Fair and Balanced: Let's Get Back on Track, Mr. President
We have two articles for your information this morning that focus on President Bush. Both courtesy of the Drudge Report.
Washington Post: Bush to Seek Immigrant Benefit Protection
New York Times: Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs
Matt's Chat
I'll be quoting from both stories...starting with the NYT:Once you get past the NYT required Bush bashing and Blair-esque "make it up as you go" reporting, you get to the meat of the article in about paragraph five. Let me summerize the valid points of the introduction: We have spent WAY too much money and now have a deficit; but if the President's plan is enacted, that deficit will be cut in half in five years.
So, what's the plan? According to NYT, the plan is this:
Mr. Bush's budget request, to be sent to Congress by Feb. 2, includes several tax cut proposals, including new incentives for individual saving and tax credits to help uninsured people buy health insurance. The Democratic candidates for president have accused Mr. Bush of doing little to halt the recent rapid increase in the number of uninsured.
Administration officials said the president's budget would call for an overall increase of about 3 percent in appropriations for so-called domestic discretionary spending, which excludes the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and insurance benefits like Medicare and Medicaid.
This can't be the plan. There is no mention of actual cuts in spending (except for the effort to reduce military health costs - which NYT will use as being a bigger deal than it is because they are Bush haters) in the whole article (at least I didn't see any - all I saw were increases for this and that).
The real plan has to have some honest spending cuts in it. I have another idea though, and that is where we bring in the WaPo:
President Bush will propose protections for the Social Security taxes paid by the workers who would come into the country under massive changes to immigration laws he plans to announce on Wednesday, Republican officials said Saturday.
Bush's plan would make it possible for such workers from Mexico and perhaps other countries to collect retirement benefits without being penalized by their home countries for the years they spent working in the United States, the officials said.
The President is back to wanting to give illegals some sort of "legal status." I knew that when Tom Ridge made that ridiculous statement, it was because someone at the White House wanted to see how loud the scream was going to be. Apparently they didn't hear it, or didn'tcare to listen for it.
Anyway, I think it is easy for the regular readers to know that I am against this plan. And here is why: We can use the money that they are paying in to the system for other purposes, say deficit reduction...
Undocumented workers now pay billions of dollars annually into Social Security but do not collect benefits because they give their employers fraudulent Social Security numbers.
Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group, said he fears the Social Security plan could be used as an incentive for workers to go home instead of settling in the United States, which could create what he called "a permanent class of temporary workers with no political power."
So, let me get this straight... There are billions of dollars in the system that no one will ever collect because they were filed under fradulent SS#'s. Let's get the dough and put it to use...
Mr. Sharry, as the hamster you are I know that you won't understand what I am about to tell you, but I'm going to try anyway. These workers should go home. They shouldn't be here at all now. They came here ILLEGALLY. Here is my frustration with these idiots: they expect the honest, taxpaying American to pay for supporting illegal aliens who won't even learn our language. America is a great melting pot, that means that in order to really become an American you take from our culture and you add to that culture. No one is stopping these folks from speaking other languages, but a significant number (dare I say "majority") of Americans speak English and I don't think it is too much to ask those who work here to be able to communicate with others.
I'm getting sidetracked - forgive me... On to border control...
[Mexican President, Vicente]Fox said last month that the two countries are working on agreements to allow Mexicans "to go and come each year as many times as they want, without problems, and so that they can work with documents in the United States."
Does any other nation enjoy such an agreement? Does Canada? How about Cuba? China? (Well, the argument could be made that during the Clinton administration...) I'm not sure. If somebody knows, email me.
Is this a case of Hispandering? Sure sounds like it to me...
Mark's Remarks
First, on the immigration issue- I really hope it does not get farther than the theory stage. I am not very pleased with this idea. It seems to me to be counterproductive, but at the same time, it seems to me that it may be a way to raise revenue through taxation of them. I don't know.
On to the budget- we are only getting third hand snippets and pieces. This reminds me of the hubbub 20 years ago over the Reagan budget. And look at how we handled that- we emerged better than ever. Before we call down the thunder on the President, we should get more of the facts. I fear that if we just go with what these liberalista media folks are saying, we will splinter the support for this President. Has anyone ever stopped to think that is exactly what these little snippets are geared toward doing? Just a thought.
