The Trump Administration Proposes A Crackdown On Welfare Using Legal Immigrants Tuesday, Aug 7 2018

The Trump administration is shaping up to be one of the most hawkish administrations on immigration in recent memory. But it is not just illegal immigration that they have in their sights. The administration is floating yet another plan to crack down on legal immigration into the United States.

The move, being promoted by Trump adviser Stephen Miller, is seen as targeting low-income legal immigrants. It would make it harder for them to be naturalized if they use a variety of popular welfare programs. It is already grounds for green card refusal if an immigrant is a “public charge” or reliant on the government for means of subsistence.

Under the current law, if a would-be immigrant is mostly dependent on public cash assistance for income maintenance or is required to be institutionalized for long-term care, they can be rejected for a green card. Basically, under the current law being a recipient of TANF, a similar state program, or being in long-term care defines one as a “public charge.” Other programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 benefits, child care assistance, and short-term aid such as utilizing food pantries and disaster aid do not qualify as “public charge.”

The Trump administration wants to redefine “public charge” to add more programs to the list. Reuters first reported it in February and NBC News confirmed it this morning.

This is in addition to anecdotal reports from immigration lawyers and activists that the Trump administration has rejected more green card and citizenship applications than recent administrations in memory. But it should be noted that in the NBC News report, they analyzed the data and found that green card and citizenship approvals in the current fiscal year were on track with the fiscal year 2016 (data was not available for FY 2017).

According to Reuters, here are the programs that will now be added to the “public charge” list:

Among the benefits singled out in the draft rule for consideration are: health insurance subsidies such as those provided by the Affordable Care Act; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); WIC, a federal program that feeds poor pregnant or nursing women and their children; transportation and housing vouchers; programs that help the poor pay their heating bills; and programs such as Head Start, which provides early education to low-income children.

Some benefits would not be considered in making the “public charge” determination under the draft regulations, including emergency or disaster relief, public health assistance for immunizations, attending public school, receiving free or reduced-price school lunches, and earned benefits such as disability insurance, Medicare and unemployment payments.

I have no problem with adding some of these programs to the “public charge” list. Honestly, I don’t want immigrants in this country who rely on welfare either through themselves or their children to live. Immigration has to work for the immigrant but it also has to work even more for those who are already citizens.

If I was in charge, I would restrict most of the programs in the first paragraph to only those who are citizens and green card holders. That is until I got rid of them for everyone.

I’m also fine with not counting the programs in the second paragraph as “public charge” either. Most of those programs are for limited scope and duration or benefit citizens as much as the immigrant. Either that or the immigrant pays for those programs through the payroll tax.

My objections to the proposal are the inclusion of Obamacare subsidies and Head Start to the list. As long as it is required under federal law to purchase health insurance, I can’t blame anyone for taking advantage of subsidies in order to comply with the law. It is unfair to penalize immigrants for using subsidies in order to comply with the law, which has not been changed (the individual mandate has merely been zeroed out).

As for Head Start, we want these kids in school. Yes, Head Start is an ineffective program that should be killed off. But having these kids in school enables the parents to be productive citizens and helps acclimate them to American culture and society.

This Trump administration proposal would fall on low and middle-income immigrants. Some such as libertarian writer Bruce Majors argue that a welfare state and a liberal immigration policy cannot coexist. (a longer form of his piece is here).

Majors wrote:

A better policy would do what libertarians are supposed to believe in: protecting Americans from being subjected to force and fraud, to robbery and expropriation. Anyone in the United States who is a net tax consumer activates the apparatus that has a gun aimed at and a jail cell (lien, fines, interest, and penalties) waiting for every American who is a net taxpayer.

It is tough if not impossible to determine who is a “net tax consumer” based on income alone. In his piece, Majors also doesn’t bring up that border enforcement has costs of its own, for example, the wall that Trump wants to build is likely to cost more than expected. After a certain amount of money, it costs more to secure the border than it is worth.

The solution is an expanded guest worker program for low-skilled workers. There are many parts of the country that have a labor shortage that needs to be filled. There are many people who would like to work in the United States. Let’s bring these willing workers and employers together.

Under this guest worker program, these workers can work legally in the U.S. for three years, with a chance to renew at least once. They are ineligible for all means-tested welfare programs except public schooling, Obamacare subsidies, and emergency healthcare. They can’t bring their dependents but they can go home for a certain amount of time to visit them. Finally, those who are here illegally but have committed no other crime can participate.

The Trump administration’s desire to have immigrants be less burdensome to taxpayers is well-intentioned, but it’s a flawed plan. It seems more of an attempt to limit immigration in general than just building a wall around the welfare state. Without a guest worker plan that would give us the immigrant labor we need, all this will do is harm the country in the long-run.

One Response »

 

The Assualt On Tolerance By The Tolerant Friday, Apr 4 2014

I strongly believe in a diverse, tolerant, and liberal society. I believe in not just tolerance when it comes to different races, religions, genders, and sexual orientations; I believe more strongly in the tolerance of ideas, especially those I strongly disagree with.

Unfortunately, the tolerant, liberal society I love and value so much is under attack, often by many of the same people who view themselves as “tolerant”. The latest case in point is the firing of Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla. Eich’s crime in the eyes of the tolerance police is the fact that he made a $1,000 contribution in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008. Proposition 8 sought to deny state recognition of same-sex marriage in the State of California. It passed, but was overturned by the US Surpreme Court in 2013.

Now I disagree with Eich on Proposition 8 and I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn it. I support same-sex marriage, however, I have nothing but contempt for those who went after Eich’s job. One of the most important things about a liberal, diverse, and tolerant society is the fact that people who have differing ideas, even those ideas that a majority of us would disagree with, could work and live together in peace. Such a diverse society and tolerant values allow us to be able engage in civil political discussions about anything without the threat to someone’s livlihood or the threat of a boycott designed to put a company out of business.

These tactics of trying to have a man fired or boycotting a business because you disagree with their owner’s or executive’s political beliefs is a sign of immaturity and frankly are the tactics of thugs and bullies. Boycotts are free speech and I support the right to free speech, however just because you have the right or are legally able to do something does not mean you should do that act. Cheating on your spouse or partner is legal in most jurisdictions, however, it is probably not a good idea to do it. Not only are you betraying that other person’s trust, but you are a scoundrel. You can legally boycott anything, however, if you’re doing it based on the political beliefs of the owners and executives, you are an immature bully who cannot handle an opposing point of view.

What boycotts and the lynch mob mentality in politics does is make even the slightest disagreements personal and it makes people afraid to express their viewpoints. In order to have a healthy, tolerant, and liberal society; people must have the assurance that they can express whatever political viewpoints they believe without having their livlihoods threatened. Using the tactics of bullies, even in the name of “tolerance”, is not very tolerant at all and it leads to self-censorship, which is just as dangerous to the American body politic as state censorship.

Private power and civil society can be just as coercive as the state and that is one of the reasons I am not an anarchist. I believe that the excesses of private power and even civil society must be kept in check by the state.

As a society, we benefit from being able to freely express our points of view; whether it be free from state coercion or the coercion of private parties. Whenever we allow ourselves to get into a lather over what a man’s political beliefs, especially to the point where we target his livlihood, we diminish this freedom. If we believe in tolerance, we must believe in tolerance for all political ideas, especially those which are unpopular. Anything less is an assualt on the liberal society and invites us on the road to totalitarianism.

2 Responses »

 

Conservatives Cannot Ignore Economic Inequality Friday, Jan 17 2014

The issue of economic inequality and poverty is shaping up to be a major issue in 2014. President Obama has begun to focus on the issue in order to reclaim the narrative away from the failures of Obamacare and the continuing weak economy.  Newly elected New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has vowed to address that city’s wealth gap.  De Blasio and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren have been characterized by left-leaning commentators as part of a new New Left that is more economically statist than what has been offered by the Democratic Party since the Clinton era.  Democrats believe that they have a winning issue to reclaim Congress in 2014 and win the White House in 2016.  However, Republicans must be ready to confront the issues of poverty and economic inequality, and if they handle this issue in the right way, they can turn it into a winning issue.

The Democrats are answering the issue in their usual time-tested ways: supporting a minimum wage increase because apparently labor costs have nothing to do whether or not a business decides to hire people; extending unemployment benefits even though the stimulus, Obamacare, and Polar Vortices were supposed to create lots and lots of new jobs; the creepy sounding Promise Zones, which is ironic from a man who doesn’t know how to keep a promise; and everyone’s favorite Native American Senator, Elizabeth Warren, wants to raise Social Security benefits because Social Security isn’t going broke fast enough.  The Democrats are falling back on their old approach to poverty: give a man a welfare check and make him a Democrat voter for life.

Click here to read the rest

Leave a Response »

 

Freedom In The States Thursday, Mar 28 2013

Today, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University released their report analyzing freedom in the states. The report gives an overall score and then it further breaks it down into the best states for economic freedom, social freedom, and personal freedom. The report also measures such specific things as tax burden freedom, education freedom, and victimless crime freedom among many others.

Just a few things from the report: North Dakota was first in overall freedom, with New York dead last.

South Dakota was first in economic freedom, with New York dead last. Alaska was first in personal freedom, with Illinois dead last. You would be surprised a very red state was first and one of the bluest states in the country was last in the personal freedom category.

A few other things of note. South Dakota had the lowest tax burden while New York had the highest tax burden. Kansas was the top state in the “Find a Job” category which measured both labor freedom and occupational licensing restrictions. California was the worst state in that category. Florida led the nation in educational freedom while Maryland was at the bottom. Arizona has least restrictive gun laws while California had the most restrictive.

Check out the report to see where your state ranked. Hopefully it was better than my Louisiana which is sadly ranked #37, but that’s an improvement from #45 in the last report.

Leave a Response »

 

The Obama Regime Wants To Spy On You Wednesday, Mar 13 2013

The Obama regime is drawing up final plans to create a massive database and give access to it to government agencies. What will be in this new database?

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

The proposed plan represents a major step by U.S. intelligence agencies to spot and track down terrorist networks and crime syndicates by bringing together financial databanks, criminal records and military intelligence. The plan, which legal experts say is permissible under U.S. law, is nonetheless likely to trigger intense criticism from privacy advocates.

I guess due process and asking a judge for a warrant to get this information is apparently a thing of the past in this new “changed” America. With the continuing reckless disregard of the Constitution and traditional American liberties by the Obama regime, at this point the University of Chicago should offer full refunds to anyone who ever took a Constitutional law class taught by Barack Obama. But I digress.

The database is compiled by banks and other financial institutions who report “suspicious financial activity” to the Treasury Department.

Financial institutions that operate in the United States are required by law to file reports of “suspicious customer activity,” such as large money transfers or unusually structured bank accounts, to Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).The Federal Bureau of Investigation already has full access to the database.

However, intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, currently have to make case-by-case requests for information to FinCEN.

The reason for this is because intelligence agencies are not law enforcement agencies. Under the law, law enforcement has to present its evidence in a court of law and the evidence can be challenged by the defendant. Intelligence agencies have usually one purpose in mind when the acquire evidence, destroy the target. To put it simply, it is the job of intelligence agencies to help kill people. There is no court of law or due process. Why do the CIA and the NSA need access to the financial information of millions of ordinary Americans? Is the country really that much more unsafe by making the CIA and NSA request the information on a case by case basis?

The government’s mentality since 9/11 is grab as much power as it can in the name of “security”. This is the reason why going to the airport has the same intimacy level as a high school makeout session. This is why the government claims the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens and to even kill them without due process. This is why hundreds of thousands of innocent Aghanis and Iraqis and many others have died. The United States government has taken as much power as it can to increase its control over the lives of Americans and indeed over as many other human beings around the world.

Enough is enough. We need to stand up to the Homeland Security State. It started last week with Rand Paul’s filibuster in the Senate. It is up to us as activists and patriots to continue it. We need to become as skeptical of government power in all aspects of our lives as we are of government power in the economy. It is very difficult to regain freedom and liberties once they have been lost. We need to act now before we lose more of our God given liberties.

Leave a Response »

 

The Chicago Teachers’ Union’s War On Children Monday, Sep 10 2012

Today, the Chicago Teachers’ Union has gone on strike after rejecting a proposed pay raise.

The union that represents nearly 30,000 teachers and support staff in the nation’s third-largest school district called the strike after negotiators failed to reach a contract agreement with school administrators despite eight months of talks.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel said teachers were harming Chicago’s children by striking.

“This is, in my view, a strike of choice, and it’s the wrong choice for our children,” he said. “Stay at the table. Finish it for our children.”

He said negotiators had resolved all but two issues — teacher evaluations and provisions dealing with jobs for laid-off teachers.

However, Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis said teachers had no choice but to strike, despite “intense but productive” bargaining sessions.

Basically Chicago government school teachers are holding the city hostage until their demands are met. They’re demanding more pay, more job security, and less accountability. It is not about improving the quality of education or the lives of their students. It is about plundering the taxpayers of the city of Chicago.

Just what are the “successes” of the status quo in Chicago?

The coverage of the strike has obscured some basic facts. The money has continued to pour into Chicago’s failing public schools in recent years. Chicago teachers have the highest average salary of any city at $76,000 a year before benefits. The average family in the city only earns $47,000 a year. Yet the teachers rejected a 16 percent salary increase over four years at a time when most families are not getting any raises or are looking for work.

The city is being bled dry by the exorbitant benefits packages negotiated by previous elected officials. Teachers pay only 3 percent of their health-care costs and out of every new dollar set aside for public education in Illinois in the last five years, a full 71 cents has gone to teacher retirement costs.

But beyond the dollars, the fact is that Chicago schools need a fundamental shakeup — which of course the union is resisting. It is calling for changes in the teacher-evaluation system it just negotiated by making student performance less important.

Small wonder. Just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading and only 56 percent of students who enter their freshman year of high school wind up graduating.

What Chicago’s government schools need are true reform, not pay increases and job security for terrible teachers.

First thing Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel needs to do is fire every single striking teacher. This will send the immediate message that strikes will not be tolerated.

Secondly, institute a merit pay plan that rewards good performance in the classroom. At the same time, there should be a plan developed to get rid of poorly performing teachers.

Finally, the Chicago School District needs some competition. A school choice plan, either vouchers or a tax credit program, needs to be developed. This will force government schools to compete for students and their money. This will result in higher test scores and better educated students.

Leave a Response »

 

Just Say No To Federal Government Funded Sex-Ed Monday, Jul 30 2012

Anna Marie Hoffman is one of the sharpest young social conservatives out there. She is also one of the nicest people you will ever meet and converse with. She wrote a recent blog about Federal funding for abstinence based sex education that was picked up by Lifenews.com

On July 6, 2012, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a pro-abstinence staff report called “A Better Approach to Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Sexual Risk Avoidance.” This report details how Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA), abstinence, truly lowers the rates of sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) and unintended teenage pregnancies as opposed to comprehensive sex education (CSE), which only focuses on reducing these risks.

Truthfully, SRA paves the way for healthy teen development, because it is based on adolescent behavioral theory, relies upon effectual techniques of public health prevention programs, emphasizes the importance of parental guidance and support, and teaches personal skills teens need to avoid dangerous sexual risks. In the end, the report successfully drives home a pro-abstinence message by concluding with 22 peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate that teens have benefitted from SRA programs.

To advance these efforts, the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act is seeking to promote abstinence by appropriating $15 million more for abstinence education programs and $80 million less for President Obama’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.

I’m not going to get into a discussion over which approach is best because it is irrelevant to this post. Nor is this intended to be a discussion about the morality or immorality of premarital sex. The first and really the only question to ask about this is where in the Constitution is the Federal government allowed to fund any sex education programs? Education should be a state and local responsibility, not a Federal one.

This post is a symptom of one of the things the frustrate me the most about many social conservatives. Instead of realizing that the largest enabler of immorality is the Welfare State and working to eliminate it, they instead to use it to enact socially conservative policies. The problem with that approach to governing is that when progressives regain power (as they assuredly do in any democracy) is that you may create yet another means for them to weaken virtue and replace it with increased government control.

Thankfully, most social conservatives do realize the limits of government intervention as Anna Maria points out at the conclusion of her post.

Although both the report and the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act are a step in the right direction, we must always remember that more government appropriations cannot solve our societal problems. Instead, parents need to step up and educate their children about the risks of sexual promiscuity and the benefits of abstinence. A resurgence of stronger American families, rather than continuous government intervention, will truly counteract premarital sex as a societal norm.

Virtue will only prevail if it is freely chosen and not subsidized by the state. State subsidized virtue will only lead to a backlash that will only end in state subsidized sin. The best way to promote a more virtuous society is for families and the voluntary institutions of civil society such as the church to play an active role and for the government to get out of the way and that includes getting rid of the Welfare State which protects people from their bad decisions in life.

Leave a Response »

 

Sandra Fluke: Totalitarian Tuesday, Jun 26 2012

Apparently a reporter at the New York Times Magazine didn’t get the memo that left-wing feminist hack Sandra Fluke’s 15 minutes were long past up. The reporter, Andrew Goldman, tracked Sandra down to get her er…..thoughts on some issues related to her call for the American people to pay for her birth control.

First up: About Rush Limbaugh’s despicable comments calling her a “slut” and attempts to have him taken off the air.

Free speech is a complex area legally, but it’s important to recognize that there are distinctions between one’s ability to express an opinion versus one’s ability to use F.C.C.-regulated airwaves to do so, and also one’s ability to engage in speech versus one’s ability to engage in slander.

First of all, there is no moral defense for what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke. If Rush Limbaugh called my mother, wife, daughter, girlfriend, sister, or any other woman I care about a slut, I honestly would beat the crap out of him. As a Southern boy, I was raised by my single mom to show women respect. However, I will defend to my death Rush Limbaugh’s right to free speech.

Sandra, when you testified to Congress and began your publicity tour, you became a public figure. That means I have a hell of a lot more legal leeway to say what I want about you than I would a genuinely private person. In fact Sandra, I think you’re a totalitarian because you want to silence speech you don’t agree with. I also think you’re a thief because you want to steal my money and that of my fellow taxpayers to give to sugar daddy government to buy your birth control and give you all sorts of benefits from the state, all for just being a woman. I dare you and your “progressive” buddies to come shut me up.

Sandra also finds common ground with her fellow nanny-state totalitarian, Rick Santorum.

Congratulations on finding a position that Rick Santorum and I agree upon. I do think there’s a serious problem with the violence we see in some pornography, and it has severe consequences for sexual-assault rates. That said, I don’t think that all erotic material is necessarily problematic. As a friend put it, she would be just fine with feminist porn.

First of all Sandra, we’re not sure if pornography leads to increased sexual assault rates. Even so, it may be “problematic” to you but there’s that pesky free speech thing again. Finally, guess what Sandra, I know women who love porn. So speak for yourself about “feminist porn”. By the way, feminist porn sounds like a real libido killer.

I was also struck by this comment about her choice to go to Georgetown University to study law:

It’s unfortunate that women have to choose between comprehensive affordable health care and the best quality education they can have.

Really, Sandra. Birth control, in most cases, is a choice not a genuine medical need. It is not that expensive and certainly not expensive enough to use the government as your hired thug to coerce insurance companies and employers to cover it with no charge. Also, condoms are cheaper than birth control and finally, not having sex at all is the cheapest. Also Sandra, I really hoped you would’ve gotten the lesson from this whole controversy that if we have government mandated healthcare, all private lifestyle choices become public policy discussions. But then again that was probably too much to ask since you’re still struggling with basics like free speech…..

Finally, we touch on homophobic speech. I think you can guess where this going….

I suppose I lost my temper a bit, but I think it’s really important that we address homophobic statements regardless of whether it’s couched in humor or in serious political conversations. They’re damaging and hurtful, and they make problematic speech acceptable.

The First Amendment makes “problematic speech” acceptable, Sandra. In fact, it was written specifically to protect “problematic speech”. Speech that is popular does not need protection. I think homophobia is disgusting, but homophobes do have a right to free speech and again I will defend their free speech rights with my life, if necessary.

I’m definitely not one of these progressive beta males the Sandra Flukes of the world love. I drive a pickup truck, love cold beer and shooting whiskey, love sports (as a matter of fact, I’m writing this while watching an Atlanta Braves game), I love beautiful women, and I love shooting guns. I also think there’s nothing sexier on this planet than a strong, independent woman; especially when she’s shooting a gun. I definitely want women to be treated with respect and treated equally under the law. That’s why I support these ladies.

h/t:Outside The Beltway

Leave a Response »

 

A Libertarian Case Against Right To Work Laws Thursday, Feb 2 2012

Yesterday, Indiana passed a so-called “right to work” law. These laws bar mandatory union membership or payment of union dues as a condition of employment. The laws are generally supported by free-market advocates and opposed by labor unions. Free marketers generally claim that these laws prevent forced unionization, however I think that’s not necessarily the right way to look at it. “Right to work” laws are a violation of both the right to freely associate and to contract.

While I oppose “right to work” laws, I oppose public sector unions entirely. I believe that if you choose to work in the public sector, you are choosing to serve your community. In addition public sector unions can wield extraordinary influence over politicians to force to fund more benefits and higher pay which result in more debt and taxes. As a result their power can grow unchecked. Whereas private sector unions, I believe, provide a valuable service, even in a free market. They can serve as a check against overexploitive employers and improve working conditions. I do not have a problem with workers organizing as ling it is voluntary and through a secret ballot. At the same time I do not object to employers who refuse to sanction unions at their businesses.

If an employer and a union want to agree to run a “closed shop” meaning that all employees must be in the union, fine. If an employee does not want to join the union is free to seek employment at a non-union business. The marketplace will punish the added costs of running a closed, union shop as opposed to a non-union shop. The best example of this are UAW produced and bailed out domestic car manufacturers vs the non-union imports. If we let markets do their work instead of using state coercion, we will be more free and more prosperous as a society.

Leave a Response »

 

The Contract To Europeanize America Thursday, Aug 11 2011

Earlier this week, various progressive organizations led by MoveOn.org and by 9/11 Truther Van Jones unveiled something called the Contract for the American Dream. The plan, which reads more like a set of talking points than a platform or a manifesto, is set of bullet points its proponents believe will revive the American economy. In summation, the plans all involve increased government spending, more welfare, and higher taxes especially on the so-called rich. If this plan is adopted by the Democratic party and implemented after 2013, it will complete the transformation of America from a nation that believes in the free market, individual liberty, and limited and decentralized government into a European style centralized, corporatist state where the rights of the collective take paramount over individual freedom. The plan will result in the largest increase in the size and scope of the Federal government in its history and will make this country significantly poorer and less free. In addition, this plan is fiscally irresponsible and will result in national bankruptcy if adopted.

The preamble to this new declaration of dependence is thus:

We, the American people, promise to defend and advance a simple ideal: liberty and justice . . . for all. Americans who are willing to work hard and play by the rules should be able to find a decent job, get a good home in a strong community, retire with dignity, and give their kids a better life. Every one of us – rich, poor, or in-between, regardless of skin color or birthplace, no matter their sexual orientation or gender – has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is our covenant, our compact, our contract with one another. It is a promise we can fulfill – but only by working together.

Today, the American Dream is under threat. Our veterans are coming home to few jobs and little hope on the home front. Our young people are graduating off a cliff, burdened by heavy debt, into the worst job market in half a century. The big banks that American taxpayers bailed out won’t cut homeowners a break. Our firefighters, nurses, cops, and teachers – America’s everyday heroes – are being thrown out onto the street. We believe:

America is not broke

America is rich – still the wealthiest nation ever. But too many at the top are grabbing the gains. No person or corporation should be allowed to take from America while giving little or nothing back. The super-rich who got tax breaks and bailouts should now pay full taxes – and help create jobs here, not overseas. Those who do well in America should do well by America.

Americans need jobs, not cuts

Many of our best workers are sitting idle while the work of rebuilding America goes undone. Together, we must rebuild our country, reinvest in our people and jump-start the industries of the future. Millions of jobless Americans would love the opportunity to become working, tax-paying members of their communities again. We have a jobs crisis, not a deficit crisis.

Sounds good right..I commend these guys for putting together pretty paragraphs. But the problem is, this is nonsense. Hosni Mubarak had a better grasp on reality in his speeches during the Egyptian uprising than these guys do. America is the eleventh most indebted country in the world according to the IMF with a debt to GDP percentage of 92.7% in 2010. That puts us right below Ireland, which has already been bailed out once with a debt percentage of 93.6%. Greece, the Western world’s economic basket case has a debt percentage of 130.2% of GDP for a little perspective. Portugal which was just bailed out, had a debt that was 83.1% of GDP. These percentages are not counting unfunded liabilities such as promised Social Security and Medicare benefits down the road. We are nation that is running budget deficits of $1 trillion annually and are projected to do so for the near future. America may not be technically be broke, but we are damn sure getting close to it.

The first part of the contract calls for massive New Deal type public works programs:

Rebuild our crumbling bridges, dams, levees, ports, water and sewer lines, railways, roads, and public transit. We must invest in high-speed Internet and a modern, energy-saving electric grid. These investments will create good jobs and rebuild America. To help finance these projects, we need national and state infrastructure banks.

The first problem is that many if not most of these projects are the sole responsibility of state and local governments. Secondly, there are projects on here that are the sole responsibility of private companies, such as high speed Internet and building a modern electric grid. Third, this will not create jobs in a timely fashion because these projects have to be designed, bid out, awarded, and only then can people be hired and the jobs started on. Fourth, this will be paid for with borrowed money for the most part which make our financial situation worse. Finally, this infrastructure bank will likely be another means to reward political contributors and political allies.

Second thing these brain trusts want to do is create “green jobs”

We should invest in American businesses that can power our country with innovative technologies like wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal systems, hybrid and electric cars, and next-generation batteries. And we should put Americans to work making our homes and buildings energy efficient. We can create good, green jobs in America, address the climate crisis, and build the clean energy economy.

In other words, they’re going to take money out of the productive economy and give it to unproven, money losing companies and technologies (in most cases). This is government picking winners and losers. What we need to do is have a true free market in energy, no subsidies for anybody, let the best energy sources and solutions win. Not to mention this proposal will likely come at the expense at the oil, gas, nuclear, and coal industries and will result in job losses. You cannot build an economy on this weak of a foundation and through government programs.

The third idea is to throw more money at public education.

We should provide universal access to early childhood education, make school funding equitable, invest in high-quality teachers, and build safe, well-equipped school buildings for our students. A high-quality education system, from universal preschool to vocational training and affordable higher education, is critical for our future and can create badly needed jobs now.

Notice anything related to accountability and rewarding or punishing results is missing. In addition, school choice is missing and tax credits for those parents who do not want to subject their children to the failed government school system. This is throwing money at government contractors, teachers unions, and educrats while short changing the kids. In other words, more of the same educational mediocrity this country has been receiving for 50+ years.

The next idea is they want to give “Medicare for all”

We should expand Medicare so it’s available to all Americans, and reform it to provide even more cost-effective, quality care. The Affordable Care Act is a good start and we must implement it — but it’s not enough. We can save trillions of dollars by joining every other industrialized country — paying much less for health care while getting the same or better results.

The biggest problem is that they have no plan to pay for it. Adding at least a hundred million new beneficiaries to Medicare, a program already on the road to bankruptcy by the end of the decade, without increasing taxes to pay for it will speed up this program’s bankruptcy. Not to mention, this will result in lost jobs in the insurance industry as entire companies may have to close their doors. Finally, when they talk about “reforming Medicare”, they have no plans for it.

Next up is “making work pay”

Americans have a right to fair minimum and living wages, to organize and collectively bargain, to enjoy equal opportunity, and to earn equal pay for equal work. Corporate assaults on these rights bring down wages and benefits for all of us. They must be outlawed.

First of all, there is no “right” to a “living wage”. An employer does not have the obligation to hire anyone in the first place, let alone pay them anything more than a wage agreed to by employee. If the employee wants a “living wage”, they can find a job that pays one. If people want to form a union, fine but the employer has every right to refuse to deal with them and employees have every right to refuse to join one. This is a recipe for fewer jobs as the cost for employers to hire goes up.

These guys also want to “secure Social Security”

Keep Social Security sound, and strengthen the retirement, disability, and survivors’ protections Americans earn through their hard work. Pay for it by removing the cap on the Social Security tax, so that upper-income people pay into Social Security on all they make, just like the rest of us.

There is a giant sucking sound starting…..more on that in just a second.

And of course, no progressive policy manifesto would be complete without taxing the evil rich:

End, once and for all, the Bush-era tax giveaways for the rich, which the rest of us — or our kids — must pay eventually. Also, we must outlaw corporate tax havens and tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. Lastly, with millionaires and billionaires taking a growing share of our country’s wealth, we should add new tax brackets for those making more than $1 million each year.

That giant sucking sound we started hearing earlier is the massive capital flight that would result if this policy, along with most of the others is ever implemented. Capital can now flee countries with a few taps of a keyboard and millions if not billions of dollars will flee this country for countries with lower tax rates and regulations. That will result in fewer people employed and less tax revenue for the government. The rhetoric about outlawing “corporate tax havens” is an admission that America under this proposal cannot compete with the rest of the world, so we must cripple the rest of the world. Finally, companies won’t need the tax breaks for outsourcing outside the US  because they’ll already have plenty of incentives to do so under this tax plan.

The anti-war movement finally makes a comeback

Our troops have done everything that’s been asked of them, and it’s time to bring them home to good jobs here. We’re sending $3 billion each week overseas that we should be investing to rebuild America.

Amen to ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what about ending the wars in Libya, Yemen, and God knows where else Barack Obama is bombing? Also, I think you’ll need more than $156 billion dollars a year to pay for this corporatist welfare state you’re trying to build.

And of course, they’re going after hoarding kulaks on Wall Street:

A tiny fee of a twentieth of 1% on each Wall Street trade could raise tens of billions of dollars annually with little impact on actual investment. This would reduce speculation, “flash trading,” and outrageous bankers’ bonuses — and we’d have a lot more money to spend on Main Street job creation.

So these thieves want 0.05% of the amount every time a worker contributes to their 401(k), buys stock options in their company, and again when they cash out. Do these people have any decency? For a $50 contribution every two weeks to a 401(k), these thieves want $2.50 of it or $65 a year. This will destroy the financial services industry as more capital flees the US and corporations will have a harder time raising money to expand and grow or just stay in business.

Finally, these guys are big on democracy

We need clean, fair elections — where no one’s right to vote can be taken away, and where money doesn’t buy you your own member of Congress. We must ban anonymous political influence, slam shut the lobbyists’ revolving door in D.C., and publicly finance elections. Immigrants who want to join in our democracy deserve a clear path to citizenship. We must stop giving corporations the rights of people when it comes to our elections. And we must ensure our judiciary’s respect for the Constitution. Together, we will reclaim our democracy to get our country back on track.

This is a bunch of silly and empty slogans with no relation to each other, let alone reality. Public financing of elections will be a disaster because government can pick winners and losers, which campaigns are funded and which aren’t, and it will be able to micromanage campaigns. In addition, it is a clear regard of the 1st Amendment which equates political donations with speech. I have my own ideas to curbing America’s representative deficit, but these are simply silly.

There is a culture war in America between those of us who love liberty and those of us who love security. I clearly lean on the side of liberty. I understand my opponents have nothing but good intentions, for the most part, but they are absolutely wrong. This contract will make America poorer and less free. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and this manifesto only proves it.

Leave a Response »