Stephen Miller’s Racist Fix for Race Relations
Word is circulating that Stephen Miller is writing Donald Trump’s speech on race relations. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that Trump’s “solution” to the current malaise in the U.S. will involve extending a ban on immigration and expanding enforcement and expulsion of undocumented individuals. This seems like a safe bet to me because Miller really is a one-trick pony and Trump relishes rehashing his greatest hits. Maybe Miller will toss in some “enterprise zones” or other ornamental trivia but the meat will be anti-immigration.
They playbook for this will be Miller’s Immigration Handbook for a New Republican Majority that he wrote for Jeff Sessions in 2015. Footnote 21 of that handbook states that, “Amnesty and uncontrolled immigration disproportionately harms African-American workers, and has been
described by U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Peter Kirsanow as a ‘disaster.'” The handbook also cites a poll commissioned by Kellyanne \Conway, one finding of which was that “86% of black voters and 71% of Hispanic voters said companies should raise wages and improve working conditions instead of increasing immigration.”
Two years ago, I posted a couple of pieces discussing Miller’s handbook in more detail: The Lump That Begot Trump and Goebbels or Gompers?: A Closer Look at Stephen Miller’s Immigration Manifesto. I hope these pieces provide some insight into just how dangerous and effective Miller’s and Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric can be, especially given the hypocrisy of neo-liberal promotion of immigration as exemplified by Tony Blair’s and Gerhard Schroeder’s “Third Way” advocating “a new supply-side agenda for the left“. To put it bluntly, “Third Way” immigration policy was intended to create jobs by keeping wages low through an abundant supply of labor. The transfer of income from the working class to the wealthy would provide ample funds for “investment.”
In short, Miller’s and Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is dangerous and effective because Blair and Schroeder (and Clinton and Obama) enacted right-wing, supply-side economic policies in the name of “the [‘responsible’] left.”
Please, Miller is a con man, he and Trump have pumped more illegals into the country than ever and have weaponized religious organizations into pumping more. Really think the 2018 “Caravan” surge was a accident ??? It was planned and executed by the rich. At least Obama tried to stem the tide a bit on that front. If you can’t tell your being conned, I can’t respect you. Destroy capitalism and migration is pretty much done.
Would have all been OK though if they simultaneously increased taxes (especially inheritance taxes) and instituted a UBI.
What was that Pareto nonsense – “if the winners compensate the losers then everybody can benefit”. And if they don’t ….. crickets.
Two-part program to end undocumented immigration:
1. Arrest, fine and imprison all employers found to be employing undocumented workers;
2. Fine all consumers using the services of undocumented labor (produce, meats, hotels, resorts, golf clubs)
What supply side economic policies did Obama implement? Personally, I think raising the marginal tax rates on the richest Americans by almost 60% is not a supply side policy, but am I wrong?
In Obama’s case the major supply-side policy his administration adopted was the “pivot” to balancing the budget. following an attenuated stimulus package. The explicitly supply-side argument behind those moves is the notion that government spending “crowds out” private investment and that the responsible role of government is to foster private investment by boosting investor “confidence.”
Sandwichman:
“Third Way” immigration policy was intended to create jobs by keeping wages low through an abundant supply of labor. The transfer of income from the working class to the wealthy would provide ample funds for “investment.”
[ What would be the argument to use in countering this “Third Way” policy? ]
Arguments to counter the Third Way policy vary according to the political orientation of the critic. My argument follows and analysis that low wages and unemployment result, ultimately, from an over supply of hours of labor and that the way to address this problem is through limitation of hours. It is a complex analysis and not based on a simple assumption that “the amount of work to be done is fixed.” I have presented it exhaustively in previous posts.
Boris Johnson has proposed allowing what might be 3 million immigrants to Britain. Britain has a population of about 67 million, so such immigration would be substantial. What should we make of this possibility economically, especially so in a Britain in recession and slow growing even before and increasing in inequality?
Also, I just remembered that what was West Germany combined with East Germany and immediately gained 16 million people whose living standards were far below those of West Germans. Wages of East Germans were equated with those of the West and integration began. I consider this a profoundly important and successful movement against poverty and towards increased equality in the West.
Steve Miller Band – Fly Like An Eagle
[Something is slipping. That’s for sure.]
SW,
Yeah, a pivot caused by the Gop Senators.
I am so fen tired of this talk of an “attenuated” ARRA. Guess what? The size and shape of the ARRA was under total control of the 3 GOP Senators that voted to end debate. It didn’t matter what Obama wanted or what his economists thought was needed. Snowe, Collins an Spector were in total control.
Amazing how people discount the power of Congress.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/business/stock-market-today-coronavirus.html
June 10, 2020
Fed Offers Grim Economic Outlook, With High Unemployment for Years
Unemployment will stay elevated for years, after ending 2020 at 9.3 percent, the Federal Reserve predicted.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told lawmakers more economic stimulus would be needed.
Sandwichman:
Miller’s and Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is dangerous and effective because Blair and Schroeder (and Clinton and Obama) enacted right-wing, supply-side economic policies in the name of “the [‘responsible’] left.”
[ Having thought about this carefully, the premise makes no sense since the American and British domestic economies were vibrant under Clinton, Obama and Blair while Schroeder was successfully integrating 16 million East Germans with the West German economy.
Good grief, if only we were fortunate enough to now have an Obama. ]
Sandwichman:
Miller’s and Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is dangerous and effective because Blair and Schroeder (and Clinton and Obama) enacted right-wing, supply-side economic policies in the name of “the [‘responsible’] left.”
[ Economic policies under Clinton, Obama, Blair and Schroeder were remarkably effective-simply look at the data-and domestic policies under these leaderships were not the cause of any “appeal” of the race-driven policies of Trump.
I consider this argument misleading and unfortunate. ]
Sandwichman responds:
Within the constraints rhetorically imposed by Margaret Thatcher, There Is No Alternative, I agree with you. Third Way neo-liberalism redistributes income upward with avowed good intentions and some good results. Ultimately, though, it capitulates to militarist adventurism (See Blair, Iraq). But there always was an alternative that Third Way shied away from: redistributing income UPWARD. Third Way neo-liberalism didn’t do that because it bought the supply-side mythology that private investors were the job creators.
[ Ah, now the argument changes for me and becomes convincing. I was wrong and you are right; the difference for me coming in looking to the “Third Way” militarism that characterized Blair, Clinton and Obama.
This is an excellent argument which I needed explained. Excellent. ]
Sandwichman:
Third Way neo-liberalism redistributes income upward with avowed good intentions and some good results. Ultimately, though, it capitulates to militarist adventurism…
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&select_all_years=0&nipa_table_list=5&series=q&1=5&2=2007&3=2018&4=q&5=x&first_year=2017&6=0&7=survey&last_year=2020&scale=-9&thetable=
April 30, 2020
Defense spending was 59.5% of federal government consumption and
investment in October through December 2019 *
$862.1 / $1,449.8 = 59.5%
Defense spending was 22.6% of all government consumption and
investment in October through December 2019
$862.1 / $3,813.7 = 22.6%
Defense spending was 4.0% of Gross Domestic Product in October through
December 2019
$862.1 / $21,729.1 = 4.0%
* Billions of dollars
Sandwichman:
Third Way neo-liberalism redistributes income upward with avowed good intentions and some good results. Ultimately, though, it capitulates to militarist adventurism…
On and on and on:
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&select_all_years=0&nipa_table_list=5&series=q&1=5&2=2007&3=2018&4=q&5=x&first_year=2017&6=0&7=survey&last_year=2020&scale=-9&thetable=
April 30, 2020
Defense spending was 59.3% of federal government consumption and
investment in January through March 2020. *
$866.1 / $1,459.8 = 59.3%
Defense spending was 22.5% of all government consumption and
investment in January through March 2020.
$866.1 / $3,850.5 = 22.5%
Defense spending was 4.0% of GDP in January through March 2020.
$866.1 / $21,537.9 = 4.0%
* Billions of dollars