Category: Immigration

I believe this country was founded by people who immigrated here from other countries, enriched our country throughout history and continue to enrich it today.

Democratic Socialism: Who Knew That ‘Free’ Could Cost So Much?

From Investor’s Business Daily.

Socialism: Since the Democratic Party took a turn for the worse toward so-called democratic socialism, the party’s leading lights have laid the promises on pretty thick. Free Medicare for all! Guaranteed income! Guaranteed jobs! Subsidized housing! Free college! Universal pre-school! Wow, and all for free.

Well, not exactly. In a devastating piece that appeared on the left-of-center web site Vox (to its credit), Manhattan Institute fellow Brian Riedl went through the simple math of what free actually costs. It’s a lot.

It’s not just the free aspect, but the fact that the democratic socialists have made so many promises that must be paid for that will make it so tough to swallow for most voters.

Riedl looked at the 10-year costs of all the various promises made by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other self-described democratic socialists. He was as generous as could be in his estimates, often accepting the democratic socialists’ cost estimate even when it was patently and absurdly too low. It’s quite a laundry-list of promises with enormous costs: “Free college” ($807 billion); Social Security expansion ($188 billion); single-payer health care ($32 trillion); guaranteed jobs at $15 per hour plus benefits ($6.8 trillion); infrastructure ($1 trillion); student loan debt forgiveness ($1.4 trillion).

Net cost: about $42.5 trillion over 10 years, give or take a few hundred billion. To paraphrase the late, great Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen: “A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

As it is, current federal estimates expect about $44 trillion in tax revenues over that same period, with a deficit of roughly $12.4 trillion. Remember: All this democratic socialist spending comes on top of what we’re already spending.

Long-term, the fiscal picture grows progressively (forgive the term) worse.

“The 30-year projected tab for these programs is even more staggering,” wrote Riedl. “New proposals costing $218 trillion, on top of an $84 trillion baseline deficit driven by Social Security, Medicare and the resulting interest costs.”

Today, Riedl notes, total federal spending typically swings between 18% and 22% of GDP. But with the democratic socialist agenda in place, it “would immediately soar past 40% of GDP on its way to nearly 50% within three decades.” If you include state and local government, the total cost for this federal fantasia would equal 60% of GDP — more than any country in Europe.

Even after massive cuts in other programs, such as slashing defense by half, or adding in phantom savings from supposed cuts in state health spending and anti-poverty programs, you still come up $34 trillion short over 10 years.

To raise $34 trillion, Riedl calculates, would require “seizing roughly 100% of all corporate profits as well as 100% of all family  wage income and pass-though business income above the thresholds of $90,000 (single) or $150,000 (married), and absurdly assuming they all continue working.”

Or, he said, you could go to a VAT tax — a national sales tax on all goods and services. But it would have to be huge: a tax of 87% on everything you buy.  Oh, and by the way, that still doesn’t pay for the $12.4 trillion deficit that’s already estimated and that we discussed above. So you’d need even more taxes.

Those number are scary enough. But we’re not even raising the issues of: a.) massive cost overruns in these programs, which are  inevitable; or, b.), whether these programs will work as described or instead end up ruining our free-market economy.

Not surprisingly, in public socialists say they won’t ruin free-market capitalism. They’ll save it!

Wrong again. As Meagan Day, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, wrote (also in Vox): “Here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism. And we want to do that by pursuing a reform agenda today in an effort to revive a politics focused on class hierarchy and inequality in the United States.”

Americans should know that these are the very ideas that have destroyed the economies of  the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua, most of Africa, North Korea and, as we’re now seeing, Venezuela. And they’re not “democratic” at all. They’re just socialism.

Danger: Socialism Ahead

The bigger point is, these utopian ideas are not fiscally sane. And we mean that literally. They are a bizarre fantasy that should be discarded immediately by any reasonable person interested in an economically prosperous future.

That some believe that replacing capitalism with socialism makes you better off shows the profound failure of our nation’s education system. Because it’s something that has never happened in the history of mankind. And young people, who are among socialism’s most ardent fans, don’t seem to even know this.

The great economist, social thinker and professor Walter Williams recently summed up the struggle between capitalism and socialism: “Capitalism doesn’t do well in popularity polls, despite the fact that it has eliminated many of mankind’s worst problems, such as pestilence and gross hunger and poverty.”

To vote for socialism is to vote for national bankruptcy, a loss of freedom, a lower standard of living and an end to innovation. And be forewarned: As Venezuelans, Zimbabweans and Nicaraguans are now discovering, once socialists control things, they never give up power peacefully.

The ideas of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose “Accountable Capitalism Act” would impose Venezuela-style socialism on the U.S., are no less wrong for having “democratic” in front of the word “socialism.”

In socialism, all roads lead to disaster. Or, as Friedrich Hayek, the late Austrian economist, might say, to “serfdom.” All forms of socialism are the same: they replace consent and personal freedom with government power on behalf of the “people”.

Behind the entire idea of socialism is that government isn’t there to guarantee your rights or the rule of law; it’s there to exercise power on the part of the “people.” Anything can be justified.

We should be teaching it to our kids, and remind young people that free markets are vastly superior to any alternative for organizing a workable, growing economy. For free markets to work, you must have free speech. So political correctness must be abandoned.

The Democratic Party seems to be having more then a fling with socialism right now. Guided by far-left leading lights such as socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and DNC Chairman Tom Perez, the party’s moving to the hard left.The latest example of this is Warren’s proposed “Accountable Capitalism Act,” a plan for what can be politely called a federal takeover of the U.S. economy. This is no joke.

This is sad, since it doesn’t have to be. It’s well known that countries that follow responsible free-market policies thrive and grow. In the latest report to show this, a comprehensive survey by the Libek think tank in Serbia of 92 economic research studies around the world, 86 of those studies found a positive relationship between economic freedom and economic growth.

I do think Millennials love capitalism too. Don’t take my word for it, just consider what companies are doing to win their services, plus consider what businesses are doing to win their future patronage. They wouldn’t be bending over backwards to hire and/or cater to the needs of individuals who truly prefer to live under socialism. Socialism is about shared misery, which is the opposite of what millennials want if their actions in the marketplace are to be taken seriously.

Maybe for right now Conservatives should relax. We shall see.

 

Please follow and like us:

Pelosi and Schumer Show Their Colors

By David Limbaugh

Contrary to liberal media reporting, the Oval Office meeting with President Trump, Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was a win for Trump, both in substance and in tone.

The meeting gave people an opportunity to see who fears transparency, who’s misrepresenting his/her position and who is being the aggressor in the border debate, and it’s not Donald Trump.

Instead of listening to the media’s version, watch the video. President Trump set the tone of the meeting, and it was decidedly cordial, saying it was a great honor to have Pelosi and Schumer there and acknowledging that they’ve worked very hard on various bipartisan initiatives, such as criminal justice reform and the farm bill.

Trump then turned to “the wall,” saying Republicans support it and he would like to avoid a government shutdown over the issue while acknowledging that it is a very difficult issue because Republicans and Democrats are “on very opposite sides.”

When Trump surrendered the floor to Pelosi, she immediately invoked the subject of a government shutdown, saying the American people recognize that we must keep the government open — as if that, and not border security, were the overriding issue — and warning, “You should not have a Trump shutdown.”

Notice the blatantly calculating way she spun this as a “Trump shutdown” rather than a possible impasse that could lead to a government shutdown. Also note: Pelosi drew first blood, and it was deliberate.

After a minor skirmish over whether Trump should initiate a bill in the House that would be sure to fail in the Senate, Pelosi, playing to the camera, said, “We’re here to have a conversation in a prayerful way, so I don’t think we should have a debate in front of the press.” Pelosi knows that a House bill could not survive a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, yet she continued to press Trump to offer a bill.

Schumer began his remarks by insulting Trump, saying The Washington Post gave him “a whole lot of Pinocchios” on the wall and stressing that Democrats have “a disagreement … not on border security but on the wall.” He chided Trump for calling for a shutdown 20 times, ignoring that Trump had specifically said in this meeting that he does not want that.

Then a frustrated Pelosi said they needed to call a halt to the discussion because they had come in to the meeting in good faith to discuss with Trump how they could keep the government open. Again, Trump was not the one talking about a shutdown; he was talking about the wall and border security, the former being indispensable to the latter. Like Pelosi, Schumer said they should “debate in private,” while Pelosi was insultingly mumbling, “We have taken this conversation to a place that is devoid, frankly, of fact.” In other words, “You’re lying, President Trump, because you won’t agree to our partisan version of reality.”

Schumer insisted that border security is possible without a wall and that experts say a wall would be wasteful — implying, with a straight face, that the Democratic leadership can get exercised over the expenditure of government money. Pelosi lamented again that they were having the debate in public after having come in to the meeting in good faith, and Trump rightly noted, “It’s not bad, Nancy. It’s called transparency.” So it was Nancy’s “good-faith” expectation that Trump would just sit back and take their insults and not discuss the issue that could lead to the dreaded shutdown?

Pelosi responded, “It’s not transparency when we’re not stipulating to a set of facts.” Are you kidding me? Unless you agree with Democrats on the facts, the discussion can’t be transparent? This is the same logic by which leftists ban expression of opinions that don’t agree with theirs. I hope people are paying attention.

Just as the mood was beginning to soften, Schumer again turned to Trump and accused him of wanting to shut the government down, and again Trump denied it. It was only after repeated haranguing that Trump indicated he was tired of playing semantic games and said that if they want to put the shutdown on him, fine, he would be willing to shut down the government if he could not get the wall.

How can anyone believe that the Democrats support border security — wall or no wall — when they have repeatedly broken their promises to work with Republicans on it, when they demonize all opponents of illegal immigration and amnesty as racists, when they oppose all reasonable measures to guard the border, and when many of them actually advocate the elimination of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

After the meeting, Pelosi and Schumer continued vilifying Trump, with Schumer describing Trump’s behavior in the meeting as a “temper tantrum” and Pelosi telling colleagues, “It goes to show you: You get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you. … It’s like a manhood thing for him — as if manhood could ever be associated with him.”

It’s undeniable that Pelosi and Schumer initiated the aggressive exchanges, that they personally insulted Trump and were rude and condescending to him, that they openly objected to transparency, and that they misrepresented their own position on border security.

Say what you want about Trump, but he very honestly said that he was determined to get a border wall, that he preferred to have this discussion in front of the entire world and that he would be willing for the government to shut down over it. Pelosi and Schumer are just as willing to shut down the government over it but unwilling to be honest about it.

I applaud President Trump for bringing this issue front and center and exposing the fraudulent and reckless position of the Democratic leadership on border security.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney.

Please follow and like us:

San Francisco Treats Illegals, Tricks Citizens

California’s “motor voter” scheme may be sending one million illegals to the polls.

On Tuesday, San Francisco will become the largest city in the nation to allow noncitizens to vote, and the city has spent $310,000 on a “new registration system” specifically aimed at illegals. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, the plan is the first in the state and follows Proposition N, a 2016 ballot measure allowing votes by noncitizens over the age of 18, reside in the city, and have children under age 19.

By the count of the Chronicle, only 49 noncitizens have signed up to vote on Tuesday, which works out to $6,326 for every illegal voter, but there’s more to the story. City officials are worried that voting could expose illegals to ICE, who might come looking and possibly deport somebody. So supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer, a backer of Proposition N, urged the city to spend $500,000 to warn the illegals.

Whatever San Francisco spends, their effort pales in comparison with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV’s 2015, “motor voter” law allowed the DMV automatically to register as voters those who get driver’s licenses. Secretary of State Alex Padilla claimed that protocols and “firewalls” would keep ineligibles from voting, but there was room for reasonable doubt.

After the 2016 election, Padilla refused to release any information to a federal probe of voter fraud, which he called a “false and debunked” claim. In 2015, on the other hand, Padilla told the Los Angeles Times, “at the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California.” True to form, by March, 2018, the DMV had given licenses to more than one million illegals.

In September, the DMV announced 23,000 “erroneous” registrations, but it quickly emerged that from April to August, the DMV had registered 182,000 “new voters.” Some legislators pushed for an audit but that is being handled by the department of finance, under the control of governor Jerry Brown, who supports the state’s sanctuary legislation.

Californians could be forgiven for believing that the “erroneous” registrations are a dodge and that one million or more illegals will be going to the polls on Tuesday. That could tip the scales in several key races.

In June, Democrat Ammar Yasser Najjar changed his name to Ammar Joseph Campa-Najjar. He is the grandson of Palestinian terrorist Muhammad Yusuf al-Najjar, of the 1972 Munich massacre, and seeking to unseat Rep. Duncan Hunter in San Diego. The Democrat’s father, Yasser al-Najjar, has served as a de-facto ambassador for the Palestinian Authority. His son Ammar worked for the reelection of POTUS 44 in 2012 and at this writing the race with Hunter is tight. Illegal votes could make the difference.

In Orange County, Democrat Gil Cisneros vies with Republican Young Kim for the seat of retiring Ed Royce. Navy veteran Cisneros won $266 million in the California lottery in 2010 and decided to go into politics. The lucky guy supports DACA and opposes President Trump’s immigration policies. Kim holds a slight edge but “new voters,” code for illegals, could tip the race.

Back in 1996, 642 illegals voted for Democrat Loretta Sanchez, who defeated Republican Robert Dornan by fewer than 1,000 votes. As a State Department investigation discovered, false-documented illegals have been voting in local, state, and federal elections for decades. Now San Francisco is up front about it and funding the illegal voters.

The noncitizens will be allowed to vote only for school board members, but that limitation is  temporary. As school commissioner Shamann Walton told the Los Angeles Times, “Trump will not always be president,” and “hopefully we’ll have leaders who are inclusive and really believe that if you are a resident of this country, you should have the same rights as other people.”

Those “other people,” as it happens, are legitimate citizens and legal immigrants. As they might note, California gives illegals welfare, driver’s licenses, and in-state tuition. In college admissions California even prefers illegals over out-of-state American students, a violation of state law, the 1996 Proposition 209.

California’s sanctuary state law gives protection to violent criminal illegals such as racist Mexican Luis Bracamontes, who in 2014 gunned down police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis in Sacramento. In 2014 San Francisco released criminal illegal Garcia Zarate, or whatever his real name is, rather than hand him over to federal immigration authorities. In short order, the repeatedly deported Mexican national gunned down Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier. Governor Jerry Brown was rather quiet about that.

In Mendota, near Fresno, the criminal illegals of MS-13 have imposed a reign of terror, hacking people to death, as ruling Democrats look the other way. That’s the way it is in California, where Democrats have made false-documented illegals a privileged, protected class. Those “other people” should not be surprised if more than a million illegals return the favor by showing up at the polls on Tuesday.

Please follow and like us: