Thursday, April 18, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, April 18, 2013


I wonder how many Facebook declarations of "solidarity" will go out to the people of West, Texas today?
Posted by at

14 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17797919-assad-says-west-will-pay-for-backing-al-qaeda-in-syria?lite

President Bashar Assad accused the West on Wednesday of supporting al Qaeda militants in Syria's civil war...

* WHICH IS A TOTALLY ACCURATE ACCUSATION! YEP! IN A SENSE WE'RE "ALLIED" WITH AL QAEDA.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

Assad also launched his strongest criticism yet of neighboring Jordan for allowing thousands of fighters to cross the border to join [the] conflict...

* ALSO TRUE! (AND NOTE, FOLKS... YESTERDAY I HAD A NEWSBITE CONCERNING OUR OWN GROWING INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS!)

Assad said Washington and Europe would regret supporting rebels in Syria. "The West paid heavily for funding al Qaeda in its early stages in Afghanistan. Today it is supporting it in Syria, Libya and other places, and will pay a heavy price later in the heart of Europe and the United States," he told al-Ikhbariya channel.

* ALREADY WE PAID THE PRICE IN BENGHAZI...

(*SHRUG*)

Assad was speaking a week after Syria's rebel al-Nusra Front, one of the most effective rebel forces battling his troops, formally pledged allegiance to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

Rebels say U.S. officers in Jordan have been training groups of anti-Assad fighters...

(*SIGH*)

April 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/rep-lamar-smith-immigration-bill-worse-we-thought-legalizes-relatives-and

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said today that the Senate immigration bill is even worse than feared, since it legalizes illegals' relatives and even those previously deported:

"It's hard to believe, but the Senate immigration bill is worse than we thought. Despite assurances, the border is not secured before almost everyone in the country illegally is given amnesty. The bill guarantees there will be a rush across the border to take advantage of massive amnesty."

Rep. Smith says the Senate immigration bill shreds current immigration laws:

"And the Senate proposal offers amnesty to far more illegal immigrants than we thought. In addition to most of the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, the bill offers to legalize the relatives of illegal immigrants outside the U.S. and even others who have already been deported back home. So current immigration laws are shredded."

(*SIGH*)

"The Senate bill is bad news for the American people. The good news is that the House Judiciary Committee will come up with a better plan that improves our immigration system and puts the interests of American workers first."

* I'M NOT HOLDING MY BREATH FOR ANYTHING RESEMBLING COMMON SENSE AND GOOD JUDGEMENT TO COME OUT OF WASHINGTON... EITHER OUT OF THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE... EITHER FROM THE REPUBLICANS NOR CERTAINLY NOT FROM THE DEMOCRATS.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

April 18, 2013 at 8:50 AM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/345870/violating-immigration-law-%E2%80%94-executive-command-%E2%80%94-texas

The immigration issue is front and center in Washington this week... Meanwhile, in Texas, a federal judge is set to rule within days on a pending lawsuit that has gone largely unnoticed, although it could have serious implications for the immigration debate.

The suit pits the Obama administration against its own immigration-enforcement agents, who are suing over the administration’s use of “prosecutorial discretion” to dictate how immigration law is enforced — or not enforced.

A group of ten U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents has charged that a series of policy directives from ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) effectively “commands ICE officers to violate federal law” and face possible suspension or termination if they refuse.

A federal judge in Dallas heard arguments in the case on April 8, and he is expected to issue a ruling in the coming days. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against a June 2012 directive from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that instructs ICE officers to refrain from initiating deportation proceedings for illegal immigrants who may qualify for what is sometimes referred to as “DREAM status.”

* WHO "MAY" QUALIFY UNDER A "LAW" THAT... er... DOESN'T EXIST.

The ICE agents claim that the directive “violates the obligation of the executive branch to faithfully execute the law,” which mandates that if immigration officers find that a detainee is in the country illegally, that individual “shall be detained” for removal proceedings.

* YEP. EXISTING LAW. "SHALL" BE DETAINED. (NOT "MAY" BE DETAINED.)

The Obama administration, however, is arguing that the word “shall,” in this instance, actually means “may.”

* THIS IS HOW THE RULE OF LAW BECOMES THE RULE OF FORCE... THE RULE OF MEN - MEN TEMPORARILY IN POWER.

The resulting enforcement breakdown has led officials to release dangerous criminals without charge.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 18, 2013 at 9:35 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

One of the most “shocking” examples of this, notes Kris Kobach, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, is the case of ICE agent Samuel Martin:

On July 17, 2012, an illegal immigrant who had been detained on a domestic-assault charge in El Paso, Texas, allegedly assaulted Martin and a colleague — a federal felony charge — as they tried to place the immigrant in a vehicle. When Martin, who would later require shoulder surgery as a result of the incident, sought to initiate removal proceedings against the immigrant, his ICE supervisors told him to release the detainee without charge. According to the plaintiff’s court filing, the agents protested, but were told that “it was a management decision, based on the President’s new immigration policies.” ICE supervisors, with an eye to possible disciplinary action, subsequently questioned the agents.

“Most of the people turned loose are criminals, people who have been arrested but not yet convicted,” Kobach tells National Review Online. “This is really a dangerous policy that results in hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal aliens [who’ve been] arrested for crimes being turned loose on the streets.”

Another agent involved in the lawsuit, James D. Doebler, was given a three-day suspension for arresting and initiating removal proceedings against a “non-targeted alien who did not appear to meet any of the ICE priorities,” according to the official notice of suspension. The illegal immigrant was arrested during a surveillance operation of which he was not the target, but he was later found to have multiple traffic violations, including driving without a license. Doebler determined that the immigrant was a legitimate security threat, made the arrest, and sought to initiate deportation proceedings. ICE supervisors intervened, however, and the immigrant was released without being charged. The arresting agent was served a notice of proposed suspension for his actions; according to court documents, Doebler “reasonably fears that a second disciplinary action will result in the loss of his job.”

Illegal immigrants are keenly aware of the administration’s policy directives, says Chris Crane, who heads the union representing more than 7,000 ICE employees, and routinely claim “DREAM status” in order to escape criminal charges and deportation. ICE agents have been ordered to “take them at their word,” he adds, and have encountered increasingly aggressive pushback in the field: “They literally have people coming up to them, confronting them, saying, ‘Here’s Obama’s policy, you can’t arrest me, go away.’”

According to court testimony from ICE agent Sam Martin, illegal-immigrant inmates often claim protection under “Obama’s Dream Act” as soon as agents inform them that they will be placed in removal proceedings. Agents are then required to accept the claims and release the detainees without charge.

In some cases, ICE agents have overheard illegal-immigrant detainees — unaware that the agents understand Spanish — coaching one another on how to avoid arrest by claiming DREAM status; yet these agents are still unable to take action. “There’s no doubt in any of our officers’ minds that we are being lied to in thousands upon thousands of cases, and these people are walking out the back doors of jails based on these lies,” Crane says. “It’s an absolute joke.”

Crane met with Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), a leading member of the Gang of Eight, on Monday, after repeated requests. After the meeting, he formally asked Rubio to delay the release of the legislation until “our officers and experts can provide real legislative input.” That didn’t happen. Crane’s biggest concern is that the Obama administration’s ability to ignore current immigration law is a strong sign that any future enforcement measures are unlikely to be implemented. “The single biggest breakdown in our entire immigration system is the fact that every president and every president’s appointees are able to pick and choose which laws they will follow and which laws they won’t,” he says.

April 18, 2013 at 9:35 AM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/chuck-schumers-triumph-90242.html

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has been at the center of crafting a bill for a mass amnesty of [illegal] immigrants that has high-profile, bipartisan support and a chance of becoming law.

He had the shrewdness to realize what he needed to do to make the bill viable and the wherewithal to effect it.

Schumer rightly recognized the importance of keeping on board Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who has been tireless and fearless in making the case for the Gang of Eight’s approach. The muted reaction of the Right to the bill is a testament to its fondness and respect for Rubio.

* LET ME JUST NOTE THAT THOSE THE AUTHOR IS REFERRING TO AS "THE RIGHT" ARE OFTEN RINOs - AS IS THE AUTHOR OF THIS PIECE HIMSELF!

Schumer managed to hold Rubio and win his grudging respect, while selling him a lopsided deal. Rubio traded amnesty — although he refuses to call it that — for an enforcement plan and a commission to be named later.

* ACTUALLY... NOT EVEN A TRUE PLAN! (BUT WE'RE GETTING TO THAT...)

Under the bill, no additional enforcement has to take place before undocumented immigrants get legalized. The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security merely has to come up with a "strategy" for enforcement and notify Congress that it has commenced.

* UH-HUH...

It doesn’t matter if it is a good, bad or indifferent plan, so long as it is a plan. Then, an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants get legal status.

After that, everything is details. The newly legal immigrants won’t be able to start on “the path to citizenship” for years and until we have met enforcement benchmarks, but the initial legalization is what will be paramount to most of them.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

The bill stipulates that we will establish a 90% effectiveness rate at catching people trying to cross the border in five years.

* THINK ABOUT THAT, FOLKS... JUST... er... THINK ABOUT THAT ONE...

If that goal isn’t achieved, according to a summary of the bill, then a bipartisan border commission swoops in to "take charge" and come up with its own report and recommendations.

* WRITING A REPORT AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ISN'T "TAKING CHARGE."

And if the commission fails to produce these recommendations within 180 days, well then, the bill demands that the Department of Homeland Security come up with yet another border security plan!

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

Welcome to the new era of immigration enforcement, which is likely to be the same as the old era of border enforcement[!]

Schumer’s genius is to have placated Rubio not just with promises, but with new versions of old promises. Rubio touts the bill’s mandate for the creation of an exit-entry tracking system, a key piece of the puzzle of controlling who comes here.

* HERE'S THE THING, FOLKS...

Congress first mandated the creation of such a system in 1996.

(*LOOKING AT MY WATCH*) YEP... IT IS 2013...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

It is one thing for Congress to make earnest assurances about wonderful things that will occur in the future (like the universal E-verify system for enforcement at the point of employment that is supposed to be implemented years from now). It is quite another for them to occur. In 2001, Congress congratulated itself for passing the No Child Left Behind Act that quite sincerely said all students — yes, all students — would achieve proficiency in reading and mathematics by the 2013-14 school year.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

* ATTENTION TERRORISTS; ATTENTION ALL TERRORISTS: 38°53′42″N 77°02′11″W ('NUFF SAID!)

If the Gang of Eight bill becomes law, a natural political dynamic will take over. Denying any undocumented immigrant newly legal status will seem arbitrary and unfair, and so the notionally tough requirements for legal status will be only loosely applied. Pro-amnesty advocacy groups and the business lobby will work to undermine enforcement in the courts and in Congress. And the new argument against Republicans will become that they are alienating Latino voters by insisting on an inexcusably drawn-out process for formerly undocumented immigrants to get a citizenship (and become voters).

No doubt, Chuck Schumer has already thought all this through. That’s why he’s Chuck Schumer.

April 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/345745/immigration-sophistry

* AS ALWAYS... DR. SOWELL MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

* READ THE FULL ARTICLE, FOLKS; IT'S ENTERTAINING AS WELL AS INFORMATIVE.

April 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309604578430473558735676.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

The number of U.S. workers applying for jobless benefits rose for the fourth time in five weeks...

* O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!

Initial jobless claims, an indication of layoffs, increased by 4,000 to a seasonally adjusted 352,000 in the week ended April 13, the Labor Department said Thursday. That was above economists' forecast of 350,000 new claims.

A broader measure of claims [also] continued to climb. The four-week moving average of claims, which "smooths out" week-to-week volatility, grew by 2,750 to 361,250, the highest level since mid-February.

Meanwhile, claims for the week ending April 6 were revised up to 348,000 from an initially reported 346,000.

The figures are the latest sign the labor market has settled into a slower phase of progress, after robust job growth in the winter.

* OH, BULLSHIT! THERE WAS NO "ROBUST JOB GROWTH" DURING THE WINTER! GEEZUS... JUST BROWSE NEWSBITE ECONOMIC STORIES FROM THIS WINTER! I CAN'T STAND IT WHEN THE WSJ TRIES TO PAINT A ROSY PICTURE WHEN THERE WAS NONE AND IS NONE.

Last month, employers added just 88,000 jobs, less than half the average job creation over the winter...

* EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS GETTING AT! EVEN 88,000 + 88,000 IS FAR BELOW THE JOB CREATION NECESSARY TO WHICH "ROBUST GROWTH" WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE LABEL!

* FOLKS... AGAIN... THE ACTUAL LABOR PARTICIPATION LEVELS HAVE BEEN GOING DOWN... DOWN... DOWN... (IT'S NOT LIKE THE WSJ EDITOR WHO APPROVED THIS STORY DOESN'T KNOW ALL THIS!)

The report comes amid growing debate about if and when the Federal Reserve should rein in its stimulus measures, including an $85 billion-a-month bond-buying program. The figures pointing to a weaker labor market, along with a report this week showing inflation remains tame...

* ANOTHER FUCKING HUGE LIE! INFLATION "TAME...?!?!" HAS ANYONE GONE FOOD SHOPPING LATELY...??? AND, YEAH... GAS IS LOWER... AND I RECOGNIZE AND APPLAUD THIS AND TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT... BUT WHAT I ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS THAT WITH EACH SUBSEQUENT OBAMA-ERA GAS PRICE SPIKE, WHEN GAS PRICES GO DOWN THEY GO DOWN LESS... LOWER... THAN THE PREVIOUS "FLOOR." FOLKS... YEAH, I'D RATHER BE PAYING $3.29 IN NJ FOR GAS vs. $3.89, BUT THE FACT IS THAT ANYTHING OVER $3-gal. IS STILL OUTRAGEOUS... STILL HIGHLY INFLATIONARY!

Thursday's report showed the number of continuing unemployment benefit claims — those drawn by workers for more than a week — fell by 35,000 to 3,068,000 in the week ended April 6. Continuing claims are reported with a one-week lag.

* AND THAT'S GOOD... AS FAR AS IT GOES. (ON THE OTHER HAND... IS IT BECAUSE THESE FOLKS ARE FINDING NEW JOBS... OR... ARE THEY RUNNING OUT OF UNEMPLOYMENT OR PERHAPS GOING ON DISABILITY...???)

A Labor Department official said data for California and Kentucky were based on estimates.

* FOLKS... I CAN'T BELIEVE THE WSJ WAITED TILL THE LAST LINE TO REPORT THAT THIS ARTICLE IS BASED ON ECONOMIC REPORTS... ABSENT FRIGGIN' CALIFORNIA!

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

April 18, 2013 at 10:45 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/18/gm-a-bad-investment/

It’s been nearly four years since General Motors declared bankruptcy and was bailed out by American taxpayers. So what has $50 billion bought us?

GM has increased its manufacturing capacity in China by 55% since emerging from bankruptcy thanks to a $50 billion bailout from taxpayers.

The automaker is also the industry leader in its partnerships with state-owned enterprises in China, having expanded to 12 joint ventures after their bailout; which doubled their presence in the country.

Seventy percent of GM's products are built outside the United States.

Why take so much money from the American people and then set up camp in China? According to GM, it’s part of a “longstanding philosophy of building where it sells.” Forty percent of GM’s global sales volume come from markets in China, Russia and South Korea.

* FOLKS... I OPPOSED THE BAILOUT. HOW'BOUT THE REST OF YOU?

* FOLKS... I WANT GM TO EMPLOY AMERICANS BUILDING VEHICLES HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. I WANT GM SUPPORTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE - AND DOMESTIC EMPLOYMENT - THAT GOES WITH EXPORTING FINISHED PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES. HOW'BOUT YOU?

* ANY GM STOCKHOLDERS READING THIS? (CARL...???) FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE! FEEL FREE TO SUPPORT GM's PROFITS UBER ALLES! AND IF THE UNITED STATES WERE A CAPITALIST COUNTRY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW AND GM WAS A CAPITALISTIC ENTERPRISE I'D SUPPORT YOU... BUT NEITHER IS THE CASE. THE SITUATION IS THAT THE CORPORATISTS AND THE UNIONS ARE BOTH PROFITING (IN TERMS OF SHORT-TERM INTERESTS) VIA "THEIR" PET DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WHEREAS THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER HAS GOTTEN SCREWED.

GM’s relationship with the communist government of China seems to be about more than sales though. In late 2010, the auto maker sponsored a Chinese propaganda film after CEO Dan Akerson confirmed GM would “continue investing aggressively in China.” He later went on to praise the “cultural revolution” that took place in China, saying: "Whoever comes after me — it’s going to be a more important appointment than mine because he or she will have to carry on a cultural revolution here.” “It’s just like the Communist party in China in the 1960s: There has to be a cultural revolution here."

* FOLKS... THIS IS OBAMA'S GM... THIS IF BUSH'S GM... THIS ISN'T MY GM NOR YOURS, I'M HOPING.

The “revolution” Akerson referred to, for those who don’t study communist tactics, was responsible for the brutal murders of millions while communism rose to power in China.

As if their admiration for communism wasn’t enough, GM’s overlooking of how women in China are treated is mind-boggling. Not only are they forced to obey a “one child” policy, but female infanticide has gone on for so long that men can no longer find women to marry. As reported by Fox News: ”Twenty-five million men in China currently can’t find brides because there is a shortage of women,” said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute in Washington, D.C. “The young men emigrate overseas to find brides.”

* YEP. THE NYT HAS REPORTED THE SAME BASIC TRUTHS.

While the anti-women culture in China is not news, it is worthy to note that it is a major part of the communist country that GM’s CEO aspires for his company to resemble. Currently being full business partners with China in 12 separate companies, it would appear GM is well on their way.

[I]f the end result of bailing out GM was to hand more power to China, then the job has been done.

Unfortunately, if you live in the United States and/or are female, it doesn’t appear that GM vehicles were made for you.

April 18, 2013 at 2:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/17/channeling_bushs_budget_tricks?wp_login_redirect=0

The war budget is late and that could mean trouble.

(*SMIRK*)

One of the less-discussed elements of the administration's defense budget request is the delay in submitting a request for the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account, which funds the military's effort in Afghanistan and counter-terrorism operations globally.

(*SNORT*)

Instead of submitting the war budget with the regular "base" budget, the administration simply provided a "plug" of $88 billion for next year and said the real war budget would come later.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

In delaying the war budget, President Obama has violated a pledge he made before taking office: that he would submit an OCO budget request simultaneously with the overall defense budget submission.

* ONE MORE TIME...

In delaying the war budget, President Obama has violated a pledge he made before taking office: that he would submit an OCO budget request simultaneously with the overall defense budget submission.

During the presidential transition, moreover, the Obama administration negotiated an agreement with DOD that only direct war costs would be included in the war budget.

(*SMIRK*)

The simultaneous submission of the war budget, and the restrictions on its use, were supposed to end the Bush administration's repeated delays on war funding that allowed DOD to avoid the normal budget planning process - what is known as the Programming, Planning, Budgeting and Execution System. It also allowed the Pentagon to lard up the war budget with items that were not directly linked to the war, like the costs of modifying ground forces into Brigade Combat Teams, or buying ground equipment that was part of the Army's long-term plan while not replacing equipment damaged in the war.

Obama's decision was good budget practice. ... Letting other spending slip into the war budget deeply eroded the integrity and discipline of the Pentagon's normal budget process. For the services, the war budget became a kind of "safety valve" for spending that was otherwise hard to justify. And the definition of what was a "war cost" was expanded in 2006 to cover almost anything the services wanted. The result, as another CRS report made clear, was that war budgets were significantly abused.

(*NOD*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Despite Obama's promises, this year the budgetary dogs of war have slipped loose again.

* HEY... HE'S BEEN RE-ELECTED... (*SHRUG*)

At least one military leader, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, has made it clear that this process may allow the services to escape the discipline of budget planning, combined with the restraints imposed by the sequester. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee last week, he noted, "In the past, we've relied on Overseas Contingency Operations funding to partially fund...flying-hour programs and to maintain our current and substandard readiness levels," and went on to say the Air Force would continue this process through FY 2015.

(This kinda suggests the discipline negotiated in 2008 has not been as tight as promised, and that's worth a question or two in the budget hearings.)

The $88 billion plug makes it even worse. Eight-eight billion dollars is what the war is supposed to cost this year. The FY 2014 plug put in the FY 2013 budget request last year was $44 billion, so the plug itself has doubled in size.

(*SNORT*)

That leaves room for budgetary skullduggery. Now we don't have anything close to a realistic "suggested" amount for war costs. The Pentagon has let it be known that it has already underestimated this year's war costs by close to $10 billion, most of it in the Army. According to Foreign Policy's Kevin Baron, Comptroller Bob Hale said in testimony: "Here there's a simple story about fiscal '14 OCO budget: We don't have one yet."

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

That's a shame.

* AND IT SHOULD BE A FIRING OFFENSE; BUT CLEARLY IT'S NOT.

Thirteen years of war and the Pentagon still can't tell you what the war costs? Not plausible.

* AND THUS HEADS SHOULD BE ROLLING... BUT THEY'RE NOT... NOT UNDER OBAMA... NOT UNDER BOEHNER NOR MCCONNELL.

* DEAR TERRORISTS: 38°53′42″N 77°02′11″W

Watch out for the OCO budget when it comes. With sequestration underway and ineptitude showing up in the planning, it could be a doozy.

April 18, 2013 at 2:34 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/17/jim-demint-and-derrick-morgan-on-immigration-reform-column/2091655/

The United States has always been a nation of immigrants...

* AND YET...

The fact is that our modern welfare state has completely changed the equation on costs and benefits of low-skilled immigration.

* TRUE. BUT BEYOND THAT THERE'S THE QUESTION OF HOW TODAY'S IMMIGRATION EFFECTS OUR TRADITIONAL CULTURE - HOW POST-MID-'60's IMMIGRATION POLICY - HAS EFFECTED OUR CULTURE IN A MORE NEGATIVE THAN POSITIVE FASHION. (WHICH IT HAS!)

Our welfare system is costly - approaching nearly $1 trillion a year - and, even worse, includes perverse incentives, stifles upward mobility, weakens our work culture and has changed the whole immigration arithmetic.

Today, a single parent can get benefits from government totaling nearly $20,000 without working at all.

James Pethokoukis at the American Enterprise Institute calculated that a single mother of two children earning $29,000 and getting welfare benefits would be financially better off than if she took a new $69,000 a year job and lost her government benefits.

* I'M GONNA "NEWSBITE" PETHOKOUKIS' ARTICLE NEXT... (STAY TUNED!)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 18, 2013 at 2:53 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Before lawmakers proceed with "comprehensive" reform, it is critical for them to understand the costs to taxpayers of an amnesty that qualifies millions of unauthorized immigrants for federal benefits.

* IT SHOULD BE CRITICAL. IT'S NOT. WHY SHOULD THEY CARE? NO MATTER HOW THEIR POLICIES FUCK THE COUNTRY THEY AND THEIRS WILL REMAIN ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY BLESSED! SERIOUSLY... BEFORE THESE SCUM SUFFER PERSONALLY WE'D HAVE TO SINK TO THIRD-WORLD LEVEL POVERTY... AND EVEN THEN... (*SHRUG*)

The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector has pioneered research into the cost to the federal government over time of granting amnesty. Rector was the driving force behind welfare reform in the 1990s. Five years ago, Rector found that amnesty would likely cost taxpayers some $2.5 trillion. Over the last six months he has been putting the finishing touches on an updated study that calculates an even higher price tag.

Some may say we can solve this fiscal problem by granting amnesty without any government benefits. We all know that will never happen. As soon as any of the nearly 11 million unauthorized immigrants are given legal status, the political fight will turn to speeding their transition to citizenship and promises of a full array of federal benefits.

* FOLKS... EVEN IF CITIZENSHIP IS DELAYED BY STATUTE... THE COURTS WILL NEVER ALLOW IT ONCE AMNESTY ACTUALLY COMES. THESE PEOPLE WILL SIMPLY BE "DEEMED" TO BE CLASSIFIED AS CITIZENS FOR PURPOSES OF GOVERNMENTAL POLICY. THE COURTS AREN'T GOING TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT RIGHTS THEY GET; THEY'LL BE GIVEN EQUAL RIGHTS. (MEANING EQUAL ACCESS TO THE "BENEFITS" OF THE WELFARE STATE.)

Delaying eligibility for federal benefits to newly legalized immigrants merely puts off the day of reckoning.

* AGAIN... ONLY FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES THE SUPREME COURT TO GET THE CASE. (*SHRUG*)

The truly enormous costs come when unauthorized immigrants start collecting retirement benefits. Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and other entitlement programs already impose huge, unfunded liabilities on taxpayers; adding more recipients only makes the fiscal hole we find ourselves in much deeper.

* YEP...

An amnesty of more than 10 million unauthorized immigrants will add significant costs to taxpayers because of the simple fact that, on average, today's unauthorized immigrants have the equivalent of a 10th-grade education.

* I KNOW... I KNOW... THOSE PESKY FACTS...

Those with that education level, whatever their background, tend to collect much more in benefits than they pay in taxes. And that means that the fiscal burden on Americans only gets heavier with amnesty. We cannot afford a policy that will add trillions of dollars to our long-term fiscal deficit.

* SINCE WHEN HAVE THE POLITICANS GIVEN A DAMN WHAT WE CAN AFFORD...???

Congress should fix our broken legal immigration system before considering giving unauthorized residents citizenship and federal benefits. This reform should be done in a step-by-step, open process that will win the trust of the American People.

* BUT IT WON'T BE!

In this immigration debate, we should encourage lawful immigration and discourage unlawful immigration. A critically important factor will be calculating the cost of amnesty to taxpayers. Any reform legislation should first do no harm to our already dire fiscal outlook.

* THE AUTHOR LIVES IN A FANTASY WORLD WHERE POLITICIANS CARE ABOUT WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY!

April 18, 2013 at 2:54 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias-mother-why-a-single-mom-is-better-off-on-welfare-than-taking-a-69000-a-year-job/

* THE PETHOKOUKIS LINK I PROMISED!

April 18, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)