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
*
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:
Post a Comment