Quantcast

Pages

Showing posts with label The Heritage Foundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Heritage Foundation. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Vote for Liberty: America's Economic Freedom Index Plummets

We cannot be free if the Government owns us. The Heritage Foundation's 2010 Index of Economic Freedom shows that not only do we not lead the pack in the highest level of Economic Freedom, we fell off the chart, and now are only "Mostly Free." With and index score of 78, we need 80 to maintain a status of "free." "Mostly Free." That is chilling. See a video below.


The Heritage Foundation has published the Index of Economic Freedom for 17 years. The Index is not a Republican tool to bash the Obama administration.

A Startling Decline
The United States is the 8th freest economy in the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. Its score is 2.7 points lower than last year, reflecting notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights. Economic freedom has declined in seven of the 10 categories measured in the Index. Overall, the U.S. suffered the largest decline in economic freedom among the world’s 20 largest economies. The United States has fallen to 2nd place in the North America region, trailing Canada.
Our "Fiscal Freedom" is ranked 138, "Government Spending" is ranked 122 with No. 1 being the best - 180 the worst.

While we ponder our economic freedom after the government gobbled up the auto industry, the banking industry, and already owned the corrupt mortgage industry, and put economic freedom under peril via ObamaCare, there are other freedoms we are losing or have already lost. Think about the perils of Eminent Domain, about our medical records being online, a Christian advertising for a Christian roommate on her church bulletin board, being charged with Civil Rights violations.

Our Business Freedom ranks 91.3 on the Economic Freedom Index:
...12 countries do a better job. New Zealand...scores 99.9...sets the world standard. You can start a business there in one day....U.S. average is six days.
In fiscal year 2009, close to $15 billion in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans. This is the biggest increase in 17 years and the second highest increase ever recorded, and 2010 is likely to be worse, primarily because of the health care bill. 
To free up our Economic Freedom, Heritage says:

Repeal stifling regulation of health care, the environment, financial institutions, and the Internet.
Create a nonpartisan Congressional Regulation Office to review new regulations and their alternatives.
Include a “sunset” date for all existing and new regulations, ensuring periodic review and requiring
Heritage suggests the following agenda to lower our Government Spending
The federal spending cap at 20 percent of GDP plus the increased efficiencies from returning significant spending responsibilities to state and local governments should limit overall government spending to 33 percent of GDP. This would:
Provide a gain of 9.3 points in the U.S. government spending score.
Improve the U.S. government spending ranking from 122nd place to 98th place.
Read the entire report [PDF] 


November 2nd is our opportunity to restore Liberty, by voting for Liberty...then the hard work begins.

 
Tea Party: I'm Voting for Liberty

Graphic courtesy of SodaHead

 Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Content Scrapers: Until I can figure out what to do about your confiscation of my work for your own website, please be sure to give a link back as shown above.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Health Care: Stopping at the Constitution - Not the White House - Not Congress

Lawsuits are in the works for filing against the Senate health care bill passed by the House on March 22,  and by the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009. Forget the staggering costs of the legislation that will drive this country to its knees and diminish the care Americans receive. The buck stops at the U.S. Constitution. If the person(s) sworn to the official oath fail to uphold it, citizens must act, and to do so, we must understand why we have a challenge, and be able to voice it to the Liberals in our midst - if any.


Stopping at the Constitution, not the White House, not Congress

I first wrote about this in December, before the Senate bill was passed. This minute, Brit Hume is on O'Reilly discussing the Commerce Clause. Why wasn't this shouted everywhere - early and often? Why wait until today, after the bill is passed? Now Bernie Goldberg is on the factor, patiently explaining that health care for Liberals is a moral issue, but is an economic issue with Conservatives. How about starting with the Constitution and working our down to the economics? Drives me crazy.

The consequences if this law is upheld by the Supreme Court, are daunting:
Congress would have the unlimited power to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States. Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people.
Pelosi, et al claims the power to mandate our health care through the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress the power to:
"[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
The Congressional Research Service has acknowledged that the mandate to individuals to buy health insurance may not be constitutional, because it is a "novel issue," meaning "unprecedented." This country has never before mandated individuals to purchase a thing, under penalty of imprisonment or fine if you choose to do nothing.

The argument often used that we are mandated to buy auto insurance does not address the new health care law being signed on Tuesday, March 23rd. You can choose to drive, or not. If you choose to drive, you buy auto insurance or you pay the penalty when you have an accident.

Mandated health insurance is different. There is no choice. We buy it, or we pay a penalty accessed through the IRS. If we choose not to purchase health care, and we are penalized with imprisonment or a monetary fine, it will be the first time citizens have been punished for taking no action, whatsoever.

Think about that. We do nothing, and yet we can be imprisoned or fined. We are mandated to buy health care because that is the only way the Obama administration can raise the money to cover everyone in the United States. Think again. You will be imprisoned or fined for taking no action.

Extraordinary.

The powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause, according to the U.S. Supreme Court are:
(1) Congress may regulate the "channels of interstate or foreign commence". This includes the regulation of steamship, railroad, highway or aircraft transportation.
(2) Congress may regulate and protect "the destruction of aircraft, or persons or things in commerce. An example is "thefts from interstate shipments."
(3) Congress may regulate economic activities that "substantially affect interstate commerce.
Mandating individual health insurance must fall into one of the three categories of regulation above. The first two are not a possible fit: we are not steamships, railroad, highways or aircraft transportation. We don't even have the power to buy insurance across state lines. Health care has nothing to do with No. 1.

Mandating individual health insurance has nothing to do with No. 2.

Congress is relying on No. 3 to make it constitutional to issue the mandate.

But, when Congress wishes to apply the Commerce Clause, they must answer this question: "what class of activity is Congress seeking to regulate?" In this case, their answer is No. 3, but:
...the health care mandate does not purpose to regulate or prohibit activity of any kind, whether economic or noneconomic. To the contrary, it purports to "regulate" inactivity.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the Senate bill that just passed the House says:
"the individual responsibility requirement...is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce...
and further:
...the statute purports to convert inactivity into a class of activity. By its own plain terms, the individual mandate provision regulates the absence of action. 
We choose not to buy health insurance, and by that choice Congress says we have participated in an activity that affects interstate commerce. A court must conclude that our failure to buy is economic in nature.


Congress can choose to regulate the health insurance industry, but the Heritage Foundation, and other attorneys say the mandate to buy cannot be regulated...without creating a new Constitutional Doctrine. If that is true, it won't be easy to do so.

If court challenges make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and SCOTUS upholds Congress, and we must accept a mandate, then we have been subjected to "federal control by virtue of the fact that the individual merely resides within the borders of the United States. It will be the first time in the history of the Nation that the Commerce Clause has yielded an action on every single person in the country. Congress will have gained unlimited power.

Unprecedented!

Once again: Congress will have gained unlimited power.

Congress would have the unlimited power to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States. Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people.


The Heritage Foundation gives the following examples of how interestate commerce has not been used in the past, and we should ask why we should allow Congress to perpetrate this power grab now - and understand, if we do give them power of the health care mandate, the can do all of the following:
Even in wartime, when the production of materiel is crucial to national survival, Congress has never claimed such a power.
For example, during World War II, no farmer was forced to grow food for the troops; no worker was forced to build tanks.
While the federal government encouraged the public to buy its bonds to finance the war effort, it never mandated they do so.
While Congress levied a military draft, it did so as necessary and proper to its enumerated power in Article I, sec. 8 "to raise and support armies," not its commerce power.
What Congress did not and cannot do during a wartime emergency, with national survival at stake, it cannot do in peacetime simply to avoid the political cost of raising taxes to pay for new government programs.... 
Simply because Congress can regulate wheat production under the Agricultural Adjustment Act does not entail that Congress can require every American to buy boxes of Shredded Wheat cereal on the grounds that, by not buying wheat cereal, non-consumers were adversely affecting the regulated wheat market.
For more on mandating individuals to buy auto insurance, read this but skip to (D)

Friday, March 5, 2010

Amnesty Next - DAMN Rule of Law - Lindsay Graham OnBoard: Heritage Foundation Cost of Illegals

The deplorably consistent, seldom conservative, Senator Lindsay Graham is back on the amnesty bandwagon. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Graham (R-SC) have been drafting legislation for the president for months, and yesterday they trekked to the White House to get the latest marching orders. No matter the legislation penned, we have Congress damning the Rule of Law, and perhaps Tea Parties will take this up next. See the cost of illegal aliens in the U.S. from the Heritage Foundation, $89.1 billion ANNUALLY (below), and weep for our country.


Illegal Alien
 (thanks to Hyscience)


The president had some thoughts about what "a path toward citizenship for 10.8 million people" already in the U.S. illegally, should look like:
The basis of a bill would include a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people living in the U.S. illegally. Citizenship would not be granted lightly, the White House said. Undocumented workers would need to register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law. Failure to comply might result in deportation.
For laughable starters, consider the "failure to comply MIGHT result in deportation." Just a small indication of the lack of will for serious reform.


The good news is Schumer says Graham is the only Republican support he has found, and he needs a second Republican as co-sponsor for the legislation illegal legislation. 


Remember when Senator Tom Coburn entered an amendment to uphold the enforcement of EXISTING immigation laws?  Nineteen Republicans voted AGAINST respecting the Rule of Law. The amendment language was simple and straight-forward.
To require the enforcement of existing border security and immigrations laws and Congressional approval before amnesty can be granted.
Senator John McCain didn't show up for that vote. Senator Graham voted against it. At the same time, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the following amendment:
"...permanently bar from the U.S. and from receiving any immigation benefit: suspected terrorists, gang members, sex offenders, felony drunk drivers, and other individuals who are a danger to society.
Cornyn's amendment was defeated with the help of 10 Republicans voting against enforcing the Rule of Law.


The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a program known as Operation Predator, which hunts child predators across the U.S. In a document dated January 25, 2008, this statistic jumps out: 85% of the arrests made as part of Operation Predator have been arrests of non-citizen sex offenders...."


Think of the impact enforcing the Rule of Law would have had on the lives of thousands of children and families. In their first four years, ICE arrested 10,700 child predators. That means 9,095 of those children were the victims of illegal aliens. 


Our children remain victims of both illegal immigrant predators and well as the the financial burdens to families who must pay the cost of illegals. From The Heritage Foundation:
Of all adult high school dropouts, legal and illegal, in America:
 49% are illegals, 
25% are legal immigrants and 
9% are native-born Americans.  
The U.S. Government, funded by U.S. citizens, pays out an average of $30,160.00 per legal and illegal household with heads-of-households lacking a high school diploma. The $30,160.00-average paid represents social security benefits and Medicare, police, public safety, transportation, administrative support, public education and other means-tested aid.
"Means-tested aid came to $10,428 per household, while direct benefits (mainly Social Security and Medicare) amounted to $4,891. Education spending on behalf of these households averaged $8,462 per household, while spending on police, fire, and public safety came to $2,746 per household. Transportation added another $809, and administrative support services cost $1,195. Miscellaneous population-based services added a final $1,529."
Okay, you are saying...but these people pay taxes, yeah, but only about $10,500.00:
In return for handing-out $30,000.00+ per legal and illegal household, we receive from such households, a payment average of $10,573.00 in taxes. These paid-in taxes include federal highway taxes, unemployment insurance and workers compensation taxes, federal excise taxes and customs duties, state individual income tax, STATE LOTTERY PURCHASES (an average of $714.00 per household!), corporate income tax, state and local property taxes, federal individual income taxes, state and local sales and comsumption taxes and FICA "contributions." View this in Chart 3 of The Heritage Foundation Report.
 In addition to the $30,000+ hand-out from American citizens, it is estimated there are 1.6 workers per legal and illegal, unskilled household, each averaging $18,490 in earnings. This is an average of $29,584.00 annually in earnings, plus the $30,000+ courtesy of citizens. View this in Table 2 of The Heritage Foundation report.
Of course, there's always a bottom-line and, in this case, it is the deficit in dollars incurred to you and me. For each household, we say adios to an average of $19,588.00. View this in Chart 5 of The Heritage Foundation report. 
The "net lifetime cost," according to the Heritage Foundation is this:
"Receiving, on average, $19,588 more in immediate benefits than they pay in taxes each year, low-skill immi­grant households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. 
Assuming an average 60-year adult life span for heads of household,[24] the aver­age lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be nearly $1.2 million for each low-skill household, net of any taxes paid.[25] This calculation assumes that a low-skill immigrant comes to the U.S. in his mid-twenties with a spouse and that both remain in the U.S. for an average of 60 years. 
Even if low-skill immigrants return home rather than remain in the U.S. permanently, thereby reducing costs, this argument merely underscores how costly low-skill immigrants are to the U.S. taxpayer. The less time these immigrants spend in the U.S., the lower the cost to the taxpayer. 
Moreover, most current immigration reform proposals [2007] would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, increasing their access to welfare and Social Security. These proposals would substantially increase the time that these immigrants remain in the U.S."
From one of my previous posts
$19,588.00 x 4.54 MILLION such households is a total of $89.1 billion - $89.1 billion we give away, annually, to non-citizen, and knowing-lawbreakers. In addition:





"Over the next ten years, the net cost (benefits minus taxes) to the taxpayer of all low-skill immigrant households will approach one trillion dollars."

The Heritage Foundation, in Chart 7, shows that each and every age bracket RECEIVES far more than it PAYS IN, but as the households age, the deficit increases.
"There are currently 8 million non-elderly adult immigrants in low-skill immigrant households.[26] Assuming nor­mal mortality rates, perhaps 7 million of these individuals will live to age 67.[27] After reaching age 67, the normal life expectancy would be approximately 18 years. With an average net cost of roughly $270,000 over 18 years, the net future retirement costs of the 7 million low-skill immi­grants would be around $1.9 trillion."
"...low-skill households are net tax consumers even during their working years. It is important to note, these families are rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes. However, the taxes they pay are seldom, if ever, sufficient to cover the cost of the government benefits they receive. 
In consequence, these households must be continually subsidized by other taxpayers. Low-skill immigrants are among these problematic households. On average, they are a net fiscal burden throughout their working years, and after retirement they become an even greater tax burden. 
Politicians should be wary of any policy that will increase the future number of net tax consumers. Immigration policy, in particular, should be focused on increasing the number of positive taxpayers and reducing the future number of tax consumers."
According to the Heritage Foundation, the idea that illegals "contribute to the solvency of Social Security" is untrue. With all government benefits, these households "ten dollars in total government benefits for each dollar they pay in Social Security taxes."


Of the current push for legislation before the distraction of mid-term elections, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) said the things he hears "from the administration won't be well received," and the above from the Heritage Foundation should be a clear reminder of why American should strongly reject the idea of amnesty for illegals, no matter how the legislation is written. 


Another battleground for conservatives. If amnesty is next, than the Rule of Law in this country is deader than dead. 

Tip of the MaggieMae to Weasel Zippers

Linked by The Lonely Conservative - Loose Ends - Dr.Evil Edition



Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The Islamic Presence in Space - Video

Iran's launch of a Safir-2 rocket places an official "Islamic presence" into space. Estimates of a Safir-2 rocket's range are about 1500 miles - enough to reach Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey...but...Iran has another, more powerful rocket - the Shahab-3, and today's launch is witness that Iran is on the path to using space for its own agenda. The hostile use of space is a growing threat, and now Iran has joined the fray. Germany is hosting the U.S., France, Russian, China and Britain this week. The purpose of the get-together: to find ways to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran's launch yesterday showed the bottoms of their soul-less shoes to the free world - just as the thwarting of U.N. resolutions have done. Do we think Iran has no interest in a nuclear-laden ICBMs with a bulls-eye set on America? Quoting President Obama (read the entire transcript and see the video here):

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will negotiate with Russian to take our ICBM's off air-trigger alert,...
Read how Europe is reporting Obama's plans today. 33 Minutes
Heritage Foundation - Video

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Taxpayer's Cost to Host Illegals - A Reminder

By Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

 As the Senate Immigration Reform Bill s.1348 continues to be worked on Capitol Hill, the Senators vying for cheap labor, and lots of it, are offering inducements to the Senate opposition. In exchange for a "yea" vote, Senator Lindsey Graham suggests "immediate funding" for border enforcement. How would this "immediate funding" be funded?...from the U.S. Treasury, according to Graham.

 The Heritage Foundation published in-depth research on the cost of immigrants and illegal aliens to the taxpayer. Over the several weeks that this report has been published, I've searched for refutation of this material and haven't found a single instance of a half-serious attempt to discredit it. It's a long report...very long. I've pulled out information that I thought pertinent along with the link to the appropriate page. If you think accepting 12 million illegals into this country for a $5,000.00 fine is a good deal for America, take a look at this information and understand what it means for you, your family, and their families. There will be no turning back.

From The Heritage Foundation

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer is a comprehensive compilation of, perhaps, more than you ever wanted to know about immigration, but is exactly what you and I need to know and understand. Here are pertinent points, with inset-text taken directly from The Heritage Foundation: Of all adult high school dropouts, legal and illegal, in America, 49% are illegals, 25% are legal immigrants and 9% are native-born Americans. The U.S. Government, funded by U.S. citizens, pays out an average of $30,160.00 per legal and illegal household with heads-of-households lacking a high school diploma. The $30,160.00-average paid represents social security benefits and Medicare, police, public safety, transportation, administrative support, public education and other means-tested aid. View this in Chart 2 of The Heritage Foundation report.
"Low-skill immigrant households are larger and younger than are households headed by non-immigrant dropouts: Only 17 percent of low-skill immigrant households are elderly compared to 43 percent of households headed by non-immigrant dropouts. Because they are younger, low-skill immigrant households have more workers per household than similar non-immigrant households, but the average wage per worker is actually slightly higher in low-skill non-immi­grant households ($20,828 per worker among non-immigrants compared to $18,490 among immigrants)."
"Overall, households headed by immigrants without a high school diploma (or low-skill immigrant households) received an average of $30,160 per household in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services in FY 2004."
"Means-tested aid came to $10,428 per household, while direct benefits (mainly Social Security and Medicare) amounted to $4,891. Education spending on behalf of these households averaged $8,462 per household, while spending on police, fire, and public safety came to $2,746 per household. Transportation added another $809, and administrative support services cost $1,195. Miscellaneous population-based services added a final $1,529."
In return for handing-out $30,000.00+ per legal and illegal household, we receive from such households, a payment average of $10,573.00 in taxes. These paid-in taxes include federal highway taxes, unemployment insurance and workers compensation taxes, federal excise taxes and customs duties, state individual income tax, STATE LOTTERY PURCHASES (an average of $714.00 per household!), corporate income tax, state and local property taxes, federal individual income taxes, state and local sales and comsumption taxes and FICA "contributions."

View this in Chart 3 of The Heritage Foundation Report. We don't need to do the math because The Heritage Foundation has done it for us. U.S. citizens PAY OUT $30,000+ annually, to immigrant (both legal and illegal), low-skilled households, and we RECEIVE only $10,500.00 per such household into our coffers. EACH such household RECEIVES an average of $3.00 for EACH $1.00 paid in, and this thought from me - such benefits are often received through THEFT of our social security numbers. 

In addition to the $30,000+ hand-out from American citizens, it is estimated there are 1.6 workers per legal and illegal, unskilled household, each averaging $18,490 in earnings. This is an average of $29,584.00 annually in earnings, plus the $30,000+ courtesy of citizens. View this in Table 2 of The Heritage Foundation report. Of course, there's always a bottom-line and, in this case, it is the deficit in dollars incurred to you and me. For each household, we say adios to an average of $19,588.00. View this in Chart 5 of The Heritage Foundation report. The bottom-line, or as The Heritage Foundation refers to it, The "Net Lifetime Costs," comes down to this:
"Receiving, on average, $19,588 more in immediate benefits than they pay in taxes each year, low-skill immi­grant households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average 60-year adult life span for heads of household,[24] the aver­age lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be nearly $1.2 million for each low-skill household, net of any taxes paid.[25] This calculation assumes that a low-skill immigrant comes to the U.S. in his mid-twenties with a spouse and that both remain in the U.S. for an average of 60 years. 
Even if low-skill immigrants return home rather than remain in the U.S. permanently, thereby reducing costs, this argument merely underscores how costly low-skill immigrants are to the U.S. taxpayer. The less time these immigrants spend in the U.S., the lower the cost to the taxpayer. Moreover, most current immigration reform proposals would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, increasing their access to welfare and Social Security. These proposals would substantially increase the time that these immigrants remain in the U.S."
$19,588.00 x 4.54 MILLION such households is a total of $89.1 billion - $89.1 billion we give away, annually, to non-citizen, and knowing-lawbreakers. In addition:
"Over the next ten years, the net cost (benefits minus taxes) to the taxpayer of all low-skill immigrant households will approach one trillion dollars."
The Heritage Foundation, in Chart 7, shows that each and every age bracket RECEIVES far more than it PAYS IN, but as the households age, the deficit increases. Without considering THE POSSIBILITY of legal status through AMNESTY, current trends would expect retirement costs to be $1.9 trillion. Here's the way The Heritage Foundation explains it (and remember that AMNESTY is not taken into consideration):
"There are currently 8 million non-elderly adult immigrants in low-skill immigrant households.[26] Assuming nor­mal mortality rates, perhaps 7 million of these individuals will live to age 67.[27] After reaching age 67, the normal life expectancy would be approximately 18 years. With an average net cost of roughly $270,000 over 18 years, the net future retirement costs of the 7 million low-skill immi­grants would be around $1.9 trillion."
Below, The Heritage Foundation continues to smack-down the verbal posturing that these people pay taxes and, this view from me, that we should be grateful for their participation in our commerce (notice that these households are "net tax consumers" as opposed to you and me, who are likely "net tax payers:"
"...low-skill households are net tax consumers even during their working years. It is important to note, these families are rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes. However, the taxes they pay are seldom, if ever, sufficient to cover the cost of the government benefits they receive. In consequence, these households must be continually subsidized by other taxpayers. Low-skill immigrants are among these problematic households. 
On average, they are a net fiscal burden throughout their working years, and after retirement they become an even greater tax burden. Politicians should be wary of any policy that will increase the future number of net tax consumers. Immigration policy, in particular, should be focused on increasing the number of positive taxpayers and reducing the future number of tax consumers."
The Heritage Foundation asks if these households "contribute to the solvency of Social Security." The short answer is no.
"It is true that low-skill immigrant households pay, on average, around $2,900 per year in Social Security (FICA) taxes; however, the average Social Security and Medicare benefits they receive actually exceed the FICA taxes paid. Of course, low-skill immigrant households receive many other government benefits as well, receiving ten dollars in total government benefits for each dollar they pay in Social Security taxes.."
Now when the illegals whine that they pay Social Security taxes, but will never see a penny of it - because they are illegal...remind them that they are receiving at least $10.00 in OTHER benefits, for each dollar they have paid in. Pay in $1.00 and get back $10.00. Incredible! Equally incredible is this:
"In the final analysis, taxpayers, including many Social Security recipients, will face higher taxes in order to subsidize low-skill immigrant households."
Current legislation is declared not to be AMNESTY by some Legislators, but you and I know that it is just that. The Heritage Foundation says this:
"Do not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would, over time, confer entitlement to welfare, Social Security, and Medicare for the amnesty recipients. This would be ruinously expensive to U.S. taxpayers. Similarly a modified amnesty such as the Z visa program pro­posed by President Bush, would, almost certainly, over time result in entitlement of the Z visa holders to welfare, Social Security, and Medicare; such a plan would be nearly as expensive as forthright amnesty. Amnesty in any form would impose serious fiscal costs.
There is much, much more to this report. I encourage anyone with the endurance to protect their own liberties to read through The Heritage Foundation report by Robert E. Rector and Christine Kim.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

With Your Stolen Identity, Life is Good for Illegals!

It's not easy to lead into a piece on illegal entry into this country. Everything has already been said, and in the MSM, every salient point against illegal entry has been ignored. The basic FACT...that would be the "illegality" of illegal entry, is viewed by many in the Senate and Congress as a noble step taken by one, or a family, to make a better life for themselves. From the illegal entry day forward, your rights and mine are abused. The most repulsive act of illegal entry is our stolen social security numbers and other forms of identity. Possession of an "identity" enables a much easier life for illegals. Unfortunately, these most important but unprotected identities are "who we are" in America. We must have a social security number from birth. Many Americans have ALREADY been notified they they owe Federal taxes for jobs they've never held, on wages they've never earned...or found credit cards and loans on record with financial institutions that they did not request and were unaware of, had credit trashed, and even been linked to violent crimes they did not commit. Where is the outrage on the floors of the House and Senate? For many of us, we WILL RECEIVE SUCH A NOTICE on some future day. I don't know about you, but this makes my blood boil. For Congress and the Senate to ignore this injurious and insulting behavior, in the name of "...but what else can we do - they are already here," is not acceptable. With stolen identities, illegals are thriving. Watch this short Heritage Foundation video explaining the unbelievable cost of illegals to American citizens. Then, if you are interested in more, read my summary of The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer at Heritage Foundation "Smacks Down" Low-Skilled Legal/Illegal Immigrants as Productive Assets. Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, The Amboy Times, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, stikNstein... has no mercy, Here's looking at . . .me!, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Heritage Foundation "Smacks Down" Immigrants as Productive Assets

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer is a comprehensive compilation of, perhaps, more than you ever wanted to know about immigration, but is exactly what you and I need to know and understand. Here are pertinent points, with inset-text taken directly from The Heritage Foundation: Of all adult high school dropouts, legal and illegal, in America, 49% are illegals, 25% are legal immigrants and 9% are native-born Americans. The U.S. Government, funded by U.S. citizens, pays out an average of $30,160.00 per legal and illegal household with heads-of-households lacking a high school diploma. The $30,160.00-average paid represents social security benefits and Medicare, police, public safety, transportation, administrative support, public education and other means-tested aid. View this in Chart 2 of The Heritage Foundation report.

"Low-skill immigrant households are larger and younger than are households headed by non-immigrant dropouts: Only 17 percent of low-skill immigrant households are elderly compared to 43 percent of households headed by non-immigrant dropouts. Because they are younger, low-skill immigrant households have more workers per household than similar non-immigrant households, but the average wage per worker is actually slightly higher in low-skill non-immi­grant households ($20,828 per worker among non-immigrants compared to $18,490 among immigrants)."
"Overall, households headed by immigrants without a high school diploma (or low-skill immigrant households) received an average of $30,160 per household in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services in FY 2004."
"Means-tested aid came to $10,428 per household, while direct benefits (mainly Social Security and Medicare) amounted to $4,891. Education spending on behalf of these households averaged $8,462 per household, while spending on police, fire, and public safety came to $2,746 per household. Transportation added another $809, and administrative support services cost $1,195. Miscellaneous population-based services added a final $1,529."
In return for handing-out $30,000.00+ per legal and illegal household, we receive from such households, a payment average of $10,573.00 in taxes. These paid-in taxes include federal highway taxes, unemployment insurance and workers compensation taxes, federal excise taxes and customs duties, state individual income tax, STATE LOTTERY PURCHASES (an average of $714.00 per household!), corporate income tax, state and local property taxes, federal individual income taxes, state and local sales and comsumption taxes and FICA "contributions." View this in Chart 3 of The Heritage Foundation Report. We don't need to do the math because The Heritage Foundation has done it for us. U.S. citizens PAY OUT $30,000+ annually, to immigrant (both legal and illegal), low-skilled households, and we RECEIVE only $10,500.00 per such household into our coffers. EACH such household RECEIVES an average of $3.00 for EACH $1.00 paid in, and this thought from me - such benefits are often received through THEFT of our social security numbers. In addition to the $30,000+ hand-out from American citizens, it is estimated there are 1.6 workers per legal and illegal, unskilled household, each averaging $18,490 in earnings. This is an average of $29,584.00 annually in earnings, plus the $30,000+ courtesy of citizens. View this in Table 2 of The Heritage Foundation report. Of course, there's always a bottom-line and, in this case, it is the deficit in dollars incurred to you and me. For each household, we say adios to an average of $19,588.00. View this in Chart 5 of The Heritage Foundation report. The bottom-line, or as The Heritage Foundation refers to it, The "Net Lifetime Costs," comes down to this:
"Receiving, on average, $19,588 more in immediate benefits than they pay in taxes each year, low-skill immi­grant households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average 60-year adult life span for heads of household,[24] the aver­age lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be nearly $1.2 million for each low-skill household, net of any taxes paid.[25] This calculation assumes that a low-skill immigrant comes to the U.S. in his mid-twenties with a spouse and that both remain in the U.S. for an average of 60 years. Even if low-skill immigrants return home rather than remain in the U.S. permanently, thereby reducing costs, this argument merely underscores how costly low-skill immigrants are to the U.S. taxpayer. The less time these immigrants spend in the U.S., the lower the cost to the taxpayer. Moreover, most current immigration reform proposals would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, increasing their access to welfare and Social Security. These proposals would substantially increase the time that these immigrants remain in the U.S."
$19,588.00 x 4.54 MILLION such households is a total of $89.1 billion - $89.1 billion we give away, annually, to non-citizen, and knowing-lawbreakers. In addition:
"Over the next ten years, the net cost (benefits minus taxes) to the taxpayer of all low-skill immigrant households will approach one trillion dollars."
The Heritage Foundation, in Chart 7, shows that each and every age bracket RECEIVES far more than it PAYS IN, but as the households age, the deficit increases. Without considering THE POSSIBILITY of legal status through AMNESTY, current trends would expect retirement costs to be $1.9 trillion. Here's the way The Heritage Foundation explains it (and remember that AMNESTY is not taken into consideration):
"There are currently 8 million non-elderly adult immigrants in low-skill immigrant households.[26] Assuming nor­mal mortality rates, perhaps 7 million of these individuals will live to age 67.[27] After reaching age 67, the normal life expectancy would be approximately 18 years. With an average net cost of roughly $270,000 over 18 years, the net future retirement costs of the 7 million low-skill immi­grants would be around $1.9 trillion."
Below, The Heritage Foundation continues to smack-down the verbal posturing that these people pay taxes and, this view from me, that we should be grateful for their participation in our commerce (notice that these households are "net tax consumers" as opposed to you and me, who are likely "net tax payers:"
"...low-skill households are net tax consumers even during their working years. It is important to note, these families are rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes. However, the taxes they pay are seldom, if ever, sufficient to cover the cost of the government benefits they receive. In consequence, these households must be continually subsidized by other taxpayers. Low-skill immigrants are among these problematic households. On average, they are a net fiscal burden throughout their working years, and after retirement they become an even greater tax burden. Politicians should be wary of any policy that will increase the future number of net tax consumers. Immigration policy, in particular, should be focused on increasing the number of positive taxpayers and reducing the future number of tax consumers."
The Heritage Foundation asks if these households "contribute to the solvency of Social Security." The short answer is no.
"It is true that low-skill immigrant households pay, on average, around $2,900 per year in Social Security (FICA) taxes; however, the average Social Security and Medicare benefits they receive actually exceed the FICA taxes paid. Of course, low-skill immigrant households receive many other government benefits as well, receiving ten dollars in total government benefits for each dollar they pay in Social Security taxes.."
Now when the illegals whine that they pay Social Security taxes, but will never see a penny of it - because they are illegal...remind them that they are receiving at least $10.00 in OTHER benefits, for each dollar they have paid in. Pay in $1.00 and get back $10.00. Incredible! Equally incredible is this:
"In the final analysis, taxpayers, including many Social Security recipients, will face higher taxes in order to subsidize low-skill immigrant households."
Current legislation is declared not to be AMNESTY by some Legislators, but you and I know that it is just that. The Heritage Foundation says this:
"Do not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would, over time, confer entitlement to welfare, Social Security, and Medicare for the amnesty recipients. This would be ruinously expensive to U.S. taxpayers. Similarly a modified amnesty such as the Z visa program pro­posed by President Bush, would, almost certainly, over time result in entitlement of the Z visa holders to welfare, Social Security, and Medicare; such a plan would be nearly as expensive as forthright amnesty. Amnesty in any form would impose serious fiscal costs.
There is much, much more to this report. I encourage anyone with some endurance to read through The Heritage Foundation report by Robert E. Rector and Christine Kim. Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, The Amboy Times, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, stikNstein... has no mercy, Here's looking at . . .me!, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Tracked to Woman Honor Thyself and Height Open Trackback Weekend. Excerpt: Evidence gathered from 3,000 skeletons reveals that human height has varied little over the past 1,000 years. Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

©2007-2012copyrightMaggie M. Thornton