The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. How fitting is that?
Anything that has Chuck Schumer's name on it with two Republicans must be a three card monte. Say hello to the Schumer-Corkin-Hoeven amendment to the Senate Immigration Bill according to this report from Breitbart.com
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/21/Sessions-on-Corker-Hoeven-Amdt-New-Border-Agents-Won-t-Start-To-Be-Hired-Until-2017
- "Contrary to their rhetoric there is no border surge. The Secretary [of Homeland Security] doesn’t even have to start hiring new border patrol agents until 2017, and the amendment only gives her until 2021 to increase the number by 20,000. According to the National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, this hiring process could take up to 20 years. Much like the 2006 law requiring a 700-mile border fence, it’s never going to happen.
- To raise money, the amendment increases fees on visas for legal immigrants, but keeps the same low fees and fines for those applying for amnesty – favoring illegal over legal immigrants. Under the 2007 comprehensive immigration bill, amnesty applicants had to pay up to $8,000 – vastly more than the fines in the current plan which total only $2,000 and are subject to numerous waivers. The Gang has repeatedly claimed their bill is completely paid for by fees. However, under the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $38 billion."
No matter how you cut it. History shows that Republicans just can't outfox those Democrats. Imagine. Increasing fees to legal aliens to fund a program to give amnesty to illegal ones. pretty sharp, is it not?
"Uhhhh......yeaaaah."
The "Gang" has got to get all those "undocumented Democrats" on board.
ReplyDeleteSquid
How about we pay for the increased border security by raising the tax in the highest income bracket a percentage point or two? Or, we could tax anti-immigrant web sites, and see how many of these phony patriots want to pay for what they advocate.
ReplyDeleteTo make it even worse, it does not even mean we will have 20,000 more Border Patrol Agents on the ground. They don't work 24 hours a day, 365 days a week. At the most you will have about a third working at any given time... if it ever comes true.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats are pretty quick to agree to anything because they know they will never follow through and actually comply. The Republicans are going along with them giving up our sovereignty because they are afraid of the Hispanic vote. Personally, I don't think they are single issue voters. The legal Hispanics want to protect our borders as much as any other American. They also are more in line with the Republicans on social issues like marriage, religion, family, etc.
.
Actually might not have to raise taxes, or at least not too much, if we just cut out a lot of crud and slop and duplication and, yes, fraud, in other areas, particularly "entitlement programs" (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc.) and applied the "savings" to border security/law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI am one of those phony patriots who would be prepared to pay a little more if necessary, and would willingly rather than unwillingly do so if I thought, which I don't, that the revenue would really be applied appropriately to border protection and removal/deportation of these "out-of-statuses".
And if we did find it necessary to raise taxes, they should obviously be increased across the board for the 50% (or less) of us who pay Federal income taxes, since we all would benefit equally.
There has been 5 years to cut out the "crud and slop and duplication and, yes, fraud" and yet it has gotten worse. If this administration says it will pay for something by elimination waste and abuse you can be sure that one, it will never happen, and two, that if they knew about it they could have cut it out already.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to pay more than your share of taxes, feel free to do so. The government gratefully accepts all contributions from all sources. The problem is that since you feel it is ok to pay more taxes you think I should also feel ok about paying more taxes... and if I don't the government will force me to do so. This administration is not going to raise taxes on those that don't pay taxes because that is their constituency. They won't even reduce the amount they get if they don't earn enough. It is called a negative incentive and it has been impacting countries who believe in government handouts.
Further, the administration would use the additional revenue how they damn well please, more IRS conventions, more vacations for the first family, more benefits for those who already drain the economy. So forget about earmarking any additional taxes for any purpose.
BTW, those "out of statuses" are people who are here illegally....contrary to our laws. They are rightly called illegal aliens.
.
elwood, the rub is always to get even a bare majority of Americans to agree on what IS crud, slop and duplication, and nobody talking about fraud has ever identified any that amounts to more than a minuscule fraction of one percent of the budget.
ReplyDeleteMy crud and slop is your core function of government, and vice versa.
But I do think at all levels we need to stop debating how high taxes should be, without tying that to what the money will be spent on, and debating what spending should be authorized, without examining what the necessary tax burden will be to pay for it. Money really doesn't grow on trees, and if you want to balance the budget, you have to come up with sufficient revenue to pay the bills.
The budget process should proceed through:
1) What do we want our government to do, if it can?
2) What will it cost us?
3) Given what it will cost, do we still want to do this?
4) If so, what taxation is required to pay for it?
Ergo, we have a budget, and we have our tax levels set.
Miggie--go back and read my post again. The "out-of-status" comment was, or at least should have been, obviously tongue in cheek relative to that being what any number of libs/Dems call illegals.
ReplyDeleteAlso, please note that I said I would willingly pay a little higher tax if the revenue was used for its intended purpose. I then added the disclaimer that I did not think the funds would be used in that manner. The corollary to that is that I then would not favor a tax increase. Further, I believe taxes should generally be reduced where possible, which is seldom indeed.
As to my thinking that you should pay more taxes and be OK with it, I would only observe that that is how our system works. For instance, even as a conservative I generally vote in favor of such local things as a little increase in property/sales taxes for law enforcement purposes ONLY if there is a mechanism for ensuring the money is not spent elsewhere. The same is not true for most increases in education funding or welfare/most other social programs.
You can always vote for candidates who will not propose any tax increases for any reason, and if they win, fine. Point is, if we need additional police protection/activities, you will get the same protection I do and should therefore be helping to pay for it whether you "want" to or not. I would extend that position to include most, if not all, people who currently pay no taxes, as I firmly believe they should have some skin in the game, no matter how minor. It is a matter of principle.
Elwood, I agree it is a matter of principle and I have re-read the points you made in your post. I agree that it is necessary for government to perform some functions that we can't do on our own but government has become so large that it is out of control and funds intended for one purpose end up spent somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteThe answer obviously is have a much smaller, more efficient, and responsive government. Fewer bureaucrats constantly making new rules would benefit all of us. Further, everyone should feel the consequences of higher taxes so they just don't pass them off on someone else because THEY think is is only fair.
We've gone in the wrong direction, certainly in the last 5 years, and we see the disastrous consequences that have resulted from it.
Personally, I am taxed up to the gills and I see all the waste, fraud, and abuse in the public sector. That is why I react to tax increase proposals as I do.
Miggie has been taxed so badly that he now lives in a one-room shack with a dirt floor and no plumbing. Something must be done to reduce the tax burden so Miggie can afford to rent a decent one bedroom apartment.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Miggie would like to keep a little more of the money he has earned over a lifetime.
ReplyDelete