Those who support national right to work legislation claim that “government shouldn’t tell us what we should do; we should tell the government what to do.” They have the right principle, but right to work legislation is precisely a case of the government telling employers and workers what they should do.

Right to work, currently the law in 22 states, prohibits “union shops” wherein every employee must join a union and pay dues within a few months of being hired. There are certainly plenty of problems with unions in the United States, and the union movement has been in decline for some time now. Many workers do not feel that unions adequately represent them, and do not want to work at a union shop where they will be forced to join one. Right to work legislation aims to protect these workers. It does so by having the government prohibit employers and unions from negotiating to create union shops.

That is why right to work legislation is not conservative. American conservatism, Timothy Carney notes, is committed to “the right of contract” and protecting “consensual economic arrangements.” Republicans ought to stand up against every attempt to coerce workers into joining unions and should defend the liberty of employers and employees to figure out for themselves the terms of work contracts. Workplace culture is best formed in individual shops, not by the National Labor Relations Board. The free market is a place wherein employers and employees can come together and negotiate freely about how they want to relate to one another. It seems like most of the time, unions do not fare too well in the free market, but it is not the government’s place to decide between different styles of labor relations for different companies. As long as the government prevents itself from coercing workers and employers and facilitates fair union elections, it is doing its part.

When the government tries to do more, it takes sides where it has no proper business. This is something that conservatives like Pawlenty generally understand pretty well: free markets are a great way of letting people find their own solutions, let those solutions compete against each other, and find ways to maximize choices and variety in the economy. People within particular workplaces know best what it is that they want, and besides, they are ultimately the people who have to live with whatever arrangements are made. Economic freedom is an essential part of American success.

Those urging the adoption of right to work legislation are letting their general distrust for unions overcome their free-market principles. America’s big unions lean solidly left and they have become great villains to the Right, along with the media and academia. One of the most compelling reasons for conservatives to stick to principles and oppose right to work legislation is precisely because it will show that conservative principles can benefit everyone. Rather than simply ceding working-class issues to the Democrats, conservatives can show that free markets allow room for employees to make their demands heard. Conservatives can show that government interference into the economy can actually undermine the very causes that the Left tries to promote.

By passing right to work legislation, Republicans might well prove the same point. The only difference is that if this is the case, it will be to the detriment of free markets, conservative principles, and the GOP’s standing among members of the working class.

I complained in my last post about the bureaucratization of health care under President Obama’s reform bill, and argued that Obamacare is likely to result in less power for patients and insurance customers than the current system. Evidently, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has similar concerns, and has proposed changes to Medicare that change it from a public health plan to a series of subsidies redeemable on a regulated insurance exchange. This is the right kind of health care reform, directing government resources to those who most need them and expanding choices for the oldest Americans.

Currently, Medicare is a government-administered health insurance system for senior citizens over the age of 65. Anyone of that age is eligible for it, as are people under 65 with disabilities. Less than 5% of beneficiaries pay more than standard premiums on medical insurance, which range from $115 to a little over $250 every month. Hospital insurance is free, and prescription drug coverage has costs varying by area. This last component of Medicare is the only provided by outside insurance companies, rather than directly by the government. Ryan’s proposal would change Medicare to a “defined contribution program” granting an annual subsidy to elderly Americans based on their income levels and health statuses. These subsidies could then be redeemed in an exchange regulated by the federal government, wherein insurers covered a certain set of standard benefits. Subsidies would increase alongside inflation, and senior citizens who could afford to do so would be responsible for paying premiums that are currently covered by the government.

There are pretty good reasons to endorse the plan on budgetary grounds alone, as Ryan’s Medicare reform could save about $400 billion. More importantly, it focuses government support on those who need it most and increases options for senior citizens. There is no reason why every person over the age of 65 ought to receive heavily subsidized health insurance from the federal government. President George W. Bush will turn 65 in three months; there is certainly no reason why the government needs to help pay for his insurance (other than, perhaps, his status as a veteran). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not going to need Medicare in 2012 when she becomes eligible for it, either (especially given that she was able to raise $30 million only three short years ago). Many other senior citizens are fairly comfortable financially. As of 1998 (unfortunately, the last year from which such data seems to be available), only about 20% of households with a head over 65 years old were in the bottom 40% of wealthiest households. And one-third of all households with an elderly head actually made more money than 40% of American households. These families may be old, but they are not impoverished. If either their health or financial situations change, then the Ryan plan will provide support. Otherwise, why should the government pay for their health care? Chairman Ryan’s proposal is right to means-test Medicare benefits. The exchange proposed by Ryan will ensure that senior citizens are not excluded from purchasing health insurance because of their age and medical conditions. It does need not to provide any other insurance support for many senior citizens.

Ryan’s plan is also a major improvement over the current Medicare program because it will allow customers to have more choices. Although Medicare enrollees are generally quite pleased with their health providers, Medicare is not right for everyone. Opening an exchange and inviting insurance providers to compete will create incentives for companies to offer innovative benefits and to offer custom plans that, while covering the basic needs of senior citizens, allows them to choose the coverage that is best for their needs and particular situation. This sounds extremely vague, and that is precisely the beauty of increased competition: it will yield results that no one can predict. The benchmark for whether or not they succeed is whether or not they are attractive to senior citizens in a way that other options are not. A provider that makes its records electronic might attract some people, while another might offer lower premiums and higher co-pays. Different people can have different preferences in these regards, and competing insurers can tailor their plans in ways that Medicare simply cannot.

Medicare poses a serious threat to the public budget, but even if it did not, Chairman Ryan’s proposals are worth pursuing. Means-testing Medicare benefits will end an entitlement that goes to many Americans who have no need for it. Transforming Medicare to a subsidy program will increase the responsiveness and flexibility of health care for senior citizens. Combined, these reforms will help heal one aspect of America’s broken health care system.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has written that “health reform will empower families against market constraints.” A lot of social welfare legislation is defended as a victory for ordinary Americans against impersonal, profit-driven market forces. This was an argument made in favor of Medicare Plan D prescription drug coverage under Bush, the financial reform bill passed last year, and most recently, President Obama’s health care proposals. At least in the last case, it is not working out yet.

CNN Money reported that “the lobbying bonanza is continuing,” with more than 180 groups registered to lobby on health reform. Over $1 billion was spent on health-related lobbying in 2009 and 2010 alone, and 1,251 different organizations have registered health lobbyists. These organizations range from disease interest groups, such as the American Health Association, to insurers, like Cigna, to providers, including the massive American Medical Association. If the experience of the past two years and the numbers of lobbyists registered to keep advocating on health issues is any indication, health lobbying is here to stay.

Indeed, there are good reasons to think that lobbying is about to become more important in health policy than ever before. After all, who are lobbyists? They are paid experts who spend every single day advocating for the issues that are of interest to their employers. They are not necessarily bad, corrupt, or dishonest people. If they deceive a policymaker, then they are likely to lose any credibility they have on Capitol Hill, meaning that lobbyists have strong incentives to study hard and provide valuable insight to the people they are trying to persuade. A lot of the time, lobbyists have years of experience advocating for policies. They are precisely the kind of people you or I would ask for advice if we were government bureaucrats who had to shape the future of health policy.

Sure, we might hold public hearings across the country, inviting the general public to brunch at the Marriott and asking whoever showed up what is of great importance to them. But at the end of the day, I would trust a professional lobbyist to understand the complexities of health policy better than whoever chooses to walk in the door with a placard and an elevator pitch. Even if we were to show an extraordinary (and undue) trust in people who attend our public hearings, lobbyists still have 24-hour access to channels of power in ways that no one else does. I care about whether or not the government orders insurance companies to cover sun lamp therapy, I guess, but not enough to move to D.C. and fight about it one way or the other. But the Indoor Tanning Association, which represents manufacturers and providers of light products, just might have enough incentive to hire lobbyists to go bang on the Department of Health and Human Service’s doors for a while.

Lobbyists get more say over policy the more that decisions are politicized. For all of the problems that riddle the current health care system, no private insurer is going to throw a $100 million handout to the State of Nebraska for expanding coverage, as the government almost did in 2009 thanks to lobbying by Sen. Ben Nelson. Cornhuskers might consider such political wheeling-and-dealing “empowerment,” but I presume that the rest of us who have to pay for it disagree. Another Senator Nelson, Bill of Florida, also managed to swing quite a sweetheart deal in the debate over health care reform: a grand total of three counties in south Florida are going to continue to receive funding for Medicare Advantage, despite the general cuts to the program passed by the same bill. No private insurer is going to charge customers to give perks to three random counties. If they do, then they will lose some of their market competitiveness and pay the price. That is not going to work in politics, unless a serious counter-Florida lobbying effort gets off the ground any time soon. Are you willing to start one?

Unfortunately, well-connected political interest groups are going to be able to influence health care more and more as Obamacare turns over more power to the government, and they are going to be able to arrange backroom deals that will benefit the well-connected. This will happen in Congress and in federal departments, far out of sight of the public and unaccountable to ordinary Americans. Empowering people as a way of providing a new foundation for American health care is the right way to go, and the current system direly needs a good dose of public feedback. But increasing federal bureaucratic control over the system, as Obamacare will, is not going to get us any closer to that necessary responsiveness

The Catholic Church celebrates the Solemnity of the Annunciation to mark the day that, as John put it, “The Word became flesh,” when Mary accepted God’s offer to bear his son. Christians believe that God became a sojourner in the world that day, but he was not welcomed. Although he came for the good of the people around him, he was never understood. As a young boy, he had to flee into Egypt with his family to avoid persecution by a government that feared him. Ultimately, the journey into the world of the God who commanded his people, “you shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for him as for yourself,” was met with hostility, persecution, and death. In light of Friday’s commemoration of the beginning of a frightful journey, it seems apt to protest against the plight of immigrants in the United States.

There are approximately 12 million undocumented people currently living in this country, out of over 38 million immigrants reported by the Congressional Research Service. These people have come to provide for the good of their families and of our society. And they do so to a remarkable degree: the Cato Institute estimates that reducing the number of undocumented immigrants by a little over a quarter could mean the loss of $80 billion, whereas expanding opportunities for legal immigration could net as much as $180 billion for the American economy. The town of Postville, Iowa learned just how much of a contribution undocumented immigrants make to this country the hard way. In 2009, one year after the largest immigration raid in American history happened there, the town’s population had dropped by half and the biggest employer was forced to file for bankruptcy. Mayor Robert Penrod, who resigned not long after the raid, told the Los Angeles Times, “It’s like you’re in an oven and there’s no place to go and there’s no timer to get you out.” Ordinary life in Postville was made possible for many years only by the hard work of undocumented immigrant workers. Current immigration laws put an end to it.

Postville is not the only community that relies on undocumented immigrants. Last week, I went to Apopka, Florida where I met and lived with several immigrant families, with both documented and undocumented members. The people I met there are like those in Postville and elsewhere: they are intelligent, hard-working, and eager to contribute to American society. I befriended a 19 year-old student taking one class at a time at community college, because she is not eligible for in-state tuition, and driving forty minutes to work without a license, because she cannot legally get one, who is determined to support her siblings and parents. I met a mother who spends evenings keeping books for a company, even though she has severe medical problems, because believes in the value of work and the benefits it brings. Several of the people who went on the trip with me spent days in the fields laboring alongside the immigrants responsible for harvesting America’s food. Immigrants like those in Postville and Apopka are the kind of people who have built this country into what it is today, and who brought our own families here.

Unfortunately, many states may not tolerate, let alone welcome, undocumented immigrants for much longer. Florida’s lawmakers are mulling the Florida Immigration Enforcement Act, which passed out of committee on March 11. The bill would, among other things, change the status of being undocumented from being a civil infraction to being a crime. It also, in the words of an organization that supports its passage, “provides that if law enforcement officials have reasonable suspicion an individual is unlawfully present in the U.S., they must attempt to determine the immigration status of those they arrest.” The bill, similar to one passed in Arizona last year, is just one of the many proposed measures being debated in 25 states to strictly enforce immigration laws. Many state lawmakers are frustrated because, even though President Obama has presided over a spike in deportations of undocumented immigrants, the federal government has generally failed to ensure that current immigration laws are being enforced.

But most supporters of strict immigration enforcement do not analyze immigration laws any further, and this is a shame. It is not feasible to be “pro-legal immigration,” as Floridian Senator Marco Rubio claims to be, when there are as many hurdles to legal immigration as there are today. There are only 140,000 H-1B visas available for high-skilled workers in specialized fields to come to this country, and they must first find employers who swear that they cannot find American citizens to fill job openings, before paying $500 per person in fees (after paying between $1,075 and $3,825 in preliminary registration). To “unskilled” workers from nearby countries, like the people who serve as the backbone of Postville, Apopka, and America, there are only 226,000 visas available every year. They are reserved for family members of people already here legally. For a person without specialized, in-demand job skills trying to come here in order to get an education, find work, and establish a family, there is virtually no path to legal immigration. The only option for many good, decent people to come to America is to cross the borders illegally.

It was not always like this. A little over 120 years ago, the Statue of Liberty was built in New York City’s harbor to welcome immigrants from every background to this country. “The New Colossus,” the poem on its base, declared to the world: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" The welcoming attitude that greeted many of our ancestors in this country was matched by generally permissive laws governing immigration. With a few notable, disturbing exceptions like the Chinese Exclusion Act, America allowed virtually anyone in good health and the capacity to work to immigrate legally until 1921. The tired, poor, huddled masses of the world are still yearning to breathe free in America, just as they did then, and they are still leaving their homes and wandering through tempests to come here. Like many of our ancestors, they are working hard in America’s fields and cities, dreaming of a better future for themselves and their children. We cannot now let them become the wretched refuse of these shores simply because they do not have expert job skills, relatives here already, or success in arbitrary immigration lotteries. We must repeal our restrictive immigration laws and reject efforts to strictly enforce immigration laws until that happens