This recent article on Tennessee Republican gubernatorial candidates’ battle to see who can be toughest on undocumented immigrants shows politics at its ugliest: there’s a clearly-defined set of enemies (immigrants!), a clearly-defined and unpopular set of scapegoats (employers!), and a clearly-defined and resonant morality tale (they took our jobs!). It’s a classic example of politicians tripping over themselves to manufacture a problem and then solve it. This is one issue where the evidence is overwhelming: immigrants, even unskilled immigrants, make us better off. Here’s Ben Powell with more.

Christina Romer, Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has published an article (co-authored with David Romer) in the June 2010 issue of the American Economic Review titled “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks.”  Unlike her statements in her role as an Obama adviser, this article is serious academic research, published in what is generally recognized as the world’s leading academic economics journal.

In the article, the Romers divide legislated tax changes into those undertaken in response to economic conditions and those that are “exogenous,” by which they mean changes made for other reasons.  The expiration of the Bush tax cuts clearly falls into the “exogenous” category, because it is the result of legislation passed years ago, before anybody could have anticipated the economic conditions under which they would expire.

What the Romers found is that exogenous tax increases, such as will occur with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, “… are highly contractionary.  The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.”

Here is a strong argument, based on solid academic research, for extending the Bush tax cuts, and not letting them expire, made by one of President Obama’s top economic advisers.  It will be interesting to see to what extent the insights of Christina Romer, economics professor, have an impact on what that same Christina Romer, adviser to the president, has to say in public about the impending tax rate increases.

Romer, the economics professor, says raising rates now will be “highly contractionary.”  Will Romer, the president’s adviser, speak up and tell the public that letting the Bush tax cuts expire will hamper the recovery?  Or will she toe the party line and not tell Americans the public policy implications of  her own academic research?

Another interesting sidelight here is that the opening footnote in the article says it was written with financial support from the National Science Foundation.  Here is a big opportunity for NSF-funded research to have a direct policy impact, because (1) the research has direct policy relevance to current economic conditions, and (2) because it was undertaken by somebody who actually has policy influence.

We shall see if that opportunity for an impact actually results in any policy impact.  My guess is, it won’t, and that any policy statements Romer makes on the subject will be based more on politics than on her knowledge of economics.

Unemployment benefits normally can be collected for 26 weeks, but currently they can be collected for up to 99 weeks in certain hard-hit areas.  The House of Representatives has approved the continuation of extended benefits, but Senate Republicans have, so far, kept the extension from passing the Senate.

One can argue the merits of extending unemployment benefits, but a basic economic analysis will show that if you pay people not to work, more people will remain out of work and unemployed.  The unemployment rate will fall faster if unemployment benefits are not extended.

The positions Democrats and Republicans have taken on the extension fits the stereotypes of the two parties.  The Democrats support transfer payments to unemployed individuals down on their luck; the Republicans oppose the extension because it will increase the deficit, slow the decline in unemployment, and slow the economic recovery.

This being an election year, and with Congress and the White House being controlled by Democrats, the political logic would seem to point toward the parties taking the opposite stance.  It is well-known that the incumbent party tends to do worse in poorer economic conditions.  So, the Democrats should want the unemployment rate to fall, and should be opposed to an extension of unemployment benefits for that reason.  Meanwhile, Republicans will benefit more at the polls in November if the unemployment rate stays high, so they should support the extension.

I have often argued that politicians tend to put their personal interests ahead of political ideology, but in this case, it would appear that argument is wrong.  Democrats, who would benefit from lower unemployment, are supporting the extension of unemployment benefits that will keep unemployment higher, while Republicans, who would benefit from higher unemployment, are opposing the extension.

Are Democrats really so willing to promote their political ideology even when it is apparent it will hurt them in the November elections?  Are Republicans really so willing to promote theirs that they will not “compromise” with the other party, in the spirit of “bipartisanship,” and help themselves in November?

Frankly, I’m surprised to see both parties arguing against what appears to be their own interests in trying to capture, or maintain, majority control of Congress.

The United States never was intended to be a democracy, but rather a compound republic delegating clearly enumerated powers to the federal government and creating a masterfully designed system of checks and balances amongst its three branches meant to limit Washington’s intrusions on the sovereignties of the several states and the liberties of their peoples.

As attentive students of the New Deal know, however, any brake that the federal judiciary might think of applying to the expansion of the central government’s powers was undermined by FDR’s proposal to “pack” the Supreme Court after his landslide reelection to the White House in 1936. Although it failed to become law, the court-packing plan nevertheless soon was followed by the famous “switch in time that saved nine”, thereby ushering in a period of judicial deference to the executive and legislative branches that fulfilled the president’s intent, namely securing a working majority of justices willing to clear the path of constitutional objections to the Social Security Act, the Wagner Labor Relations Act, minimum wages and other legislative monuments to his “progressive” agenda. More than any other consequence of FDR’s politically-motivated meddling, the Commerce Clause thereafter became a dead letter, as Ms. Kagan candidly admitted during her recent confirmation hearings.

Mr. Obama apparently has as little respect for the third branch of government as FDR had. Twice rebuffed in tests of the moratorium he imposed on offshore deepwater drilling by the federal courts, issued by executive order on May 27, the president responded by ordering a new ban on exploratory drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet, effective until November 30.

The administration argues that a halt is justified until the cause of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon platform has been determined, presumably by a “blue ribbon” panel of friendly “experts”. The president, Interior Secretary Salazar and other public officials must not be readers of Rolling Stone, the most recent issue of which identifies two proximate causes of the accident in the Gulf: the failure adequately to maintain and test the rig’s “blowout preventer” and, what is perhaps more important, to install a second “blind sheer ram” that may have capped the well after the first one had failed to do so by the slimmest of margins.

In the coming days and weeks, we should expect to see the U.S. Justice Department shop for a more supine federal court – one in the Ninth Circuit, for example—to fend off challenges to its latest deepwater drilling moratorium. Regardless of the outcome of the legal maneuvering, a president unwilling to take a judicial “no” for an answer embodies exactly the kind of executive hubris that the Founding Fathers resolved to frustrate.

Obama was here in Missouri last week, stumping for Democratic Senatorial candidate Robin Carnahan. While visiting a Kansas City electric vehicle plant that pocketed $32 million of federal stimulus money last year, Obama found this thoughtful way to defend the stimulus program itself:

Some people would make the political calculation that it’s better to just say “no” to everything than to lend a hand to clean up the mess that we’ve been in. But my answer to those who don’t have confidence in our future, who want to stop, my answer is come right here to Kansas City see what’s going on at Smith Electric. I think they’re gonna be hard pressed to tell you that you’re not better off than you would be if we hadn’t made the investments in this plant.

Um, no, Mr. President, no one really doubts that your pals sucking on the stimulus teat are better off than they would be without the stimulus.

Is this guy a brilliant intellectual or what?

Jeffrey Tucker reports from FreedomFest. I’m not there, but Vegas is one of my favorite cities. It’s a place that’s coursing with energy. A couple of quick thoughts:

1. Market forces aren’t doing anything about the weather outdoors, but they’re helping alleviate it. My guess is that there’s someone on every street corner who will sell you a bottle of water for a dollar (for an interesting story, ask about their relationships with the casinos, the licensing authorities, and the cops).

2. One of the comments on Jeff’s report points out that Vegas probably owes its existence to federal subsidies and messed-up water infrastructure. That’s probably true, but Vegas represents a lower bound on what our creative energies can achieve.

3. I stayed at the Tropicana when I was there for the APEE meetings in April. I asked at the front desk if there was a church nearby. The clerk responded “no, but there’s an In-n-Out Burger if you like burgers.” I’ve had In-n-Out Burger once before, and I’d say it was an experience that brought me closer to God. It turns out there’s also a Catholic church near the Wynn. It was a hike from the Tropicana, but it was worth it.

Independent Institute Senior Fellow Charles Peña interviewed on CNBC’s Insana Quotient with Ron Insana about the McChrystal fallout and its significance for the Obama administration. Peña further illustrates the quagmire that exists in the U.S mission in Afghanistan and challenges the public to consider the true relevancy behind the changing of command. Does it matter who is in charge when we are fighting an illegitimate war?

[audio:2010_07_02_pena_insana.mp3]
Download mp3 file of interview

Senior Fellow Robert Higgs talks about his book, Neither Liberty nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government, on The Holistic Survival Show with Jason Hartman. Higgs sheds light on the history of institutionalized violence implemented by a bloated federal state, caused by a misguided faith in larger government to ensure a “freedom from fear”. The “Necessary and Proper Clause”? “People have been trying to loosen the bounds of the Constitution virtually from the time it was ratified to the present”, Higgs cautions.

[audio:2010_07_09_higgs_hartman.mp3]
Download mp3 file of interview

A controversial piece in last month’s Chronicle of Higher Education,, “We Must Stop the Avalanche of Low-Quality Research,” argues that “the amount of redundant, inconsequential, and outright poor research has swelled in recent decades, filling countless pages in journals and monographs.” The five authors, representing a variety of academic disciplines, point to increases in the numbers of journals, journal pages, and authors and decreases in average citation rates.

[I]nstead of contributing to knowledge in various disciplines, the increasing number of low-cited publications only adds to the bulk of words and numbers to be reviewed. Even if read, many articles that are not cited by anyone would seem to contain little useful information. The avalanche of ignored research has a profoundly damaging effect on the enterprise as a whole. Not only does the uncited work itself require years of field and library or laboratory research. It also requires colleagues to read it and provide feedback, as well as reviewers to evaluate it formally for publication. Then, once it is published, it joins the multitudes of other, related publications that researchers must read and evaluate for relevance to their own work. Reviewer time and energy requirements multiply by the year. The impact strikes at the heart of academe.

I think this assessment is generally on target, for my own field at least. What percentage of the articles in the typical academic journal does anybody read, let alone remember? How much of the research in any scientific field really adds value? Of course, search tools make it easier to find relevant information, so I’m not sure the point about writing literature reviews is all that compelling. Still, it does seem increasingly difficult to sort wheat from chaff.

I’m less impressed with the authors’ proposed solutions — limiting the number of publications that can be considered for promotion and tenure, making greater use of impact factors, and enforce tighter page restrictions. These strike me as superficial fixes. The main problem is the vast increase in the scale and scope of the “scientific” enterprise itself, almost all of it due to public funding. There are simply too many universities and institutes, too many research faculty, too many granting agencies, too much research money. It’s a self-perpetuating process, almost exclusively driven by supply-side considerations (who on earth “demands” the output of most English departments?). Some academic readers will be shocked by the claim that there’s “too much” research money, particularly in today’s austere climate. But I mean too much relative to some social optimum, not too much relative to what university professors want.

Why would we expect this kind of system to produce high-quality research? Perhaps it’s a miracle that any good work gets done at all.

Florida’s tax structure is a factor in LeBron James’ decision. They call it LeBronomics!