Thursday, November 18, 2010

CALIFORNIA IN MELTDOWN - The Weight of Illegal Immigration

HOW MANY TIMES OVER DO WE PAY FOR THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS?

FROM ARTICLE BELOW:
“Meanwhile, the budget deficit continues to grow beyond expectation. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has called an emergency session of the incoming legislature to come up with more cuts to address the state’s projected $25.4 billion budget shortfall for the next fiscal year. This is after year-after-year cuts to social services and programs benefiting the working class.”
*
CA OPERATES DEFICITS OF $20 BILLION A YEAR, AND PUTS OUT $20 BILLION PER YEAR BEING MEXICO’S WELFARE, FREE ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING CENTER, JOBS & JAILS SYSTEMS, AS ILLEGALS WAVE THEIR MEX FLAG IN OUR FACE AND REFUSE TO SPEAK ENGLISH!

latimes.com
Opinion
California must stem the flow of illegal immigrants
The state should go after employers who hire them, curb taxpayer-funded benefits, deploy the National Guard to help the feds at the border and penalize 'sanctuary' cities.

Illegal immigration is another matter entirely. With the state budget in tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars."

*
The danger, as Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson argues, is that of “importing poverty” in the form of a new underclass—a permanent group of working poor.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Gov. Schwarzenegger said California is facing “financial Armageddon”. He is making drastic cuts in the budget for education, health care and services. But there is one place he isn’t making cuts… services for illegal immigrants. These services are estimated to cost the state four to five billion dollars a year. Schwarzenegger said he is “happy” to offer these services. We will have a full report tonight.

*
California state workers’ union pushes through cuts in pay and pensions
By Jack Cody
18 November 2010
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in California has pushed through an agreement that will reduce pay and pension benefits for state and city workers. The contract, which was approved just one week after the elections, is an indication of the type of austerity measures that will be imposed—with the complicity of the unions—throughout the state and across the US.
The 95,000 workers in the union voted to accept the cuts on November 9 after the SEIU and the state government presented a yes vote as the only way to avoid furloughs.
Effective immediately, all workers’ retirement contributions will increase by 3 percent. The contract establishes a two-tiered pension system, effectively raising the retirement age for new hires. Current employees will be able to retire at 55 with pensions equal to 2 percent of their pay for every year they work. New hires will not be eligible for this option until they are 60.
The SEIU is touting as a major accomplishment a supposed one-year prohibition on furlough days written into the contract. Yet, workers will take a 4.62 percent pay cut that comes with 12 mandatory days off per year. Far from putting an end to furlough days, this contract has effectively institutionalized them.
With budget shortfalls on the horizon for the foreseeable future in California, further furloughs for state workers will almost certainly be an option on the table at the end of the one-year period.
(CALIFORNIA, THE EPICENTER OF THE HOUSING CRISIS… WE CAN THANK BANKSTERS WELLS FARGO AND BANK of AMERICAN, AND THE POLITICIANS THEY OWN LIKE DIANNE FEINSTEIN, ALWAYS THERE TO FIX THE SYSTEM ON THEIR BEHALF)
California, the epicenter of the housing crisis that precipitated the global financial crash of 2008, has faced budget deficits in the tens of billions of dollars for three consecutive years. The Democrats and the Republicans, along with the media, are collaborating in an effort to scapegoat workers’ pensions for the ongoing fiscal crises.
These efforts are in line with a national strategy, spearheaded by President Barack Obama, to gut social services. The recent elections mark a rightward shift in the political establishment under conditions of growing social misery for the vast majority of the population. Obama has established a bipartisan budget deficit panel in the attempt to push through, with Republican Party support, across-the-board cuts to social services, including Social Security and Medicare.
The SEIU contract demonstrates the crucial role that the unions will play in forcing austerity measures on the working class. SEIU bureaucrats are applauding themselves for ratifying a contract that saves the state $400 million. “We’ve done our part to get the state through this unprecedented budget crisis,” said SEIU Local 1000 President Yvonne Walker.
The primary goal for SEIU officials is in line with that of Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democrats who control the state legislature: to shift the costs of the recession onto the backs of workers. The union entirely accepts the framework of the debate in Sacramento—and the rejection by both parties of any measures that would cut into the wealth of the ruling elite in the state.
Meanwhile, the budget deficit continues to grow beyond expectation. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has called an emergency session of the incoming legislature to come up with more cuts to address the state’s projected $25.4 billion budget shortfall for the next fiscal year. This is after year-after-year cuts to social services and programs benefiting the working class.
That the ratification of the SEIU contract and the announcement of the estimated increase in the state’s budget deficit came just weeks after a contentious election is no accident. Schwarzenegger and the Democrats in the state legislature doubtless knew about the size of the deficit well in advance of the election.
The SEIU has close ties to the Democratic Party in general, and to the incoming governor, Jerry Brown, in particular. The union devoted millions of dollars in dues to the Brown campaign, even as the candidate said that he would make cutting state worker pensions a priority. Brown and his Republican rival, Meg Whitman, turned the highly publicized race into a competition over who would more aggressively attack pensions once in office (see “Right-wing consensus in California gubernatorial elections”).
Having helped put Brown in office, the SEIU and other unions will be used as an instrument for further attacks against workers’ living standards. Facing a massive deficit in his first year in office, it is all but certain that Brown will go on the offensive against government employee wages and pensions. When this happens, SEIU officials will likely invoke extenuating circumstances in the attempt to force further concessions on their members.
*
New Polls Show Broad-Based Support for Immigration Enforcement
While pro-amnesty advocates increase their pressure on the Obama Administration to pass “comprehensive immigration reform,” recent polls show strong support for immigration enforcement, even among minorities, business executives, union members, and parishioners. In February, Zogby released the results of a survey of roughly 700 Hispanic, 400 African-American, and 400 Asian-American likely voters. The Zogby poll found that, when asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal aliens in the country to go home or offering them an amnesty, 52 percent of Hispanics, 57 percent of Asian-Americans, and 50 percent of African-Americans support the enforcement option. (CIS Backgrounder, February 2010). A Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analysis of the poll results concluded that despite the perception that minority voters support amnesty as a monolithic bloc, the reality is that minorities “want enforcement and less immigration.” (Id.).
Another Zogby poll released in February illustrates the gap between pro-amnesty special interests and the people that these groups purport to represent. Special interest business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition often team with special interest labor groups like the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union to lobby Congress in support of amnesty and in opposition to immigration enforcement. However, the Zogby poll found that 59 percent of executives (e.g., CEOs, CFOs, etc.), 67 percent of small business owners, and 58 percent of union households support enforcement of our immigration laws over granting amnesty to illegal aliens. (CIS Backgrounder, February 2010).
In addition, a December Zogby poll of 42,026 likely voters similarly found that most parishioners and congregants would choose a policy of immigration enforcement that would cause illegal aliens to go home over an amnesty program. These results conflict with policies supported by many religious leaders, who have actively lobbied for passage of an amnesty. According to the Zogby poll, 64 percent of Catholics, 64 percent of “Mainline” Protestants, 76 percent of “Born-Again” Protestants, and a 43 percent plurality of Jews chose the enforcement option over amnesty. (CIS Backgrounder, December 2009).
One of the main reasons such a wide range of Americans favor immigration enforcement over amnesty is that the American people generally see illegal immigration as a strain on the U.S budget. A March 3 national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that “67 percent of U.S. voters say that illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget.” (Rasmussen Reports, March 3, 2010). Of voters polled, two-out-of-three (66 percent) said the availability of government money and services draw illegal immigrants to the United States and 68 percent said gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. (Id.). Of particular importance, 80 percent of voters said the issue of immigration will be somewhat important in determining how they will vote in the next congressional election; half (50 percent) said it will be very important to them. (Id.).
*
CALIFORNIA’S DIM FUTURE… we see today under MEXICANOCCUPATION, ever expanded by PELOSI, BOXER, FEINSTEIN, WAXMAN, LOFGREN, AND THE GROWING LA RAZA PARTY with Reps. Sanchez sisters, Baca and Becerra!

*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com



From the Los Angeles Times
Illegal immigrants again in the budget spotlight
The economic downturn has activists pushing for a measure that would limit the services Californians provide.
By Anna Gorman and Teresa Watanabe

July 10, 2009

As California lawmakers struggle with a budget gap that has now grown to $26.3 billion, one of the hottest topics for many taxpayers is the cost to the state of illegal immigrants.

The question of whether taxpayers should provide services to illegal residents became a major political issue in California's last deep recession, culminating in the ballot fight over Proposition 187 in 1994. That history could repeat itself in the current downturn, as activists opposed to illegal immigration have launched a campaign for an initiative that would, among other things, cut off welfare payments to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Those children are eligible for welfare benefits because they are U.S. citizens.

State welfare officials estimate that cutting off payments to illegal immigrants for their U.S.-born children could save about $640 million annually if it survives legal challenges.

California has roughly 2.7 million illegal residents, according to an April 2009 report from the authoritative Pew Hispanic Center, accounting for about 7% of the state's population. State officials estimate that they add between $4 billion and $6 billion in costs, primarily for prisons and jails, schools and emergency rooms. Beyond those services, the illegal population adds to the overall cost of other parts of local government, from police and fire protection to highway maintenance and libraries.

On the other side of the ledger, illegal residents pay taxes -- sales taxes on what they buy, gasoline taxes when they fuel their cars, property taxes if they own homes. The total is hotly debated, although most researchers agree that the short-term costs to state and local government are bigger than the revenues.

Many companies that hire illegal workers also withhold Social Security and income taxes from their paychecks, based on workers' invalid Social Security numbers. That money goes mostly to the federal government, not to localities. The Social Security Administration estimates that in 2007, illegal residents nationwide contributed a net of $12 billion to the system.

The largest costs to California's budget from its illegal residents are in three areas:

* Education: The state has no official count of how many students are in the country illegally because school districts do not ask. But the state legislative analyst estimated, based on data from the Pew Hispanic Center, that the state's 6.3 million public school students include about 300,000 illegal residents. At an annual cost of about $7,626 each, the total comes to nearly $2.3 billion.

* Prisons: In fiscal year 2009-10, California expects to spend about $834 million to incarcerate 19,000 illegal immigrants in the state's prisons. In Los Angeles County, illegal immigrants add between $370 million and $550 million annually to criminal justice costs, including prosecution, defense, probation and jails, according to Supervisor Mike Antonovich.

* Healthcare: The expected state tab for healthcare in fiscal 2009-10 is $703 million for as many as 780,000 illegal immigrants. Of that, $486 million goes to emergency services. But low-income illegal residents are also eligible for some nonemergency health services, including prenatal and postpartum care, abortions, breast and cervical cancer treatment and certain types of long-term care, such as stays in nursing homes. Most of the nonemergency care for illegal immigrants was authorized by the Legislature in the 1980s.

Much of those costs are beyond the control of state officials. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that the Constitution forbids school districts to turn away children who are illegal immigrants. And federal law requires emergency rooms to treat everyone, regardless of citizenship.

How serious a problem those costs are is a subject of constant debate. "It is a catastrophic hit . . . on every level of government," Antonovich said.

State Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) who heads the Senate budget committee, counters that illegal immigrants are net contributors through their taxes and labor in farming and other industries. Cutting services to illegal residents is "penny wise and pound foolish," Ducheny said.

The Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, based in Palo Alto, has analyzed research on the costs of illegal immigration. Most studies show that at least in the short term, illegal immigrants, who tend to be poorer and have more children than average, use more in public services than they contribute in taxes, the center found.

But the center's director, Stephen Levy, said some of the long-term effects were positive. Educating illegal immigrant children, for instance, helps them eventually land better jobs and higher salaries, benefiting Californians with increased tax payments and more sophisticated work skills.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said it is wrong to blame illegal immigrants for the state's fiscal problems. He has, however, proposed to limit welfare and nonemergency healthcare for illegal immigrants and their families. So far, the Legislature has rejected his plans.

One of the governor's proposals would place a five-year limit on state welfare payments to the U.S.-citizen children of illegal immigrants. That would affect approximately 100,000 U.S.-born children in about 48,000 California households headed by illegal immigrants, who receive a monthly average of $472. The measure could save $77 million annually, according to the governor's office.

Under another proposal, the governor could commute the sentences of some illegal immigrant felons in state prisons and shift them to federal detention centers. It costs the state $48,000 to incarcerate a prisoner, and the federal government reimburses about 12 cents on the dollar, according to state finance officials. The administration estimates that commuting sentences of 8,500 felons, along with other sentencing changes, could save $182 million, although other state analysts question that.

State cuts in health services could shift costs to counties, some of which have begun denying treatment to illegal immigrants to close their own budget gaps. "It really is a punt," said Farra Bracht of the Legislative Analyst's Office. "We just keep shoving more and more to the counties. . . . They are the providers of truly last resort."

Many state officials have called on the federal government to increase the payments it makes to the state for costs associated with illegal immigrants, because controlling the borders is a federal responsibility. So far, however, Washington lawmakers, faced with large deficits of their own, have not been willing.

And others say the nation's humanitarian traditions and long-term interests compel extending a helping hand to people such as Delia Godinez.

Godinez, a 43-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant, left an abusive family and lives in transitional housing. Four of her five children are citizens and receive a total of about $650 each month from the state's CalWorks program. She also receives about $500 in federal food stamps and other vouchers.

Without the aid, the unemployed Godinez said, she wouldn't be able to provide for her family. She is studying English and hopes one day to open a business and get off welfare.

"I don't want to be my whole life with that help," she said.

Many advocates say the ultimate solution is to reduce illegal immigration, not to cut off critical services that could jeopardize public health and safety.

"When people come into the U.S., even illegally, they cross more than a physical barrier; they cross a moral barrier," said Steven Camarota of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration restrictions. "We don't like it if someone can't go to the emergency room. That's just our way."
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
FAIRUS.org
JUDICIALWATCH.org
ALIPAC.us
*
JUDICIAL WATCH
SANCTUARY COUNTY LOS ANGELES SPENDS $600 MILLION ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS
County Spends $600 Mil On Welfare For Illegal Immigrants
Last Updated: Thu, 03/11/2010 - 3:14pm
For the second consecutive year taxpayers in a single U.S. county will dish out more than half a billion dollars just to cover the welfare and food-stamp costs of illegal immigrants.
Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, may be in the midst of a dire financial crisis but somehow there are plenty of funds for illegal aliens. In January alone, anchor babies born to the county’s illegal immigrants collected more than $50 million in welfare benefits. At that rate the cash-strapped county will pay around $600 million this year to provide illegal aliens’ offspring with food stamps and other welfare perks.
The exorbitant figure, revealed this week by a county supervisor, doesn’t even include the enormous cost of educating, medically treating or incarcerating illegal aliens in the sprawling county of about 10 million residents. Los Angeles County annually spends more than $1 billion for those combined services, including $500 million for healthcare and $350 million for public safety.
About a quarter of the county’s welfare and food stamp issuances go to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their anchor babies, according to the figures from the county’s Department of Social Services. In 2009 the tab ran $570 million and this year’s figure is expected to increase by several million dollars.
Illegal immigration continues to have a “catastrophic impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” the veteran county supervisor (Michael Antonovich) who revealed the information has said. The former fifth-grade history teacher has repeatedly come under fire from his liberal counterparts for publicizing statistics that confirm the devastation illegal immigration has had on the region. Antonovich, who has served on the board for nearly three decades, represents a portion of the county that is roughly twice the size of Rhode Island and has about 2 million residents.
His district is simply a snippet of a larger crisis. Nationwide, Americans pay around $22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare benefits that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children. Tens of billions more are spent on other social services, medical care, public education and legal costs such as incarceration and public defenders.
*
Anchor Babies Grab One Quarter of Welfare Dollars in LA Co

The anchor baby scam has proven lucrative for illegal aliens in Los Angeles County, at considerable cost to our own poor and downtrodden legal citizenry.

The numbers show that more than $50 million in CalWORKS benefits and food stamps for January went to children born in the United States whose parents are in the country without documentation. This represents approximately 23 percent of the total benefits under the state welfare and food stamp programs, Antonovich said.

"When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year -- not including the millions of dollars for education," Antonovich said.

I love children and I'm all for compassion -- smart, teach-them-to-fish compassion. But when laws, the Constitution, and enforcement allow illegal aliens (the operative word here being "illegal") to insinuate themselves into our nation and bleed us of our precious financial resources, then laws, the Constitution and enforcement need to be changed.


*
WHO REALLY PAYS FOR THE MEX WELFARE STATE? NOT THE EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGALS! NOT MEXICO! WE ARE MEXICO’S WELFARE SYSTEM.

No comments: