15 YEARS AGO: Now a more bigoted state

Since this blog has been going now since 2005 (which is bloody frightening) I'll occasionally head back a few years to pull out something particularly prescient to re-post. Such as this (from almost fifteen years ago), a warning that wasn't heeded about what happens to everybody when big-government thuggery demands a "crack-down" — 'cos there's nothing big government likes more than a good crack-down, like a multi-million-plus mass deportation...

Just a bigoted state [update 4]

The only honest line British Prime-Minister-in-absentia Gordon Brown has ever been heard to utter came last week when he told aides that a women who had just confided to him the alleged evils of Eastern-European immigrants was “just a bigoted woman.”

And so she was. 

Cross the Atlantic now to Arizona, where a bigoted state now requires everyone to carry around their birth certificate, just so they aren’t mistaken for someone who’s living and working in the state without big-government’s blessing. 

If Gordon Brown’s apology for his momentary rush of honesty was the shot heard still being heard around the British electorate, then Arizona’s attack on personal liberty is the shot against individual freedom that’s being heard right around the world.  It’s a reminder that it’s not just the left side of the aisle that are big-government bullies--and a reminder too that neither side has a monopoly on taking advantage of those stateless souls who leave their homes in search of a better life.Just so we’re clear, This Is What Arizona Republicans Want America to Be Like—a place where people of a certain race can be arrested dragged off to jail at the whim of a policeman for the crime of not carrying their papers.  Only Godwin’s Law precludes me from pointing out a particular police state of which that might remind you.

The police-state crackdown is bad enough.  But what it’s demonstrated all too clearly is that for many people apparently committed to individual liberty and small government are anything but.  Scratch the surface of too many small-government conservatives, and what you find there is nothing more than stinking, ill-informed authoritarian racism.  (Just one reason I’ve taken the likes of Andrew Bolt off my blog roll).

I say ill-informed, because it’s the only possible defence people like Bolt might have for being bigoted men and women themselves.

Because the facts confound the bigots. The fact is that in a free society, more people are a boon, not a burden. 

That as author Robert Heinlein suggested, successful immigrants demonstrate just by their choice and gumption in choosing a new life that they are worthy of respect. 

And as James Kilbourne says, “God damn you if the only two words you can find to put together when talking about people who leave their homelands to seek a better life for themselves and their families are ‘illegal aliens.’”

The fact is—and let me say it again just to stress the point—that in a free society, more people are a boon, not a burden. You think that’s hyperbole?  Well, it’s not.  Look at the American experience—the country’s wealth was built upon open immigration—on the melting pot that was the result of the open immigration of the nineteenth-century. But even in more oppressive times of today, the facts are clear that that the freer the country, the more immigration is a boon for everybody—and that immigrants themselves are overwhelmingly more productive and better behaved than most of the bigots are.

Just consider the litany of facts the bigots need to contend with regarding American immigration:

• The runaround needed to immigrate legally to the US is one prime reason so many do it illegally. 
• 'Illegals' are not milking the government; if anything it is the other way around. The National Research Council found for example that most immigrant families "contribute an average of $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume over their lifetimes." 
• Immigrants generally earn more than they receive. 
• More than 60% of illegal immigrants pay income tax, and two-thirds kick in to Social Security (and most get nothing back). 
• Immigrants help sustain economic growth and cultural dynamism. 
• Immigrants "are generally less involved in crime than similarly situated groups," and crime rates in border towns "are lower than those of comparable non-border cities." 
• Crime rates in the highest-immigration states have been trending significantly downward. 
• Even economists who favour restrictive immigration policies admit low-skilled immigrants are a net plus to the economy. 
• Unemployment is low and crime is down everywhere, especially in places teeming with immigrants. 
• Immigration gives you the benefits of geniuses who were born elsewhere. Google, Yahoo! and Sun Microsystems were all founded by immigrants. 
• Immigrants are more likely than 'natives' to be self-employed. 
• Immigrants tend to create their own work -- when they're allowed to. 
• The power and reach of Spanish-language media in L.A. for example shows supply of productive people creating its own demand. 
• Immigrant labour makes work easier for all of us, and brings new skills to the table. 
• Immigrants and low-skilled American workers fill very different roles in the economy. 
• Immigrant labour makes all businesses easier to start, thus spurring 'native' creativity. 
• "Some argue that we should employ a more restrictive policy that allows in only immigrants with 'needed' skills. But this assumes the government can read economic tea leaves." - Tyler Cowen and Daniel M. Rothschild 
• New arrivals, by producing more goods and services, keep prices down across the economy -- the net gain to US from immigration is about $7 billion a year. 
• There's no reason that the North American Free Trade Agreement (or NZ's own free trade agreements) shouldn't apply equally to people as to widgets. 
• Even in the halls of Congress, economic arguments against immigration are losing their aura of truthfulness, so pro-enforcement types are focussing on “national security.” 
• "The only way to actually prevent terrorists from slipping in is to legalize as much 'illegal immigration' as possible. If one is looking for a needle in a haystack, as the saying goes, one has a hell of job. Finding that needle on a relatively clean floor, however, presents an achievable goal." - James Valliant
• Immigration is good for the immigrants themselves. . . . 

Those facts were extracted from the following articles, which provide whole magazines full of ammunition against the bigoted and the ill-informed: 

• How about a little common sense on immigration - Tony Snow 
• Immigration plus Welfare State equals Police State - George Reisman 
• Immigration and the Welfare State - the real root of the problem - Brian Doherty 
• Who's milking who? - illegal aliens pay more in taxes than they impose in costs - Shikha Dalmia 
• Don't bad-mouth unskilled immigrants - Tyler Cowen & Daniel M. Rothschild 
• Exploitation or expulsion - illegal immigrants in a double bind - Jesse Walker 
• Fighting terrorism requires legalizing immigration - James Valliant 
• Worse than a wall - Kerry Howley 
• A legacy of the unforeseen - Carolyn Lochhead 
• Breathe free, huddled masses - Cathy Young 
• Open the borders - why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all - Tim Cavanagh 
• Bush's border bravado - non-militarized solutions to a non-problem - Nick Gillespie 
• Open immigration, Si! Open borders, No! - Sixth Column 
• Stand in Line . . . and Wait! – Not PC 
• Immigration and Individual Rights – Craig Biddle

And of course there are the two classic Harry Binswanger articles which are 'must-reads' for the moral and practical case behind open immigration (note, open immigration, not open borders.): 

• The solution to 'illegal immigration' - Harry Binswanger 
• Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration - Harry Binswanger 

The fact is that there is neither fact nor right on the side of the bigots.  As George Reisman explains for America:

    “The philosophy of individual rights and capitalism implies that foreigners have a right to come and to live and work here, i.e., to immigrate into the United States. The land of the United States is owned by individuals and voluntary associations of individuals, such as private business firms. It is not owned by the United States government or by the American people acting as a collective; indeed many of the owners of land in the United States are not Americans, but foreign nationals, including foreign investors.     

“The private owners of land have the right to use or sell or rent their land for any peaceful purpose. This includes employing immigrants and selling them food and clothing and all other goods, and selling or renting housing to them. If individual private landowners are willing to accept the presence of immigrants on their property as employees, customers, or tenants, that should be all that is required for the immigrants to be present. Anyone else who attempts to determine the presence of absence of immigrants is simply an interfering busybody ready to use a gun or club to impose his will.

The fact remains that the only possibly human objection that well-informed people might have to open immigration is that immigration is a drain on the Welfare State. That they object to being forced to pay for people they’ve never met. This much is understandable. (That is the dark truth at the heart of the whole Welfare State—far from offering charity, it sets man against men.)   Again, George Reisman makes the argument: in summary, that Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State.

    “Illegal immigrants are overwhelming the resources of the Welfare State: government–funded hospital emergency rooms are filled with them; public schools are filled with their children. On the basis of such complaints, many people are angry and want to close the border to new illegal immigrants and deport those who are already here.     “They want to keep new illegal immigrants out with fences along the border. It is not clear whether the fences would contain intermittent watchtowers with searchlights and machine guns. The illegal immigrants who are already here would be ferreted out by threatening anyone who employed them with severe penalties and making it a criminal offense not to report them.     

“This is a classic illustration of Mises’s principle that prior government intervention into the economic system breeds later intervention. Here the application of his principle is, start with the Welfare State, end with the Police State. A police state is what is required effectively to stop substantial illegal immigration that has become a major burden because of the Welfare State.”

And Tibor Machan makes a similar argument, that the biggest problem with the welfare state is not that it might lead to even greater control by government, but that in providing a pseudo-moral argument to treat other human beings like cattle, it habituates people to the sort of easy brutality seen now in Arizona, and in sundry other cases of inhumanity. 

But far from being a reason to abandon open immigration, the problems that state-enforced welfare cause for open immigration are reason instead to abandon the short-lived anti-human experiment that is the Welfare State. 

    “The philosophy of individual rights and capitalism implies that the immigrants do not have a right to be supported at public expense, which is a violation of the rights of the taxpayers. Of course, it is no less a violation of the rights of the taxpayers when native-born individuals are supported at public expense. The immigrants are singled out for criticism based on the allegation that they in particular are making the burden intolerable.
    “The implementation of the rights both of the immigrants and of the taxpayers requires the abolition of the Welfare State. Ending the Welfare State will end any problem of immigrants being a public burden.
    “Of course, ending the Welfare State is much easier said than done, and it is almost certainly not going to be eliminated even in order to avoid the environment of a police state.
     “But the burdens of the Welfare State and the consequent resentment against immigrants could at the very least be substantially reduced by means of some relatively simple, common-sense reforms in the direction of greater economic freedom. . . .”

And they could be reduced too by the simple and easily-introduced expedient of allowing existing citizens to sponsor and take financial and legal responsibility for new citizens.

But this would require a basic humanity that too many of the bigots seem to lack.

In the meantime then, you want an immediate solution to the 'problem of illegal immigration? Then here it is": 

    “The problem of ‘illegal’ immigration can be solved at the stroke of a pen: legalize immigration. Screen all you want (though I want damn little), but remove the quotas. Phase them out over a 5- or 10-year period. Grant immediate, unconditional amnesty to all ‘illegal’ immigrants.”

There endeth the problem.

UPDATE 1:  More good anti-bigoted commentary here [hat tip Thrutch]:

• THE NEW CLARION: The Rights of Man, the Privileges of Citizen
  This is the end-of-road for conservative anti-immigrationists:  the selective  degradation of the liberty to live in a particular place from a right to a “privilege”.  As a hostile commenter put it sarcastically… 

      “Nothing says freedom from government interference like ‘show me your papers.’ Of course, limited government only applies to people who are real Americans, not to Mexicans.”

  Let us examine the conservatives’ trip down the anti-immigration road, and see how it ended there — and what it means for conservatism’s purported fealty to Americanism….
  Read on to see many more anti-immigration shibboleths summarily dispatched. 

•  PAJAMAS MEDIA: Treat the Cause, Not the Symptom: Welfare State Is Draw for Illegals
  While I commiserate with Arizona voters [says Gus Van Horn] public services are the problem, not ‘illegals.’
      …SB 1070 is wrong for Arizona for reasons far beyond civil rights issues.
      SB 1070 deserves only one fundamental criticism: It would fail to protect the individual rights of American citizens — even if it hermetically sealed our borders and the police never touched a single American hair in the process of enforcing it. This is because the biggest headaches attributed to illegal immigration are not caused by it at all…

UPDATE 2: I’m starting a list.  And in ‘tribute’ to Gordon, I’m calling it “Just Some Bigoted Arseholes.”

First on the list is Blair, for this . . . 

To which you can add Silent Running, run by a New Zealand blogger advertising “strong right-wing views” on his banner, who thinks “Mexico is polluting us”; Cactus Kate, who has “sanctimonious” on her banner (and bigotry in her waters); and Crusader Rabbit, who has “liberty” on his banner, and black thoughts about Mexican crowds being “a target-rich environment” in his heart …

UPDATE 3:  Says an editorial in the Arizona Republic: 

    “We need leaders.
    “The federal government is abdicating its duty on the border.
    “Arizona politicians are pandering to public fear.
    “The result is a state law that intimidates Latinos while doing nothing to curb illegal immigration.
This represents years of failure. Years of politicians taking the easy way and allowing the debate to descend into chaos…
    “Comprehensive [immigration] reform will make the border safer. When migrant labor is channeled through the legal ports of entry, the Border Patrol can focus on catching drug smugglers and other criminals instead of chasing busboys across the desert.
    “Real leaders will have the courage to say that.”

UPDATE 4: Reason magazine, whose superb 2006 issue on immigration was the source of many of those linked articles above, has four online articles on the current melee that deserve the attention of everyone not already blinded by bigotry: 

• Immigration Isn't the Problem, David Harsanyi, May 3, 2010 
    “For the most part, the controversy we face isn't about immigration at all. It's about the systematic failure of federal government to enforce the law or offer rational policy. There's a difference…
    “The uplifting tale of the hard-boiled immigrant, dipping his or her sweaty hands into the well of the American dream, is one thing. Today we find ourselves in an unsustainable and rapidly growing welfare state. Can we afford to allow millions more to partake?
    “When Nobel Prize-winning libertarian economist Milton Friedman was asked about unlimited immigration in 1999, he stated that ‘it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both.’” 
• Mysteries of an Immigration Law, Steve Chapman, April 29, 2010 
    “The worst-case scenario is that Hispanics will face possible police harassment anytime they venture out of the house. Not to worry, says Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who helped draft the text.
    “He told The Washington Examiner that cops can ask for immigration information only when they have ‘lawful contact’ with someone—when ‘the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law.’
    “In fact, the law doesn't define the crucial term. One of the dictionary definitions of ‘contact’ is ‘immediate proximity,’ which suggests that anytime a possible illegal immigrant comes in sight of a cop, the cop has a legal duty to check her papers.” 
• How Immigration Crackdowns Backfire, Steve Chapman, April 22, 2010 
    “It's no surprise that Arizonans resent the recent influx of unauthorized foreigners, some of them criminals. But there is less here than meets the eye.
    “The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. But contrary to myth, they have not brought an epidemic of murder and mayhem with them. Surprise of surprises, the state has gotten safer.
    “Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona…” 
• Don't Let Obama Touch Immigration Reform, Shikha Dalmia, April 13, 2010
  ”America's immigration system is badly broken and in desperate need of fixing. And that is precisely why President Barack Obama should not be allowed to touch it.”
• Immigration & Crime, Steve Chapman, February 22, 2010
    “From listening to the more vigorous critics of illegal immigration, our porous borders are a grave threat to safety. Not only can foreign terrorists sneak in to target us, but the most vicious criminals are free to walk in and inflict their worst on innocent Americans.
    “In xenophobic circles, this prospect induces stark terror. Fox News' Glenn Beck has decried an ‘illegal immigrant crime wave.’ A contributor to Patrick Buchanan's website asserts, ‘Every day, in the United States, thousands of illegal aliens unleash a reign of terror on Americans.’
    “Sure they do. And I'm Penelope Cruz…
    “A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that "for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population…
    “[Ron] Unz points out that in the five most heavily Hispanic cities in the country, violent crime is "10 percent below the national urban average and the homicide rate 40 percent lower." In Los Angeles, which is half Hispanic and easily accessible to those sneaking over the southern border, the murder rate has plummeted to levels unseen since the tranquil years of the early 1960s.
     “This is not really hard to understand. Today, as ever, most foreigners who make the sacrifice of leaving home and starting over in a strange land do so not to mug grandmothers or molest children, but to find work that will give them a better life. Coming here illegally does not alter that basic motivation.
    “In other words, they want to become full-fledged Americans, and they're succeeding. Is there something scary about that?”

Well, is there?

The State is not a good parent

"Reading the abuse in care reports, two questions requiring clear and compelling answers remain unanswered: Why? and How? Why were so many children and young people abused in such awful ways? How was it possible for so much and such appalling abuse to continue unchecked for so long? Without satisfactory responses to these two critical questions, the chances of history repeating itself must remain unacceptably high.
    "For some reason, however, the Why and How of Abuse in Care were not made the prime focus of the Royal Commission’s investigations. Its reports tell us the Who, When, Where and What of this horror story, but, those two key questions, Why? and How?, are not adequately addressed."

~ Chris Trotter from his post 'Report on the abuse of young people – two key questions have gone unanswered'

 

"The U.S. should abandon its obsession with the anti-immigration policies of the recent past, and instead address the real causes of illegal immigration."

"How can the United States reduce illegal immigration? ...
    "The reality is that only four policies can significantly reduce illegal immigration.
    "The first is allowing more legal immigration. …
    "The second … is to expand free trade. …
    "A more controversial way to shrink illegal immigration is to de-escalate the war on drugs. …
    "A further policy that might reduce immigration is scaling back the U.S. welfare state ... to either reduce that generosity or condition benefits on legal residence for a significant number of years. ...

"The policies that will do little to shrink illegal immigration are increased border enforcement, stiffer punishments for employers who hire illegals, or aggressive arrest policies ... These measures are ineffective because they do not change the fact that wages in the U.S. are attractive compared to wages in poor countries. And, for centuries, immigrants have endured amazing hardships to seek higher income or a better life in America. Longer or higher fences will not change that.
    "Instead, stepped-up enforcement will drive more activity underground....

    "[T]he U.S. should abandon its obsession with the anti-immigration policies of the [recent] past and instead address the real causes of illegal immigration."

~ Jeffrey Miron from his post 'The Right Way to Reduce Illegal Immigration'

WELFARE: "National will persist with the tinkering..."

"Right now, benefit statistics are worse than at the time of last year's election. There are 380,169 main beneficiaries — a rise of 5 percent. The number on a Jobseeker benefit is up 7.5 percent. ...
    "[I]t is long-term single parent dependence which drives inter-generational malaise - the most serious social problem the country faces. Inter-generational dependence drives under-achievement, domestic dysfunction, ill-health and crime.
    "So what is National doing?
    "The same thing it does every time it returns to power. It gets a bit tougher about oversight of beneficiaries ... They set some soft targets ... but make no mention of sole parents (who are also not required to 'check-in').
    "The last big National [Party] welfare reforms (2013) comprised ... changing benefit names.
    "The percentage of working-age people dependent on welfare is higher now than then. [Much higher]
    "There is an inertia about the numbers which is going to take some radical actions to disrupt them. But National lacks the necessary reforming zeal.
    "National will persist with the tinkering that deflects attention and mollifies their voters while the country's historic heavy and unhealthy over-reliance on the welfare system continues."

~ Lindsay Mitchell, from her post 'Welfare - no good news'

Models

"Certainly economists build and test theories with models, often quite simplistic ones. But they do not [all] believe that the model is real. Only politicians do that.
    "So what we see in the various 'social investment' analyses being presented and will see in the many which will proliferate as this becomes the slogan du jour, is an endless set of dodgy arithmetic calculations all of which will show positive returns. Much like we see in the many past stadium or motorway or entertainment event proposals which inevitably show a major positive return to the suburb/city/country concerned. If you added all these up from the past we would live in a utopia. We do not live in a utopia."

~ Rob Campbell from his post 'Don’t be fooled by what ‘social investment’ slogan means' [addition mine]

"The strongest correlate for child poverty is the rate of single parenthood. Fix that."

"The complexity inherent in the multiple measures of child poverty does nothing to instil confidence in their veracity. What the complexity does do is create a bias towards overstating poverty – a useful tool for proponents of greater wealth redistribution.
    "I tend towards a simple view. One which rarely rates a mention. The strongest correlate for child poverty is the rate of single parenthood. In New Zealand it is high. Among Māori it is very high.
    "Fixing that – an outcome largely in the hands of individuals – will go a long way towards reducing childhood hardship and deprivation."

~ Lindsay Mitchell, from her post 'Child poverty - complex or simple?' [hat tip Homepaddock]

"The State has two hands: a soft one to give and a hard one to remove. The softer the hand that gives, the harder the hand that removes."

"The State is not and cannot be one-handed. It has two hands, one to receive and the other to give; in other words, the rough hand and the gentle hand. The activity of the second is of necessity subordinate to the activity of the first....

    "You see that the gentle hand of The State, that sweet hand that gives and spreads benefits widely, will be fully occupied ... Might you perhaps be disposed to believe that this will be just as true of the rough hand that goes rummaging and rifling in our pockets?
    "Don’t you believe it! The courtiers of popularity would not be masters of their trade if they did not have the art of hiding an iron fist in a velvet glove."

~ Frederic Bastiat, from his essay 'The State' [the headline for this post is a popular paraphrase]

"The cash-for-kids scheme has to stop"

"Christopher Luxon talked repeatedly about getting young people off welfare. ... consider that the link between a child's early entry into the benefit system and later benefit dependence in their own right, is strong ... Nearly three quarters (74%) of all beneficiaries up to age 25 had a parent on benefit while they were a child, and just over a third (35%) had a parent on benefit throughout their teenage years.  ...

    "It's laudable to talk about getting 18 year-olds off welfare. Better still though to discourage their entry into the welfare system in the first place. ...
    "[M]ore broadly, the cash-for-kids scheme has to stop. ... Until cash incentives ... are removed, the inter-generational problem will continue to plague New Zealand. Yes, there will be downsides to [welfare reform]. But will they be any worse than the devastating social outcomes that come from unconditional welfare?"

~ Lindsay Mitchell from her post 'National needs to go further'

If you can't run on your record, you have to fake it

If you have to lie, it looks like the facts don't suit you. Here's Lindsay Mitchell fact-checking Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni's lies this week on the campaign trail:

CARMEL: “Her government [she says] had seen higher numbers of beneficiaries moving into jobs …”

LINDSAY'S FACT CHECK: "Higher numbers may have been moving into jobs, but even higher numbers have been moving onto benefits. It’s the net difference that matters... At September 22, 2023 there were 181,167 people on a Jobseeker benefit. In September 2017, just prior to Sepuloni taking up the reins, the number was 120,726. She has overseen a fifty percent increase."

CARMEL: "I’m proud [she says] of the work Labour has done to lift over 77,000 children out of poverty.”

LINDSAY'S FACT CHECK: "At September 2017 there were 172,302 children on benefits. By June 2023 that number had grown by 23 percent to sit at 211,617."

Jacinda's Administration went into government saying they would "fix child poverty." Yet they still stare into the uncomfortable truth that simply throwing someone else's money at poverty doesn't help.

If you can't run on your record, you have to fake it.

Another highly-paid beneficiary

John Tamihere shares a joke at taxpayers' expense

"The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites." 

~ Thomas Sowell, from his column 'Human Livestock'

"[John Tamihere's] Waipareira Trust has grown significantly and become a key service provider for Whānau Ora.
    "Whānau Ora was created in 2010 under the oversight of Dame Tariana Turia ... In essence, Whānau Ora is described as a Māori approach to delivering social and health services to whānau ... commissioning agencies that would invest [sic] directly in their communities....
    "There are only three Whānau Ora commissioning agencies in the country.... For the North Island, the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency is actually the trading name of a company called Te Pou Matakana Limited. The Patrons of that entity include Dame Tariana Turia, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait and John Tamihere’s father-in-law, Sir Mason Durie. The chief executive is John Tamihere and the chief operating officer is his wife, Awerangi Tamihere....
    "The Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, NUMA [John Tamihere's so-called National Urban Māori Authority] and the Waipareira Trust are all located at the same Henderson commercial address and share administrative and back office support....
    "[U]nder the current Labour government, the Waipareira Trust has had a golden run.... In its most recent accounts for the year ended 30 June 2022, the trust had revenue from services [i.e., money doled out from government] of $69,544,616, and had cash or term deposits of $50,379,806.... Over [the last] six year period ... remuneration and benefits for senior management have increased from $2,013,194 to $4,390,413 ... [and] annual management fees [to] $6,000,000...
    "The management fee alone is an eye-watering amount and seems difficult to justify ...
    "[M]any Māori believe that not enough funding from Whānau Ora is making its way to those in need. Their concerns seem to be justified."

~ Thomas Cranmer, from his post 'John Tamihere and the Waipareira Trust'

NB: WHAT WE SAID IN 2010:

"If stimulus and bailouts are welfare for bankers-who’ve-failed, and Kiwisaver is welfare for suits-with-nothing-in-them, then surely the new politically-correct Whānau Ora scheme is just welfare for 'welfare providers,' isn’t it? Welfare that is primarily to keep the likes of John Tamihere and Rongo Wetere in the manner to which they’ve become accustomed. Welfare for a Browntable of well-heeled ambulance chasers. Welfare that will end up costing us all more in the long run than the current welfare bill."

'Welfare for Everyone' - NOT PC, April, 2010

AND WHAT WE SAID IN 2015:

"[W]hat Whanau Ora is, as I said when it was announced, is simply welfare for separatist welfare providers.
    "In short, a scam.
    "That much is fairly clear even from the Auditor General’s findings on funding, to whit: 'During the first four years, total spending on Whānau Ora was $137.6 million…. Nearly a third of the total spending was on administration…' 
    "You see? A very well-paying scam … if you’re inside that tent clipping the ticket.
    "What Whanau Ora is primarily, is welfare for separatist welfare providers....
    "So what has the scam achieved?
    "It has achieved a great deal indeed … for all those inside the tent.
    "What it achieved for the Maori Party was to buy them the backing of welfare providers – and as you can see I mean 'buy' in the very literal sense. Sure, it’s been hard to keep the backers inside the tent as bigger game seemed to appear elsewhere, but for a while at least it bought support for the new party.
    "And what it achieved for the Key Government was to buy the backing of the Maori Party – 'buy' here being used in the very political sense of buying the Maori Party’s votes, with which it was able to stay in power.
    "So quite a great deal indeed was achieved, if you’re one of the ones in power."

'The Whānau Ora Scam' - NOT PC, May 2015

 

"The state has corporatised welfare, but it isn’t working. More costs, worse outcomes."

"New Zealand has a begging and homelessness emergency and it’s worse than what I recently saw in a country most Kiwis associate with it – India.
    "Begging and homelessness here is the tip of a full-blown social emergency, ... with ram-raiding kids destroying property for the sake of it.
    "RNZ hit the nail on the head saying shopkeepers on Auckland’s K Road are in despair. Not just the ram raids, but the crime and grime, with begging and homelessness. And it’s not just K Road, or Auckland, but in towns across New Zealand....
    "As business owners we agree there are addiction, mental health and a host of 'complex issues,' but the policy response seems to be, 'no action, talk only'....
    "A back-to-the future approach is needed. The state has corporatised welfare, but it isn’t working. More costs, worse outcomes.
    "We need to make the Salvation Army, city missions, Presbyterian Support Services and their counterparts in temples and mosques [and community centres] all central to welfare provision, not just peripheral to it. Give charities a chance.
    "Begging itself must be de-normalised....
    "This is a social investment call to change lives for the better [rather] than throwing benefits and hostel accommodation as answers.
    "It would also help those of us in business to stay in business too."

~ Sunny Kaushal, from his op-ed 'New Zealand has a begging emergency and it demands tough action'

Child Poverty: "I'll take that bet."

"Still puzzled by the existence of child poverty some years after PM Ardern decided to abolish it? You might be interested to know that the question was addressed at the same time by a couple of Brits. More transparently; and – one imagines – with much the same success.
    "In fact, they went a bit further in ensuring the experiment would tangibly impact on the decision-makers themselves. They made a bet of it.
    "In the red corner, Jonathan Portes wagered £1000 that withdrawal of state benefits would propel the UK’s child poverty rate from a dreadful 31% to an appalling 41%. It doesn’t work that way, said Christopher Snowdon from the blue corner, accepting the bet.
    "Five years later, the measured UK child poverty rate was 29%. Snowdon had won."

~ Bob Edlin + Ian Templeton, from their post 'Blessed are the Poor in Jargon'

 

"While unemployment fluctuates, the underlying core of a quarter-of-a-million sick people or sole parents is entrenched"

From the Welfare Working Group's 2010 report: Long-Term Welfare Dependency: The Issues

 

"Most working-age welfare benefits were introduced in the late 1930s, and for the next thirty years recipients comprised just 2 percent of the population and were overwhelmingly widows and invalids. The explosion in welfare began from the mid-seventies.
    "Getting to my point, while unemployment fluctuates the underlying core of [a quarter-of-a-million] sick people or sole parents is entrenched. The economy has to carry this population whether times are good or bad, whether there are jobs or not.
    "WHY this situation has developed - or been allowed to develop - could fill a thesis. But many of you will have lived through the entire period and can probably share some valuable observations. Feel free."

~ Lindsay Mitchell, from her post 'The disconnection between unemployment and welfare dependency'

"No country ever got out of poverty because of income redistribution"

"While money can help in the short run, the truth is that no country ever got out of poverty because of income redistribution (a point economist Thomas Sowell took great pains to demonstrate in his work). If such ‘redistribution’ could deliver such a happy outcome, the U.S. should have no child poverty at all. As Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation recently noted, 'before the COVID-19 recession, the U.S. spent nearly $500 billion on means-tested cash, food, housing, and medical care for poor and low-income families with children. This is seven times the amount needed to eliminate all child poverty in the U.S., according to Census figures.'
    "This is in part due to the fact that most of these benefits aren’t counted as income in official government poverty reports. But the reality is that, to make a noticeable improvement on the poverty front, people need to improve their ability to earn and move up the income ladder."

~ Veronique de Rugy, from her article 'Poverty Isn't Just About Money: Expanding the Child Tax Credit'

Middle-class welfare at its finest

"Contrary to the claim that taxpayer subsidies for higher education provide great social benefits, these subsidies actually are a wealth transfer from the less-well-off to wealthy people."

~ Gary Galles, from his article 'Subsidising Higher Education Is Not Creating Widespread External Benefits'

"'We broke the welfare culture forever. If the Tahltan can do it, any Indigenous Nation can do it!’"

"In 1983 and 1984, 80% of the Tahltan Nation [of northern British Columbia] were on welfare, and unemployment stood at 98%, following the dispossession of property and other human rights across spanning generations. Severe alcohol and drug problems characterised social life, along with high suicide rates and very low levels of educational attainment.
    "By 2013, it had all changed: 100% employment, zero suicides and an above-the-national-average graduation rate, from universities to trade schools.
    "[The tribe's] Chief Asp was clear that wealth was always to be created and could never be taken. Federal funding was firmly declined and returned to the government, along with all conditions it required.... Today funds are independently generated in the marketplace....
    "Equity rights and land titles were key components of wealth creation, including the tradability of those equity rights within the framework established by the Tahltan Central Government– undertaken to protect ‘the Tahltan inherent aboriginal rights and title’ and ‘the eco-systems and natural resources of Tahltan traditional territory.'
    "Traded rights have not only been an economic tool, but generated resources for improved environmental outcomes ...
    "From 98% unemployment to zero, Chief Asp concludes ... : 'We broke the welfare culture of the Tahltan Nation forever.’ A single message reverberates not only across North America, but globally: 'If the Tahltan can do it, any Indigenous Nation can do it!’"

~ Garreth Bloor, from his post 'Economic Freedom: Breaking the Culture of Welfare Dependency'

"The fawning over Sepuloni..."

"In the 'NZ Herald' Thomas Coughlan writes: 'Sepuloni ... [is] social development minister and may keep this roll after the reshuffle (she's excelled, so far.' And at RNZ Jane Patterson says: 'Sepuloni has been a steady pair of hands in the social development portfolio'...
    "For starters emergency housing is in the social development portfolio. The take-over of motels leading to social mayhem (think Rotorua) has been a tragedy for those housed in them and those in their surrounds. The waiting list for public housing has sky-rocketed since Sepuloni has been Minister.
    "EVERY main benefit has seen increased numbers since 2017. Covid played a part, but the upward trend was established before 2020.
    "Never before has New Zealand seen demand for both skilled and unskilled labour at current levels yet 11.3 percent (up from 9.7 in 2017) of the working age population is benefit-dependent.
    "Compounding this, the average length of time people are spending dependent has gone up....
    "Her own ministry's annual reports acknowledge the department is not moving in the right direction in a number of areas.
    "Worst of all Sepuloni has overseen a rise in children living in unemployed homes. The damage to their outcomes is well researched and documented. But unheeded by this government whose sole focus has been to lift incomes with their fingers firmly in their ears over the unintended consequences of paying people to do nothing ... except have children.
    "If all of the above is 'excelling' I hate to envisage what failing looks like."

~ Lindsay Mitchell, from her post 'Sepuloni'

"...to do absolutely nothing in life but complain about one’s victimhood."

"Think about the kind of person who would find Harry & Meghan interesting and enlightening. It must be the kind of person who sees it as the ideal to do absolutely nothing in life but complain about one’s victimhood. It’s literally all these former royalists do. It’s not a side activity. It’s their whole reason for living.
    "They complain. They already have a huge audience because of the very thing they decry daily — the largely unearned wealth and notoriety of the royal family. They hate the very idea of the royal family, and say so regularly. Yet they complain and whine that they’re not getting more money, visibility and power from the same royal family they regularly decry.
    "It strikes me: This is the very essence of the woke mentality — not politically, but deeper: culturally and psychologically. Harry and Meghan stand for all the things that wokesters want: Something for nothing. Not just economically (though money is definitely part of it); but psychologically, in terms of the unearned and unlimited visibility snowflakes everywhere yearn for."

~ Michael Hurd, from his post 'Harry & Meghan: A Couple About NOTHING' [emphasis in the original]

"...the exploitation of children to make the Prime Minister look good"

"The benefit system was originally about providing secure income for those genuinely unable to work. That inability to work did not include causing one's own incapacity or having dependent children.
    "It has since evolved to become a government tool for equalising incomes between the employed and unemployed, and advancing other ideological goals like the financial emancipation of the female parent from the male parent.... [I]t is [now] being used by the Prime Minister to achieve her primary goal of reducing child poverty.... [thereby] increasing [the] number of children reliant on benefits.
    "[Given] [the higher incidence of neglect and abuse for children growing up on a benefit, [t]he increase may even be described as the exploitation of children to make the Prime Minister look good."

~ Lindsay Mitchell, from her post 'The price of reducing poverty'

"The idea that the least developed countries in the world have received only the cost of industrialisation and not the many benefits is ahistorical."

"In his brilliant dissection of the climate extremists’ case in his book, 'Unsettled,' Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science in President Obama’s Energy Department, notes that climate-related deaths have plummeted in the era of global warming. Citing data from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaster at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, he notes that 'weather-related death rates fell dramatically during the past one-hundred years' and are 'about 80 times less frequent today than they were a century ago.'
    "Why? Almost entirely thanks to improvements in infrastructure and mitigation enabled by rapid industrialisation.
    "[T]he idea that the least developed countries in the world have received only the cost of industrialisation and not the many benefits is ahistorical. The sophists at the United Nations insist that the new fund is a model of 'climate justice,' but it sounds an awful lot like a vehicle for the 'reparations' climate extremists have long demanded from the countries that were first to industrialise for supposedly having inflicted their environmental costs on the world.
    "If we in the West are to pay damages for the Industrial Revolution, shouldn’t we also consider the extraordinary wealth that process has helped spread around the world?"

~ Gerard Baker from his column 'The West Made the World Prosperous. COP27 Will Make Us Pay'