Lack of Mexicans is killing the restaurant business in big cities

[Firethorn]

It's when it gets away from the constitutional functions that government becomes a problem.

Well duh.  Now how do we roll it back without collapsing our economy, causing a revolt, etc...?

There's a reason I propose 'sneaky' solutions. 

Still, consider that in at least some ways we're winning.  Some victories I'm aware of:
1.  All 50 states have CCW of some form now (yay!), and a lot more of it is 'shall issue'.
2.  The war on drugs is breaking down, at least for marijuana.
3.  Several states have relaxed their knife laws.
4.  Even in Texas, excessive permit requirements have been shot down by the courts.  Requiring somebody who only braids hair to get a permit that requires 500 hours of training that includes things such as the safe usage of toxic/caustic chemicals for things like perms and dyes?

The list is long and massive, and I'd like to go through the federal(and many state) budgets with a chainsaw.

Still, before you excise some government agency, you need to examine it's effects and such.  Most should be phased out, not just terminated.

[MechAg94]

Still, before you excise some government agency, you need to examine it's effects and such.  Most should be phased out, not just terminated.

For most agencies, we should simply examine the effects after the agency is gone.  (Who will do it?  Okay, let a 3rd party do the examining.)  The agencies that need phasing out are the exception not the rule. 

I think any attempt at sneakiness will be destroyed by political bickering and govt bureacracy.  It is pointless to try.  If the political will exists to get rid of these agencies, do it while you can.  A phasing policy will just get changed later and the likelihood of getting multiple bills passed to eliminate an agency are less likely.

[MechAg94]

As you can tell, I tend to favor the straightforward approach in politics over getting fancy (IMO).  However, often neither is the best political approach when you have 535 Congressmen and DC power struction to deal with. 

[Firethorn]

For most agencies, we should simply examine the effects after the agency is gone.  (Who will do it?  Okay, let a 3rd party do the examining.)  The agencies that need phasing out are the exception not the rule. 

I think any attempt at sneakiness will be destroyed by political bickering and govt bureacracy.  It is pointless to try.  If the political will exists to get rid of these agencies, do it while you can.  A phasing policy will just get changed later and the likelihood of getting multiple bills passed to eliminate an agency are less likely.

That's why you do it with ONE bill, that sets out the phase-out structure and period.  Something like drop the payouts by 10% a year(of the original payouts) for 10 years.  In cases of things like a welfare program, in addition to lowering payments, you make the eligibility requirements more stringent.

Though I wouldn't get rid of 'welfare' entirely.  Instead, I'd concentrate on getting rid of 'cliffs' and making sure you're always better off working than not.  IE you're not turning down that McJob because you'd lose your healthcare, and replacing it would cost more than what McJob pays.

After that, like I said, it's getting rid of barriers that impede business and result in 'not enough' jobs.  I want to see as many reasonably competent adults fully and productively employed as possible.

Competition for workers is the real way to drive wages up.  Not having workers available for a dime a dozen.

[vaskidmark]

But if you accept that McJob you will not, under the current rules, immediately lose your government cheese health care nor will you immediately be switched from Medicaid to Obamacare.  You will also get some or all of your childcare costs covered.  Depending on where you live and where you work you might have your transportation expenses covered or at least subsidized.  Additionally, your basic cable TV and internet connection transfers to a different budget line that does eventually end based on how much money you are making.  SNAP eligibility criteria are adjusted to allow you to get more $$ loaded on your EBT card than if you were just getting straight welfare.

And none of this is "new".  IIRC it started when the system stopped rewarding you with more money for each kid squeezed out.

The financial incentives are designed to move you from a minimum wage McJob to one that pays a bit more, and then a bit more, and then enough to stand on your own.

It's not everybody on welfare but it is enough that would rather stay on the dole than get off their backsides and improve their situation.  SCOTUS says we cannot limit how long they stay on the dole and them just drop them like a hot potato.  SCOTUS says they have a right to a certain basic level of care and SCOTUS also says we cannot just pick them up and drop them in the bayous or the Glades with a single-shot .22 and a really fuzzy copy of instructions on how to build a cabin.  And besides, if we did where would all the pencil-pushers go and what could thy do to support themselves?

[/Jimmy Durante voice]"It's a viscous circle, I tells ya."[/Jimmy Durante voice]

stay safe.

[Firethorn]

But if you accept that McJob you will not, under the current rules, immediately lose your government cheese health care nor will you immediately be switched from Medicaid to Obamacare.

Which is indeed a benefit and improvement.  One thing to realize is that sometimes the 'cliffs' are hidden - You lose the equivalent of $1/hour in housing, $1/hour in medical, $1 in food, etc...  Next thing you know, you're working in order to lose money. 

In order to combat this, I think that we need to move all these aid categories into as few programs as possible.

The financial incentives are designed to move you from a minimum wage McJob to one that pays a bit more, and then a bit more, and then enough to stand on your own.

That's the way it should work.

It's not everybody on welfare but it is enough that would rather stay on the dole than get off their backsides and improve their situation.  SCOTUS says we cannot limit how long they stay on the dole and them just drop them like a hot potato.  SCOTUS says they have a right to a certain basic level of care and SCOTUS also says we cannot just pick them up and drop them in the bayous or the Glades with a single-shot .22 and a really fuzzy copy of instructions on how to build a cabin.  And besides, if we did where would all the pencil-pushers go and what could thy do to support themselves?

Personally, after a point I'd put them to work in 'government jobs'.  Litter patrol, if necessary.

[Mannlicher]

that article is slap full of untruths, inaccuracies, and invalid assumptions.  Maybe if the one third of Mexico living here now went home, then Americans could get jobs.  That Mexicans and other illegals work cheap is no surprise, and it has killed millions of jobs that Americans used to do.  At higher wages.

[Ron]

Controlling who crosses our borders shouldn't be controversial.

Advocating having an enforceable legal process to enter the US with a clearly defined process to pursue citizenship shouldn't be controversial.

Having standards that foreigners have to be meet to become citizens shouldn't be controversial.

There are plenty of illegal Mexicans in the USA. They don't want to pay high taxes and transportation costs and are finding the burbs a much better deal.

Trump has shown us that the only folks that think this is controversial is our bureaucratic elites and their fifth column propaganda arm (mainstream media).
 

[MillCreek]

^^^That is very well said, Ron.

[Hawkmoon]

[/Jimmy Durante voice]"It's a viscous circle, I tells ya."[/Jimmy Durante voice]

Wouldn't Jimmy have pronounced it "soy' cle"?

[vaskidmark]

Wouldn't Jimmy have pronounced it "soy' cle"?

A true believer amongst the rabble.  Yes, you are right.

stay safe.

[Scout26]

This OP is from the Washington Post.  Where there are 5 of the 10 richest counties in the US.

Panem needs slaves...