Tuesday, December 14, 2010

AMNESTY begets AMNESTY... Isn't That the Whole Idea?

AMNESTY BEGETS AMNESTY… isn’t that the entire reason for open borders and non-enforcement?
Hundreds of thousands of children born to illegals that crossed over from Mexico are still MEXICAN CITIZENS.
“But, I’m not familiar with my home county” (amnesty begets amnesty)
Date: 2010-12-14, 8:02AM PST
Reply to: comm-vcnrn-2112273907@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]

DREAM Arguments Pull at Heartstrings But Ignore Commonsense
By Caroline Espinosa
Friday, December 10, 2010, 12:00 PM EST
posted on NumbersUSA

The passage of the DREAM Act in the House on Wednesday [Dec 8, 2010] makes me think how quickly we forget to be thankful after Thanksgiving. Instead of being thankful for the education and other opportunities, they have already received, potential beneficiaries of the DREAM Act amnesty are asking for more. More education, more jobs, more benefits, and everything else that comes with amnesty and American citizenship.

These kids illegally received the benefits of American citizens. While the mantra of DREAM Act proponents is that their illegal presence is through no fault of their own and they didn’t have a choice in coming the United States, I cannot help but ask why the parents aren’t being held responsible. The parents had a choice and they chose to break the law, putting their children in this compromising position. The U.S. government should not take on the responsibility of other people’ s bad decisions.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that parents make bad decisions for their children all the time. In the cases of illegal alien minors (up to age 29 in the revised DREAM Act), the parents took a risk and their children benefited through education and jobs, but the consequences of their actions catch up to them. Their misdeeds are revealed and their kids have to deal with the consequences just as children of American citizens deal with the consequences of their parents’ bad decisions that affect them adversely. Yet, no accountability is affixed on the parents who broke the law to bring their children here.

Too many people fail to realize that “ the land of the free” does not mean free from burden, responsibility, or consequences. While many of the human-interest stories regarding the DREAM Act are compelling tales of personal struggle, law enforcement should not be based on convenience or individual circumstance. Period. When it is, everyone expects to be the exception and the rule of law crumbles into meaninglessness.

Another favorite refrain of the so-called DREAMers is that they are wholly unfamiliar with their home countries. Personally, this one doesn’ t resonate with me. I have lived in four different countries in the past four years. I’ ve moved to each one not knowing anyone there or the language. I learned a new language. I made friends. I made a life for myself. Many people all over the world do this and are better for it. In most cases, there is no reason these kids would not be able to do the same.

There are so many problems with the DREAM Act. But the bottom line is that no matter how you cut it, amnesty begets amnesty. How many more parents will risk bringing their children here illegally if we give amnesty to the ones here now? No one can know the exact number, but we know that it will be too many.

Caroline Espinosa is a former U.S. Senator press secretary and spokesperson for NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.

© 2010 NumbersUSA Action,
1601 N Kent St, Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209,
All Rights Reserved

NumbersUSA: http://www.numbersusa.com/content/

There are already 38 million illegals in the country. La Raza, the Mexican supremacist party for expansion of the Mexican welfare state, is actively fighting against illegals participating in the census. They do this through the Mexican media, and through the Catholic church. The Senate has joined in this fight. BOTH LA RAZA ENTITIES DO NOW WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW HOW BAD THE MEXICAN INVASION AND OCCUPATION IS!

Where in this country is it NOT Mexican occupied?

Judicial Watch
Mexicans Say Amnesty Will Boost Illegal Immigration
last Updated: Wed, 10/14/2009 - 3:02pm
If President Obama keeps his promise of giving the nation’s 12 million illegal aliens amnesty it will encourage more Mexicans to enter the United States, according to residents of the struggling Latin American country who are undoubtedly rooting for the commander-in-chief’s plan.
The majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are from Mexico therefore the president’s reprieve project will greatly affect that nation. Two-thirds of Mexicans say they know someone living in the United States and around one-third have an immediate member of their household or close relative living in the U.S.
A majority of those residing south of the border say legalizing their undocumented countrymen will inspire more Mexicans to head north, according to a recent survey conducted by an internationally known polling and market research company. A vast majority of Mexicans with a relative in the United States said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally.
The results of the survey were made public this week by a research organization dedicated to studying the economic, social, fiscal and demographic impacts of immigration in the U.S. It reveals that nearly one-third of Mexican residents (nearly 40 million people) would like to live in the U.S. and if there was an amnesty a large number would come illegally with the hope of qualifying for a future exoneration.
An amnesty, therefore, would stimulate more illegal immigration which is the last thing this country needs. Furthermore, rewarding those who have violated our nation’s laws with coveted U.S. residency and possibly citizenship demeans the system, especially for those who follow the appropriate steps to come lawfully.
It’s bad enough that U.S. taxpayers annually dish out billions of dollars to educate, medically treat and incarcerate illegal aliens who are, in many cases, depleting local governments. Los Angeles County alone spends more than $1 billion a year, including $48 million a month in welfare costs, to provide services for illegal aliens. The crisis is hardly limited to border states, which have traditionally been the most impacted. Georgia’s skyrocketing illegal population costs taxpayers nearly $2 billion a year.
Study: Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million A new report finds the Homeland Security Department "grossly underestimates" the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Studies released a report August 31 that estimates the number of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. is between 8 and 12 million. But the group Californians for Population Stabilization, or CAPS, has unveiled a report estimating the illegal population is actually between 20 and 38 million. Four experts, all of whom contributed to the study prepared by CAPS, discussed their findings at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington Wednesday. James Walsh, a former associate general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he is "appalled" that the Bush administration, lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and every Democratic presidential candidate, with the exception of Joe Biden, have no problem with sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. "Ladies and gentlemen, the sanctuary cities and the people that support them are violating the laws of the United States of America. They're violating 8 USC section 1324 and 1325, which is a felony -- [it's] a felony to aid, support, transport, shield, harbor illegal aliens," Walsh stated. Walsh said his analysis indicating there are 38 million illegal aliens in the U.S. was calculated using the conservative estimate of three illegal immigrants entering the U.S. for each one apprehended. According to Walsh, "In the United States, immigration is in a state of anarchy -- not chaos, but anarchy."




MASSACHUSETTS – 52,000 ILLEGALS COST LEGALS $35.7 MILLION... but illegals in Los Angeles County cost LEGALS $50 MILLION PER MONTH!!!

Illegals’ medical bills top $35.7M
Taxpayers hit hard for trips to ER

By Jessica Van Sack | Wednesday, October 27, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Local Politics
Beleaguered Bay State and U.S. taxpayers coughed up a staggering $35.7 million this year in free emergency health care for more than 52,000 illegal aliens in Massachusetts, sparking outrage from candidates and critics who back a tougher line on immigration.
The figures — released by Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration under an order for the Secretary of State’s office and after more than a month of ducking questions — show illegal immigrants who belong to MassHealth Limited received $33.8 million in taxpayer-funded in-patient hospital care this year.
They also made 6,160 visits to the state’s overburdened emergency rooms in the fiscal year ending in June for an additional cost of $1.9 million, a Herald analysis shows.
The Patrick administration, which supplied the figures last week, refused to make state health insurance officials available to discuss them.
But critics were quick to blast the huge medical bill being footed by hard-pressed, law-abiding taxpayers.
“Incorporating illegal immigrants into any type of government-sponsored health care is legitimizing their presence here,’’ said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter immigration policies. “It’s a kind of piecemeal amnesty.’’
Added state Rep. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth), “It’s just another example in this state of working people paying the bills, and some people availing themselves of the benefits we have in the commonwealth.’’
The Patrick administration maintains that its hands are tied because failing to treat gravely illegal immigrants would be a violation of federal law, but some disagree.
“It’s hard to say that’s the case directly,’’ said James Edwards, a fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based immigration center. “My suspicion is it’s willful ignorance.’’
The center calculates that Massachusetts has 220,000 illegal immigrants overall.
Independent gubernatorial candidate Tim Cahill, the state treasurer, said no one wants to deny illegal immigrants life-saving care — but it’s time to scrutinize the program and ensure that the services covered are truly emergencies.
“The cost sounds extremely high,’’ Cahill said. “I get the same feeling about the governor’s claims that illegal immigrants can’t access certain state services. A lot of them are. We need to be vigilant, especially in these difficult times.’’
Patrick’s GOP rival Charlie Baker declined to comment.
The figures show 69 percent of the state’s MassHealth Limited subscribers are illegal immigrants. The state is projected to pay $13.7 million of the cost of the health-care program this year, while federal Medicaid picks up the other $22 million.
Rosemarie Day, former deputy director of the state’s Health Insurance Connector Authority, said MassHealth Limited is akin to a “political compromise.’’
“There’s a certain amount of coverage that we as a civilized society must accept, even though people don’t want to think about it,’’ she said yesterday. “It had to be set up as a standalone program to cover folks who couldn’t be covered any other way.’’
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1291805



Welfare and food stamp benefits soar $3 million higher than September payout. New statistics from the Department of Public Social Services reveal that illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $37 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in November 2007 – up $3 million dollars from September, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. Twenty five percent of the all welfare and food stamps benefits is going directly to the children of illegal aliens. Illegals collected over $20 million in welfare assistance for November 2007 and over $16 million in monthly food stamp allocations for a projected annual cost of $444 million. “This new information shows an alarming increase in the devastating impact Illegal immigration continues to have on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” said Antonovich. “With $220 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $444 million in welfare allocations, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education.”


Sen. Scott Brown Says No to Obama's BACKDOOR AMNESTY


Sen. Brown says he will not support 'DREAM Act'
Associated Press - December 13, 2010 3:14 PM ET
BOSTON (AP) - Sen. Scott Brown says he will not support the DREAM Act and called the bill aimed helping illegal immigrant college students "backdoor amnesty."
Massachusetts Republican made the comments Monday during a Salvation Army charity event in downtown Boston.
The federal proposal would allow some illegal immigrants to qualify for permanent legal residency by graduating from college or by joining the military. The Senate is slated to vote on the measure this week.
But Brown said he wasn't supportive of the bill.
Brown's remarks come as a coalition of educators, religious leaders, and immigrant advocates made a last ditch appeal to Brown to support the proposal.
Brown has also been a target of a national campaign by advocates trying to persuade the moderate Republican to support the measure.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Cash flowing to native lands
Mass. residents sent $1.8b last year to loved ones back home
By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff | September 20, 2010
Delmy Aldana works two jobs — at a restaurant by day and the post office at night — to send hundreds of dollars a month to her native El Salvador. Half pays the mortgage on a house she built for her family, and the rest covers necessities for relatives, including a teenage son and 71-year-old mother she left behind.
“It’s really hard,’’ said Aldana, a 31-year-old Lynn resident. “The money I send my mother helps her to survive. What I send her pays her bills, the electricity, the water, the telephone. If I didn’t send money . . . I don’t know how she would manage.’’
Across the state, Aldana and other immigrants showed their enduring devotion to their loved ones last year by sending $1.8 billion home to more than 200 countries, according to the first full accounting of the cash that flows out of Massachusetts. The findings are based on a Globe review of annual reports that money-transfer companies such as MoneyGram and Western Union are required to file each year with the state.
The reports do not specify who sent the money, but industry analysts and government officials say that they believe the vast majority are immigrants, who favor money- transfer companies because they are quick and easy to use.
The top destinations for the money transfers last year — Brazil, the Dominican Republic, China, and Guatemala — closely mirror the major immigrant groups in Massachusetts. But the list also reflects the state’s remarkable diversity, with sizable amounts going to Ghana, Poland, and Taiwan.
In Massachusetts, where 14 percent of the population is foreign-born, and elsewhere, immigrants are under constant pressure to juggle responsibilities in two worlds. They work to cover daily expenses here while sending cash, known as remittances, to their native lands from tiny bodegas or big stores such as Walmart.
Back home, the money covers food, medicine, shelter, and small luxuries, such as washing machines, to ease daily life. Immigrants also send money for emergencies, such as the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti or the recent flooding in Pakistan, and for celebrations, such as India’s Diwali festivities or Mother’s Day in Mexico.
“These are not payments of convenience,’’ said Daniel O’Malley, executive vice president of the Americas at MoneyGram.. “They’re payments of love and support.’’
Money transfers slumped during the recent recession, but the amount immigrants send remains closely tied to the cost of living back home, said Manuel Orozco, an associate with the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research group.
Brazil, a South American nation that includes skyscraper-studded metropolises and struggling small towns, tends to have a higher cost of living, so immigrants send an average of $500 a month, he said. Remittances to Haiti, a poorer nation, average $120 a month.
Brazil saw remittances from Massachusetts plunge $100 million last year, probably because that country’s economy is stronger and cash-strapped immigrants here could send less. But they rose about $17 million to Guatemala, a nation racked by poverty and natural disasters that depends heavily on money from abroad.
In El Salvador, more than one in five families rely on money from abroad, according to the US State Department.
Aldana, a bubbly mother of four, came here in 1997 from the Central American nation and stayed after two devastating earthquakes in 2001 killed hundreds of Salvadorans. By working in Massachusetts, she was able to build her mother a house in El Salvador that is bright and clean and protected by an alarm system. In Lynn, her three children are safe and thriving in school.
She misses her mother and the 13-year-old son she left behind, but said her work in the United States offers all of them a better future.
“You have to have something,’’ she said. “I do it for my children and for my mother.’’
Many immigrants are also directing the money toward bigger dreams, such as launching small businesses back home, prompting advocates for immigrants to urge the state to court these investors. They say state officials should pay closer attention to the cash flows and suggest that immigrants set aside a portion to invest here, too.
“This is a huge amount of money,’’ said Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, a nonprofit that is hosting a major national conference later this month on integrating immigrants into the United States. “There is a loss here that needs to be addressed.’’
Frances Martinez, executive director of La Vida Inc., a nonprofit group in Lynn, said she counsels immigrants to face the reality that many of them will never return home. She advises them to reserve a portion of their remittances, $50 to $60 a month, for their children’s college educations.
“Every time I go to the Dominican Republic, I see these humongous mansions and all these investments with the money from the United States,’’ she said. “When I see them I say, ‘Wow, they are probably never going to live there.’ ’’
Nixon Andama of Watertown, a native of Uganda, said immigrants struggle with conflicting priorities. The 40-year-old real estate analyst is building his career here, but he also bought a farm in Uganda to appease his mother, though he doesn’t plan to return. In Uganda, he said, people are typically buried on their farms, and owning land is an important tradition.
“It’s a social thing,’’ said Andama, who still sends money to his relatives there. “When you become an adult in society in Uganda, everyone expects you to build your own home. If not, it will be the talk of the village, and you’re kind of looked down at because you didn’t build.’’
The state Division of Banks, which licenses money-transfer companies, requires them to file an annual financial report to ensure that they comply with state licensing laws, said David Cotney, chief operating officer of the division.
The agency does not review the data to gauge the industry’s impact on the economy, though Cotney said he hopes to collect the reports electronically by the end of 2011, which would make the data easier to analyze.
Some say the state should tax remittances or find another way to make money from them, since the cash is leaving the state.
“That is money that is not spent in the Massachusetts economy,’’ said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Washington-based Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors stricter controls on immigration. “Obviously that is lost. It is certainly a factor that ought to be considered when formulating immigration policies.’’
But Orozco said his research in Latin America shows that immigrants send only 15 percent of their income. Money-sending does not vary widely by immigration status, either, he said, though naturalized citizens tend to send more than those in the country illegally, because they tend to have higher-paying jobs.
The state’s reports show that more established groups, such as Italians, Irish, and Portuguese, are still sending money, though less than newer arrivals. Massachusetts residents sent nearly $24 million to Portugal last year, $20 million to Ireland, and about $10 million to Italy.
Today’s immigrants can transfer money far more easily than their predecessors, who sent it in letters or with friends visiting home. Now, senders fill out a form at a money-transfer outlet, hand over the cash, and pay a fee. Remittances to Latin America, for example, cost about 5 percent of the total amount, according to the Inter-American Dialogue.
In Massachusetts, the leading money-transfer companies are Western Union, which sent 35 percent of the state’s total remittances in 2009, and MoneyGram, which sent 12 percent.
In Waltham, the money-transfer service at La Chapincita is as popular as the cans of beans on the neatly stocked shelves and recent editions of Prensa Libre, a major daily newspaper in Guatemala. Braulio Mazariegos, one of the store owners, said he opens even during snowstorms to keep the money-transfer service available to his customers.
“Many families depend on the money they send,’’ he said. “The immigrants never let them down.’’
Maria Sacchetti can be reached at msacchetti@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter at @mariasacchetti.
"The amnesty alone will be the largest expansion of the welfare system in the last 25 years," says Robert Rector, a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and a witness at a House Judiciary Committee field hearing in San Diego Aug. 2. "Welfare costs will begin to hit their peak around 2021, because there are delays in citizenship. The very narrow time horizon [the CBO is] using is misleading," he adds. "If even a small fraction of those who come into the country stay and get on Medicaid, you're looking at costs of $20 billion or $30 billion per year." (SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS IN CALIFORNIA ALONE ARE NOT UP TO $20 BILLION PER YEAR. WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN NEVADA, NOW 25% ILLEGAL, IS SOARING!)

U.S. Taxpayers Spend $113 Billion Annually on Illegal Aliens
America has never been able to afford the costs of illegal immigration. With rising unemployment and skyrocketing deficits, federal and state lawmakers are now facing the results of failed policies. A new, groundbreaking report from FAIR, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, takes a comprehensive look at the estimated fiscal costs resulting from federal, state and local expenditures on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children.
Expanding upon the series of state studies done in the past, FAIR has estimated the annual cost of illegal immigration to be $113 billion, with much of the cost — $84.2 billon — coming at the state and local level.
September 1, 2009
Massachusetts Cuts Back Immigrants’ Health Care
BOSTON — State-subsidized health insurance for 31,000 legal immigrants here will no longer cover dental, hospice or skilled-nursing care under a scaled-back plan that Gov. Deval Patrick announced Monday.
Mr. Patrick said his administration had struggled to find a solution “that preserves the promise of health care reform” after the state legislature cut most of the $130 million it had previously allotted immigrants, to help close a budget deficit. Although their health benefits will be sharply curtailed in some cases, Mr. Patrick portrayed the new program as a victory, saying the services that the affected group tends to use the most will still be covered.
“It’s an extraordinary accomplishment,” he said in a conference call with reporters, “to offer virtually full coverage for the entire population that’s been impacted in the face of really extraordinary budget constraints.”
The new plan, which will cover permanent residents who have had green cards for less than five years, will cost the state $40 million a year. Some of the affected immigrants will be charged higher co-payments and will have to find new doctors, said Leslie A. Kirwan, Mr. Patrick’s finance director.
Still, Mr. Patrick described the new coverage as comprehensive and said it could be a model for less expensive state-subsidized benefits as health care costs continue to rise. Under the 1996 federal law that overhauled the nation’s welfare system, the 31,000 affected immigrants do not qualify for Medicaid or other federal aid. Massachusetts is one of the few states — others are California, New York and Pennsylvania — that provide at least some health coverage for such immigrants.
Because of its three-year-old law requiring universal health coverage, Massachusetts has the country’s lowest percentage of uninsured residents: 2.6 percent, compared with a national average of 15 percent. The law requires that almost every resident have insurance, and to meet that goal, the state subsidizes coverage for those earning up to three times the federal poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four.
All of the affected immigrants will be covered under the new plan by Dec. 1, Mr. Patrick said; in the meantime they will have to rely on hospitals that provide free emergency care to the poor.
CeltiCare Health Plan of Massachusetts, a subsidiary of the Centene Corporation, based in Missouri, won a yearlong state contract to provide the new coverage.
Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, said she was worried about immigrants’ having to find new primary care doctors at a time when the state is suffering from a shortage of such providers. She also said that the new coverage would in some cases require a much higher co-payment — $50 instead of between $1 and $3 — for non-generic prescription drugs, and that enrollment would be capped at the 31,000 current enrollees.
“We see this as a temporary solution,” Ms. Millona said, “and we are still working to get full restoration for this population that deserves the same level of coverage as all other taxpaying residents of the state.”


The two-year extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy will cost an estimated $150 billion. In the likely event that the cuts are eventually made permanent, between $700 billion and $1 trillion will flow into the bank accounts of the rich over the next decade.
Massive tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations will increase the federal deficit and the national debt, which will then be seized on as the pretext for mounting an assault on any form of government spending that benefits the working class, including basic entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.




Congressional Democrats ensure passage of Obama’s deal to extend tax cuts for the rich
By Tom Eley
14 December 2010
Congressional Democrats on Monday moved closer to ending their token opposition to a tax cut deal worked out between President Obama and congressional Republicans that will hand over hundreds of billions of dollars to America’s financial aristocracy. The bill extends Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy for two years and sharply reduces estate taxes on the rich.
Obama reversed a campaign pledge to retain the tax cuts for the middle class and allow those for families earning more than $250,000 a year—the richest 2 percent—to expire when the tax cuts passed under Bush expire on January 1. Instead, he capitulated to pressure from the financial-corporate elite and the Republicans to extend all of the tax cuts.
The Senate passed a procedural motion to test whether the tax bill would clear a filibuster, with 83 senators voting in favor and 15 opposed—a more lopsided victory than had been expected. Forty-five Democrats and 37 Republicans supported the measure, clearing the way for a vote on the full bill as soon as Tuesday. Only 9 of the 56 Democrats in the outgoing “lame duck” Senate voted against the motion.
The House of Representatives is expected to approve the tax bill by the end of the week in the last significant piece of business before departing for the January recess and bringing to an ignominious close the 111th United States Congress.
In a brief statement to the press, Obama declared the Senate’s procedural vote a major victory and said it proved “both parties can, in fact, work together to grow our economy and look out for the American people.”
The two-year extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy will cost an estimated $150 billion. In the likely event that the cuts are eventually made permanent, between $700 billion and $1 trillion will flow into the bank accounts of the rich over the next decade.
The bill also raises the tax exemption for estates from $1 million to $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a family, and reduces to 35 percent from 45 percent the levy on taxable estate wealth. In addition, the measure extends a Bush-era cut in the capital gains tax and includes a number of other tax breaks for corporations.
To provide Democrats with political cover, the deal includes an extension of federal long-term unemployment benefits until the beginning of 2012, when any continuation of the program will be at the mercy of the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives. It also includes a one-year Social Security payroll tax cut of 2 percent.
The Making Work Pay tax credit will not be extended, and as a result couples making under $40,000 a year or individuals making less than $20,000 will end up paying higher taxes, since the Social Security tax cut will not offset losing the benefit of the expired tax credit program.
The Social Security measure also sets a precedent for raiding the retirement program for general revenue needs.
House Democrats, who made great show after Obama announced the tax deal of diehard opposition, have in recent days been sending signals that they will supply sufficient votes to pass the bill in the lower chamber. Statements by leading House Democrats over the weekend have underscored the utterly cynical character of their supposed opposition to the tax windfall for the rich. What was presented in the media as a “revolt” against Obama’s cave-in was, from day one, political theater designed to throw dust in the eyes of the public.
Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a lieutenant of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and leading congressional liberal, appeared on two Sunday news programs to pledge the bill’s passage. On the Fox News Sunday program, he said, “We’re not going to hold this thing up at the end of the day.”
At the same time, he insisted that the Democrats would force a vote on the estate tax portion of the bill, which he declared unacceptable. He noted several times that the massive cut approved by the Obama administration would funnel $25 billion to only 6,600 US families.
The Democrats are proposing instead a somewhat less obscene concession to the rich, but a huge concession nonetheless. They want to raise the estate tax exemption to $3.5 million instead of $5 million, while leaving the rate at 45 percent.
“We do think that simple question should be put to the test,” Van Hollen said. “We’re going to ask the Republicans and others, are they going to block this entire deal” in order to achieve their full demands on the estate tax?
Behind the posturing and play-acting, the meaning is clear. The House Democrats will hold a vote on amending the tax bill along the lines of their estate tax proposal, knowing that their version will not pass. This will be done “for the record”—to be able to tell voters that they were defending the middle class while the Republicans were defending the wealthy.
They will then proceed to make sure that the entire deal, as worked out between the White House and the Republicans, passes and is signed into law. The transparency of their ruse only underscores their contempt for the intelligence of the American people.
Massive tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations will increase the federal deficit and the national debt, which will then be seized on as the pretext for mounting an assault on any form of government spending that benefits the working class, including basic entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
As part of his lurch to the right since the Democratic debacle in last month’s midterm election, Obama will meet Wednesday with 20 CEOs from top US corporations. He is holding the meeting to “combat charges over the last several months of being anti-business,” according to one media account.
Presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett said that on the agenda of the closed-door meeting will be overhauling the tax code, reducing the deficit and “a balanced approach to regulations.” This means huge cuts in high-end income tax and corporate tax rates, unprecedented cuts in social programs, and a further gutting of regulations on big business.