U.S. Readies Tough Rules on Employers of Immigrants

[Pale Rider]

U.S. Readies Tough Rules on Employers of Illegal Aliens.


August 8, 2007
By JULIA PRESTON

In a new effort to crack down on illegal immigrants, federal authorities are expected to announce tough rules this week that would require employers to fire workers who use false Social Security numbers.

Officials said the rules would be backed up by stepped-up raids on workplaces across the country that employ illegal immigrants.

After first proposing the rules last year, Department of Homeland Security officials said they held off finishing them to await the outcome of the debate in Congress over a sweeping immigration bill. That measure, which was supported by President Bush, died in the Senate in June.

Now Bush administration officials are signaling that they intend to clamp down on employers of illegal immigrants even without a new immigration law. The approach is expected to play well with conservatives who have long demanded a tougher stance on illegal immigration, but could also spur a renewed legislative effort to provide legal status for the estimated six million or so unauthorized immigrants in the work force.

“We are tough and we are going to be even tougher,” said Russ Knocke, the spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. “There are not going to be any more excuses for employers, and there will be serious consequences for those that choose to blatantly disregard the law.”

Experts said the new rules represented a major tightening of the immigration enforcement system, in which employers for decades have paid little attention to notices, known as no-match letters, from the Social Security Administration that workers’ names and numbers did not match the agency’s records.

Employers, especially in agriculture and low-wage industries, said they were deeply worried about the administration’s new stance, which could force them to lay off thousands of low-wage immigrant workers. More than 70 percent of farmworkers in the American fields are illegal immigrants, according to estimates by growers’ associations.

“Across the employer community, people are scared, confused, holding their breath,” said Craig Reggelbrugge, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, a trade organization. “Given what we know about the demographics of our labor force, since we are approaching peak season, people are particularly on edge.”

The expected regulations would give employers a fixed period, perhaps up to 90 days, to resolve any discrepancies between identity information provided by their workers and the records of the Social Security Administration. If a worker’s documents cannot be verified, employers would be required to fire them or risk up to $10,000 in fines for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.Illegal workers often provide employers with fabricated or stolen Social Security numbers to qualify for a job.

Immigrants rights groups and labor unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O, predicted the rules would result in discrimination against Hispanic workers. They said they were preparing legal challenges to try to stop them from taking effect.

The new rules responded to demands from groups opposing illegal immigration and from many Republican lawmakers for the Bush administration to enforce existing laws before offering legal status to undocumented immigrants.

The new rules codify an uneasy partnership between the Department of Homeland Security, which enforces the immigration laws, and the Social Security Administration, which collects identity information from W-2 tax forms of about 250 million workers each year, including immigrants and Americans, so it can credit the earnings in its system.

Mark Hinkle, a spokesman for Social Security, said the agency expected to send out about 140,000 no-match letters to employers this year, covering more than eight million workers. After the rules are announced, the agency is anticipating a surge in requests from employers seeking to clarify workers’ information, he said.

Social Security issues letters only to employers who have more than 10 workers whose numbers do not match, when those workers represent at least one-half of 1 percent of the company’s workforce, Mr. Hinkle said.

The agency cannot verify which mismatches came from immigrants who presented false Social Security numbers when they applied for jobs, he said. Mismatches also occur because of clerical errors, or when workers marry and forget to inform Social Security that they changed their names. Several studies in recent years, including a 2005 survey by the General Accounting Office, have found significant error rates in the Social Security database.

“We don’t know and we don’t speculate” about the reasons for mismatches, Mr. Hinkle said.

The new rules will clarify steps employers can take to avoid being accused of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, officials said. According to the draft, employers would be given 14 days after receiving a no-match letter to check for clerical errors and consult with the employee to correct mistakes. If the discrepancies are eliminated and new, valid work papers are filed within the fixed period, employers would enjoy a “safe harbor” from penalties.

The rules proposed last year brought a storm of criticism from both employers and workers groups. In a formal comment, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. said the rules would “harm all workers regardless of immigration status.”

“The enforcement is only on the immigration side,” Ana Avendaño, associate general counsel for the A.F.L.-C.I.O, said today. “They don’t do any labor inspection. So they are just giving employers another tool to repress workers’ rights.”

Even large companies that do not hire many low-skilled immigrants would also be affected by the rules, lawyers said. “It’s going to be a big change for almost every company,” said Cynthia J. Lange, an immigration lawyer in California.

“If this is strictly enforced, there could be massive layoffs of workers,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a director of the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan research group. But he said that illegal immigrant workers might not leave the labor force, but would apply for jobs at other businesses using the same invalid documents. He predicted the market for forged documents would grow.

“A lot of employers are saying we just can’t handle this,” said Laura Reiff, co-chairwoman of the Essential Worker Immigrant Coalition, which represents employers in low-skilled industries. She said the rules might spur new pressure from business on Congress to reconsider measures granting legal status to illegal immigrants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/washington/08cnd-immig.html?ei=5065&en=4f566bb79b95be7f&ex=1187150400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[Pale Rider]

“A lot of employers are saying we just can’t handle this,” said Laura Reiff, co-chairwoman of the Essential Worker Immigrant Coalition, which represents employers in low-skilled industries. She said the rules might spur new pressure from business on Congress to reconsider measures granting legal status to illegal immigrants.

Is that right? Well ya know what else little miss illegal advocate voice, it also might force some of these illegal sons a bitches to GO BACK HOME! We could BE so lucky.

[hjmick]

Just another dog and pony show, IMO. Give the impression that they are doing something, anything.Less than two months ago they wanted to give illegals amnesty, now they're serious about cracking down. Yeah, right.

[nevadamedic]

Is that right? Well ya know what else little miss illegal advocate voice, it also might force some of these illegal sons a bitches to GO BACK HOME! We could BE so lucky.

Two things. #1 Why arn't these Illegal's charged with Identity Theft? That is what they are doing when they steal or use someone else's Social Security Card.

#2 We need to find out what companies hire Illegal's and boycott their products. Also turn anyone in that we can find that is Illegal.

[Pale Rider]

Two things. #1 Why arn't these Illegal's charged with Identity Theft? That is what they are doing when they steal or use someone else's Social Security Card.
You have an excelelnt point.


#2 We need to find out what companies hire Illegal's and boycott their products. Also turn anyone in that we can find that is Illegal.
When this becomes law, I will.

[red states rule]

and the liberal media will start with the sob stories and how Amercia is a racist nation

[Pale Rider]

and the liberal media will start with the sob stories and how Amercia is a racist nation

"The nation" don't want to hear it. They want the illegals GONE. Fuck the MSM. We all know what they are.

[red states rule]

"The nation" don't want to hear it. They want the illegals GONE. Fuck the MSM. We all know what they are.

We may not want to hear it, but the kook left lives and breaths what they "report"

[Trigg]

Saw this earlier today. I've said all along the gov. needs to get tough on the employers hiring illegals. Two big points I saw in the article have been bolded. These people are violating the law by

1. Being here illegally
2. stealing SS cards
3. Not being lisenced.

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Briefing/2007/08/07/tarrasco_steel_owner_arrested/7557/

March 2007 ICE agents conducted an investigation into Tarrasco Steel contracts at bridges in Greenville, Miss.; New Orleans; Biloxi, Miss., and two additional locations where they arrested 77 immigrants who were using unauthorized Social Security numbers for employment.

"There is a serious public safety concern when illegal aliens, who are not authorized to work in the country legally, and who do not possess valid welding certifications, are employed in the construction of bridges in our communities," Michael A. Holt, special agent in charge of the ICE Office of Investigations in New Orleans, said in a statemen

[Pale Rider]

Just another dog and pony show, IMO. Give the impression that they are doing something, anything.Less than two months ago they wanted to give illegals amnesty, now they're serious about cracking down. Yeah, right.

I can totally understand that sentiment. But, this crack down is good for any politician that supports it, and BAD for any that oppose it.

What I find disturbing is that the border STILL remains open, AND our commander and traitor, Mr globalist, NAU supporter, mexico ass kissing President bush, is PULLING GAURD TROOPS OFF THE BORDER! November '08 can't come soon enough. We need this FUCKER out of the White House.

[red states rule]

I can totally understand that sentiment. But, this crack down is good for any politician that supports it, and BAD for any that oppose it.

What I find disturbing is that the border STILL remains open, AND our commander and traitor, Mr globalist, NAU supporter, mexico ass kissing President bush, is PULLING GAURD TROOPS OFF THE BORDER! November '08 can't come soon enough. We need this FUCKER out of the White House.

He will be gone (I am glad as well) on 1/20/09

[waterrescuedude2000]

Two things. #1 Why arn't these Illegal's charged with Identity Theft? That is what they are doing when they steal or use someone else's Social Security Card.

#2 We need to find out what companies hire Illegal's and boycott their products. Also turn anyone in that we can find that is Illegal.

Ok here is my thoughts.

I had a guy using my card illegally and found out because my dad worked for the state and was looking up my employee records and found a guy named Tajeda using my Social. My wallet had been stolen not long before that. I found out where he was working and showed up to the place of employment to confront the company owner and showed him my socialk security card saying someone is using my number illegally he said they guy already had gone back to mexico. I went to the Social Security Administration and had to go file a report with the Police about it. The lady at the desk for sparks police said "what do you want us to do go to mexico and arrest him??"
Anyways I was pissed and I still check once a month to make sure no one is using my number as I still have access to people doing so.

I agree if you take there jobs they would be forced to go home to make money for their families since they send all their earnings to mexico anyways how are they helping our economy????

[Pale Rider]

I found out where he was working and showed up to the place of employment to confront the company owner and showed him my socialk security card saying someone is using my number illegally he said the guy already had gone back to mexico.

I highly doubt that. Sounds like the employer knew their shit was in a sling and lied. I'd have turned their ass in.

[waterrescuedude2000]

I highly doubt that. Sounds like the employer knew their shit was in a sling and lied. I'd have turned their ass in.

I did what I could and talked to the social security admin. and filed a police report. Not much else I can do but go in shooting :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

I did what I could and talked to the social security admin. and filed a police report. Not much else I can do but go in shooting :laugh2:

I like your avatar.

[red states rule]

I did what I could and talked to the social security admin. and filed a police report. Not much else I can do but go in shooting :laugh2:

:lol:

[red states rule]

I highly doubt that. Sounds like the employer knew their shit was in a sling and lied. I'd have turned their ass in.

From the NY Slimes this morning

Published: August 13, 2007

Who kept telling the country that immigration reform through enforcement alone was doomed to fail? President Bush, for one. “All elements of this problem must be addressed together,” he warned, “or none of them will be solved.” So what can be said about Mr. Bush’s latest stab at a policy, which fixates almost entirely on barricading the border, rooting out illegal workers and punishing their employers?

Maybe he forgot.

Or maybe he just gave up, and decided that the pile of enforcement measures his administration shoveled forth on Friday is the best he can do, and that he might as well paper over his grand failure on immigration with some talking points.

There are 26 of them, and 18 have to do with getting tough. They include reheated proposals for fencing the border, bulking up detention capacity, speeding deportations and adding state and local police to the immigrant hunt. Among the most infuriating and potentially dangerous is the crackdown involving “no-match letters,” which the Social Security Administration sends to companies when discrepancies exist between employee records and its database.

The agency plans to send 140,000 letters this year to businesses with 10 or more employees with apparent data inaccuracies. The businesses have to resolve the problems or fire the workers.

Hard-liners are cheering. Employers across our immigrant-dependent economy are bracing for hardship and chaos. But not all of those 1.4 million workers are lawbreakers. A report last December by the Social Security Administration’s inspector general found that the database is plagued with a 4.1 percent error rate: data entry mistakes, misspellings and name changes involving about 17.8 million records. Those are the records on which no-match letters are based, making them a dangerously unreliable indicator of someone’s immigration status or authorization to work.

It is impossible to know how many workers will be unjustly driven from their jobs by the no-match crackdown and stepped-up workplace raids. In a climate of bureaucratic confusion and fear, workers with no-match problems could be summarily fired by employers who don’t want to bother resolving them. The presumption of guilt will be an invitation to discriminate against native-born Latino and Asian workers, too.

Mr. Bush wants a militarized border and an illegal-immigrant-free economy, but without more visas to clear backlogs and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, illegality will remain chronic. It will get worse as people forced off the books by the federal government try to survive by finding more furtive employment. As workers go further underground, shady employers will, too. Some will relocate abroad. Some will set up businesses making better forged documents.

Mr. Bush has predicted the failure of the enforcement-only strategy many times. He should have listened to himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/opinion/13mon2.html

[Pale Rider]

Mr. Bush wants a militarized border and an illegal-immigrant-free economy, but without more visas to clear backlogs and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, illegality will remain chronic. It will get worse as people forced off the books by the federal government try to survive by finding more furtive employment. As workers go further underground, shady employers will, too. Some will relocate abroad. Some will set up businesses making better forged documents.

Mr. Bush has predicted the failure of the enforcement-only strategy many times. He should have listened to himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/opinion/13mon2.html

The above is nothing more than op-ed, liberal, horse shit. Who but a liberal with a twisted mind would argue that enforcing tough new laws would make things WORSE?!

First of all, if mexicans see that finding a job in America will be next to impossible, they won't come. Second, the illegals already here that lose their job, and see that it will be next to impossible to find another one, they'll leave. Third, make forging documents next to impossible, just as counterfeiting our money is, and you won't see many of them. Those few things right there can make a HUGE dent in the problem.

[Gaffer]

Its actually a pretty easy fix. Crack down hard on those that employ illegals. That drys up the job market for them. Nothing for them to come here for will keep them from coming and nothing to stay for will encourage them to go back.

Seal the borders to keep out the OTM's, drug dealers and criminals which are the only ones that would want to come in then and the problem is taken care of.

[Trigg]

Its actually a pretty easy fix. Crack down hard on those that employ illegals. That drys up the job market for them. Nothing for them to come here for will keep them from coming and nothing to stay for will encourage them to go back.

Seal the borders to keep out the OTM's, drug dealers and criminals which are the only ones that would want to come in then and the problem is taken care of.

:clap:

[red states rule]

The above is nothing more than op-ed, liberal, horse shit. Who but a liberal with a twisted mind would argue that enforcing tough new laws would make things WORSE?!

First of all, if mexicans see that finding a job in America will be next to impossible, they won't come. Second, the illegals already here that lose their job, and see that it will be next to impossible to find another one, they'll leave. Third, make forging documents next to impossible, just as counterfeiting our money is, and you won't see many of them. Those few things right there can make a HUGE dent in the problem.

all valid points and I agree with you, we need to seal the border first

We also need to stop giving illegals benefits that are intended for US citiznes. Both parties are to blame and we need to fix that in Nov 08

[Pale Rider]

all valid points and I agree with you, we need to seal the border first

We also need to stop giving illegals benefits that are intended for US citiznes. Both parties are to blame and we need to fix that in Nov 08

Cut off federal aid to sanctuary cities and states.

[red states rule]

Cut off federal aid to sanctuary cities and states.

Since some liberal run cities refuse to obey and enforce Federal laws - I do not know why they don't

If they fail to enforce the speed limits the funds are cut

[hjmick]

Since some liberal run cities refuse to obey and enforce Federal laws - I do not know why they don't

If they fail to enforce the speed limits the funds are cut

Hell, the city of San Francisco is talking about using city funds, taxpayer money, to help offset the recent rise in the cost of getting a green card and citizenship. Yes, that's right, the federal government raised those costs and the city of S.F. wants to help immigrants pay for it with city funds. Nutty, just flat out nutty. I used to like spending a weekend in S.F.

Never again, they lost my business. My money will not be used this way.

[red states rule]

Hell, the city of San Francisco is talking about using city funds, taxpayer money, to help offset the recent rise in the cost of getting a green card and citizenship. Yes, that's right, the federal government raised those costs and the city of S.F. wants to help immigrants pay for it with city funds. Nutty, just flat out nutty. I used to like spending a weekend in S.F.

Never again, they lost my business. My money will not be used this way.

Then you have Judges tossing out the votes of the people who want the laws enforced and illegals held accountable


http://www.drudge.com/news/96887/judge-voids-citys-anti-immigration-law

[Pale Rider]

Hell, the city of San Francisco is talking about using city funds, taxpayer money, to help offset the recent rise in the cost of getting a green card and citizenship. Yes, that's right, the federal government raised those costs and the city of S.F. wants to help immigrants pay for it with city funds. Nutty, just flat out nutty. I used to like spending a weekend in S.F.

Never again, they lost my business. My money will not be used this way.

The tidal wave of illegals from our southern border is right up there at the top of reasons this country can fail. If we don't run the illegals out of here, the cost of keeping them here alone could sink us.

Sure big business loves the cheap slave labor, but that's just money in the pocket of some greedy son of a bitch that's paying off his senator and congressman to look the other way. In the meantime, it's costing the TAXPAYER, YOU AND ME, BILLIONS of dollars to pay for what they suck off this country, FOR FREE. It's DRAINING us. If it continues, it will lead to our fiscal demise.

[Pale Rider]

Then you have Judges tossing out the votes of the people who want the laws enforced and illegals held accountable


http://www.drudge.com/news/96887/judge-voids-citys-anti-immigration-law

This liberal shit bag activist judge should be tried for treason.

[red states rule]

The should be tried for treason.

This is why libs want to put liberal Judges on the bench - so they can ignore elections they lose

[Pale Rider]

This is why libs want to put liberal Judges on the bench - so they can ignore elections they lose

Legislate from the bench... crocked sons a bitches.

[red states rule]

Legislate from the bench... crocked sons a bitches.

Which is why libs are making Justices Roberts and Alito an issue in the o8 election


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5350.html

[hjmick]

The tidal wave of illegals from our southern border is right up there at the top of reasons this country can fail. If we don't run the illegals out of here, the cost of keeping them here alone could sink us.

Sure big business loves the cheap slave labor, but that's just money in the pocket of some greedy son of a bitch that's paying off his senator and congressman to look the other way. In the meantime, it's costing the TAXPAYER, YOU AND ME, BILLIONS of dollars to pay for what they suck off this country, FOR FREE. It's DRAINING us. If it continues, it will lead to our fiscal demise.

I personally believe that the Mexican government has, for decades, encouraged and supported, even promoted illegal attacks on our country. I have seen the comic books, printed by the Mexican government, explaining how to violate our sovereignty. Now the millions of illegal immigrants who cross our borders threaten the economic and social fabric of this country. America is under siege, though some do not wish to admit this fact. And it’s not just the illegal immigration, add to that the drug dealers and general lawlessness along the southern border, the reports of Mexican soldiers crossing our borders, our Border Patrol agents being shot at, and you have a serious mess. We’re talking about a bonafide invasion, it can be called nothing else.

There is a concerted effort to retake the territories lost in 1848, and it is beginning to look like it will happen without a single shot being fired. The Mexicans want jobs to support their families, I get that, it’s understandable. But they have been told by their government that it is their inalienable right to cross our borders illegally and this has been reinforced by our governments lack of action, their passive acceptance of the problem amounts to an invitation, support. The U.S. government has for too many years been an accomplice where illegal immigration is concerned. Now, when a person speaks out and decries the policies that enable illegal immigration, when a person cries foul and talks of closing the borders they are labeled a racist. Some of my best friends are immigrants, legal immigrants. I am not a racist. I am an American.

There is little or nothing that we can do about the illegal immigrants currently in our country until we secure our borders. Only after we stem the flow into our country will we be able to deal with the problem of the illegal immigrants in our country. Until that happens, the border will remain a revolving door.

You can judge the greatness of a country by the number of people trying to get in. I am not opposed to legal immigration, America is a great country, it's understandable.

[red states rule]

Until we do lock down the b order, the invasion will continue. We have to put all resources into closing the border - then we can deal with the illegals who are here

Until then, it will be a revolving door

[Pale Rider]

I personally believe that the Mexican government has, for decades, encouraged and supported, even promoted illegal attacks on our country. I have seen the comic books, printed by the Mexican government, explaining how to violate our sovereignty. Now the millions of illegal immigrants who cross our borders threaten the economic and social fabric of this country. America is under siege, though some do not wish to admit this fact. And it’s not just the illegal immigration, add to that the drug dealers and general lawlessness along the southern border, the reports of Mexican soldiers crossing our borders, our Border Patrol agents being shot at, and you have a serious mess. We’re talking about a bonafide invasion, it can be called nothing else.

There is a concerted effort to retake the territories lost in 1848, and it is beginning to look like it will happen without a single shot being fired. The Mexicans want jobs to support their families, I get that, it’s understandable. But they have been told by their government that it is their inalienable right to cross our borders illegally and this has been reinforced by our governments lack of action, their passive acceptance of the problem amounts to an invitation, support. The U.S. government has for too many years been an accomplice where illegal immigration is concerned. Now, when a person speaks out and decries the policies that enable illegal immigration, when a person cries foul and talks of closing the borders they are labeled a racist. Some of my best friends are immigrants, legal immigrants. I am not a racist. I am an American.

There is little or nothing that we can do about the illegal immigrants currently in our country until we secure our borders. Only after we stem the flow into our country will we be able to deal with the problem of the illegal immigrants in our country. Until that happens, the border will remain a revolving door.

You can judge the greatness of a country by the number of people trying to get in. I am not opposed to legal immigration, America is a great country, it's understandable.

Outstanding commentary. But I think the new movement to expose and fine employers of illegal aliens is also a very important cog in the wheel. If the illegals figure out that the jobs have dried up, then the majority of them won't have any more reason to come here. As a matter of fact, many that are here may as well go back home. It's a win, win deal.

[red states rule]

Outstanding commentary. But I think the new movement to expose and fine employers of illegal aliens is also a very important cog in the wheel. If the illegals figure out that the jobs have dried up, then the majority of them won't have any more reason to come here. As a matter of fact, many that are here may as well go back home. It's a win, win deal.

They will still want to come here for the benfits they can get. SS, Medicare, free health care, public education, ect

[hjmick]

Outstanding commentary. But I think the new movement to expose and fine employers of illegal aliens is also a very important cog in the wheel. If the illegals figure out that the jobs have dried up, then the majority of them won't have any more reason to come here. As a matter of fact, many that are here may as well go back home. It's a win, win deal.

Did I forget to mention the employers? By cracky I did. You are right PR, employers need to know that hiring illegal aliens won't be overlooked. I don't care if the cost of my fruits and vegetables goes up. I don't care if the cost of my shirts goes up because employers have to pay more. That is a price I am willing to pay to see the laws enforced.

[red states rule]

Did I forget to mention the employers? By cracky I did. You are right PR, employers need to know that hiring illegal aliens won't be overlooked. I don't care if the cost of my fruits and vegetables goes up. I don't care if the cost of my shirts goes up because employers have to pay more. That is a price I am willing to pay to see the laws enforced.

It would still be cheaper then the costs we are paying by having the ilegals here putting a strain on our budgets

[Pale Rider]

They will still want to come here for the benfits they can get. SS, Medicare, free health care, public education, ect

Oh believe me, that titt has to run dry too.

[Pale Rider]

It would still be cheaper then the costs we are paying by having the ilegals here putting a strain on our budgets

Exactly. With the money this country would save by not having them here, it would probably outweigh anything monetary in the other direction.

[red states rule]

Oh believe me, that titt has to run dry too.

It is not dry, our tax dollars keep it filled for the illegals

[red states rule]

The tidal wave of illegals from our southern border is right up there at the top of reasons this country can fail. If we don't run the illegals out of here, the cost of keeping them here alone could sink us.

Sure big business loves the cheap slave labor, but that's just money in the pocket of some greedy son of a bitch that's paying off his senator and congressman to look the other way. In the meantime, it's costing the TAXPAYER, YOU AND ME, BILLIONS of dollars to pay for what they suck off this country, FOR FREE. It's DRAINING us. If it continues, it will lead to our fiscal demise.

This is one of the best articles giving the numbers on what is needed to fix the problem

Please make sure you are sitting down when you read this

The Medicare fiscal time-bomb

The present value of the unfunded obligations for Medicare over the next 75 years totals $33.9 trillion, according to the 2007 Medicare trustees' report. Over the infinite horizon, Medicare's present-value unfunded obligation totals $74.3 trillion. These totals represent the difference between projected benefits, on the one hand, and the sum of the 2.9 percent payroll tax for Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) and the premium payments by beneficiaries in Medicare Part B (outpatient services) and Part D (prescription drugs), on the other. In order to meet current-law Medicare commitments, $33.9 trillion (over 75 years) and $74.3 trillion (over the infinite horizon) represent the present values of the financing that must come from one of four sources (or a combination): (1) general tax revenues; (2) increased borrowings; (3) lower government spending elsewhere; (4) Medicare reforms that reduce the unfunded obligations.

In his June 21, 2007, statement before the Senate Budget Committee, CBO Director Peter Orszag delivered the bottom line: "[T]he rate at which health care costs grow relative to income is the most important determination of the long-term fiscal balance." Indeed, if the rise in health-care costs could miraculously be instantly limited to the rise in nominal per capita income, the CBO projected in December 2005 that the Medicare-Medicaid share of GDP would increase to only about 7 percent of GDP in 2050 (compared to 4.2 percent in 2005).

Mr. Orszag has outlined the changes in tax policy that would be needed if revenues from individual and corporate income taxes were used to bridge the fiscal gap caused by health-care costs rising by 1 percentage point and 2.5 points faster than per capita GDP in the long run. In the 1-percentage-point scenario, "individual income tax rates would have to rise by at least 70 percent to finance the increase in spending" on Medicare and Medicaid. The middle-income tax rate of 25 percent would rise to 43 percent; and the top individual and corporate rates would both increase from 35 percent to 60 percent.

In the 2.5-percentage-point scenario, Mr. Orszag estimated the lowest tax bracket would increase from 10 percent today to 26 percent; the 25-percent bracket would jump to 66 percent; and the top individual and corporate tax rates would soar from 35 percent today to 92 percent. As he noted, such tax rates "would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion."

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070716/EDITORIAL/107160002/1013/editorial


Exactly. With the money this country would save by not having them here, it would probably outweigh anything monetary in the other direction.

from todays Washington Times - and the head of the RNC still does not get it


GOP hits 2008 candidates on illegal aliens
By Stephen Dinan
August 16, 2007

The Republican Party's national chairman scolded his party's two top presidential candidates this week for their tough stance on illegal immigration, even as both men moved to try to one-up each other in calling for stricter enforcement.

Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, President Bush's handpicked choice for party chairman, chided former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani for opposing and mischaracterizing the Senate immigration bill Mr. Martinez helped craft.

"It's about leading on the tough issues," Mr. Martinez told the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce in comments first reported in yesterday's St. Petersburg Times. "It was easy to say, 'This wasn't good enough, this isn't right, I don't agree with Martinez.' ... But at the end of the day, what is your answer? How would you solve this?"

His criticism comes as illegal immigration has become for Republican candidates what the Iraq war is for Democrats: a chance to compete to take the hardest line. And just as with the Democrats on Iraq, the immigration debate includes veteran lawmakers, such as Arizona Sen. John McCain, whose earlier positions are coming back to haunt him among the party's base.

Mr. Giuliani was emphatic this week in declaring illegal immigration can be stopped, while Mr. Romney has made his opposition to amnesty front and center in his advertising campaign.

Two other potential Republican candidates, former Sen. Fred Thompson and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, also have stepped up their emphasis on the issue. Mr. Thompson penned a Web column calling for stricter enforcement, and Mr. Gingrich tossed his prepared speech to the Iowa Republican straw poll this weekend to instead deliver remarks calling on the president to force through Congress a bill to end sanctuary cities that protect illegal aliens.

"That's why I called for an emergency session of Congress — I wanted to jar the system into thinking differently," Mr. Gingrich said. His remarks were tied to news that an illegal alien had been arrested in connection with the execution-style killings of three New Jersey students.

Mr. Gingrich said the outrage over the federal government's failure to address that situation is tied to outrage over a broken government all around, and said voters "have a sense that their government at all levels is failing them so deeply that the most basic level of civilization is at risk, which is your physical safety."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/NATION/108160083/1001

[waterrescuedude2000]

Mexicaid :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Mexicaid :laugh2:

It is no nice of the libs (and RINO's) to welcome to illegals with open arms - and our open wallets

[Pale Rider]

The Medicare fiscal time-bomb

The present value of the unfunded obligations for Medicare over the next 75 years totals $33.9 trillion, according to the 2007 Medicare trustees' report. Over the infinite horizon, Medicare's present-value unfunded obligation totals $74.3 trillion. These totals represent the difference between projected benefits, on the one hand, and the sum of the 2.9 percent payroll tax for Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) and the premium payments by beneficiaries in Medicare Part B (outpatient services) and Part D (prescription drugs), on the other. In order to meet current-law Medicare commitments, $33.9 trillion (over 75 years) and $74.3 trillion (over the infinite horizon) represent the present values of the financing that must come from one of four sources (or a combination): (1) general tax revenues; (2) increased borrowings; (3) lower government spending elsewhere; (4) Medicare reforms that reduce the unfunded obligations.

In his June 21, 2007, statement before the Senate Budget Committee, CBO Director Peter Orszag delivered the bottom line: "[T]he rate at which health care costs grow relative to income is the most important determination of the long-term fiscal balance." Indeed, if the rise in health-care costs could miraculously be instantly limited to the rise in nominal per capita income, the CBO projected in December 2005 that the Medicare-Medicaid share of GDP would increase to only about 7 percent of GDP in 2050 (compared to 4.2 percent in 2005).

Mr. Orszag has outlined the changes in tax policy that would be needed if revenues from individual and corporate income taxes were used to bridge the fiscal gap caused by health-care costs rising by 1 percentage point and 2.5 points faster than per capita GDP in the long run. In the 1-percentage-point scenario, "individual income tax rates would have to rise by at least 70 percent to finance the increase in spending" on Medicare and Medicaid. The middle-income tax rate of 25 percent would rise to 43 percent; and the top individual and corporate rates would both increase from 35 percent to 60 percent.

In the 2.5-percentage-point scenario, Mr. Orszag estimated the lowest tax bracket would increase from 10 percent today to 26 percent; the 25-percent bracket would jump to 66 percent; and the top individual and corporate tax rates would soar from 35 percent today to 92 percent. As he noted, such tax rates "would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion."

This is just absolutely FRIGHTENING stuff. This sort of thing should be printed up in leaflet form and stuffed in every single Americans mailbox, because I think 99% of the apathy about this in America is because people just are NOT informed.

[red states rule]

This is just absolutely FRIGHTENING stuff. This sort of thing should be printed up in leaflet form and stuffed in every single Americans mailbox, because I think 99% of the apathy about this in America is because people just are NOT informed.

It should be what the candidates are talking about. I am glad you liked it PR - it is what we are facing down the road