prop 187
Topics: Welfare, Rights, Theory
13 Nov 1994
From: "DG Ervan Darnell"
In private correspondance, Dan D. asked why I was opposed to prop 187 (since
I'm opposed to welfare and prop 187 would cut welfare). I thought that I
would post the reply genrally, as I had intended to address the issue
before, anyway.
The civil liberties problems were very bad. It would force teachers as
well as other low level bureaucrats to act as police. Furthermore, it
required them to act in ways that would be unconstitutional for the police
themselves (searches without cause, and certainly without warrant). The
punitive side is also very severe, prescribing long mandatory jail sentences
for aliens and absurdly stiff fines for employers.
That brings us to the money half of it. The jail sentences will cost lots
of money and for what? For having to jail productive persons doing no one
any harm? As for savings, there are not any. It is already contrary to law
to give welfare (e.g. AFDC) to illegal immigrants. It is already against
the law to give non-emergency medical care to illegal immigrants. And, as
has been pointed out, it would appear to be unconstitutional (as currently
construed) to deny public school funding. So, there are no savings and lots
of costs.
You'll notice I have not addressed the issue per se, merely the
implementation. What if it were the case that it really were possible to
save money with prop 187 by cutting off benefits to illegals and there would
no negative civil liberties conotations? I think that would be a tough
decision for a couple of reasons.
Consider the following question: Are tax deductions good? Some libertarians
say 'yes', any tax cut is for better, even if it some people are still hurt
by paying too much, we are stictly improving. I say 'no' becauase the
neutral ground assumption is flawed. One tax cut means another tax increase
for some other group. However, the increase will come later and be implicit
in various other rate changes. Cause & effect will never be on the table as
such. In all of this jockeying we create a very ugly tyranny of the
majority situation, where a given majority can always justify a tax increase
(e.g. sin tax) or general increase plus a greater deduction (e.g. the new
proposal to remove the marriage penalty). Thus the effect is simply to keep
ratcheting up the tax rate as shifting majorities screw the current
minority. I think it would be better to have a flat single source tax with
no deductions, not merely for the purpose of fairness, but even for the real
objective of cutting taxes. I offer this only as a possibility and not
obviously the right thing to do.
This is not a perfect analogy for prop 187, but there are some disturbing
problems with whacking certain people from a goodie so the remaining
majority can give themselves more. If it really were a tax cut, then I
would be for it, no matter who is getting their 'benefit' cut. I'm doubtful
this is the case. Also, there is part of me that deliberately wants to make
it as painful as possible in hopes that the whole thing will crater. If
welfare is such a good idea, then lets have more of it. If it really lifts
people out of poverty, then give everyone making less than $30K a welfare
check. Isn't that a consistent pursuit of the logic? I'm perfectly happy
to let California sink as a case example of what not to do, before the rest
of us follow them.
Home