– Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. –

It’s welcome news that President Obama will turn his attention to immigration reform this year, as was announced on Wednesday by Deputy Assistant to the President Cecilia Muñoz. Economic recovery will happen more quickly if both high- and low-skill immigrants are permitted to enter the United States and work legally.

Two years ago, when Congress was considering comprehensive immigration reform, both President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers and the Congressional Budget Office, headed by Peter Orszag, an economist closely identified with the Democratic Party, estimated that the benefits of additional immigrants outweighed the costs. If Congress allowed more immigration, then American taxpayers would come out ahead financially.

Yet, after Congress refused to pass President Bush’s plan to allow most undocumented workers to receive work visas and wait in line for citizenship, the Bush administration’s immigration policy deteriorated into a series of arbitrary raids on different companies, rounding up undocumented workers and deporting them, in many cases separating husbands and wives, parents and children.

We can do better. Although the unemployment rate reached 8.5 percent last month, the jobs are going to come back, and, as has been the case in the past, native-born Americans will want jobs that are different from those of immigrants, according to economics professor Giovanni Peri of the University of California at Davis.

Congress needs to overhaul immigration law and create an expanded temporary worker program with a path to citizenship, along with more verification to prevent workers from working illegally, and monitoring of tourists and students so that they do not overstay their visas.

A rational immigration policy would have numerous advantages:

• Undocumented workers would pay taxes to federal and state governments rather than to grey-market check cashing services.

• Payments for health care through insurance could be collected more easily, rather than burdening hospital emergency rooms with immigrants without health insurance.

• Foreigners who want to work here could pay the government for visas rather than pay smugglers for unsafe, illicit transportation.

• Improvements in security. Legal visas and bank accounts would make it far easier to identify and track potential terrorists, dubious financial transactions, and those who simply overstay visas.

A rational immigration policy would solve several real problems the United States faces with regard to immigration. The international economy is tremendously dynamic; our immigration system is not. Temporary workers must spend months applying for admission, and due to the pile-up in April of every year, may not even get a visa.

Few low-skilled workers have a legal and reliable method to enter this country and work legally, and few Americans want to do the jobs, such as fruit picking and cleaning, that these workers want to pursue. And even high-skilled workers trained at U.S. colleges and universities, often at taxpayer expense, might have to wait years and spend thousands of dollars to become permanent residents of the nation.

Mr. Obama might want to consider transferring the authority of setting quotas from Congress to the Labor Department. The Labor Department already has the presumptive authority to judge whether demand for foreign labor is justified, through its foreign labor certifications. If the Labor Department is allowed to determine whether or not a foreign worker would displace a native one, it could also be allowed to calculate visa quotas.

High-skilled workers educated in America ought to be able to stay; otherwise, our investment in their education becomes lost to another country. If the Labor Department determines that a foreign worker would not displace Americans, that worker should not be barred from entering the country due to an arbitrary quota. And people who want to enter this country in order to work in jobs Americans are not willing to take ought to have an easy, legal way to do so.

Mr. Obama has the opportunity to craft a sensible and dynamic immigration system. All Americans should wish him success.

– Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. —

The economy is in a painful slump. Growing numbers of people need help, charities are facing a decline in donations and states are cutting back on services. The April employment report from the Labor Department will show a further increase in the number of unemployed.
Yet, rather than harnessing the generosity of Americans to help out, President Obama has proposed to reduce the tax incentives for charitable giving. He wants Congress to limit to 28 percent the tax saving from contributions for taxpayers who itemize their deductions.

Mr. Obama proposed to use the revenue gained to fund universal health care. He would make the 28 percent cap on the tax saving for contributions take effect in 2011, when he contemplates letting the Bush 2001 tax cuts for upper-income people expire.
The combination of higher rates and a 28 percent cap on the value of deductions for charitable contributions (and mortgage interest) would diminish donations to charities ranging from local churches to national opera companies. Cutbacks on charitable giving would be more pronounced among the well-to-do, not only because they have more to give, but because their tax rates would rise at the same time as their deductions would be limited.

Mr. Obama’s proposal has resulted in opposition from not only charities, but also Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

According to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat: “I’m a little – especially concerned about the 28 percent limitation, which has nothing to do with health care.” And Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Congress should preserve the full deduction for charitable donations and look for additional ways to encourage charitable giving, not discourage it.”

Under the law now, if a taxpayer in the 35 percent federal tax bracket gives $100 to charity, he can subtract the $100 from his taxable income, reducing his total tax bill by $35. The after-tax cost of his gift is $65. (Relief from state income taxes might bring the net cost still lower.)
If the value of the deduction is limited to 28 percent, the after-tax cost of the gift rises to $72, and the net result would be diminished giving.

In a March 24 news conference Mr. Obama argued that his change would add fairness to the tax system because the tax saving for those in the 33, 35 or 39 percent brackets should not exceed the saving for people taxed at 28 percent.

Research has shown that charitable contributions are price sensitive, and the gifts of higher-income taxpayers are more sensitive to price than are the gifts of those lower on the income scale, according to George Washington University economics Professor Joseph Cordes. So reducing tax savings will shrink giving, hurting recipients.

In 2007, Americans gave $306 billion to charity, with 88 percent coming from individuals and the remainder from foundations. As a percent of GDP, Americans are the most generous in the world, giving twice as much as the British and over 10 times as much as the French.

Without undiminished deductions, the government would gain billions in tax revenue, but charities and others would lose. That would lessen the ability of charities to help the neediest, not what the president intended.

In fact, on February 5, in an executive order expanding the role of President Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Mr. Obama stated that “few institutions are closer to the people than our faith-based and other neighborhood organizations. It is critical that the Federal Government strengthen the ability of such organizations and other nonprofit providers in our neighborhoods to deliver services effectively.”

But tax policies that move funding from charities and towards the government would hurt those organizations that Mr. Obama wants to help. The full deductibility of charitable deductions enhances our national generosity, and we should leave that tax provision alone.