"The notion that we're going to track every Western Union bit of money that's being sent to Mexico, you know, good luck with that," Obama snarked.
Actually, that is pretty easy to do. Western Union and its competitors know where the money is sent. Besides, The federal government can tax all of what they call "remittances." Immigrants have sent money home for hundreds of years.
But it is the shill reaction of the New York Times that delights me most. The newspaper reacted through a column by Will Olney, a professor of economics at Williams College. The column exposed some truths that the newspaper is reluctant to admit.
The first is that taxes have negative consequences on an economy.
The second is Trump's point that Mexico uses the United States as its welfare system.
Now the Times -- through its surrogate -- dishonestly elevated this call to tax remittances to a ban on remittances. This is typical of liberals when they argue, because they have no argument against the actual proposal.
From Will Olney:
While my research suggests that Mexican immigrants in the United States may initially have more disposable income if they could not send money, their families back home would be less likely to invest in education, start businesses and get out of poverty. This could damage Mexico’s economy: Mexico receives $24.4 billion in remittances from immigrants in the United States, which accounts for about 2 percent of Mexico’s gross domestic product. Indeed, withholding this money may actually encourage immigration to the United States.So Mexico games the big heart of the United States. Mexico makes more from dumping its welfare cases up north than it does oil. We lose $24 billion a year in welfare alone due to Mexican immigration both legal and illegal.
Thank you, New York Times for proving Trump's point.
And thank you President Obama for proving again your ignorance. Do your homework next time.