “uneducable” by some. But each subsequent CREDO report has shown improvement and superior performance overall.

New York charter school students gained 75 days reading improvement and 73 in math each year compared with traditional schools. In Washington state, the numbers were 29 days in reading and 30 in math. In Illinois, it was 40 in reading, 48 in math.

The recent study also showed that black and Hispanic students achieved disproportionately large gains. A section in the CREDO report described several “gap-busting schools” which educate students from underprivileged backgrounds to perform at the same level as white peers. So much for the myth of “uneducable” students.

The overall statistics would be even better if not for the 15% of charter schools that underperform their local district schools. The telling difference is that failing charter schools can be and are closed. Failing district schools just keep on failing year after year.

There is even more good news. Charter schools benefit even those students who do not attend them. According to an analysis by the Fordham Foundation, at least 12 studies indicate that the scores for all publicly enrolled students in a geographic region rise when the number of charter schools increases. Moreover, neighboring schools which don’t experience academic improvement often showed progress in school attendance and behavioral problems due to competing with charters.

The reason is obvious. The mere presence of choices for parents breaks the district school monopoly. Competition brings more accountability and a “customer orientation” that benefits everybody.

It’s no coincidence that, while traditional public schools have lost students, charter schools have gained over 300,000 students over the last five years. But the institutional opponents of the charter schools are unmoved by the good news. The growth of charters would undoubtedly be even greater if not for the relentless opposition of the teachers’ union/Democratic Party axis.

Ironically, for charter school opponents, charters are highly popular with the working class, ethnic minority constituencies they claim to champion. A poll this May by Democrats for Education Reform found that 80% of black parents and 71% of Hispanics had a favorable view of charters, as well they should.

But the teachers’ unions don’t give away their formidable political support, and they clearly dominate educational policy making with today’s Democrats. The Biden/Harris administration has continued a program of budget cuts and onerous regulations for charter schools, including a proposed reduction for the Charter Schools Program, which provides grants and was even supported by the Clinton and Obama administrations.

The Democrats – and all of us – have a clear choice to make between the needs of students versus the demands of the teachers’ unions.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

Americans Blissfully Drift Toward Financial Collapse

Americans Blissfully Drift Toward Financial Collapse

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

Kamala Harris in her nomination acceptance at the Democratic National Convention assured the roaring crowd that she would “never stop fighting” for the American people and that she would “blaze a new way forward.” The speech disclosed no details, but she appeared to have in mind merely adding to the benefits that the welfare state bestows on grateful voters.

Subsidies for home mortgages, forgiveness of student loans, and free universal preschool have been dangled as possibilities. However, Harris and the other purveyors of free stuff have a big problem. They are running out of other peoples’ money to give away.

It’s not just America but the world’s advanced economies who are seeing the bill come due for decades of social spending exceeding revenue. American leftists like to chide fiscal conservatives for fretting about high tax rates, but economists now note that some high-tax European states are approaching the peak of the Laffer curve, the point at which raising tax rates fails to raise additional revenues. That means hitting the wall.

Western politicians over the last century developed a different style of campaigning for office. Rather than emphasizing the common good and overall strength of the nation, they competed on the basis of what government services they could provide to individuals and groups.

The responses to the Great Depression and the COVID crisis were especially harmful. The New Deal failed to end the depression. We have WWII to thank for that. But the traumatic experience convinced many Americans to think of government as their benevolent caretaker.

The economic deprivations caused by the COVID crisis were due to mostly self-inflicted wounds like the economic and educational shutdowns. Worse, long after the crisis had passed, the checks kept coming to Americans who were not impoverished. The “emergency” expenditures morphed into entitlements.

America has developed a culture of spending which caused the national debt in 2023 to exceed 120% of GDP while 100% has long been considered the outer limit of acceptable indebtedness. We also have hundreds of trillions more in future obligations to beneficiaries with no funding source available.

Time and demographics are not on our side. In just the next 12 years, aging baby boomers will reduce the ratio of workers (25 to 64) to retirees (65 and older) from 3:1 to 2:1. The fastest growing demographic group is those 85 and older, who require extra funding. Moreover, increased security risks like war and terrorism will create additional budgetary stresses.

There are fewer alternatives to reduced spending than ever available. Tax increases are politically unpopular and often don’t produce the hoped for outcomes because they reduce productivity. European countries have about 50% higher tax revenues than America, yet their real GDP per capita is lower, even factoring in the government services and subsidies they receive.

The era of low interest rates and the accompanying “sugar high” is over. The higher cost of debt financing will inevitably impair the ability of succeeding generations, already tapped out, to shoulder the burden of our selfish spending.

By now, we’ve breezed past all the easy fixes. We are facing severe warning signals, and all the red lights are blinking. Yet in spite of the urgent need to change our ways, both political parties studiously look the other way. Getting elected is still the imperative that trumps all others.

The general accounting office (GAO) recently made recommendations for minor adjustments to federal government procedures that would save $208 billion over the next decade. The major one was equalizing payment rates for offices determining Medicare benefits. The proposals are non-controversial and politicians supporting them could take cover by pointing out that they are endorsed by a non-partisan agency. The response has been…crickets.

Scores of scholarly papers have been written on how to reduce government waste, how to expedite permitting, and how to recover COVID over-payments, all to no avail. The politicians just aren’t that interested and, sadly, neither is the public.

We’re hearing a lot about democracy lately. Both parties claim the other one is an existential threat. Advice to would-be political leaders who are courageous enough to go beyond pontificating and do something that might actually preserve our democracy is simply this: cut the spending.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

The Department Of Education Must Go. It’s Important.

The Department Of Education Must Go. It’s Important.

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

America’s athletes once again excelled at the 2024 Olympic games. Without the benefit of massive government-controlled sports programs enjoyed by many of their competitors, they proved their superiority while representing their homeland with sportsmanship and respect.

It’s not jingoistic to point out that America, in spite of some worrisome decline, is still number one in many other spheres. In terms of military might, industrial capacity, and technological innovation, we enjoy preeminence.

Yet our educational system, which in the long run may matter most, is below mediocre. We consistently score below average in math and literary achievement tests versus students from other developed countries.

Worse, we are producing graduates with scant knowledge of their own history, ignorant of the political and economic principles that created their privileged world. Many seem emotionally fragile, enthralled with identity politics and unable to tolerate those with opinions different from their own.

The reason for this is no mystery. American education policymaking is dominated by the federal Department of Education (DOE). The department was created by President Jimmy Carter in gratitude to the teachers’ unions for their support in the 1976 election. It has been the gift that keeps on giving as the DOE has faithfully represented the unions’ interests ever since.

Unfortunately, the union/DOE priorities are more directed to sweeping left-wing political agendas than the education of America’s school children. For example, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona enthusiastically supports radical gender ideology.

At this year’s “Trans Day of Visibility,” he advised children that choosing and changing their own gender is expressing the “gift to see things as they could be.” Our chief educator would better serve children by encouraging them to see things as they are and avoid life choices they may bitterly regret later.

Cardona also has strong feelings that teachers, not parents, should direct children’s education, even where values and morals are concerned. “Teachers know what is best for their kids because they work with them every day,” he assured us in a since deleted tweet.

The two largest teachers’ unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), exposed their near total disregard for the educational progress of their charges during the recent Covid epidemic. They refused to provide in-person teaching long after the scientific evidence was clear that no harm came to children from school attendance.

AFT President Randi Weingarten, in her address at its recent annual conference, didn’t bother to address the enormous educational deficiencies caused by the lockout or exhort her members to focus on the needs of students struggling to catch up academically. Instead, she ranted hysterically about the “violence and fascism” looming if Trump were to win the presidential election. The main obstacle to educational success she perceived was those who question the resource materials that her unionized teachers select for their students of any age.

These unions’ all-purpose remedy for academic shortcomings is more funding. Yet decades of funding increases have produced no positive results.

For example, the Chicago Teachers Union, holding that testing is “junk science rooted in white supremacy,” argued against reopening schools on the grounds that resuming teaching was mere “sexism, racism and misogyny.” Instead, they demanded a $51,000 salary increase, 45 additional days off, and more annual LBGTQ training.

The result: the district now spends $29,028 per student, a 97 percent increase since 2012. Yet during that time, proficiency in math has dropped 78 percent from an already low level and reading proficiency has declined 63 percent. In other words, Chicago public school students are being sent into the world illiterate and mathematically incompetent. But their teachers are well paid.

America has no prospect of improving our educational system until the DOE and the unions are stripped of their influence. It won’t be easy. Realistically this is totally impossible under a Democrat administration, given the strong bonds between the unions and their captive party.

In its 60 plus years of existence, the DOE has failed to provide any academic benefits for our students. The consequences are now becoming apparent. Somehow, we must find the will to eliminate the Department and move forward.

It’s for the children. And the future of America.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.