The tab for king obama’s amnesty decree? It could be $6 TRILLION

By 34 Comments 1,416 views

behead THOSE WHO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS

It is estimated that the cost to America of Obama’s amnesty decree could be as much as $6 trillion over 50 years:

The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old. After amnesty, this individual will receive government benefits, on average, for 50 years. Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only a marginal impact on long-term costs.

If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.

Liberals almost always claim that illegals will be net positive contributors, but this makes no sense whatsoever:

Many policymakers believe that after amnesty, unlawful immigrants will help make Social Security solvent. It is true that unlawful immigrants currently pay FICA taxes and would pay more after amnesty, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 per year in FICA taxes. After retirement, that individual is likely to draw more than $3.00 in Social Security and Medicare (adjusted for inflation) for every dollar in FICA taxes he has paid.

Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved.

The burden of retirement is also onerous:

◾As noted, at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.
◾During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.
◾At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.
◾Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

Here is more data on welfare use by illegal immigrants:

•In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

•Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.

•A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.

•Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.

•Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

•The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

•We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

•Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.

•High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.

•An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.

•If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.

•Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.

•For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.

•Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.

•The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.

More on illegal immigrants here.

Relying on old data, he White House has claimed that the dumping of more workers into the workforce is going to result in a positive benefit for the country – by 2024- but in the short term annual wages of Americans could be diminished by $1400 per year.

If you’re Nicholas Kristof, you believe that a an illegal alien family of five (their families tend to have more members than do native Americans), with one member working for minimum wage, paying no property taxes (how can one afford a home on minimum wage?) whose kids cost local taxpayers $12,000 per child per year, and who get all sorts of subsidies and freebies are a net contributor of taxes.

Kristof, who refuses to discern legal from illegal immigrants, reminds me of a story a friend told me when we were young graduates. When a plant manager is told that is cost twenty five cents more to produce a golf ball than the ball is sold for, the manager said “We’ll make it up in volume.”

Exit question: I’ve asked this before- if illegals do the jobs Americans won’t do, who will do those jobs once they’re legal?

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

34 Responses to “The tab for king obama’s amnesty decree? It could be $6 TRILLION”

  1. 1

    Greg

    Obama has not granted amnesty. He has directed the INS to temporarily defer the prosecution and deportation certain undocumented aliens who meet certain specific criteria. That’s not at all the same as an amnesty. Amnesty would grant a permanent pardon for coming to or remaining in the United States in violation of the law.

  2. 2

    Craig Withers

    What’s a $6 trillion deal to this emperor president? That means nothing. And, remember, this is the guy who promised to cut the deficit in half in his first term!

  3. 3

    Budvarakbar

    Liberals almost always claim that illegals will be net positive contributors, but this makes no sense whatsoever:

    Liberals do not know what a net positive contribution would be!

  4. 4

    retire05

    @Greg:

    “The new priorities are striking. On the tough side, the president wants U.S. immigration authorities to go after terrorists, felons, and new illegal border crossers. On the not-so-tough side, the administration views convicted drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders as second-level enforcement priorities. An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration.

    In the memo, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson says his department must develop “smart enforcement priorities” to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in order to best use his agency’s limited resources. Johnson establishes three enforcement priority levels to guide DHS officers as they decide whether to stop, hold, or prosecute an illegal immigrant.

    Priority One is the “highest priority to which enforcement resources should be directed,” the memo says. The category includes “aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security.” It also includes “aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States.” In addition, any illegal immigrant convicted of an offense involving a criminal street gang, or convicted of a felony — provided that immigration status was not an “essential element” of the charge — is targeted. Finally, any illegal immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony is included in Priority One.

    The guidelines say Priority One aliens “must be prioritized” for deportation unless they qualify for asylum or unless there are “compelling and exceptional” factors that indicate the alien is not a threat.

    Priority Two offenders, whose cases are less urgent than criminals in Priority One, include the following:

    aliens convicted of a “significant misdemeanor,” which for these purposes is an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence; or if not an offense listed above, one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more (the sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and does not include a suspended sentence)”

    Got that, Greggie? King Obama is going to let the sexual abusers, the drunk drivers, the burglars, the drug dealers and those who have carried an illegal weapon, all stay.

    I’m sure that the widow of Officer Rodney Johnson, who was killed by an illegal carrying an illegal weapon, or the widow of the Austin, Texas police officer who was run down by a drunk driving illegal not too long ago, are just thrilled with Obama’s new “guidelines” for who gets to stay.

    Are you a MS-13 gangbanger with tattoos all over your body? Well, if you have no criminal record, you get to stay. Abused a woman? No problem. You can stay.

    He has directed the INS to temporarily defer the prosecution and deportation certain undocumented aliens who meet certain specific criteria.

    And that criteria? Oh, yeah, they have had to be in the country for five years. But hey, just because they can’t prove they have been here for five years due to working under the table or using a stolen Social Security number, no big deal, right?

    Be sure to watch black unemployment rates, Greggie. They are pathetic now, just wait until Obama’s illegal “deferred deportation” kicks in and our borders are flooded with a whole new crop of illegals to compete for the jobs traditionally taken by under-educated blacks.

  5. 6

    Smorgasbord

    That settles it: I’m moving to Mexico, then become a Mexican citizen, then walk into the USA, then I’m going to apply for all of the free stuff US FOREIGNERS get, then I’m going to sit back and watch the money and free stuff roll in, thanks to the generous American tax payers. What a life!!!

  6. 8

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Obama has not granted amnesty. He has directed the INS to temporarily defer the prosecution and deportation certain undocumented aliens who meet certain specific criteria.

    noun, plural amnesties.
    1.
    a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
    2.
    Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
    3.
    a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

    Well, then, good thing he didn’t do any of that, right, Greg?

  7. 9

    Nanny

    When we listened to Obama’s speech hubby turned to me and said, it looks like Obama has added the gov’t to the cadre of shadowy people who make fake papers for illegals.
    In LB we saw them all the time.
    We had been approached many times with offers of fake papers for a few dollars.
    But now Obama is planning on putting those guys out of business.
    He will have the gov’t hand out visas, work papers (green cards) and SS#s.
    On the issue of fake visas, why is an Obama era employee at the YEMEN Embassy allowing potential terrorists in the dozens have them to enter the USA? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-embassy-worker-yemen-issued-fake-visas-court-papers-article-1.2021032
    And why, if DHS knew this in August, is he only being stopped now?
    Why do we only know of ONE of these 50 Yameni men being arrested?
    YIKES!
    Now, times that by millions.

  8. 10

    joetote

    @Bill:

    Touche! Unfortunately as always, truth and facts do not sway the Greggies of this country!

    It’s just too bad no one in our government has the spine to actually go after that great pusher of illegal acts himself, that so called constitutional scholar that sneers at every law he disagrees with. One wonders. Would some idiot grant Obama amnesty or a pardon if there were those with balls willing to hold him accountable for his crimes against our country?

  9. 11

    Greg in Lynnwood

    These studies always refer to the illegal ALIENS as ‘immigrants’. This is not an immigration issue and what the Emperor has done has nothing to do with immigration reform. This is a BORDER SECURIY issue. They did not violate immigration laws they violated national border security laws.

    First of all these are not IMMIGRANTS. If they were they would have immigrant visas which, by definition, they don’t. So drop the ‘immigrant’ label.

    Second what the Emperor has done has not changed the law as it stands. Legal immigration is still as hard and long as a process as ever. Obama has, however, violated those same laws by refusing to enforce immigration. He also violated his oath to defend the United States.

  10. 12

    Budvarakbar

    @joetote:

    One wonders. Would some idiot grant Obama amnesty or a pardon if there were those with balls willing to hold him accountable for his crimes against our country?

    They already have — the whole dam government — both houses of congress, the SC and all the gov’t agencies

  11. 13

    Bill

    @Budvarakbar:

    Liberals do not know what a net positive contribution would be!

    To a liberal, a net positive would be someone that lives off of the taxpayer but actually does some work.

    @retire05:

    And that criteria? Oh, yeah, they have had to be in the country for five years. But hey, just because they can’t prove they have been here for five years due to working under the table or using a stolen Social Security number, no big deal, right?

    Indeed, how DO they prove when the came here? If we have the records, why haven’t we already deported them? Otherwise, we could just trust them at their word; after all, would they lie to us?

    @Nanny:

    But now Obama is planning on putting those guys out of business.
    He will have the gov’t hand out visas, work papers (green cards) and SS#s.

    Oh, they will be doing a land-office business. There will be requirements for fake pay stubs, rent agreements, receipts… anything with a date of 2009 or earlier. Cha-ching!

    I have never seen such an extensive study as the one cited, but I have said for a long time that the way to end illegal immigration is to require proof of residency to apply for any taxpayer-funded benefit. As we see, it would be impossible for someone to live here, work for the depressed, illegal immigrant wages and support a family here or at home. If we weren’t subsidizing them, they would have to leave. What is wrong with that plan?

  12. 14

    Smorgasbord

    @Nanny: #9
    If the same ones who created obama’s fake birth certificate and Selective Service registration made the fake visas, the documents will be easy to spot as fakes.

    Why go to the trouble of creating fake papers to get into the USA, when you can just walk in from Mexico?

  13. 15

    Smorgasbord

    @Greg in Lynnwood: #11
    Most, if not all, of the reporters on the Fox News shows I watch call them illegal immigrants. To me they are just ILLEGALS. Some of them call the president Mr. obama. They have the same problem that I do: I can’t put the word obama and the word president together. They just don’t look right together.

  14. 16

    Greg

    @drjohn, #7:

    Deferring prosecution and deportation for a 3-year period is not amnesty. The legal effect of amnesty would be permanent.

    Congress is supposed to deal with national problems like this by crafting legislation that properly addresses the reality of the situation. The Senate created a comprehensive immigration bill a year ago. It was a bipartisan project, and passed by a wide margin with strong bipartisan support. It was sent to the House. After expressing their intentions to get to work and get the job done, the House did nothing. So, Obama has done something. It certainly got their attention.

    Unfortunately, it appears they still intend to do nothing. Apparently the developing game plan for the upcoming Congress is to attack Obama for taking temporary measures, while blaming Obama for the fact that they’re still not getting anything done. This, from Bloomberg BNA:

    The president’s action drew sharp criticism from congressional Republicans, who said his unilateral action has obliterated any hope for a legislative overhaul of the immigration system.

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters Nov. 21 that he had warned the president that by taking unilateral action, “he was making it impossible to build the trust necessary to work together.” Obama has “chosen to deliberately sabotage” any bipartisan legislation, and “he’s damaging the presidency itself,” Boehner said.

    Hey, working together was what got the Senate immigration reform bill put together, passed, and moved on to the House of Representatives last year. It was right there on Boehner’s desk, staring him in the face: an immigration reform bill that was truly the result of bipartisan effort, beginning to end. So, who sabotaged what?

    The House doesn’t work for Obama. The House works for the nation. It’s Congress’s job to create legislation addressing serious national problems. The cumulative results of a neglected breakdown of the nation’s immigration system over the course of several decades is one such. It’s a very big problem. If they neglect that responsibility to spite Obama, it’s not Obama that they’re failing. If they don’t like how he has addressed certain immigration problems on a temporary basis, they should write legislation addressing those same problems on a permanent basis. That’s what they get paid for.

  15. 17

    Smorgasbord

    @joetote: #10

    It’s just too bad no one in our government has the spine to actually go after that great pusher of illegal acts himself…

    What if the ones in the government are part of the problem. Whenever a Freedom Of Information request was issued concerning obama’s birth certificate, Social Security number, or Selective Service registration, the documents ask for usually vanished. This has happened with several federal agencies. Then, we add in the politicians who aren’t doing anything to stop obama from doing ANYTHING HE WANTS, then we add in the schools trying to convert the students to the muslim religion. How long will it take for the average American citizen to realize we are being attacked from the inside? Will it be soon enough to save our county?

    My three federal politicians are republicans, and I printed out obama’s birth certificate with items circled, and explanations of why the items circled are A FEW OF THE MANY ITEMS that the experts who examined it say it is a fake. I also included this question:

    How does a person who has a fake birth certificate, and who is using someone else’s Social Security number, and who has a fake Selective Service registration, and probably doesn’t even have a driver’s license, get to be president of the United States.

    They have answered my request for a reply EVERY TIME I asked for it, except this time. No answer. I wrote them a second time, and asked the same question. Again, no answer. I have written them and asked them if they have even looked at the birth certificate. Again, no answer.

    Ask your federal politicians the same two questions and see if you get a reply. If you do, I would like to know. Print this document at your printer’s highest quality setting to make sure the small print can be read, then mail it to your federal politicians, along with the above question.

    https:[email protected]/12178804083/

    With the politicians not doing anything to stop obama, and with the schools pushing the muslim religion on our kids, and with the increasing numbers of muslim terrorist training camps being created WITHIN OUR BORDERS, and congress not stopping the illegals from just walking into the USA, and obama devoutly defending the muslim religion, even getting very emotional about it when he addressed the united nations, and papers concerning obama vanishing in different federal agencies, I’m even more happy that I live in Idaho; a state that can defend itself against what obama’s puppeteers have planned for us.

    For those who think I am paranoid about obama’s plans for the USA, I would rather be wrong in thinking he wants to turn it into a muslim country, than to be wrong in thinking that he doesn’t, and it becomes one.

  16. 18

    Budvarakbar

    @Smorgasbord:

    Why go to the trouble of creating fake papers to get into the USA, when you can just walk in from Mexico?

    Or in other words: Why go to the trouble of creating fake papers to get into the USA, when you can just walk in from Mexico to the White House and not be evicted for 8 years?

  17. 19

    Smorgasbord

    @Budvarakbar: #18

    Or in other words: Why go to the trouble of creating fake papers to get into the USA, when you can just walk in from Mexico to the White House and not be evicted for 8 years?

    obama didn’t just walk in. It took many years of planning to get him there. The ones who put obama in the white house, will put the next president there too, unless it will be a non-politician who is elected. congress has been bought off.

  18. 20

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Deferring prosecution and deportation for a 3-year period is not amnesty. The legal effect of amnesty would be permanent.

    Again….

    noun, plural amnesties.
    1.
    a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
    2.
    Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
    3.
    a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

    It’s amnesty. Regardless of whether or not you or Obama agree with what the meaning of the word actually is and how what he has done is described by the Gruber-gallery, he has granted amnesty on an amorphous group of criminals.

    Congress is supposed to deal with national problems like this by crafting legislation that properly addresses the reality of the situation.

    This may be like a bolt of lightening to you, Greg, but while it is the job of Congress to legislate laws (something Obama seems to be dimly aware of), NOTHING says they have to rubber stamp what Democrats want. If the minority party feels legislation is bad, they have powers with which to do whatever they can to stop it. The Senate bill does not address border security, without which we just keep solving (or reacting to) the same problem over and over. The left, obviously, just wants the illegals to keep on coming because, after a while, even some liberals catch on and abandon the cause of bankrupting America. So, it becomes necessary to import ignorant people that can be easily manipulated.

    The cumulative results of a neglected breakdown of the nation’s immigration system over the course of several decades is one such.

    There is no breakdown of the immigration system. There is a breakdown in border security and immigration laws enforcement. This breakdown results in millions of revenue-sapping illegal immigrants constantly flowing into our country. Amnesty does NOTHING to solve that problem. It only solves the problem of an enlightened electorate.

  19. 22

    Greg

    @Bill, #20:

    You apparently don’t understand the meaning of the definitions that you just posted. Perhaps you’re having trouble with the distinction between a temporary and permanent measure? Between deferring an action and a determination that that action will never be taken?

    This may be like a bolt of lightening to you, Greg, but while it is the job of Congress to legislate laws (something Obama seems to be dimly aware of), NOTHING says they have to rubber stamp what Democrats want.

    Did you miss the part about an immigration reform bill having been created by bipartisan effort and passed by a wide bipartisan margin in the Senate last year? No rubber stamping was required. What was required was that the House address their attention to that bill and modify or amend it as they deemed appropriate. That is their function, when Congress is working as intended.

    If they believe their Constitutional function is to block anything and everything until they get their own way, which has less than a snowball’s chance in hell of ever coming to pass, they should be honest about it. Then we could replace them next election with people who aren’t so pigheaded that they’ve become worse than useless.

    There is no breakdown of the immigration system. There is a breakdown in border security and immigration laws enforcement. This breakdown results in millions of revenue-sapping illegal immigrants constantly flowing into our country.

    The GOP liked them well enough when there was money to be made from exploiting an inexhaustible pool of dirt cheap workers, which had no recourse but to take what they could get without complaint because they were kept legally powerless. Now the GOP is exploiting the negative consequences of their continued presence, and blaming their political opponents for the fact that there’s no convenient way (or humane way, as if that mattered to them) to remove nearly 12 million people from the place many of them think of as their home.

    An immigration system that offers no real way to deal with such a problem is, in fact, in need of some work. Anyone with a lick of sense can see that. What Obama did is an administrative stopgap measure. Nothing more. Long-term solutions, whatever they might be, are up to Congress.

  20. 23

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Did you miss the part about an immigration reform bill having been created by bipartisan effort and passed by a wide bipartisan margin in the Senate last year? No rubber stamping was required. What was required was that the House address their attention to that bill and modify or amend it as they deemed appropriate. That is their function, when Congress is working as intended.

    Your capacity for double standards is simply amazing, Greggie. You whine that the Senate bill died on the vine once it hit the House, but utter not one word about all the bi-partisan bills passed in the House that died on Harry Reid’s desk.

    If you are so secure that Obama did the right thing, you need to take your message to the barrios all across the nation where the illegal criminal element will wind up, creating even more crime and more sorrow in the Hispanic neighborhoods. But it has been clear for a long time that the left doesn’t give a rat’s ass about legal Hispanics while you dump the trash in their neighborhoods.

    Nor do you care about the cost that will be imposed on taxpayers. 3,000 illegal kids were dumped on the Houston Independent School District this year. Multiply that by about $9,000.00/year for their education. Obama certainly is not going to pick up the tab for that. Texas property owners will have to. But hey, so what if black unemployment is going to “necessarily” skyrocket, just like it did after the 1986 amnesty.

    You are too stupid to understand that your left wing policies only hurt those you proclaim to want to help.

  21. 24

    Greg

    @retire05, #23:

    Your capacity for double standards is simply amazing, Greggie. You whine that the Senate bill died on the vine once it hit the House, but utter not one word about all the bi-partisan bills passed in the House that died on Harry Reid’s desk.

    Name one such bill that’s of an even remotely similar degree of importance as immigration reform.

    It has also been pointed out on previous occasions that the number of bills passed by the House that have not been voted on in the Senate by the end of the term is no higher this time than it has been with most previous Congresses. The striking difference with this Congress is the House’s astonishing lack of productivity.

  22. 26

    Greg

    So, Senate republicans helped to write and strongly supported an immigration reform bill that was primarily about granting amnesty to illegal aliens? That’s certainly interesting.

  23. 29

    Nanny

    I wonder if the cost that employers can ”save” $3,000/year because they don’t have to cover medical for these under amnesty is included in the $6 trillion?
    Seems like an intended consequence if Obama wanted to screw the citizens who want jobs as it will cost employers an extra $3,000/year (penalty for not insuring them) at the very least?

  24. 30

    Smorgasbord

    #29

    Seems like an intended consequence if Obama wanted to screw the citizens who want jobs as it will cost employers an extra $3,000/year (penalty for not insuring them) at the very least?

    There were many articles written about this on conservative blogs, and talked about on Fox News. It was well known that if an employer chose to keep the insurance they had, they would still have to pay the obamacare tax. If I remember correctly, the tax was 6%. This would mean if there are two competing companies selling the same kind of product, and if one company dropped their insurance, and the other company didn’t, the company that dropped the insurance could sell their product for about 6% less than the other one, and still make the same profit. This would make the other one have to cut expenses, and probably drop their plan. This was all built into obamacare.

    It is just like the PLANNED section that says if a company changes their plan, then it is cancelled, but the bill also MANDATES changes that the insurance companies are REQUIRED to make, thus making the company issue a NEW policy, thus voiding it.

  25. 31

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Why do you ask? Are you under the impression that bills cannot originate in the U.S. Senate?

    Because YOU don’t seem to understand what happens after the bill is put together. It goes to committee, it get debated, it gets changed, it gets mutilated. In 2007, after a compromise had been worked out (much compromising from Republicans), Schumer and Obama got ahold of the bill and began inserting poison pills (such as allowing the work permit part to simply expire after 5 years so we are right back where we are now), which caused Republicans to reject it, and thus it died. The same happened here, with border security and non-access to entitlements being put on the back burner, causing the bill to become toxic once again.

    The left demonstrates they do not want to actually solve the problem because it is far too valuable as a political football. They like to offer up a reasonable compromise then ruin it with far left demands so they can then beat Republicans over the head with “obstruction!! obstruction!!”. No new legislation needs to be worked on until the liberal majority is out of Congress and out of the White House.

  26. 32

    Greg

    Schumer and Obama “got ahold” of the the bill? Nonsense. What arrived in the House for its consideration was the same bill that was passed in the Senate by a strong bipartisan majority. Whatever thoughts Chuck Schumer or Barack Obama might have had or have expressed at that point altered it in no way whatsoever. What the House received was exactly what supporting republican Senators had voted for.

    What the House did with it in the way of alterations or amendments was entirely up to the House, which was and is firmly in Republican control. They could have created an alternative bill entirely to their liking before returning it to the Senate. No one stood in their way. What they did, however, was nothing whatsoever. They didn’t even take the opportunity to show what their own sort of immigration reform would look like. And now they’re claiming it was all Obama’s fault?

    How does this sort of buffoonery pass muster with the people who voted for them? Are you deliberately voting for people who are totally incapable of governance unless they get everything their own way? Whatever their own way might be. Who really knows? They seldom agree among themselves long enough to clearly commit to specifics, keeping it all vague enough to allow their various constituents to imagine whatever they want. I suppose actually proposing to do something specific about the nation’s immigration would be tipping their hand.

  27. 33

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Schumer and Obama “got ahold” of the the bill? Nonsense.

    If you would read closely, that refers to the 2007 attempt and, yes indeed, they did just that. Intentionally killed any chance of compromise. Just as Obama has done repeatedly since being President.

    Democrats lie as a way of doing business. They cannot and should not be trusted with immigration reform. Once THEY are in the back seat, THEY can understand that elections have consequences, they lost, so shut up and sign on. See how they like that.

    Again, until the scurrilous liberals are rendered a minority, no major legislation of such importance needs to be attempted. This is a job for people with the best interests of Americans at heart, not those with only the interests of socialism in mind.

  28. 34

    John

    Well of course it ” could ” be 6 trillion
    Just as Ebola “could ” have killed millions in the USA
    Your warning predictions always seem to end up as uber right nightmares that disappear with sunrise

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *