IMMIGRATION VS. GATE-CRASHING by eminent economist Walter Williams
The Proposed FY 2007 County Operating Budget
IMMIGRATION VS. GATE-CRASHING
A Minority View
By Walter E. Williams
Release: Wednesday, April 12, 2006
My sentiments on immigration are inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty: ". . . Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
These words of poet Emma Lazarus served as the welcome mat for tens of millions seeking liberty and opportunity in America -- legally. Being a relatively land-rich and labor-scarce nation, immigration has always been good for our country. Plus, for most of our history, there was a guarantee that immigrants would come here to work. The alternative was starvation.
With today's welfare state, there's no such guarantee. People can come here, not work and not starve because the welfare state guarantees that they can live off the rest of us.
At the heart of today's immigration problem is its illegality. According to several estimates, there are 11 million people who are in our country illegally, mostly from Mexico. Many people, including my libertarian friends and associates, advance an argument that differs little from saying that people anywhere in the world have a right to live in the United States irrespective of our laws or preferences.
According to that vision, American people do not have a right to set either the number of people who enter our country or the conditions upon which they enter. Some of the arguments and terms used in the immigration debate defy reason. First, there's the refusal to call these people "illegal aliens." The politically preferred term is "undocumented workers," which is nothing less than verbal sleight-of-hand. After all, I, too, am an undocumented worker.
My colleague, Thomas Sowell, exposes some of this verbal sleight-of-hand in his recent column "Guests or Gate-Crashers?" He questions calling for "guest worker" status for people who, because they weren't invited, are not guests at all but gate-crashers. Sowell argues that the more substantive arguments for flaunting our immigration laws are just as phony.
How about the argument that "We can't catch all the illegals"? That's true, but should we apply that principle to other illegal acts? For example, we can't catch every rapist or burglar, but does it follow that we shouldn't try?
The base motives for much of the political response to illegal aliens are fear of losing the Hispanic vote and pressure by employers who want to maintain a source of cheap labor. Politicians are calling for "guest worker" programs, but they're really calling for amnesty. They are fearful of actually using that term because they know it's political suicide, but the "guest worker" proposal is essentially the same as amnesty.
The word amnesty comes from the Greek "amnestia," defined in part as: "the selective overlooking or ignoring of those events or acts that are not favorable or useful to one's purpose or position." That's what the proposed guest worker program essentially says: forget that you're here illegally.
In principle, the solution to people being in our country illegally is simple. No one in the country illegally should be eligible to receive any social services except emergency medical services. Efforts should be made to deport illegal aliens. Our borders should be made secure both against illegal entry of persons and potential threats to national security.
Finally, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services procedures for obtaining work permits and citizenship should be streamlined so that law-abiding people around the world can more easily contribute to and enjoy America's greatness.
The Proposed FY 2007 County Operating Budget: Costly to the Taxpayer!
By Chuck Lapinski
Public Finance and Utilities Chairman
Montgomery County Civic Federation
March 11, 2006
Our March program will focus on the Montgomery County operating budget issues. The Executive’s proposed FY 2007 Operating Budget for the County will be submitted to the County Council on Wednesday March 15th, two days after our Delegate’s meeting. Even though we will not have the proposed budget to work with, there are a large number of problems and issues that we need to understand in preparation for developing and submitting our testimony the first week of April. The County Council begins hearings on the proposed operating budget prior to our April Delegates meeting.
Invited panelists include Members of the County Council, and representatives from the Executive Branch (Executive’s Staff and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). They will address the following areas:
- Council exercise of its Oversight and Accountability responsibilities
- Spending Affordability Process, Prudence and Discipline
- Priorities and Constraints
- Short Term Perspective: Avoiding Long Term Implications
- Budget Optimism and Realism: Still Waiting for a Prudence Miracle!
- Forecast: Is it time for a Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) added to the County Charter? The forgotten Lessons of Fairness in Taxation and Tax Cap Now!
- Trends and Growth in Revenue Sources
- Personal Income Taxes: Receipts heading higher but at a lower rate?
- Property Taxes and Property Assessments: Huge Reassessments
- Construction Impact Taxes and Fees: Promise vs. Reality!
- Other Miscellaneous Taxes and Fees: Receipts trending up
- Operating Budget Cost Drivers
- Employee Total Compensation: Need for a Comprehensive Review!
- Benefits: Health costs continue to spiral up in both the Public and Private sector
- Lack of Cost Estimating Realism in Project Estimates
- How to do Cost and Schedule Risk
- Project Cost Tracking and Traceability
- Productivity Improvements
- Process and Equipment Recapitalization
- Reserve Funds (Rainy Day) Accounts: Time to rebuild
Early indications suggest that every source of revenue will continue to increase but at a lower rate at least for the next year or two. This revenue projection continues a significant turnaround from several years ago. The biggest increases in magnitude will come from property taxes and income taxes. This follows several years of increasing tax rates and fees. In some areas, expenditures should actually slow down, particularly in the area of education. This year, enrollment was again a little lower than projected. For about ten years, the school enrollment increased an about of 3,000 students per year, and this year it is essentially flat from last year. Could future enrollments actually decrease over the next 5-10 years? It happened about 20 years ago. So, you would expect some cost avoidance (savings!) from the lower enrollment rate. So far it has not happened. The long-awaited Inspector General's (IG) report on Seven Locks Elementary School (SLES) tells of MCPS officials who engaged in misinformation on this unnecessarily costly project. We are finally getting to the stage of assessing Fines in the Clarsburg and other zoning violations. Has MCPS and P&P done its job? Thus there are some major accountability issues that need to be addressed by the Council, including its complicity by its lax exercising of its Fiduciary and accountability responsibilities. Heavy maintenance on County infrastructure and services expansion consistent with our growth were curtailed. It is time to catch up on maintenance of the County infrastructure, rather than undertaking any new initiatives even if it is an election year. Wouldn’t it be somewhat of a miracle if Council candidates actually ran a campaign on responsibility and accountability?
Given that there is a flush revenue situation, the decisions we make about our capital and operating budgets must be guided by Prudence, and the principle of Fairness and Equitableness to the Taxpayers and to the schools and county Employees.
Our objective is to gain some insight into what this proposed budget may mean to you, the county citizen and taxpayer, and how we should guide its prudent use.
A Lesson in Tax Laws
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that
every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to
$100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this.
The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth
would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth
$12, the ninth $18,and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay
$59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the
restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement
-- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a
tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to
reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for
the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for
free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How
could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get
his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if
they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man
and The sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So
the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce
each man's bill by roughly the same amount,and he proceeded to
work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the
seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving
the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their
savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth
man, but he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!". "Yeah,
that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar,
too, ........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back
when I got only $2?" The wealthy get all the breaks!". Wait a
minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS
short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors,
is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest
taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the
table anymore.
Where would that leave the rest?
Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight-forward logic!
T. Davies
Professor of Accounting & Chair,
Division of Accounting and Business Law
The University of South Dakota
School of Business
414 E. Clark Street
Vermillion, SD 57069
Phone: 605-677-5230
Fax: 605-677-5427
-submitted by Charles Stansfield
The Truth about Social Security:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA)
Program. He promised:
- That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
- That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first
$1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
- That the money the participants elected to put into the Program
would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
- That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust
Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no
other Government program, and,
- That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as
income.
Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it
in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security benefits?
A: The Democratic party.
Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security benefits?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.
Q: Which party decided to give your Social Security money to immigrants?
A: That's right, the Democratic Party. Immigrants that move into this
country at 65 get SSI even if they have never paid a dime into the system. This is costing us millions of dollars.
Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away from you. The worst
part about it is that people forget who did what!
- submitted by Charles Stansfield, with additional input from Kal Shmueli, Fort Lauderdale, FL
Links
Go to News, Commentary
Web Logs
These links are intended to let our Party members know about some of the wonderful conservative web logs that are now available.
Republican Party Links
General Links
| Voter Registration Information
| USA Freedom Corps
|
| The George C. Marshall Institute, a non-profit institution dedicated to providing rigorous, unbiased technical analyses of scientific issues which impact public policy.
| National Review
|
| Toward Tradition, a national educational movement of Jews and Christians and other Americans seeking to advance the nation toward traditional, faith based, American principles of constitutional and limited government, the rule of law, representative democracy, free markets, a strong military, and a moral public culture.
| Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a free market public policy research organization.
|
| Maryland Public Policy Institute
|
| Montgomery County Civic Federation
|
| CPAC - Conservative Political Action Committee
| BAEO - Black Alliance for Educational Options
|
| smartertimes.com
| Roll Call
|
| The Reagan Ranch Program
| Free Cuba Foundation
|
| The Cato Institute
| Freedom House
|
| Institute for Justice
| The Heritage Foundation "Leadership for America"
|
| MARYLAND MATTERS, devoted exclusively to Maryland news and politics.
| GOP USA - Maryland
|
| Maryland Taxpayers Association
| The Daily Record
|
| Maryland Tax Education Foundation
| The Washington Times
|
| Montgomery Journal Newspaper
| Sauerbrey Online
|
| GOP USA
| Fox News Channel
|
| NewsMax.com
| RealClearPolitics
|
| Drudge Report
| Weekly Standard
|
Quotable Quotes
