Posts Tagged ‘Great Society’

Illegal Immigrants: Amazingly, Conservatives Don’t Want These People In America

November 19, 2009

A story that is becoming increasingly passe just over our southern border:

Women, Children Raped In County’s ‘Most Dangerous Area‘”

SAN DIEGO — Authorities said a desolate corner of San Diego County may be its most violent area. It is so dangerous 10News crews had to put on bulletproof vests before entering the area near Boulevard.

“The violence in this area is so bad that a 12-year-old was raped to death,” said Estela De Los Rios of the Center for Social Advocacy.

In the area, authorities said there are pieces of evidence left behind that serve as a grim reminder of the violence happening near the U.S.-Mexico border.

“They’re ruthless; they’ll come over here, they’ll pick one out that they want, they drag her off onto the rocks, they’ll rape her and they just leave them here,” said Carl Braun, founder of the Border Patrol Auxiliary, a group that assists U.S. Border Patrol agents.

The rapes are committed by the people the victims trust, authorities said. The women and their families give their life savings to human smugglers, only to be hurt by them.

“What they’ll do is they’ll get them in sight of the border or right across the border and then they’ll demand a form of payment that wasn’t agreed to on the front end. They will take them off and then rape them,” said Braun.

After raping the women, authorities said the smugglers hang their underwear on the trees as trophies to mark their brutal conquests.

Braun said he has witnessed a woman being raped but could not help because it happened on the south side of the border.

“In the morning, we found her undergarments hanging from that stick that’s sticking up by the fence there,” said Braun.

Braun said the violence has now crossed the border into San Diego County.

Here are my thoughts about this: build a wall.  Build it tall and strong.  And patrol our side of it.  Keep these people the hell out of our country.

And in so doing prevent helpless women and children from trusting these human-suit-wearing-cockroaches to illegally bring them here in the first place.

La Raza-types would argue that my opposing illegal immigration qualifies me as a racist, to which I shout, “What a racist thing of you to say!”  They don’t bother to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration.  If I oppose illegal immigration I’m a racist.  But they’re the racists.  And why should anyone care what they say?

La Raza may not give a damn about these Mexican women and young girls being raped  by Coyotes within sight of the U.S. border, but I sure do.

Conservatives are all in favor of immigration – from ALL over the world, and not just from Mexico or Latin America – as long as it is a) legal and b) benefits the United States.  Now, very little of either occurs.

Allow me to elaborate on how we severed the improvement of the United States from our immigration policy to show how we got to this point.

This country used to have the best interest of the nation and its own people as a core value.  But in 1965, championed by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy, that changed with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act.  Democrats assured the country that our borders would never be flooded with waves of immigrants.

The Hart-Celler Act repealed our previous immigration laws – which Democrats attacked as favoring Europeans and immigrants with job skills – and replaced our previous sane policy with one of chain immigration.  Instead of bringing in people with the job skills this country needed, the agenda became bringing in relatives of immigrants [Source: Mark Levin, Liberty And Tyranny, pp 150-151, and his citation from the Center for Immigration Studies, Sept. 1995].

We have continued to see wave after wave of unskilled immigrants flow into our country, along with their unskilled relatives, ever since.  We have attracted them with all the welfare benefits that a Great Society could provide.  And we have encouraged illegal immigration by these means, and by refusing to deal with the crisis our own elected representatives have foisted upon us.

Republican Representative William Miller understood the ramifications quite well.  He said, “We estimate that if the President gets his way, and the current immigration laws are repealed, the number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more.”

He was right.  The Democrats were terribly wrong – other than the fact that they have – at the expense of the nation and the American people – successfully created a new pro-Democrat special interest/constituency group.

We need to end the process by which unskilled Latin American immigrants flood into this country either illegally or legally, and return to the system – based on fair international quotas and job skills – in which the most qualified people from all over the world come here to start new lives as Americans.  We need to encourage immigrants who will leave their cultures behind and embrace American values, rather than our current system which encourages our immigrants to march against the clear national interests of the American people on a communist holiday (May Day) carrying a Mexican flag rather than the American flag – or even worse:

For what it’s worth, I’m not opposed to qualified, skilled immigrants legally coming here from Mexico or the Latin American hemisphere.  Quite the contrary.  I would gladly welcome such new Americans to this country.  But you can count on me being much less gracious and welcoming to people who come and demand welfare benefits while flying a foreign flag.

House Democrats Pass Worst Bill Ever To Destroy U.S. Health Care, Economy

November 8, 2009

Congratulations, America.  This is what you’ve “won”:

NOVEMBER 1, 2009

The Worst Bill Ever
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she’s prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that’s what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a “critical milestone,” may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan “reform” and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be “universal coverage.” The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country’s fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate.  Most of the money goes into government-run “exchanges” where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this “firewall”—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on “free” health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It “pays for” about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, “saving” about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to “pay for” universal coverage. While Medicare’s price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the “matching rate” for this joint state-federal program—up from today’s 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington’s budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point “surcharge” on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won’t have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn’t indexed for inflation. Yet it still won’t be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they’ll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don’t offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers’ premiums, which eat into wages. Such “play or pay” taxes always become “pay or pay” and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth
. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won’t buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

The insurance takeover. A new “health choices commissioner” will decide what counts as “essential benefits,” which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as “private” health insurance.
***

All of this is intentional, even if it isn’t explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama’s own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back “public option” entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress’s balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can’t regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of “change,” but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi’s handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

In 2008, America voted for national suicide, whether they understood it or not.  While it is increasingly obvious that Americans are rethinking their suicide pact with the Democrat Party, and beginning to change their minds, Democrats are nevertheless racing ahead to finish the job of destroying the country while they still can.

Think Cloward-Piven.  The Democrats believe that they are creating a “win we win, lose we win” stratagem.  If by some increasingly unlikely miracle our massive unprecedented debt-financed spending doesn’t cause the entire economic structure to implode, Democrats will be in a position to claim credit for their “success.”  If, far more likely, the economy self-destructs under the weight of the mind-boggling debts and economic hamstringing foisted upon us by the liberal agenda, Democrats are counting upon the fact that hungry, desperate, panicking people will turn to massive government structures to feed them and help them from the very problems that massive government structures caused in the first place.