Chelsea, toxic asset? Byron York rightly mocks the Clintons for launching a campaign with an anti-inequality theme while Chelsea poses on the cover of Elle wearing a Gucci dress, Cartier bracelet, , etc. But the Chelsea “optics” are a little more complicated than the term “plutography” (gawking at the rich) suggests. As readers of Dana Thomas’ books know all too well, the market for Cartier bracelets isn’t the rich but the upper middle class. They wear them — well, I don’t know why, but it has a lot to do with status and at least a bit with snobbery. Which raises the issue of social equality. Which makes Chelsea’s cover shoot more toxic, not less. …

Update: “They’re working on her relatability,” a “former employee” tells Politico.

VAT’s Day? If you were a lobbyist for the Value Added Tax, this would be the week to make your pitch, no? I’d happily pay more in a Euro-style VAT that seamlessly skimmed money from my purchases if it meant I wouldn’t have to keep track of all these expenses. … P.S.: To simplify things, the VAT would have to either replace the personal income tax or be accompanied by some radical revisions. Half-measures (e.g. keeping the complex income tax while relying on it less) wouldn’t do, though that is what the system usually serves up. … P.P.S.: And yes, the VAT is regressive. I’m not necessarily for it. Just saying April 15th is its best day. …

Why the surge in Central American minors crossing the border? A short, clear explanation. …

Re: Paul Buff — This is the Hollywood Persuaders most famous recording, “Drums a Go Go.”  I don’t know if Buff actually played the drums on it, but this site suggests yes. …

Here’s Chelsea Clinton’s new spread in Elle. She’s the cover. “[W]riting her own story as a mother, wife, advocate, and, yes, the beloved daughter of two of the most powerful people on the planet.” Seems pretty clear she is fair game for diligent investigation — not only is she thrusting herself into the public eye, as they say, but she’s about to become an integral part of a presidential campaign. Privacy, schmivacy. … P.S.: Does Chelsea really think she will help? She does not seem to be universally beloved. … [via @ByronYork]

“Birthing centers that cater to Chinese women eager to bear American babies“: According to ICE “USA Star Baby Care Center averaged $ 5.3 million in annual revenues in each of the past 15 years.” That’s even more profitable than blogging. [via @JonFeere] ….

Smart take …

Rand Paul constructs his Pathway to Sellout on Immigration: Rand Paul on Fox —

“Right now we have 11 million people in the country who are said to be here illegally. Well, if you do nothing, you’ll get 11 million more. So I think having no immigration reform is a non-starter. We need immigration reform.”

Hmm. Marco Rubio said that without “comprehensive immigration reform” we’d have “de facto amnesty” — that was his transparent attempt to bamboozle anti-amnesty types while pushing a bill that offered near-immediate legalization. Rubio couldn’t claim that without his amnesty bill we’d “get 11 million more” since the official line of many comprehensivists was that the borders were already secure (and also that Latin America had run out of potential immigrants).

Paul is admitting, in effect, that this party line is BS. The borders aren’t secure. O.K.! So why not secure them (with E-Verify, a fence, and a visa-tracking system)? Why pretend that the only way to secure them (and prevent “11 million more”) is with a “reform” bill that also almost certainly includes an amnesty plus a dramatic increase in guestworkers?** You wouldn’t make the first part contingent on the second part unless your real goal was to sell the GOP base the second part. Like talk of “de facto amnesty” or “back taxes,” Paul’s ‘doing nothing = 11 million more’ pitch should be a reverse dog whistle alerting border-control types that a politician is not their friend.

Paul’s path to sellout is all too clear: if he waters down the “secure the border” condition enough, he eventually he winds up with legislation that only promises a secure border in the future in exchange for amnesty and guestworkers today.  That was essentially the deal that failed in 1986 (because once illegal immigrants got their legalization their lobby worked to undercut the enforcement). It was the deal embodied in the “Gang of Eight” bill in the last Congress (which Paul voted against).

You can’t help but feel that this is the direction Paul would like to go — he proposed a mass amnesty early in 2013, and — most tellingly — he participated in a pro-“reform” stunt with Amnesty-First zealot Grover Norquist (hilariously mistimed on the day after Eric Cantor’s defeat by an anti-amnesty Republican).  Paul opposes a key enforcement tool, the E-Verify program for checking the legality of employees when they are hired. And he seems positively enthusiastic about the prospect of additional guestworkers. ***

Yes, if Paul is untrustworthy on the issue it doesn’t really set him apart from Scott Walker, Rubio, or Ted Cruz (the other conspicuous alternatives to the passionately pro-amnesty Jeb). The best Republican voters can do, in this situation, may be to secure clear, specific, high-profile promises**** that will restrict an untrustworthy candidate’s ability to backslide should any of them actually be elected. There’s a whole campaign left to do that.

But Paul would appear to have the furthest to go. Where Walker comes off like a pro-open-borders politician trying desperately to sell-in to GOP the grassroots’ pro-enforcement preferences, Paul seems like a grassroots politician itching to go the other way.

__________

** — Paul might argue that a big guestworker program would provide a legal avenue for foreign workers and stanch the flow of illlegals. This seems hard to jibe with his claim that “11 million more” will come if we do nothing. Suppose we instead have a giant guestworker program legally importing, say, 5 million workers. Are the other 6 million just going to stay home in Oaxaca, figuring “Hey, they let in some people from around here so I don’t care about finding work in the U.S. anymore”? It seems likely they’ll come illegally as they would have before — maybe more likely, if others from the neighborhood are now already in El Norte as guestworkers. And that’s before those 5 million guestworkers decide to overstay their visas, bring their families, and wait for the next amnesty.

*** — Paul’s also left himself a pathway to not sell out — he says he wants “do to little bits of what are doable and what really people believe in,” which might be effective enforcement measures, or might be millions more high and low-skilled visas.

**** — It would have to be way more specific than “I will secure the border first” — or “I will require ‘Congress to write and enforce a border security blueprint.'”

Trying to explain the perverse “progressive” support for an open borders policy (that would batter living standards for low-skilled workers, Alan Tonelson reaches for an old concept that seems to have fallen into unjustified disuse: liberal guilt (in this case,  guilt “over third world poverty, run truly wild”). … Matthew Yglesias, I think this means you. …

Stan Freberg, R.I.P.: From  “The History of the United States of America, Vol. 1 The Early Years”

Columbus: I only have a few dubloons on me, so if you’ll direct me to the nearest bank, I’ll get a check cashed.

Native: You out of luck today. Banks closed.

Columbus: Oh? Why?

Native: Columbus Day.

Columbus: Oh, yeah…We going out on that joke?

Native: No, we do reprise of song, that help.