right from time to time. The NationalnReview has attacked the home ownershipnprogram in strong terms, but ultimatelynplaces the blame for flaws onnCongress, a tactic that worked to keepnReagan’s reputation alive among conservativesnfor his two terms. The NationalnRight to Work Committee hasnblasted Kemp for favoring unions innthe distribution of housing contracts. Inhave criticized in these pages Kemp’snenterprise zone program as a covertnsubsidy program for business. And anconservative activist group, the StampnOut Crime Council, has blastednKemp’s decision to provide communityndevelopment block grants to illegalnimmigrants. (Kemp’s defense: “discriminationnagainst illegal aliens . . .nwould frustrate the basic purposes” ofnHUD; besides, “whether alleviatingnhunger and homelessness, combatingnchild abuse, minimizing substancenabuse, or providing crises intervention,nthe community as a whole benefits.”)nBut somehow these criticisms from thenright don’t stick. The faith that a bureaucracynlike HUD can promote conservativenends stays alive.nBut the bottom line on bureaucraciesnis that they don’t work well. Fromnan economic standpoint, it doesn’tnmatter whether conservatives ornliberals are running them. The administratorsntoy with money that is notntheir own; employees are under nonconstraints to serve the consumingnpublic; and managers operate withoutnthe benefit of a profit and loss system tonguide decision making. These used tonbe critiques the right offered as a matternof course. But sometime betweenn1980 and 1990 this wisdom was tossednout, and now we suffer under rightwingnwelfarism not substantially differentnfrom the left-wing variety.nIn fact, if HUD were leveled today,nit would be Washington’s right wing,nnot left, that would scream bloodynmurder. It serves as useful employmentnfor conservatives who came to Washingtonnto participate in a revolution,nbut who now occupy the offices ofngovernment agencies, and use thosenpositions of established power whilenclaiming to promote their social goals.nAlmost everyone identified with then”conservative movement” in Washingtonnhas a “good contact” at HUD.nKemp continues to harbor hopes ofngetting the presidential nomination inn1996. Is it possible that his record ofnproviding cash giveaways — unpopularnwith the public but immensely popularnwith those getting the loot — can benthe basis of a Republican campaign? Ifnso, that tells us much about the newnpolitical equilibrium that has settlednupon America — and the desperatenneed to reassert the old conservativenview, long forgotten, that the freensociety requires limitations on governmentnpower.nJeffrey A. Tucker is a fellow of thenLudwig von Mises Institute.nFree Pass tonDisneylandnby Don BarnettnSoviet Emigres on the DolenThe economy Soviet emigres leavenbehind is property called irrational.nConsider the economy they enter in thenUnited States as described in an articlenthat recendy appeared in the Sovietnpaper the Independent. “The benefitsn(in America) are real. Our son attendednan excellent private school fornwhich he didn’t pay a cent. Then henwent to college for free. . . . Thenapartment we live in rents for half ofnwhat it should normally go for. Theynsay you have to wait on a list for threenyears for government apartments likenthese, but there are ways to movenahead on the list. Smarter emigres willnrent their apartments out to dumbernnewcomers and pocket the difference.n. . . My mother-in-law lives in her ownn(subsidized) apartment and receives anfull (U.S.) pension, which surprisesneven me . . . this is a poor man’s paradise.”nOn any day the main Russian emigrennewspaper, Novoye RusskoyenSlovo, is crammed with advertisementsnfor lawyers and “consultants” hawkingnadvice on how to work the ropes ofnsocial services. On some days these adsnand appeals from lawyers looking fornpersonal injury suits outnumber the jobnofferings.nAdvertisements such as these arenaimed at new immigrants in Americanand would-be immigrants in the SovietnnnUnion still considering a move to then”poor man’s paradise.” I have watchednthe growth of this cottage consultingnindustry in the immigrant cornmunitynfor over ten years and realize it is partnof a wider trend in America. However,nit also relates directly to the way innwhich the country handles Soviets desiringnto emigrate to the United States.nThe Polidcal Refugee Act of 1980ncodified in U.S. law various UnitednNations resolutions that call for refugees—nthose who have been persecutednor have a “well founded fear ofnpersecution on account of race, religion,nnationality, membership in a particularnsocial group, or political opinion”—nto receive special recognitionnand consideration. The United NationsnHigh Commissioner for Refugeesn(UNHCR) now places fifteen to sixteennmillion people in that categorynworldwide. The United States admits ancertain number of refugees each yearnover and above regular immigrationnquotas. The number of refugees is notnsubject to any ceiling imposed by immigrationnlaw. By definition, the programnis intended to provide refuge tonthose in imminent danger at homenwho have nowhere else to go.nInitially the Refugee Act was used tonget some of our Vietnam War allies outnof harm’s way as quickly as possible.nTen years later we still accept somenfifty-two thousand Southeast Asians anyear as refugees. However, it is thenSoviet Union that supplies the largestnnumber of refugees from a singlencountry. This year up to some sixtynthousand Soviets will be admitted tonthe United States as refugees. Refugeesnfrom various countries now comprisenabout 18 percent of our total yeariynimmigration. In spite of the growth innoverall numbers of refugee admissionsnover the last five years, the total numbernaccepted from Burma, El Salvador,nChina, Guatemala, and Chile has nevernexceeded a few dozen per year.nThere are some important advantagesnrefugees enjoy over regular immigrants,nlike a cash allotment and transportationnto the United States.nCurrently money for transportation isnhandled as an interest-free loan, but itnis too eariy to tell how collectible thesenloans are. Until this year transportationncosts were covered by the UnitednStates. Refugees, who are entitled to allnwelfare programs, are actively encour-nFEBRUARY 1992/41n