Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.

Bush Administration, Dying at the Border

This is from “Skeptical Economist”. This is the one of the best articles I have ever read on economics and illegal immigration.

It is no secret that the Bush administration is failing and failing badly. The woes of the administration are legion, Iraq, immigration, the economy, Katrina, health care, gasoline prices, etc. The impact on public opinion is profound. Bush is well on his way to being one of the least popular presidents in U.S. history. His current popularity rating of 31% may be a high water mark. The twenties and perhaps teens are not that far off. Increasingly he has lost, not just liberals and mainstream Americans, but conservatives as well. The key question is why? Why has this once promising administration gone downhill so far and so fast? Is it just bad luck or is their a deeper force at work? In my view, the ideology and practice of Open Borders has condemned this president to complete failure. Could the Bush administration turn itself around by changing its stance on immigration? Yes, but it is exceedingly unlikely to happen. Bush is doomed and may not finish his term in office.

It is clear that the immigration polices of this administration are deeply unpopular and contrary to what the public wants. Clearly, immigration is contributing mightily to the low standing of this president. However, immigration is also directly responsible for the economic failings of this president and is (one step removed) also responsible for the debacle in Iraq. Immigration is also partially responsible for all of the other problems (Kartrina, gasoline prices, health care, Dubai ports, etc.). The links between immigration and what ails Bush (and America) are explained in more detail below. What should be clear by the end, is that immigration is either directly or partially for everything (and there is a lot) that is weighing down this president.

The immigration failures of this administration are obvious. The border is totally out of control and Bush completely refuses to even try to control it. Ordinary Americans are demanding immigration control and Bush has abandoned even the pretense of enforcing our laws (by some measures enforcement has declined by 95% at least, but other measures 100%). Ordinary Americans fiercely resent illegal aliens taking over their neighborhoods, jobs, and schools. Bush actually proposed legislation to replace every American worked with a foreigner who would do the same job for less (the “willing worker” program).

To call the administration out of touch on immigration would be an injustice to the language. Polls show strong support for greatly intensified enforcement. Bush is still trying to have the Kennedy Amnesty bill passed. Why the administration is so committed to policies that the American people regard as toxic is another matter. However, the reality of a president at war with his own people on this issue, should not be in doubt. Astoundingly, Zogby finds that only 17% of Americans approve of Bush’s immigration policies (7). On border security, Bush gets a 16% approval rating.

Immigration is also responsible for Bush’s economic woes. Superficially the economy should be a source of considerable strength for Bush. The high level numbers are actually rather good. Unemployment is down to 4.6% from a peak of 6.3% in June of 2003. GDP growth in Q1 2006 was 4.8%. The economy grew by 2.7% in 2003, 4.2% in 2004, and 3.5% in 2005. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has rallied from a low of 7286 on October 9th, 2002 to a recent high of 11,643 on May 10, 2006. That a gain of 59.8% in less than four years. The S&P is up 57.25% in the same period. Definitely a lot for investors to cheer about, particularly in the aftermath of the Tech Bubble and corporate scandals (Enron, Tyco, Health South, etc.).

The zooming stock market has reflected fast rising corporate profits. Pretax profits bottomed out at $714 billion (annual rate) in 3Q2001 and have since risen to $1,293 billion in 3Q2005 (not adjusted for inflation) (11). As a percent of GDP profits have grown from 7.0% of GDP (3Q2001) to a peak of 10.9% of GDP in 2Q2005 (down to 10.3% in 3Q2005). At 10.9% of GDP, corporate profits were higher than any year since 1968.

The productivity numbers have also been very, very good. Nonfarm productivity has risen by 17% or more since 2001. What the BLS calls multifactor productivity is up almost 8% since 2000. Per-worker/GDP is perhaps the broadest measure of productivity growth. In chained 2000 dollars, per-worker GDP is up by 8.73%. CPI-U adjusted, per-worker GDP has grown by 7.95%. The strong growth in productivity has almost completely offset nominal wage growth. Unit labor costs have only risen by 4.3% since 2001 (9).

Of course, Americans haven’t been shy about spending under Bush. Indeed, it’s been party time for several years as anyone who travels or frequents upscale restaurants can attest. The number tell the same happy story. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) rose by 15.64% from 1Q2001 to 4Q2005. Not bad given that GDP only rose by 13.9% in the same five years (13).

As you can see it is easy to come up with a whole panoply of good economic news. But still… The American people just don’t agree. Poll after poll give gloomy views on the economy. Indeed 59% of Americans rate the economy as only “fair” or “poor” (8). Is the public wrong? Deluded? Confused by liberals? Where it only so. The sad truth is that the economic boom has passed the American people by. Indeed, they are suffering more from the backwash of inflated prices than enjoying any of the fruits. Why? As is all too frequently the case, Open Borders is killing the American Dream by making sure that only immigrants (legal and illegal) and the elites get richer while ordinary Americans get poorer.

This is not some liberal/left-wing fantasy. Indeed the left goes to great pains to avoid using the “I” word when they are talking about jobs/wages/incomes. The sad reality is that from the standpoint of ordinary working Americans, the economy is weak, at best. Some of the facts are downright scary. For example, only 9% of the new jobs created from 2000 to 2005 when to the American people even though Americans accounted for 61% of adult population growth (1). Worse, labor force participation has been falling since Bush took office (10). In January of 2001, it was 67.2%. Now it is 66.1%. You have to go back to the first days of the Clinton administration to find numbers this low (actually 66.2% in January of 1993). Labor force participation does not normally fall in an expanding economy… (12). Indeed, this appears to be the first recovery with declining labor force participation.

Sadly, the minority data is worse. Black male labor force participation has fallen from 69.4% in January of 2001 to 67.7% in May of 2006. Black female labor force participation declined from 60.1% to 59.1% in the same time period. Hispanic labor force participation (both sexes) has also declined, from 69.9% in January of 2001 to 68.7% in May of 2005.

The jobs growth numbers all point in the same direction. This is, by far, the worst recovery in modern history for employment. The last recession ended in November of 2001. Since then (actually the next 48 months) employment has grown by 4.7%. The worst prior recovery enjoyed jobs growth of 6.2%. The average recovery since the 1960s has produced 9.5% growth in jobs. Sadly, the payroll employment data is much worse (14) showing only 2.6% growth over 4 years.

Average weekly earnings peaked back in November of 2003 and have since declined. Amazingly, weekly wages are now back where they were in 1959 and 17% below the high in 1972. Forty six years without a raise. Something to be proud of. Not surprisingly the poverty rate has risen steadily since Bush took office. Back in 2000 the poverty rate was 11.3%. By 2004 it reach 12.7%. The poverty rate always rises in recessions. This may be the first boom with rising poverty (3).

Median household income tells the same tale of woe. Median incomes have declined every year Bush has been in office and are now 3.8% ($1740) below the 1999 level (4). Quite an accomplishment for a president who thinks tax cuts for the wealthy will make us rich.

The superficially nice consumption numbers (15.64% growth in five years) start looking rather dodgy once you look under the covers. Cleary GDP didn’t grow nearly fast enough to pay the piper. Nor did compensation keep pace. Indeed, compensation of employees rose by only 8.3% in the same period. Something had to give. Indeed, the savings rate fell from 2.4% of disposable income in 1Q2001 to -0.5% in 4Q2005 and -1.3% in 1Q2006. Where is the money coming from? Greenspan found the home equity extraction reached $600 billion in 2004 (15)(16) an immodest 7% of disposable income. Are folks using their homes as ATM machines really thrilled with the economy? Does ever rising debt pave the road to heaven? Or would that be hell?

Of course, none of this had to be true. Productivity has risen strongly in recent years (see above). Soaring productivity could have brought large wage and salary gains to ordinary Americans. Productivity alone should have increased incomes by 8% since 2000. No one likes paying $3 for gasoline. However, not too many people would be complaining with fast rising wages. This is not a fantasy. In the 1950s and 60s, wages and median incomes rose right along with the economy. Then we abandoned our borders…

There are other dismal numbers as well (after all economics is the “Dismal Science”). Household inequality has increased under Bush (5). Inequality also went up under Clinton (”no interior enforcement”). Back when we took our borders seriously it declined, from 1947 to 1968. Inequality only started to soar when mass immigration resumed in the 1970s. Predictably, male median earnings fell from 2002 to 2004 and are now lower than they were back in 1973. The percentage of Americans without health insurance has risen from 14.2% in 2000 to 15.7% in 2004. Employment based health insurance fell from 63.6% in 2000 to 59.8% in 2004 (6). Why bother proving benefits when you have illegals?

If the economic statistics weren’t bad enough for Bush, we have the Iraq debacle. Is Open Borders really responsible for Iraq? At least indirectly, the answer is clearly yes. No we aren’t fighting illegal aliens in Ramadi or Sadr city. However, the connection to Open Borders is far from trivial. The easiest linkage is simply the cast of characters. Almost without exception, the cheerleaders for the Iraq war were Open Borders fanatics. Of course, the WSJ and Senor Bush fall into this category. However, you will also find the likes of Fred Barnes (The Weekly Standard), William Kristol (The Weekly Standard), Ben Wattenberg (AEI), and Michael Barone (US News & World Report) in this group.
By contrast, the strongest advocates of immigration reform were generally skeptical of the Iraq war or overtly opposed (Michelle Malkin being a rare exception). What is the connection? Both the Iraq war and Open Borders were/are based on a panglossian view of human nature. If you think America can tolerate massive legal/illegal third world immigration, then the idea that Iraq could be transformed into a model Middle Eastern nation with human rights, free elections, a free-market economy, peace with Israel, and U.S. bases might make sense. Saner voices recognized both ideas as deeply crazy. Crushing Saddam’s murderous and ultimately dangerous (sanctions were fading) regime might have made sense. Pouring American blood into the desolate soils of the Middle East to nurture “democracy” was, and is, folly.

Is immigration responsible for the other problems weighing on the Bush administration? In many cases, the answer is yes, at least to some extent. Only a president deeply wedded to Open Borders would have threatened his very first veto over the Dubai ports deal. A saner administration would have quashed the deal upfront or authorized it only after deep and credible scrutiny. Gasoline prices? The population of the U.S. has risen by 82 million since the mid-1970s when we built our last oil refinery. Most of the growth has been do to immigration. Runaway population growth doesn’t work with highly limited energy development. Something has to give, prices it would seem. A different president would make these choices clear or simply tell the American people that immigration must be stopped until we have a consensus in favor new pipelines, power plants, refineries, offshore drilling, etc. Hard choices in the Pollyanna world of Senor Bush? They don’t exist.

The immigration sickness infecting U.S. health care has already been mentioned. Of course, as the uninsured population explodes the costs fall on taxpayers and those with private insurance. These burdens make insurance even less affordable, pushing more and more folks into the ranks of those without. Why so-called conservatives would demand an immigration policy than can only end with socialized medicine boggles the mind. Perhaps non compos mentis explains it all.

Did Open Borders bring Katrina to the Big Easy? Actually, No. Even the most ardent restrictionists don’t suggest an enforceable ban on category 5 hurricanes. However, in a normal economy the reconstruction work would be providing well paid job opportunities for poor and working class Americans. Such a thing will never happen with Bush in office.

The Bush administration is clearly infected with some kind of “End of History” globalist worldview where mass migration is both inevitable and desirable. In this wonderful future fantasy, borders will disappear and all of mankind will embrace capitalism, free markets, free trade, democracy, etc. Sadly, this Pollyannaish view of the human condition has led to tragedy abroad, and economic failure at home. What should be clear is that the ideology of Open Borders is directly and indirectly responsible for the woes of the Bush administration. As of this late date there is little they can do about it. After 9-11, Bush had a perfect moment in time, to change course and save his presidency and his country. With malice and forethought he threw it away.

19 Responses to “Bush Administration, Dying at the Border”

  1. LeftHook says:

    Here’s a quick summary:

    1) Open Borders policies (i.e. illegal immigration) contradict the will of most Americans and have caused ALL that ails the Bush Administration and our country.
    2) Immigrants and elites are doing well in this economy, regular Americans are going broke (numerous stats cited).
    3) Open Borders is the cause of our economic problems.
    4) The Iraq Connection: Open Borders thinking/thinkers generally supported the war in Iraq, those who oppose Open Borders typically opposed the it.
    5) Open Borders is destroying out healthcare system (by flooding it with illegals) and driving us towards socialized medicine.
    6) Open Borders is bad for our energy situation because it adds population, which consumes more energy.
    7) Reconstruction after Katrina could have been an economic boom, but Open Borders negated it.
    8) Bush could change course on Open Borders and set his administration back on track, but he won’t and therefore may not finish his term due to unpopularity.

  2. LeftHook says:

    The author does a fine job of spelling out how/why the economy isn’t working for most Americans. The “illegal immigration” causes EVERYTHING is a stretch, but makes for fun conversation.

    I think it’s a mistake to blame all our woes on illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is a subset of our careless globalization/ trade policies. Wage declines are largely caused by bad trade policies; illegal immigration is a contributor but runs second place (and well back).

  3. JohnKonop says:

    Lefthook,

    The problem is trade and immigration policy work together. Both Parties said NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration. Now, after NAFTA, illegal immigration grew out of control.

    And when you bring this up, both Parties change the topic.

  4. Bill says:

    The “immigration” issue is just the cliffnotes for those who don’t understand the goals of the free traders and the globalists–which has always been no more countries and a unified currency.

  5. Luke Lea says:

    What drives Bush to single-mindedly pursue such an obviously irrational (because politically suicidal) agenda? First it was tax cuts for the very wealthy, including a bunch of his S&L crook-billionaire buddies down in Texas, where over half of the fraud was committed. Next it was going after Iraq instead of the Saudis after 9/11. And now it is his open borders obsession with Mexico?

    Since the guy is more likely a knave than a fool (Republicans usually are), I am led to hypothesize that he is not his own man: He is being blackmailed, maybe for some truly serious financial impropriety, or conceivably because he is a closeted homosexual. Whatever it is, it happened in Texas in the period before he entered politics.

  6. Bill says:

    The man couldn’t even run the Texas Rangers without ripping off taxpayers. This is just a microcosm of what he’s been doing the last few years. http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/bush-sec5.html

  7. raidencraig says:

    To: Selected National Media

    re: What The Election Did NOT MEAN–
    Messages About Immigration

    cc: Selected Members Of Congress
    The White House

    Our REAL WAR is over the very future of America… almost 50% of latino American
    citizens voted for 3 anti-ILLEGALS measures in Az., which carried 3:1. Where
    concentrations/infestations of ILLEGALS are heavy, people understand and
    appreciate the pernicious threat. Dubya SHOULD BE IMPEACHED for NONFEASANCE in
    failing to fight the REAL THREAT TO AMERICA’S FUTURE WELL-BEING, which he took
    an oath to do (to defend and protect the borders). The realities and insidious
    implications are summarized in an article here, which explains what Dubya and
    the Bushies fail to comprehend:

    http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/bush-administration-dying-at-the-border

    Also, America DID NOT embrace the democrat agenda– it instead SOUNDLY REJECTED
    the misguided and PERILOUS Dubya agenda– both conspicuous (Iraq/neoCON foreign
    policy, profligate spending) and surreptitious (embracing ILLEGALS).

    NOBODY WHO WON THIS WEEK TOUTED A PRO-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION/AMNESTY AGENDA. In
    fact, most Americans WHEN POLLED HONESTLY favor slowing ALL immigration: 68%
    think that ALL (illegal AND legal) immigration is too high.
    [http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006pollrelease.html]

    We are SICK TO DEATH of hearing about how, “our immigration system is broken and
    needs to be fixed… we need to make it easier for people io immigrate here
    legally to do all of those jobs that America needs to have done that Americans
    won’t do.”

    TRANSLATION: the latino “reconquista” apologia and PC, open borders, “America is
    bad,” one world, multicultural, diversity is good, disingenuous sophistry group
    think– the Unholy Alliance of Evil [Big Church, Big Labor, Miscreant Employer
    Big Business, Big PC, Big Entitlement Govt. Ilk, and Big Oval Office aspirants--
    quislings McCain, Frist, Hagel, Graham, Brownback, and many democrats] wants to
    transform America with OUR tax dollars and hard-earned wealth into a third world
    economy and society which will benefit their myopic self-aggrandizing interests.

    In order to save a little on lettuce and cleaning hotel rooms, we are inheriting
    a NET tax burden (Heritage) of $100,000 PER ILLEGAL alien undereducated indigent
    immigrant, not to mention an ineluctable enervating erosion of values, the rule
    of law, socio-economic stability, a common language, our cultural heritage,
    community decency standards, and the very meaning of America.

  8. JohnKonop says:

    Luke lea & raidencraig

    How big is the immigration issue in your area?

  9. Skeptical Economist says:

    LeftHook,

    Of course, for rhetorical purposes I was arguing the illegal immigration is responsible for all of Bush’s woes. As my own comments showed, that is clearly an exaggeration. If you read my article to the end, hopefully it is clear that mindless globalism, of which Open Borders is just one part, is the underlying problem. Of course, trade is also a major issue. An article I just wrote on trade will hopefully be posted soon at this site.

    To use one example, Katrina wasn’t an illegal immigrant and fences won’t keep out hurricanes. However, the administration’s weak response and the failure of the cleanup effort to provide well paid jobs to Americans can be laid at Bush’s doorstep. Take a look at what Newt Gingrich said about this point:

    “We just had a report two weeks ago, that in order to get 10 cents of blue tarp for temporary roofing, the government pays $1.75 to a prime contractor, who pays 75 cents to a contractor, who pays 35 cents to a subcontractor, who pays 10 cents to the person putting on the tarp.”

    This is from “Ending the Dishonesty: The Way Forward on Border Control and Patriotic Immigration” (http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3009).

    You raise a valid question of whether trade or illegal immigration is a bigger problem. The answer is rather unclear. My own opinion is that illegal immigration is hitting the working poor and trade is impacting higher income (at least they used to be) blue collar workers and the middle class. However, this is just my opinion.

    I should say that the academic literature on this subject isn’t helpful at all. With a few exceptions, the literature claims that immigration isn’t impacting wages (Perri, Card) or the impact is relatively small (Borjas). The 1997 NAS study produced larger estimates by the way.

    However, the trade literature yields similar results. Either trade is exonerated entirely or very small adverse impacts are claimed. One problem is that most of the models don’t assume a trade deficit.

    Since immigration and trade can’t be the culprits, the literature then turns to something called SBTC (Skills Based Technological Change). Indeed, I have seen papers where 100% of whatever can’t be explained by immigration and trade is attributed to SBTC. However, other papers dismiss SBTC as anti-empirical. In other words, there is nothing in the wage data to show a large SBTC effect.

    In other words, the academic literature amounts to circular finger pointing. A few authors point out that trade union membership has been declining. However, I question whether this is an independent variable or just a consequence of Open Borders and trade.

    If you put the academic literature aside, and look at this empirically, there is evidence (but not proof) that immigration is having a large impact. Wages for production workers peaked in 1973 and have declined since. Open Borders started about then. The California wage data is much worse than the national data and, of course, California is ground zero for Open Borders. Indeed, the California data is considerably worse than generally reported because the wage data is always stated in nominal terms with no adjustment for the much higher California cost of living.

  10. JohnKonop says:

    In all fairness you should read How Bad Trade Deals are Destroying the Middle Class. The Skeptical Economist” made it very clear trade and immigration policy together is killing the middle class.

    That is why we need to talk about the trade and immigration as one policy.

  11. Bill says:

    Raidencraig and Skepticaleconomist:
    WOW. Good stuff. You guys should get your own blogs too.

  12. Bill says:

    John
    I tried to find “skeptical economist” but came across this. “The Commons”, That’s a new one on me. http://www.onthecommons.org/

  13. JohnKonop says:

    Bill

    You should read his article on trade. I do agree it is great to have bright people like Raidencraig and Skepticaleconomist, posting on this site.

  14. JohnKonop says:

    Lefthook,

    Skeptical Economist, made great points! Nothing to say?

  15. David O'Rear says:

    “In my view, the ideology and practice of Open Borders has condemned this president to complete failure . . . What should be clear is that the ideology of Open Borders is directly and indirectly responsible for the woes of the Bush administration.”

    I don’t care if it is “globalist philosophy” or an invasion from Mars. This is nothing more than another attempt to distract from the illegal and immoral invasion, destruction and occupation of another sovereign nation for no good reason at all.

    This malAdministration fails on one issue, and to try to distract from that by bringing up other, minor failings only perpetuates the treason.

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    LeftHook,

    “Open Borders thinking/thinkers generally supported the war in Iraq, those who oppose Open Borders typically opposed the it.”

    —In that case, you may put me firmly and very proudly in the Open Borders camp.

    Will you join me there?

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Bill,

    You seem to think free traders and globalists (whatever that means) have a unified objective. May I ask what your source is on that view?

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Mr Konop,

    “Both Parties said NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration. Now, after NAFTA, illegal immigration grew out of control.”

    —You are guilty of a causal fallacy. Just because one events temporally follows another does not mean A caused B.

    A caused B if and only if (1) A preceded B, and (2) events like A are always followed by events like B.

    Example: In the 20th century, both the atmospheric CO-2 level and American crime levels increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes American crime.

    Perfectly logical, and complete nonsense because correlation does not imply causation.

    .

    NAFTA caused a surge in illegal immigration?
    Aristotle would have flunked you.

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    raidencraig,

    It is unpatriotic to trivialize impeachment in this way.

    Dubious can be impeached on much more important grounds than mere immigration, and should be.

    No quarter for treason.

    .

  16. David O'Rear says:

    Whoops! Major error!

    I completely misread the “Open Borders thinking/thinkers generally supported the war in Iraq, those who oppose Open Borders typically opposed the it.”

    I reject that thinking.
    There is no connection between those who support Open Borders (is there such a thing?) and support for this horrible war.

    None.

  17. Bill says:

    David
    re: “You seem to think free traders and globalists (whatever that means) have a unified objective. May I ask what your source is on that view?”

    If you can ever see through the haze this stuff becomes so elementary that a kindergartener could figure it out. Not that this is an original thought or anything. But right now I don’t have the time to search this stuff. Can you disprove what I said? Wanna bet $1000.00? Make it worth my while.

  18. David O'Rear says:

    Ah, Bill, thanks for that.

    But, if it is “so elementary,” how come you can’t explain it, or cite a source?
    .
    Must be that silly “everyone knows,” eh?

    .

    (Um, you don’t want to make bets with me. I do this stuff for a living.)

  19. JohnKonop says:

    Dave,

    What you are saying is Al Gore is a liar! Because he as well as many of the pro NAFTA bi-partisans NAFTA group sales pitch was it would reduce illegal immigration!
    What the elitist group lead by Al Gore said was NAFTA would raise wages in Mexico which would reduce the flow of illegal immigration.
    The truth is wages went backwards in Mexico and hear and the environment was destroyed via the movement to manufacturing to Mexico.
    But please do not let facts get in the way how you feel about the issue!

|