About Me

Name: Jim
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

Immigration Reform

 

The New Colossus," by Emma Lazarus, written for and inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; send these, the homeless tempest-tossed, to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Throughout our history, this statement expresses a welcome to those people coming from Europe, Asia, Latin America, South America and the Middle East to the United States of America. What bound them together was a strong work ethic, solid family ties, a willingness to obey the law and become an American. These immigrants built the fabric of our country through hard work and sacrifice. We owe them a debt that can never be paid.

For the most part what was true in the past is true today. However, the fact remains that this country has no control of its borders and illegal immigration runs rampant. It is a grave crisis perpetuated by business and government. Let us take each section of this issue, from border control, to immigrant education, to a worker program, one step at a time.

To begin, it must be stated that person hiding in the trunk of a car – maybe with some family members – is desperately coming across the southern border, to make a better life for him and his loved ones. Earning a paltry $2.00 an hour or less to perform difficult back backing work is much better than nothing. People are risking everything to be able to support a family. But what happens when they arrive? Frightened that they will be deported, the common illegal accepts the wage from a business that is clearly exploiting them to secure a low wage cost.

It is time to change the dynamics of this tragic game. The current law for any employer violating immigration law must be enforced. To do so, politicians have to hear the call from the people that coddling of business for votes has to end. The Internal Revenue Service has to audit firms who knowingly hire undocumented workers. Punitive fines and harsh penalties must be given uniformly and consistently. For those companies that mistakenly hire them – that is, taxes are accounted for and all is in good faith, then a careful review is in order. This action will dry up the low wage incentive to hire illegals because the cost of being caught is higher than potential profit. Then, these workers have no reason to sacrifice to make the journey across the US/Mexican/Canadian border. The result should be fewer arrests and returns to the country of origin.

Now along the border, we have to examine where a strong fence makes sense in conjunction with the surrounding area. High traffic portions will receive a durable barrier while open spaces could use predator drones. These high tech objects can fly and examine areas where a member of the border patrol can not. The amount of these agents, by the way, should be in the amount of 10,000. The rule for apprehension should be humane but firm. Once a person crosses the border in this manner, he or she should be arrested and escorted back to the country of origin.

Our next focus is immigration education. It should be agreed that the time frame for gaining entrance to this country is a long and laborious process. Instructions to the INS must concentrate on quickly streamlining the wait for a lawful immigrant. Then upon securing opportunity for success here, the new American has to learn how to be one. A quote from Theodore Roosevelt is key: “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outraged to discriminate against such men because of creed or birthplace origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here.” The policy implications of this statement by the former President would mean a strong effort to teach English, a concerted focus on learning American history and a glaring emphasis on understanding our proud traditions and opportunities. Given enough time, the voting booth should have directions in one language and not several dozen.

Turning to a guest worker program, there must be clear guidelines. First, a contract has to be signed to pay taxes and obey the law. Then, a background check from the country of origin should be made monthly to verify criminal convictions. Next, each worker would have a card to absolutely confirm identity. Perhaps a type of bio scan in the form of eye recognition is in order. Whatever is used, tampering or forgery should be the exception not the norm. Further, a firm time period of work has to be written and enforced. Once it has ended, then the worker has to leave the country.

For the person who has never been in this country, the worker program could serve to expedidite the immigration process if this person so chooses. What about those illegals who are currently residing here? Given a strong government crackdown on business and a new id card, work for the illegal will eventually end and many will leave. For those that do stay, a carrot and stick approach of fines and incentives must be considered. For example, someone who is here for a year and is a drifter can not be viewed the same as a small business man who has lived here for ten years and provided employment for others.

In conclusion, we see that if new ideas and strategies are used to combat illegal immigration then the legal immigrant has a clear opportunity to realize a new life here in the land of freedom. It is time think anew and realize that the dream is there for all who struggle to this great country.

MAJOR CONCEPTS AND IDEAS are the property of Newt Gingrich.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

REPLY TO REP STEVE ROTHMAN'S RESPONSE

 

With all due respect to you and your office, I strongly disagree with your opinion that the average working family would earn a fair wage under this bill. First, any small business manager would tell you that labor costs are the highest cost of running a business. So if we are to expand the economy with more jobs then we must allow this manager to hire first time workers at a lower wage. While I am not talking about 2.00 dollars an hour, neither can a significant increase in the minimum wage as envisioned in this bill can be enacted. What will happen? Simple economics dictates that the higher the cost the less a buyer will buy. This means that the hiring manager will hire less at 7.00 an hour than he would at 5.00. This hurts the person you and others are trying to protect, that is the first time employee with no skills.The average American family is not hired using the minimum wage. These individuals have education and have sought after marketable skills.
   Thank you for reading

Mr. James Wolbert
53 Cedar Street
Garfield, New Jersey  07026

Dear Mr. Wolbert:

      Thank you for contacting me in opposition to raising the
minimum wage.  I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the
opportunity to respond.

I understand your concerns about raising the federal
minimum wage.  However, I believe that the U.S. government has
a responsibility to ensure that every working American earns a fair
and livable wage.  As you may know, H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum
Wage Act of 2007, was introduced in the House of Representatives
by Congressman George Miller (D-CA) on January 5, 2007.  If
enacted, this legislation would raise the federal minimum wage
from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.  H.R. 2 passed the House by a vote
of 315-116 on January 10, 2007 and passed the U.S. Senate by a
vote of 94-3 on February 1, 2007.  Please be assured that I will
keep your opposition to raising the minimum wage very much in
mind as Congress considers labor issues.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

REP STEVE ROTHMAN'S REPLY

 February 16, 2007


Mr. James Wolbert
53 Cedar Street
Garfield, New Jersey  07026

Dear Mr. Wolbert:

      Thank you for contacting me in opposition to raising the
minimum wage.  I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the
opportunity to respond.

I understand your concerns about raising the federal
minimum wage.  However, I believe that the U.S. government has
a responsibility to ensure that every working American earns a fair
and livable wage.  As you may know, H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum
Wage Act of 2007, was introduced in the House of Representatives
by Congressman George Miller (D-CA) on January 5, 2007.  If
enacted, this legislation would raise the federal minimum wage
from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.  H.R. 2 passed the House by a vote
of 315-116 on January 10, 2007 and passed the U.S. Senate by a
vote of 94-3 on February 1, 2007.  Please be assured that I will
keep your opposition to raising the minimum wage very much in
mind as Congress considers labor issues.

Thank you again for contacting me.  As your
Representative in the United States Congress, it is a privilege and
an honor to serve you and to act as your voice in Washington. 
Please feel free to contact me again with any other issue or matter
that concerns you.  You may also want to visit my website at
www.house.gov/rothman where you can sign up for my e-
newsletter and keep current with my latest Congressional activities
and policy statements.

Sincerely,

Steven R. Rothman
Member of Congress

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Replies sent to this email address will not
be received.  Please use either the form on my website or U.S. mail
to contact me in the future.

Website
http://rothman.house.gov

Hackensack Office
25 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Jersey City Office
130 Central Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07306

Washington, DC Office
2303 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NEWT GINGRICH'S COMMENTS

 
Beyond the Presidency
Renewing, Revitalizing and Relaunching Conservative America
Gingrich Communications  January 27 2007
Newt Gingrich

As we look to the way forward as conservatives, one fact is paramount:  American conservatism is about vastly more than the presidency.  The history of the modern American conservative movement was written in states and communities and in citizen activism.  Some of the highlights:

  • Howard Jarvis’s Proposition 13 anti-tax revolt in 1978 began in California but incited a nationwide revolt against big government and high taxes.
  • As a candidate for Governor in 1966 Ronald Reagan advocated welfare reform – thirty years before it passed in Washington.  For Reagan, welfare reform was part of his vision of “The Creative Society,” the premise of which was, as Reagan said at the time, was “government no longer substituting for the people, but recognizing that it cannot possibly match the great potential of the people.”
  • In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson and Polly Williams, a Democratic state representative, pioneered school choice in Milwaukee.  As governor, Thompson, along with Michigan Governor John Engler and Utah Governor Mike Leavitt, also led the movement to reform welfare – a movement that began in the states and only later forced change in Washington. 
  • As Mayor of Indianapolis in the 1990s, Steve Goldsmith opposed what he called the “bureaucratic monopoly” by pioneering the practice of having both private companies and government compete to deliver city services

The history of the conservative movement offers us a clear way forward today:  To renew, revitalize and relaunch the movement of Goldwater, Reagan and the Contract with America, we must concentrate our energies on all 511,000 elected offices in America, not just the presidency and Washington.   We need a movement far beyond Washington.  The oval office by itself is incapable of moving to a more conservative America.

What’s more, the current consultant and money dominated presidential campaign process is particularly ill-suited to moving conservatism forward.  The consultant class requirement that presidential campaigns begin two years before the voting guarantees that by the time a candidate gets into office her or she is two years out of touch with reality and the American people. Promises in February 2007 can’t accurately predict performance in February 2009. 

In addition to focusing on more than the presidency and presidential politics, four other points are critical to the future of conservatism.

First, American conservatism at its best has historically been about shaping a future based on freedom.  We should be the future oriented movement.  Our responsibility is to define a better future, and not just for some Americans but for all Americans.  We cannot ignore the moral challenge of those Americans who have been left out of the American dream.

Second, American conservatism at its best has always been focused on individuals, families and communities, not government.  Conservatives have to relearn a core principle of politics – the principle Ronald Reagan always understood – that issues must be addressed in a personal context first and only later in the historical and lastly, in the political context.  The first questions we must always ask ourselves are:  What will we do to help the American citizen?  How are our solutions relevant to your life?   This is not a formula for bigger bureaucracy. It is a formula for better policies.

Third, we are on the verge of extraordinary opportunities to dramatically improve public policies. Below are the seven principles of creating American solutions to help win the future:

  1. There will be four-to-seven times as much new scientific knowledge in the next twenty-five years as in the last twenty-five years.
  2. There is a customer market and values system which leads to dramatic change and innovation.
  3. Pragmatism changing things now, to get things done is the classic American philosophy.
  4. There are systems of productivity that are very powerful such as the Toyota production system, Six Sigma, the quality principles of Deming and Juran, the management principles of Peter Drucker, and concept of lean manufacturing.
  5. Historic American culture as exemplified by George Washington and Benjamin Franklin simply works: the work ethic, courage, individual initiative, responsibility, team work, energetic effort, saving and investing, recognizing and rewarding achievement, having high expectations.
  6. Insist that everyone be included and that a “new birth of freedom” (in Lincoln’s words) extends to every American.
  7. You have a lot to contribute to your family, your life, and your community.

Fourth, American conservatism at its best has always understood that the American people have to force change on Washington.  Washington will not change itself.  The Washington environment is pro-government, pro-liberal, and pro-elite.  The American people, on the other hand, are pro-God, pro-English, and instinctively anti-bureaucracy.

  • 91 percent of all Americans support the right to say “One nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  •  The Rasmussen poll reported that support for English as the official language was 85%. The Zogby poll had it at 84%.
  • The American public believes that 51 percent of all federal spending is waste.  So by definition, any politician advocating a tax increase is advocating wasting more of the American peoples money.

The organization we are launching, American Solutions, is a deliberate effort to renew, revitalize and relaunch the Goldwater-Reagan-Contract with America movement by going back to its source: the citizen activist, communities and states that built the American conservative movement.

The premise of American Solutions is that politics as usual – focusing on what is wrong with the Left rather than what we can do for the country – will not bring about change.  We have to take the proven principles of conservatism – Ronald Reagan’s banner of “bold colors” – and translate them into bold solutions.  We need to build a movement  outside Washington based on these bold solutions.  Then and only then will we force conservative change on Washington. 

TheNeoconservative 1/30/2007 7:02:47 PM

The American Solutions website is www.americansolutions.com!!

swanpond 2/5/2007 5:42:50 PM
The ideas are very simple, but can really bring about change.  The notion that it would be so simple if people just try to help each other.  The light at the end of the tunnel is bright.  Why is it that your simple approach to solving the problems is such hard work?  The message seems to me to be very clear.
You could be participating in this area if you were a registered member. It's simple, fast and free.
Register now and start letting Newt know what you think!

If you are already a Newt.org member, sign-in below

User Name
Password

 

 

 

 

 

User Name Password


Search
  
home  |  blog  |  forum  |  collaborate  |  appearances  |  multimedia
legal  |  my newt  |  search  |  contact

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sen Coburn's Health Reform BILL

 
S.3488 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue code of 1986 to expand the permissible use of health savings accounts to include health insurance payments, to increase the dollar limitation for contributions to health savings accounts, to allow the rollover of unused funds from health reimbursement arrangements to health savings accounts, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 6/9/2006) Cosponsors (4)

Please pass this data on and urge your senators - like I have done- to pass it. Thank you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Book Review: Culture Warrior

 
I thought Mr O'Reilly setup of Culture War between the traditionalists - like myself - and the secular progressives very well. Traditionalists stand for basic fundamental principles, such as honoring your country, right and wrong, family values - marriage, keeping God in the public arena. The Secular people want to tranform the USA into a socialist utopia where profits is a dirty word and the government will take care of all of your needs from cradle to grave.
Here is a listing of the code of a Culture Warrior or Traditionalist : 1) Keep your promises, 2) Focus on other people, not yourself. 3) See the world as it is, not the way you want it to be. 4) Understand and respect Judeo-Christian philosophy. 5) Respect the nobility of the USA. 6) Allow yourself to make fact based judgments. 7) Respect and defend private property. 8) Develop mental toughness. 9) Defend the weak and vulnerable. 10) Engage the secular-progressive opposition in a straightforward and honest manner.
Very intriguing and necessary reading.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ryan Sununu Bill on Social Security

 Harvard Economics Professor Martin Feldstein concludes that Social Security is a drag on the economy because workers assume Social Security will pay for their retirement.Therefore they dont save for it. Since Social Security operates as a pay as you go system with no real savings, the result is a net loss of actual savings and investment. Plus, the payroll tax sharply reduces the net wages workers receive for working.
 It is time to pass the Ryan-Sununu bill in the House so that personal accounts can solve the long term problems of the program and vastly benefit all Americans. The chief actuary for Social Security reported that under the reform benefit obligations throughout the long range period 2003 through 2077 and beyond would be solvent. Also after a surplus in 2030, the payroll tax can be reduced to 4 percent.
 I support its passage and ask that you do as well.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Letter to Congress

Issue One: On the Senate Lobby Reform, the Reid Amendment should be supported without the provision adding red tape and regulations to grassroots groups who have a right to be heard. This section is an infringement of our basic rights - as Americans. (Congress shall make no law in infringing on freedom of speech). Issue Two: The Fairness Doctrine has been promoted recently as an attempt to have both sides be a part of any Radio or TV presentation. In reality, if only one view is reprsented then the law would impose fines and possibly rescinding of the network's license. The Doctrine is a threat to free speech and should be voted no. Issue Three: The President is doing his best to wage war on people who would kill you and your family. It is important to back his request for more troops. He is changing his policy to meet the enemy where they live. Time for politics aside. I ask that you support President Bush in this matter. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ronald Reagan: The CRUSADER

 

The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

By Paul Kengor.

“A groundbreaking reassessment of Ronald Reagan’s life and presidency, exploring his lifelong struggle and ultimate victory-against the tyranny of Communism.”

“In this dramatic mediation on the life of Ronald Reagan, historian Paul Kengor presents an account of the fortieth president that has never been written-one that details Reagan’s campaign against the Soviet Union, which lasted for more than forty years. Tracing Reagan’s anti-Communist sentiment to his days as president of the Screen Actor’s Guild, Kengor illuminates how this experience first emboldened the actor to speak out against the oppression of the Soviet Union and describes Reagan’s multifaceted efforts to prevent Communism from taking hold in Hollywood. Ultimately his SAG tenure paved the way for his burgeoning political career, which from its inception, had one purpose: the end of Communism.

“Utilizing reams of recently declassified documents, Kengor assembles a striking mosaic of Reagan’s words and actions that toppled the Soviet Union. From Reagan’s covert support of the rebels who defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan to his secret oil collusion with Saudi Arabia that devastated the Soviet economy. Kengor reveals how Reagan’s eight years in office did more to bring down the Soviet Union than any single administration in the history of the Cold War. With painstaking detail, he also explains Reagan’s crucial move to escalate the arms race with the Kremlin, a decision that though politically unpopular, proved vital to the Soviets’ eventual downfall.

With unparallel research, this fascinating book tells the story of a man who believed that it was his responsibility to save the world from Soviet oppression. It’s a story that demonstrates how one American’s fight ended the twentieth-century’s longest war. It’s a story of one man who changed history. It’s the story of a crusader.” (Taken from the inner jacket).

“We now know that generation and leaders like Reagan met that challenge. They averted nuclear catastrophe. Freedom came to a severely repressed part of the world. The challenge today, for professors and parents alike, is to adequately convey the degree to which the world had once peered into the darkness, feared nuclear annihilation, and, in much of the Soviet sphere, was deprived of the most basic rights.

With a confidence and can do attitude that invigorated him like the waters of the Rock River, Ronald Reagan set out to right those wrongs. The extent to which eventual worldwide occurrences matched his extremely ambitious intentions is astonishing, and one of the great stories of the twentieth century and U.S. history. Those who do not see that reality need to; nor simply because it is a quintessentially American story of doing the impossible, but also because, yes, the missiles were not fired and people are free.” (Author’s comments pg 310).

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Book Review

 

The Faith of George W. Bush, by Stephen Mansfield

This book portrays a man, George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, who actively struggled to reach the level of faith he now holds. Mr. Mansfield takes us through Mr. Bush’s impulsive youth to his coming of age as President during the horrific events of 911.

Midland, Texas is a place on a map but it holds Mr. Bush’s soul. He said that “if I died today, I’d like to be buried in Midland”. (pg 29). “He was not making funeral plans. He was locating his heart”.(statement by author, pg 29).The citizens of this town were a group of people who are friendly, hard working, and had supreme faith in God. The history of the place was one of cattle ranching, railroads and of course oil.

Mr. Bush had grounding in his home town but that failed to give his life purpose. In the chapter, titled, “Nomadic Years”, (pg 41), he attended Andover and Yale. His history professor, Mr. Thomas Lyons gave him credit for spirit but believed him not to be the student his father was. The lack of inner fire followed him after graduation and his return to Midland. There, he revived his struggling oil company. Then the bottom fell out the oil market and the center of this implosion was Mr. Bush’s home town.

By this time, he was the son of a respected leader, a graduate of a prestigious university, a millionaire due to smart investments, and the owner of an oil company. Bush is respected, a faithful husband and loving father. What was missing? Despite it all, at every step of the way, others found him lacking. To know this was a heavy burden on him. “Though he was going nowhere at forty… At the age of 52, he‘s the front runner for the Republican presidential nomination. That‘s a pretty incredible turnaround”. (pg 56. Author’s comments)

The turnaround started when evangelist Arthur Blessitt came to Midland. A meeting was arranged in which the future president felt the stirrings of faith. The two men prayed together and afterwards Mr. Bush started out on a new inspirational road. However, the next event, a vacation at the Kennebunkport, Maine with Reverend Billy Graham was the place where a “mustard seed in my soul”, (direct quote by Mr. Bush, pg 68), was planted by the Reverend. It was a significant and key point in his life.

We have all seen the moment when the President stood on the wreckage of ground zero in New York and declared that those who committed the evil murders on our citizens who hear from us soon. It is that moment when George Bush, the man became President Bush. He couldn’t have become the steadfast, strong, unyielding leader at that moment without the certainty and commitment of his faith. Our nation is better off in every way because of this great man.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Minimum Wage

 I read that the minimum wage will be raised to over $7.00 an hour. I must remind you that simple economics dictates that if an employer must increase his labor costs when he or she hires a young person with a first job, the employer may opt not to hire the employee because that individual is too expensive. By mandating that a certain wage be used, government control takes away the price of  the free labor market. Not only does this decrease local employment but it robs the young person of his or her's first position. Intiative and hard work by moving up the work achievement ladder is something that should be preserved not diluted.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Maybe Learned Lesson

 Better Late Than Never        John Fund
Two Republicans take a stand against profligate spending.

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

It's been years since federal agencies have screamed this loudly about fiscal discipline being imposed on them. GOP Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina have decided to take a stand against overspending by objecting to the nearly 10,000 earmarks, or member-sponsored pork projects, larded throughout the spending bills Congress is currently considering.

Their obstinacy has convinced the leadership of the departing Republican Congress that they probably won't be able to pass spending bills in next month's short lame-duck session. Instead, they are likely to pass a stopgap "continuing resolution," which will continue funding all programs at last year's level until the new Democratic Congress passes its own versions of the funding bills.

Mr. Coburn says the decision not to pass earmark-stuffed catchall spending bills could save taxpayers a cool $17 billion. All 10,000 earmarks in the pending bills will expire if they aren't passed by the end of the year. Mr. Coburn says the decision of the congressional leadership to instead go for a continuing resolution is a sign Republicans are learning some lessons from their stinging loss of Congress three weeks ago. "By either staying home or not voting Republican, many voters were sending a message that they don't want to give the spending favor factory that Congress had become their stamp of approval," Mr. Coburn says. "It's time that message was heeded."

Nonetheless, the cries of pain are mounting now that it looks as if many federal agencies will have to get by until late January or even later with the same amount of money they got last year. Of the 11 spending bills covering the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1, only those governing defense and homeland security have become law. Appropriators are beside themselves that a continuing resolution that restrains spending is on the table. Rep. Jerry Lewis, who is ending his stint as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, calls it a "catastrophe." A spokeswoman for Mr. Lewis's Senate counterpart, Thad Cochran, says it is "irresponsible."

Overall federal spending has gone up by 49% since 2001, but you wouldn't know it from the anguished cries of those who regard ever-higher spending as some sort of birthright. A Congress Daily headline reads, "Agencies Say Long-Term CR Would Devastate Programs." The New York Times warns of "cuts in school breakfasts and shelter for the poor." Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who became a symbol of earmark excess in 2005 when he championed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," laments that several "very important" projects in his state stalled. "Some of it is money to help West Coast villages continue to recover from that bad storm they had in 2005 and earlier this year," he told reporters.

Nonsense, say Messrs. Coburn and DeMint. "Any agency that can't figure out how to function under a one-year CR is incompetent," a Coburn spokesman tells Congress Daily. "If appropriators took this seriously they wouldn't be wasting time earmarking and putting stoplights in their districts. The hypocrisy is astounding."

Some supporters of the Senate status quo may try to roll over objections to new spending bills and try to pass them anyway when Congress reconvenes on Dec. 4. If they do, Mr. Coburn and his allies already have over 40 amendments ready that would force senators to vote on authorizing individual pork barrel projects. "With Christmas around the corner, no senator wants to sit through that," says Andy Roth of the free-market Club for Growth.

That would leave the new Democratic Congress to decide if it is serious about its claims that it wants to reform the broken federal budget process. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the political maestro behind the Democratic takeover of the House, has a bill pending that would expose the earmark process to serious political sunlight but is already encountering resistance to it from Democratic spending barons.

On the Senate side, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois joined Mr. Coburn last year in successfully sponsoring a bill that created a publicly accessible database that will soon put information on every proposed earmark on the Internet. Mr. Obama recognizes that with the growth of entitlement spending, liberals will soon not have any money available to them for new federal programs unless they either pass politically risky tax increases or start curbing wasteful spending.

Some Republicans remain convinced the voters weren't rebelling against higher spending at all in this month's election. Rep. Don Young, the outgoing chairman of the House Transportation Committee and Sen. Stevens's Alaskan pork-barrel sidekick, told reporters this month that he thinks Mr. Coburn's criticisms of the Bridge to Nowhere and other infrastructure projects were one reason Republicans lost their majority. "He's been a spoiler from the get-go," said Mr. Young, who has been in Congress since 1973.

But Republicans would be wise to take any observations from Mr. Young with a shaker of salt. Last month he appeared to be the only political observer on the planet who didn't think Republicans were in trouble. An Associated Press story of Oct. 31 quoted Mr. Young as saying, "I'm predicting we're not going to lose any seats." He even bet pollster and KBYR talk radio host Ivan Moore a dinner on the outcome of the election. "We will not lose control of the House," the Anchorage Daily News quoted Mr. Young as saying. "It is not going to happen. . . . I'm going to be very happy election night."

Republicans wound up surrendering at least 30 House seats to Democrats, the greatest loss of any party since Democrats were swept out of power in 1994. Given how spectacularly wrong Mr. Young was, Republicans should now be leery when Mr. Young urges them to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Truth on Social Security

 
The assertion by the federal government that your social security dollars will be there for you is simply not true.

Social Security was created in 1935 as a core part of President Roosevelt?s New Deal program. A payroll tax of 1 percent on both the employer and employee placed on the first $3000 of wage income per year. The result was a maximum annual tax of sixty dollars for each worker. In return, the program paid benefits to retirees after age 65.

However the key element to Social Security is the pay-as- you-go mechanism. Taxes of today?s workers are not saved and invested to finance their future benefits but are paid out to finance the benefits of today?s retirees. In essence, the young 20 year old, let us call him Mr. Twenty, is paying for the older Mr. Sixty. When Mr. Twenty retirees, he needs at least another such worker to finance his retirement. Essentially, this is a redistribution plan not an investment and savings program.



If Social Security were truly a funded savings program then there would be sufficient reserves to pay all future benefits. However, with the pay-as- you- go system, the program must continually bring in more new workers to fund the increasing amount of retirees. Can this system sustain itself? Let us review more facts.



After World War Two, birth rates, brought on by the development of the birth control pill, legal abortion, and changing social views of the 1960?s, declined sharply. The U.S. fertility rate moved from 3.8 in 1957 to 1.77 in 1975. It stayed at that level until 1990. But for the US to sustain a stable population the rate must be at a minimum of 2.1. Now, on the opposite side of the ledger, we find that in 1940, life expectancy was 61.4 for men and 65.7 for women. But today, life expectancy is 74.4 for men and 79.5 for women. This is due to the rapid advancement of medicine.



As the younger group shrinks, the older group expands. The result is Social Security will not have the younger worker paying taxes to sustain the older worker. From 2018 until the funding ends in 2042, the federal government must find $8 trillion dollars to keep the system operating by paying promised benefits. In order to do this, continuing higher taxes have to be incorporated into this federal program.



There are two other disadvantages to Social Security. First, comparing the return on corporate stocks with the return on Social Security, we find that as far back as 1926, corporate stocks have a return of 7.5 per cent. On the other hand, a study by Mr. Peter Ferrara and Mr. Michael Turner, found that for most workers the real rate of return would be 1 to 1.5 per cent. The disparity between these amounts is striking. Second, another study by economics professor Martin Feldstein found that because workers assume that Social Security will pay for retirement, they don?t save for it or reduce what they would have saved. The result is a net loss for the economy in savings and investment ? not to mention a loss of income for the individual.



A new way of looking at this federal program must be adopted. The goal had always been to provide a safety net for poor Americans in their time of need. Personal accounts where the funds would be invested for the worker and not used or touched by the government is clearly the solution. Each worker would have control of the account and it can be a part of any inheritance. The optional plan would use part of the current payroll tax as the financing mechanism. Any legislation would provide for a federal guarantee for the person to at least receive the return provided by Social Security. For ultimate safety, instead of investment in the stock market, owners of these accounts can purchase Treasury or state bonds.



Gone would be the loss of a real reward for the retiree and the reliance of other workers having to pay into the system. Gone would be the drain on the US Treasury and eventually our federal debt. Plus, there would a huge pool of capital for business to invest, and create solid jobs. The worker would own stock in American business through these accounts and be able to pass it on to the next generation.



It is time to rethink this well intentioned but disastrous federal program. Remember that it is your money gained through hard work and a great deal of sacrifice. You should control your own destiny and not leave your bounty in the hands of a spendthrift bureaucrat.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »