Not1b4me’s Blog

WeRtheVoices

Great Letter to NOBAMA in NOBAMANATION

COPY AND PASTE THIS HERE!!!!!
 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
 
If YOU dare!
 

April 17, 2009
 

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
 
 
Mr.  Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir.  Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America.  You are responsible to the citizens of the United States.  You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world.  Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe?  Are you brain dead?  What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about?  Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country?  Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States?
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage.  Do you not understand this?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans.  Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia.  You do not show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia.  How dare you, sir!  How dare you!

You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey.  You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves.  What’s the matter with you?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.

You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr.  Dodd, Mr.  Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses.  What do you intend to do about them?  Anything?  I seriously doubt it.

What about the U.S.  House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members – on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves?  I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus.  I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer.  You haven’t said anything about that.  Who authorized that?
I surely didn’t!

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that’s $45 million more than the AIG bonuses.  In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million – not a bad take.  Who authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do.  We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.  I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities.  I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.
 

Sincerely,
Every real American
 
 P.S.  I rarely ask that emails be ‘passed around’………….PLEASE SEND THIS TO YOUR EMAIL LIST……it’s past time for all Americans to wake up!

April 29, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap | , | Leave a comment

Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading

Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who “wasn’t going to take away our guns”?

Well, guess what? Less than 100 days into his administration, he’s never met a gun he didn’t hate. A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners. It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?

1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition… without a license….” Hence, reloading ammunition — or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit — is clearly “illicit manufacturing.” Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.” And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.”

2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition. “[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty — and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined. So, is a BB gun a “firearm”? Probably. A toy gun? Possibly. A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else. If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty — just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances.

We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses “committed in its territory” in a very broad way.
And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.

Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through “other means of peaceful settlement.”

Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner?

* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition — a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun Registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal
portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.

ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I am urging you, in the strongest terms, to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

This anti-gun treaty was written by international bureaucrats who are either stupid or virulently anti-gun — or both.

This treaty could very well ban the ability to reload ammunition, to put new stocks on rifles lawfully owned by American citizens, and, possibly, even ban BB guns!

There are too many problems with this treaty to mention them all in this letter. The rest can be read on the website of Gun Owners of America at: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm

Please do not tell me the treaty has not yet been abused in this way by the bevy of Third World countries which have signed it. We do not expect the real ramifications of the treaty to become clear until the
big prize — the U.S. — has stepped into the trap.

For all of these reasons, I must insist that you oppose ratification of the treaty.

Sincerely,
****************************

What’s Your Current GOA Status?

Obviously, we now face years of invigorated attacks on our gun rights. Shutting down gun shows, prohibitions on specific calibers, another semi-auto ban, and the anti-gun extremists’ Holy Grail of mandatory federal licensing and registration of all gun owners — these are just some of the horrors that we already know we’ll have to defeat head-on. Not to mention this treaty nonsense. Meanwhile, we’ll take every opportunity to go on offense and advance the Second Amendment.

It can’t be done without every single voice being counted. That’s why we are asking you to consider making the commitment of becoming a Gun Owners of America Life Member. By doing so, you put the politicians on notice that neither you nor GOA is going away — that no matter who’s in the White House, there is always going to be a solid wall of resistance.

Now is a perfect time to become a Life Member. And if you aren’t a GOA member at all, isn’t it time you became one?

Please go to http://gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm to upgrade your participation in GOA.
****************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.

To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or use the url below.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

April 29, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap | | Leave a comment

“Bank on California” Money Laundering Scheme May Do for the State What Mortgage Meltdown Did for the Nation

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/86058

http://www.operationbankrupt.com/announce/index.asp#initial

April 27, 2009 Posted by | Government Sucks | | Leave a comment

Obamunism

obamaism

April 26, 2009 Posted by | Amusing | | Leave a comment

Did you know?

April 26, 2009 Posted by | Interesting to me | | Leave a comment

If Guns Were Treated Like Cars

If Guns Were Treated Like Cars

——————————————————————————–

Reposted with Copright notice.

Copyright 2000 by Ron Miller. All Rights Reserved.

1. You could get a simple license from the State for a nominal fee and only have to take a test that any idiot could pass. You’d only have to renew it every 10 years for 40 years and maybe retake the test if you move out of state.

2. You could kill and injure people with your gun while drunk and still have your lawyer get your gun back because you need it for work.

3. You’d have half the tax burden of the county and State dedicated to improving the shooting ranges and facilities. The public agrees this is never good enough to suit them and with all the gunowners from California moving in, the range capacity will never catch up. Lines at the range are always shown on TV with the newsies deploring the crowding.

4. You could carry in any State at any time because carry and possession of your gun is honored nationwide and is considered a basic American civil right.

5. You would see commercials on TV pushing the newest, latest guns which you could lease for just $25 per month subject to the fine print.

6. You could finance a fancier gun than you can really afford by taking a 5 year loan with approved credit.

7. You would have a gun safe built into every house. In the upscale houses you would have 3 gun safes. Inexpensive houses and mobile homes would just have a gunrack by the door.

8. You’d have gun storage lockers at the shopping mall in which to store your rifle while shopping. This in order to free your arms for packages. The convenience of the shopper is paramount.

9. You could buy ammunition at the 7-11.

Full-service station means they’ll reload your magazines for you.

10. The news would stop reporting gun accidents unless more than 10 children were killed at one time. Onesy-twosey would only be notable in small towns or if Princess Di’s bodyguard shot her while aiming at paparazzi.

11. If the price of ammunition rose 20% the Federal Government would release war reserves of ammo to bring the price back down to the consumer’s comfort level.

Ammo would carry a 50% tax to finance public shooting ranges.

Teapot Dome scandal would have been about a lead mine.

12. We’d teach gunsmithing in vocational-education programs.

13. Every 16 year old would be looking forward to the day when he could take the family revolver to school. The rich kids would get a high-capacity semi-auto pistol on their 16th birthday and endanger everyone when they learn to use it in public.

14. High schools would have large gun lockers to store student’s arms while they attend classes. Administrators would try to charge for the service to discourage teen-age gun carrying to school.

15. Schools would have shooter’s education classes to make sure the kids could pass the test. They would show gory films of gunshot wounds. The squeamish would throw up.

16. Old people who can hardly see would still be permitted to shoot in public because to disarm them would be to damage their self- esteem. Families would wring their hands over holes in the walls and ceiling.

Occasionally an oldster would fire into a schoolyard when they mistake the trigger for the safety. Legislators would refrain from criticizing because of the AARP’s influence.

17. Congress would be debating alternative weapons systems for people who can’t afford their own guns.

18. There would be such a thing as “public weapons” for the masses.

19. Congress would be subsidizing weapons for people too limited in means to afford their own.

20. Congress would be willing to float a loan to Colt’s in order to ensure the survival of an American company against unfair foreign competition. (Think “Chrysler”)

21. We, except for Ralph Nader, would dismiss 40,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries per year as “the price of freedom.”

22. You would have MADS. Mothers Against Drunk Shooters (instead of HCI). MADS would conduct a campaign of public education instead of trying to use the force of government to prohibit irresponsible drinking and shooting.

23. You could rent a gun at any airport if you are over 25 and have a credit card.

24. You would have the fringe-greenies advocating bows and arrows because they think gunsmoke is damaging the environment.

Al Gore would write a book about the damaging effects of gunsmoke.

Al Gore would also claim to have been a handloader before his sister died in a powder fire.

25. You’d have huge outcry in the Press and Congress over our dependence on cheap, imported, foreign ammunition.

26. Ted Kennedy would have shot Mary Jo Kopekne instead. Ted would be a few thousand dollars richer (bullet:$0.25 vs car:$3000)

Ted would stop carrying his own gun and instead, hire bodyguards to carry fully-automatic weapons under their coats for him.

27. You’d have businesses like “Jiffy Gun-Clean” to make life convenient. But you’d always worry that they might not have gotten the magazine fully seated afterwards.

28. You’d have “Classic Gun Events” with parades on public roads as everyone with such a classic carries it for all the public to see.

29. You’d have huge eyesores where piles of guns are left to rust in the open at “Gun Junk Yards”. They would charge you outrageous prices to go out back and pick off a hammer or sear which is probably also worn out like the one you want to replace.

30. There would be a booming business and debate about substituting non-OEM parts in the gun repair business.

31. You’d have TV news crews going under cover with hidden cameras to ferret out “unscrupulous gun smiths.” This story would be “old reliable” and works every year.

32. The Japanese would be trying , and succeeding at taking over the market for efficient, reliable high-quality guns.

The Koreans would be trying to sneak in at the low end of the market.

The Germans would be selling premium brands based on better workmanship, longer life, and brand cachet. But their guns would require you to take it to a gunsmith every 3 months for a complete tear-down and dimensional inspection at outrageous labor rates.

The Italians would paint their guns flaming red and they would have a reputation for being finicky.

The State Department would be applying pressure to get Japan to allow more US-built guns into their country.

The Japanese would resist the US by saying that Japanese shooters have extra-special safety requirements that only Japanese manufacturers can meet.

33. You’d have an entire section of the Saturday Coloradoan devoted to ads for new and used guns.

34. You’d have a pair of fun-loving gunsmiths on Public Radio doing a show on gun problems. They’d be named “Tap & Rack”

35. There would have been a terrible TV show back in the black & white days named “My Mother – The Gun” It starred Jerry Van Dyke and ran just one season.

36. Dean Jones would have made a series of stupid movies starring Herbie the Love-Gun. Herbie was an adorable anthropomorphized cheap German Saturday Night Special. Dean Jones would never show his face in public again after these movies.

37. Competition would be carried on TV all day on Saturdays. The Daytona 500 would be round-count instead of miles. There would be speed contests, endurance contests, and off-range marksmanship events.

NASGUN would create big heroes in the South and extravagant marketing opportunities.

38. High-schools would paint up a gun in the colors of the opposition and charge $.25 for you to swing a sledge hammer at that gun during pep rallys.

39. John Elway would own half the gunstores in the Denver Metro area.

40. Wellington Webb’s wife would be carrying the finest English Double shotgun money can buy while Wellington has body guards to carry his semi-auto pistols for him.

41. Back in the 1970’s during the ammo crisis, Congress would have set a maximum cyclic rate for autos and semi autos in order to conserve ammo.

42. After Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, the national cyclic rate was raised to something all semi-autos can be comfortable with.

43. The Coloradoan would be publishing the locations of range repair work every week to be sure no one would be inconvenienced.

44. The Beachboys would have released some songs about guns:

“Spring little Cobray gettin’ ready to strike….. Spring little Cobray with all your might…..”

“She’s real fine my Wonder Nine, she’s real fine my Won-der Nine.”

“Fun, fun, fun ’til Daddy takes her Kel-Tec away……”

45. Letters to editors would be written decrying that all those Soccer Moms are lugging .50 cal machine guns around town, wasting ammo and getting in everybody’s way.

46. Letters to editors would be written responding that putting one’s beginning driver son or daughter behind a .50 cal would mean that the writer’s offspring would survive any conflict with lesser armed individuals.

47. Al Gore would claim he invented the .50cal cartridge and say he was sorry.

48. Cities would be experimenting with electric guns but would be surprised to find that people would step in front of them at the range because they were too quiet so no one knew the electric gun was there.

49. President Clinton would demand that electric gun manufacturers put a cowbell on each one to prevent senseless accidents.

50. The National Rifle Association would be reduced to selling travel insurance for your guns because the rest of society will have seen to it that there would be no chance that firearms would ever be banned.

This Information Is From Ron Miller

April 10, 2009 Posted by | DumbAss Democrats, Scary, Uncategorized | | Leave a comment

Bank of America

Subject: Bank of America
Everyone needs to read this.
Bank of America, can I help you?
Customer: Yes, I want to cancel my account. I don’t want to do business with you any longer.
The Bank: Why?
Customer: You’re giving credit to illegal immigrants and I don’t think it’s right. I’m taking my business elsewhere.
The Bank: Well, Mr. Customer, we don’t want to see you do that, but we can’t stop you. I’ll help you close the account. What is your account number?
Customer: (gives account number)
The Bank: For security purposes and for your protection, can you please give me the last four digits of your social security number?

Customer: No?
The Bank: Mr. Customer, I need to verify your information, but in order to help you, I’ll need verification of who you are.
Customer: Why should I give you my social security number? The reason I’m closing my account is that your bank is issuing credit cards to illegal immigrants who don’t have social security numbers. You are targeting that audience and want their business. Let’s say I’m an illegal immigrant and you’ve given me a credit card. I have a question about it and call for assistance. You wouldn’t be asking me for a Social Security number, would you?

The Bank: No sir, I wouldn’t.
Customer: Why not?
The Bank: Because you would have pressed ‘2’ to speak in Spanish. We don’t ask for that information when calling in on the Spanish line.
I provided “snopes” for doubters: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/bankofamerica.asp
Now I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL’s for verification of the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.  http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.” http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States “. http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whooping . $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR

If this doesn’t bother you then just delete the message, but on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, then forward it to every human in the country including every representative in Washington , DC for four times a week, for a month.

God Bless You And Yours and God Bless, this country, what’s left of it !

April 8, 2009 Posted by | Illegal | | Leave a comment

The High Cost of Cheap Labor

 

The High Cost of Cheap Labor


Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

Executive Summary


http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

  • Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
     

  • Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
     

  • With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
     

  • On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
     

  • Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
     

  • If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
     

  • Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status — what most illegal aliens would become — can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
     

  • Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
     

  • The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain — many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
     

  • The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
     

  • The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants’ education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don’t pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work “on the books.” On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.

fiscal17

Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.

The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.

What’s Different About Today’s Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.

Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.

Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.

Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.

From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.

Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation’s land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.

Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.

Summary Methodology
Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council’s (NRC) 1997 study, “The New Americans.” Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a “household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid.” Following the NRC’s example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.

Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute.

Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President’s amnesty proposal in January seems to envision “temporary” worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.

To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.

Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, “The New Americans.” The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.

April 8, 2009 Posted by | Illegal | | Leave a comment

Immigration and Welfare

Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people who wind up on public assistance: immigrants. Many immigrants are poor; indeed, that is why they come here. The immigrants we admit are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. As a result, the share of immigrant households below the poverty line (18 percent) is much higher than the share of native households that are poor (11 percent)—nearly twice as high. And immigrant households are more likely to participate in practically every one of the major means-tested programs. Immigrant use of welfare programs (21 percent) is 43 percent higher than non-immigrants’ use (15 percent).1

Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants.2

Why Are Immigrants On Welfare?

Some people mistakenly think that immigrants are not eligible for welfare. Several years ago, Congress did attempt to render immigrants ineligible for most forms of welfare. However, subsequent backpedaling by Congress and the executive branch has undone most of those reforms. Furthermore, many immigrant families get welfare through the eligibility of their U.S. citizen children. (It is also important to realize that even when immigrants are ineligible for federal welfare programs, the burden of their support is simply shifted over to the state and local welfare agencies.)

Refugees, asylees, and all amnestied illegal aliens are exempt from the public charge requirement.3 Congress has decided that the American people will serve as the sponsors for these immigrants and pick up the tab for their support.

All other immigrants must pass a public charge test and have a U.S. sponsor or sponsors willing to pledge their income to support them. Before a potential immigrant receives an immigration visa, American consular officers are supposed to evaluate whether he or she is likely to become a public charge, and, if so, to deny the visa. The consular officer is supposed to take into account a variety of factors: the amount of support the sponsor can give, the resources and skills of the applicant, and any special conditions (such as age or infirmity) that might affect the applicant’s need for support. The Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 set the new legal standard for the evaluation: the sponsor of the applicant must have an annual income of at least 125 percent of the federally designated poverty level. There are several problems with this standard:

  • The sponsorship income level, only 25 percent higher than the poverty level, is so low that it does not prevent immigrants from going on welfare; in fact, it almost guarantees it. Say a sponsor begins with an income of 200 percent of poverty level and is, therefore, not considered “legally poor.” But after splitting that income with the immigrant, each will be at 100 percent of the poverty level. Where before we had one non-poor person, now we have two poor people. Since eligibility for some welfare programs kicks in before one’s income drops to 125 percent of poverty level, immigrants can easily wind up on welfare.
  • While immigrants who receive welfare can be deported for violating the conditions under which they were admitted, this provision is rarely enforced; in fact, only twelve people have been deported under this provision since 1980.4 Administrative rulings have held that an immigrant cannot be held responsible for receiving welfare unless the welfare agencies have sent the immigrant a bill for their services, demanded payment, and been refused payment.5 Since welfare agencies do not do this, it is virtually impossible for an immigrant to be charged with violating the public charge provisions that can lead to deportation.
  • Furthermore, numerous forms of welfare are not considered under the public charge test, including food stamps, pre-natal care, nutrition programs, housing assistance, energy assistance, job training programs, child care services, free or reduced school lunch, public shelters, health clinics, Medicaid, and any cash welfare programs that are not the family’s sole source of income.6 This insulates immigrants from being considered public charges unless they are completely dependent on welfare.

What Types of Welfare Are Immigrants Eligible For?

As of the 1996 welfare reform bill, the following applies to eligibility for federal and state funded welfare programs:

  • Legal immigrants are barred from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years after entering the country and barred from SSI and food stamps until citizenship. They are also barred from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years.7
  • Benefits available to immigrants include school lunch and breakfast programs, immunizations, emergency medical services, disaster relief, and others programs that are necessary to protect life and safety as identified by the attorney general, regardless of immigration status.8
  • Illegal immigrants are barred from the following federal public benefits: grants, contracts, loans, licenses, retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, post secondary education, food assistance, and unemployment benefits. States are barred from providing state or locally funded benefits to illegal immigrants unless a state law is enacted granting such authority.9

Welfare Reform Failed to Solve the Problem

Despite expectations that the 1996 welfare reform bill would cause significant changes in immigrant welfare use, it has actually remained at the same level. The 1996 welfare reforms failed because while the legislation cut immigrants off from certain welfare programs, the savings that resulted from those cuts were not high enough to offset the increased usage of the remaining programs, due to the continuing high number of immigrants entering the U.S. every year.

While both Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and food stamp use have declined by four percent, the decline did not result in any significant savings, as those costs were offset by increases in Medicaid use, which has increased among immigrant households. The total combined value of benefits and payments received by immigrant households from welfare programs remained almost the same, averaging almost $2,000 in 2001, about 50 percent higher than natives. Such high rates of immigrant welfare use, combined with the rapidly increasing immigrant population, has resulted in a four percent increase in the number of immigrant households on welfare, from 14 percent in 1996 to 18 percent in 2000.10

Outlook for the Future

The highest welfare use rates for immigrants are in New York (30 percent), California (28 percent), Massachusetts (25 percent), and Texas (25 percent).12

Immigrants are eleven percent of our population, but they are 20 percent of the poor population. Unless our immigration policies are reevaluated and changed accordingly, welfare usage and subsequent costs will remain high.

Instead of addressing the problem, some in Congress have suggested measures that would make it even worse, such as proposals to increase immigrants’ eligibility for benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that making legal immigrants eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would cost an estimated $2.24 billion over ten years.11

If we are to have any hope of reducing poverty in the U.S., our immigration laws must be revised and returned to the sensible practice of excluding aliens who are likely to become public charges and to deport those who do.

  1. Table DP-1-4, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 1990 and 2000, Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau.
  2. Steven A. Camarota, “Back Where We Started: An Examination of Trends in Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2003.
  3. Immigration and Nationality Act § 102 [8 U.S.C. 1102].
  4. Immigration and Nationality Act § 237A(5).
  5. Matter of B-, 3 I.&N.Dec.323 (AG and BIA 1948).
  6. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 § 110.
  7. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 § 411. Exceptions include refugees, asylees, those granted withholding of deportation for their first five years in the U.S., veterans, active duty military, and their spouses and dependents. After the five-year bar on federal benefits, states may offer Medicaid, federal cash (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families – TANF) assistance , and services under the SSBG if deeming provisions are applied.
  8. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 § 432.
  9. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 § 401.
  10. Camarota, op. cit.
  11. “Graham Faults Administration for Shortsighted Health Care Policy,” press release, U.S. Senator Bob Graham, May 1, 2003.
  12. Camarota, op.cit.

April 8, 2009 Posted by | Illegal | | 1 Comment

WHO IS THIS?

Make sure you read all the way even if you think you know the answer.

Read this slowly – it is interesting, to say the least.   Thought it worth sharing.

I was born in one country, raised in another.
My father was born in another country.
I was not his only child.
He fathered several children with numerous women.
I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.

My mother died at an early age from cancer.  Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non- traditional beliefs & didn’t follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.
It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics in my 30’s then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s.
They said I had a gold tongue and could talk to anyone and motivate them. That reinforced my conceit.
I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization.
Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
I drew large crowds during my public appearances.  This bolstered my ego.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country’s foreign policy, then on change.
I was very critical of my country in the war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country’s economy and the need for change.
I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.
I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.  It was the free market, banks & corporations.
I decided to start making citizens hate these institutions and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.
I called mine “A People’s Campaign” and that sounded good to people.
I was the surprise candidate.
I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support.
I knew that, if I merely offered the people ‘hope,’ together we could change our country.
So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include “persecuted minorities”.
My true views were not widely known & I kept them unknown, until after I became my nation’s leader.
I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.
I’m glad they didn’t as I became the most powerful man in the world.
And the world learned the truth.

 


Who am I?
 

 

 

 
 

Adolf Hitler
Who were you thinking.

April 7, 2009 Posted by | Amusing | | Leave a comment