Tuesday, December 27, 2011

The Democrat Party - NOW PARTY FOR LA RAZA "THE RACE" SUPREMACY - HISPANDERING FOR ILLEGALS' VOTES


MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

ON BEHALF OF THEIR LA RAZA “THE RACE” PARTY BASE, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS BECOME THE PARTY OF DEPRESSED WAGES FROM HORDES OF ILLEGALS, OPEN BORDERS, MUCHO DREAM ACTS OF WELFARE, FREE ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING ( AND THEN 18 YRS OF WELFARE), OPEN BORDERS, NON-ENFORCEMENT, NO E-VERIFY, AND THE OBAMA LA RAZA INFESTED ADMINISTRATION!

*

 “On Thursday, the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, flatly predicted that Congress would not send an immigration measure to the president this year. Mr. Boehner accused Democrats of engaging in a “cynical ploy to try to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November’s elections.”
*
REALITY IS THAT DEMS NEVER STOP WORKING FOR AMNESTY. BIT BY BIT AMNESTY, NON-ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS, OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS… 38 MILLION ILLEGALS CLIMBED OUR BORDERS TO LOOT WITH AN INVITATION PRINTED BY A CORRUPT DEMOCRAT POLITICIAN!

*



April 29, 2010
Democrats Outline Plans for Immigration


WASHINGTON — A coalition of top Senate Democrats laid out the contours of a proposed overhaul of immigration laws on Thursday — and appealed to Republicans to join them in pursuing it — even as doubts mounted about the prospects of winning approval of legislation this year.
Under the outline of immigration changes drawn up by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, the federal government would enhance border security and create a new fraud-resistant Social Security card.
Illegal immigrants who wish to remain in this country would have to admit they had broken the law, pay back taxes and fees, and pass a criminal background check to qualify for legal residency after eight years.
“Our immigration system is broken,” the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said late Thursday afternoon at a packed news conference. “We’re offering this framework as an invitation, an invitation to our Republican colleagues to work with us to solve this problem that has plagued our country for too long.”
Even as the Democratic senators were still speaking, President Obama issued a statement praising the proposal as “an important step,” and he warned that lack of federal action would “leave the door open to a patchwork of actions at the state and local level that are inconsistent and, as we have seen recently, often misguided.”
Mr. Obama’s statement was a reference to the tough new law recently enacted in Arizona that many Democrats view as draconian and that helped prompt Democrats to take on the immigration issue sooner than some had planned.
“What has become increasingly clear,” Mr. Obama said, “is that we can no longer wait to fix our broken immigration system, which Democrats and Republicans alike agree doesn’t work.”
The statement contrasted with comments he made to reporters a day earlier on Air Force One, in which he suggested that Congress might not have the appetite for an immigration overhaul.
At the news conference, Democratic leaders said they were presenting the legislative framework in hopes of persuading Republicans to collaborate on the issue. They are also looking to sound out skeptical Democrats to gauge the prospects for support.
House Democrats have said they will not act unless the Senate moves first.
Mr. Reid, who is facing a difficult re-election fight back home, first put the issue back on the Congressional agenda a few weeks ago when he told a pro-immigration rally in Las Vegas that he intended to pursue legislation, a stance that caught many in Washington off guard.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chief Republican negotiating with Democrats on the issue, dropped out of the talks, saying he was angry that Mr. Reid seemed to be giving immigration priority over a climate bill.
At the news conference Mr. Reid said it was “not logical to use immigration as an excuse to not help on energy.” But he also said Democrats were not directing their message at Mr. Graham.
“There are 40 other Republicans,” he said.
On Thursday, the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, flatly predicted that Congress would not send an immigration measure to the president this year. Mr. Boehner accused Democrats of engaging in a “cynical ploy to try to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November’s elections.”
“There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress,” he said.
But Mr. Schumer, who is now chairman of a subcommittee on immigration long headed by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, said he believed there was a possibility of success.
Mr. Schumer hailed his approach as a way to combine border security and improvements in the American work force while providing a chance for millions of people living illegally in the United States to gain legal status and pay taxes.
And Mr. Schumer, who is known for his ambition in both the political and policy arenas, drew loud laughter when he said that he would not have accepted the subcommittee gavel if he had thought otherwise.
“If I did not believe we could accomplish immigration reform, I never would have chosen to accept the immigration subcommittee chairmanship,” he said. “Committees of inaction and legislative backwaters are not places in which I thrive.”
Democrats acknowledge, however, facing a difficult task considering that President George W. Bush, was unable to persuade enough of his fellow Republicans to back immigration changes in 2007, and the effort collapsed.
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com




“THE AMNESTY ALONE WILL BE THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF THE WELFARE SYSTEM IN THE LAST 25 YEARS” …….Heritage Foundation


"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
*
 THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.org
 April 4, 2007
Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer
by Robert E. Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.
Executive Summary #12

Each year, families and individuals pay taxes to the government and receive back a wide variety of services and benefits. When the benefits and services received by one group exceed the taxes paid, a distributional deficit occurs, and other groups must pay for the services and benefits of the group in deficit. Each year, government is involved in a large-scale transfer of resources between different social groups.
This paper provides a fiscal distribution analysis of households headed by persons without a high school diploma. The report refers to these households as “low-skill households.” The analysis measures the total benefits and services received by these households compared to total taxes paid. The difference between benefits received and taxes paid rep_resents the total resources transferred by government on behalf of this group from the rest of society.
The size and cost of government are far larger than many people imagine. In fiscal year (FY) 2004, federal, state, and local expenditures combined amounted to $3.75 trillion. One way to grasp the size of government more readily is to calculate average expenditures per household. In 2004, there were some 115 million households (multi-person families and single persons living alone) in the U.S. Government spending thus averaged $32,706 per household across the U.S. population.
Government expenditures can be divided into six categories. The first four, which can be termed “immediate benefits and services,” are: Direct benefits, which include Social Security, Medicare, and a few smaller transfer programs;  Means-tested benefits, including cash, food, housing, social services, and medical care for poor and near poor individuals;  Public educational services, which include the governmental cost of primary, secondary, vocational, and post-secondary education;  Population-based services, which are government services made available to a general community including police and fire protection, highways, sewers, food safety inspection, and parks.
Two additional spending categories are: Interest and other financial obligations resulting from prior government activity, including interest payments on government debt and other expenditures relating to the cost of government services provided in earlier years; and Pure public goods, which include national defense, international affairs and scientific research, and some environmental expenditures.
On average, low-skill households receive more government benefits and services than do other households. In FY 2004, low-skill households received $32,138 per household in immediate benefits and services (direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services). If public goods and the cost of interest and other financial obligations are added, total benefits rose to $43,084 per low-skill household. In general, low-skill households received about $10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S. household, largely because of the higher level of means-tested welfare benefits received by low-skill households.
In contrast, low-skill households pay less in taxes than do other households. On average, low-skill households paid only $9,689 in taxes in FY 2004. Thus, low-skill households received at least three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in taxes paid. If the costs of public goods and past financial obligations are added, the ratio rises to four to one.
Strikingly, low-skill households in FY 2004 had average earnings of $20,564 per household. Thus, the $32,138 per household in government immediate benefits and services received by these households not only exceeded their taxes paid, but also substantially exceeded their average household earned income.
A household’s net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. If the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services alone are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $22,449 (expenditures of $32,138 minus $9,689 in taxes). The average net fiscal deficit of a low-skill household actually exceeded the household’s earnings.
If interest and other financial obligations relating to past government activities are added, the average deficit per household rose to $27,301. In addition, the average low-skill household was a free rider with respect to government public goods, receiving public goods costing some $6,095 per household for which it paid nothing.
Receiving, on average, at least $22,449 more in benefits than they pay in taxes each year, low-skill households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average adult life span of 50 years for each head of household, the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be $1.1 million for each low-skill household for immediate benefits received minus all taxes paid. If the cost of interest and other financial obligations is added, the average lifetime cost rises to $1.3 million per low-skill household.
In 2004, there were 17.7 million low-skill households. With an average net fiscal deficit of $22,449 per household, the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all of these households equaled $397 billion (the deficit of $22,449 per household times 17.7 million households). This sum includes direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services. If the low-skill households’ share of interest and other financial obligations for past activities is added, their total annual fiscal deficit rises to $483 billion. Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least 3.9 trillion dollars. This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect for decades on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received and the appropriate share of interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future. Policies that reduce the future number of high school dropouts and other policies affecting future generations could reduce long-term costs.
Policies that would expand Medicaid and other entitlements will increase the size of future deficits of low-skill households at the margin. On the other hand, policy changes that curtailed medical inflation could reduce costs at the margin in future years. Policies which would halt the growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing or increase real educational attainments of future generations could also limit the growth of future deficits somewhat. However, these policy changes would be dwarfed by any alteration in immigration policy that would substantially increase the future inflow of low-skill immigrants; such a policy would dramatically increase the future fiscal burden to taxpayers.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies and Christine Kim is a Policy Analyst in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Shanea Watkins, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Empirical Studies in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
*
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 DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ENORMOUS COST OF EDUCATING, MEDICALLY TREATING, OR INCARCERATING ILLEGALS ALIENS. THIS COSTS THE COUNTY AN ADDITIONAL ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

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. 
*





No comments: