In Arizona they march and they protest. Every night the major networks news program hosts speak of their outrage. They are, of course, the people who oppose Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. Even though they are organized and make a lot of noise, recent polling suggests the protestors are really a small number of people. In fact 60% of all voters favor a law that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal alien (1).
Maybe one reason so many people support this law is the fact that each year over 130,000 sex crimes are committed by illegal aliens in our country. Over 82,000 of these crimes are committed by illegal aliens that have been deported and then re-entered our country illegally (2). This is an outrage.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) our Federal and Local governments will spend over $61 billion in 2010 providing social services to illegal immigrants. The cost to provide these services in 2020 is expected to rise to $106 billion (3). This for sure is an outrage.
Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa has released statistics that he says show illegal aliens are responsible for 4,380 murders and 4,745 drunken driving fatalities each year. Representative King’s statistics are disputed by many groups but the point he has made is that even one American citizen being killed by an illegal alien is definitely an outrage.
Many people would like to see all 20 million illegal aliens in our country (4) rounded up and given a one way ticket back to the country from which they came. I am a conservative and I have always believed we have to take some form of action but I know any action has always been impossible to implement as there are only about 17,000 border patrol agents (5) and approximately15, 000 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents (6). This is just not enough agents to get the job done.
If the legislatures in all 50 states had the fortitude that Arizona’s legislature has displayed every state would have a statute that mirrors Federal law as Arizona’s does. This would bring 800,000 general law enforcement officers employed by local, county and state governments (7) into the illegal immigrant fracas. Surely 800,000 officers could, in a short a period of time probably, apprehend and deport the 20 million people that are in our country illegally.
There is no doubt though that deportation alone is not enough. In September 2009 the U.S. Border patrol reported that there are 1,300 miles of Southern border not under effective control (8). There must be a deterrent to prevent people crossing the Southern Border illegally and I believe the best way to accomplish this would be to have a true wall along the border. Not just any wall will do though. It should be a wall 20 feet high and topped with chain link fencing. That chain link fencing should be charged with a gazillion volts of electricity and all the appropriate warning signs places on it. If someone did try to climb that fence it wouldn’t take long for word to get around that it is not a good idea to try and enter the United States illegally.
Yes there are small groups of people expressing their outrage concerning a law that most Americans agree with and these people are garnering some attention from the major networks. I only wish there was a network that would report the outrage I feel when I think of people who are in our country illegally and are receiving my tax dollars and committing crimes.
(1)www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/58_favor_welcoming_immigration_policy
(2) www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_sex_crimes.html
(3) www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16723&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
(4) Robert Justich and Betty Ng “The Underground Labor Force is rising to the surface” Bear Sterne, January 3, 2005
(5) www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54514
(6) http://wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement
(7) www.allcountries.org/uscensus/354_general_purpose_law_enforcement_agencies_number.html
(8) www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54514
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tax Freedom Day
I have a friend that attended the anti-tax rallies that took place on April 15th. This friend is active in the local Tea Party movement and taxes are his favorite issue. Naturally like many of the tea partiers he believes Americans are overtaxed and there is a need for a reduction in services provided by Federal, State and Local governments. I believe my friend’s favorite day each year is “Tax Freedom Day” as determined by the think tank group at the Tax Foundation.
According to Tax Foundation this year’s Tax Freedom Day was April 9th, the 99th day of 2010 (1). This is the date that Tax Foundation claims all Americans will have paid enough taxes to pay for governments spending for the year. If President Obama’s $1.3 trillion dollar deficit is to be included in this calculation the actual Tax Freedom Day would really be May 17th, the 137th day of the year (2).
I wonder on what date Tax Freedom Day would be if the national debt were included in the Tax Foundation’s calculations. Currently the United States’ national debt is almost $13 trillion (3). $13 trillion represents almost 90% of our country’s Gross Domestic Product. In other words it would take 90% of everything made by everyone in the entire country for one year to pay off the national debt. My crude calculations would make October 26th, the 329th day of the year, Tax Freedom Day.
President Obama has formed a commission that is tasked with the difficult if not impossible goal of reducing the national debt and deficits. The President has promised there is no program that is sacred and everything in government will be considered with regard to saving money. This will be a very difficult objective for the commission as our nations unfunded liabilities are projected to be over $108 trillion. This is such a large number I’ll bet the calculators at the Tax Foundation will crash and burn trying to figure out when Tax Freedom Day will be.
Nearly all of this unfunded liability comes originates with programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There are only two ways to keep these programs; either reduce benefits or raise taxes. These programs are extremely popular among voters and it will be interesting to learn which of the two choices, or a combination of both, will politicians make. It is evident that Americans are comfortable with their social programs and will not want to give them up. Personally I believe that in future years every American will be paying higher taxes.
I am sure many of the Tea Partiers like my friend have not even considered when Tax Freedom Day really is. One thing is certain though and that is Tax Freedom Day is not April 9th or May 17th or even October 26th.
My tax hating Tea Party friend will surely be saddened when he realizes that there probably never will be a Tax Freedom Day in the United States.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
Carl D. Goodson is the author of “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?”
(1) www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
(2) Ibid.
(3) www.usdebtclock.org
According to Tax Foundation this year’s Tax Freedom Day was April 9th, the 99th day of 2010 (1). This is the date that Tax Foundation claims all Americans will have paid enough taxes to pay for governments spending for the year. If President Obama’s $1.3 trillion dollar deficit is to be included in this calculation the actual Tax Freedom Day would really be May 17th, the 137th day of the year (2).
I wonder on what date Tax Freedom Day would be if the national debt were included in the Tax Foundation’s calculations. Currently the United States’ national debt is almost $13 trillion (3). $13 trillion represents almost 90% of our country’s Gross Domestic Product. In other words it would take 90% of everything made by everyone in the entire country for one year to pay off the national debt. My crude calculations would make October 26th, the 329th day of the year, Tax Freedom Day.
President Obama has formed a commission that is tasked with the difficult if not impossible goal of reducing the national debt and deficits. The President has promised there is no program that is sacred and everything in government will be considered with regard to saving money. This will be a very difficult objective for the commission as our nations unfunded liabilities are projected to be over $108 trillion. This is such a large number I’ll bet the calculators at the Tax Foundation will crash and burn trying to figure out when Tax Freedom Day will be.
Nearly all of this unfunded liability comes originates with programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There are only two ways to keep these programs; either reduce benefits or raise taxes. These programs are extremely popular among voters and it will be interesting to learn which of the two choices, or a combination of both, will politicians make. It is evident that Americans are comfortable with their social programs and will not want to give them up. Personally I believe that in future years every American will be paying higher taxes.
I am sure many of the Tea Partiers like my friend have not even considered when Tax Freedom Day really is. One thing is certain though and that is Tax Freedom Day is not April 9th or May 17th or even October 26th.
My tax hating Tea Party friend will surely be saddened when he realizes that there probably never will be a Tax Freedom Day in the United States.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
Carl D. Goodson is the author of “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?”
(1) www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
(2) Ibid.
(3) www.usdebtclock.org
Sunday, April 25, 2010
practicing socialism
Anyone that watches Fox News knows that opinion show host Sean Hannity does not hide the fact that he considers President Obama to be a committed Socialist. Any liberal guest that appears on his show is asked if they follow the Karl Marx axiom of “To each according to his needs; from each according to his abilities”. Hannity makes it crystal clear he believes our President is a devout believer of this. In fact Hannity has asked the question so often it made me wonder if this country is indeed on the path to Socialism.
One of the basic concepts of socialism is everyone will contribute to a pool of finite resources that are then doled out to each individual equally. Much like Socialist societies, businesses also have a finite amount of resources that are designated to pay employee wages. Just as citizens living in a Socialist society contribute to the collective by paying extraordinarily high income taxes, workers in our society contribute to the corporation through their labor.
Generally speaking, labor unions demand their members be treated equally with regards to pay and benefits. In this manner unions depress the wages of very productive workers and increase the wages of less productive or incompetent workers. This is detrimental to the business in that overall productivity is not as great as it would be if the less productive workers were replaced. For sure an atmosphere of mediocrity is fostered in such an environment.
Another basic premise of Socialist societies is that the elderly will have their needs provided to them by the younger workers. The United Auto Workers Union practices this belief with the provisions in their contracts that provide for life time wages and health care to be paid for by the Detroit automobile manufacturers.
It is widely acknowledged that these “legacy” cost were a major contributor to the fiscal problems the American auto manufacturers have experienced in the last several years. It is unrealistic to believe these corporations can provide for every need of these former employees while they are no longer providing a benefit to the corporation.
The UAW claims they have made major concessions to the auto companies that will result in less benefits for retirees but these concessions apply only to newly hired people. Anyone employed before these negotiations took place will still receive the benefits agreed to in previous contracts regardless of the effect these agreements have on the company‘s bottom line.
Without a doubt some blame must be placed on the executive officers of these companies that agreed to these contracts but we should understand the executives were held hostage by a labor force that considered only one interest; that of it’s members. Management could not endure work stoppages that would produce a reduction in the number of cars produced and thereby cost these companies a vital share of the auto market.
In the past 16 months we have seen the government take control of two car companies and several lending and investment institutions. Most recently we have witnessed the government take the first steps toward a single payer health care industry. Many Americans consider these government involvements in private business to be acts of a Socialist society.
Conservatives like Sean Hannity will always argue with Liberals about whether President Obama is a Socialist or not but one thing is certain, it didn’t take me very long to realize one of the oldest and most prominent groups that practices socialism is labor unions.
One of the basic concepts of socialism is everyone will contribute to a pool of finite resources that are then doled out to each individual equally. Much like Socialist societies, businesses also have a finite amount of resources that are designated to pay employee wages. Just as citizens living in a Socialist society contribute to the collective by paying extraordinarily high income taxes, workers in our society contribute to the corporation through their labor.
Generally speaking, labor unions demand their members be treated equally with regards to pay and benefits. In this manner unions depress the wages of very productive workers and increase the wages of less productive or incompetent workers. This is detrimental to the business in that overall productivity is not as great as it would be if the less productive workers were replaced. For sure an atmosphere of mediocrity is fostered in such an environment.
Another basic premise of Socialist societies is that the elderly will have their needs provided to them by the younger workers. The United Auto Workers Union practices this belief with the provisions in their contracts that provide for life time wages and health care to be paid for by the Detroit automobile manufacturers.
It is widely acknowledged that these “legacy” cost were a major contributor to the fiscal problems the American auto manufacturers have experienced in the last several years. It is unrealistic to believe these corporations can provide for every need of these former employees while they are no longer providing a benefit to the corporation.
The UAW claims they have made major concessions to the auto companies that will result in less benefits for retirees but these concessions apply only to newly hired people. Anyone employed before these negotiations took place will still receive the benefits agreed to in previous contracts regardless of the effect these agreements have on the company‘s bottom line.
Without a doubt some blame must be placed on the executive officers of these companies that agreed to these contracts but we should understand the executives were held hostage by a labor force that considered only one interest; that of it’s members. Management could not endure work stoppages that would produce a reduction in the number of cars produced and thereby cost these companies a vital share of the auto market.
In the past 16 months we have seen the government take control of two car companies and several lending and investment institutions. Most recently we have witnessed the government take the first steps toward a single payer health care industry. Many Americans consider these government involvements in private business to be acts of a Socialist society.
Conservatives like Sean Hannity will always argue with Liberals about whether President Obama is a Socialist or not but one thing is certain, it didn’t take me very long to realize one of the oldest and most prominent groups that practices socialism is labor unions.
Friday, April 16, 2010
A State of Mind
In the last 15 months we have witnessed the government takeover of two car companies, the nation’s health care insurance industry and several banks after former President Bush in a non-conservative move declared them too big to fail. Since when has any company in America been too big to fail? The politicians in Washington have seen fit to become the sole provider of loans for college students and have decided they alone, not the free market, should determine the salaries of top officials in publicly traded companies.
Now Representative Wexler of California is subpoenaing executives of several large corporations because they have taken a charge against their records because of the recently passed health care reform. It seems that the Congressman is upset these companies are tainting the public’s perception of the new program. Never mind these companies are required by law to declare this new expense to shareholders.
Now Senator Schumer has asked a court to prevent an airline from charging $45 for carry on luggage. This thought process has become the norm for the Democrats in Congress. The free market should determine if this airline has made a wise business decision. They, as all businesses should, either sink or swim based on their decision.
null
Now Representative Wexler of California is subpoenaing executives of several large corporations because they have taken a charge against their records because of the recently passed health care reform. It seems that the Congressman is upset these companies are tainting the public’s perception of the new program. Never mind these companies are required by law to declare this new expense to shareholders.
Now Senator Schumer has asked a court to prevent an airline from charging $45 for carry on luggage. This thought process has become the norm for the Democrats in Congress. The free market should determine if this airline has made a wise business decision. They, as all businesses should, either sink or swim based on their decision.
null
Monday, April 12, 2010
open registration
How can the President and his Democrat cronies expect to retain control of Congress when recent polling shows that the majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction? The answer is in the legislation that is currently being written by Sen. Chuck Shumer and Congressman Barney Frank.This legislation is known as "open registration". Open registration will allow the government to register to vote anyone and everyone that receives social assistance of any kind. Estimates of the number of adult illegal immigrants in the United States range from ten and one-half million to 17 million. Most if not all of these illegal immigrants receive some type of assistance ranging from free lunch programs for their kids to welfare to food stamps to WIC and Medicaid. All of these illegals will now be registered to vote and will have a say in determining who our next President will be.
Open registration will also override some states laws that prohibit convicted felons and mentally disturbed people from voting. This legislation will place the burden of proving these people are not qualified to vote on the government instead of making these people prove they deserve the right and the privilege of voting.
Whatever happened to registering to vote and showing a photo identification at the voting poll. The Democrats now believe they have found a way to add 20 to 30 million voters to their core voting base.Almost 50% of Americans pay no taxes and in fact receive some type of benefit from the government and will not vote out the politicians that provide these benefits, adding these previously ineligible voters to the rolls will give the Democrats a majority that will be extremely difficult for conservatives to overcome.
Dictatorships are born this way. Shrewd leaders know that a populace that is dependent on the government will not change or overthrow the government that provides their existence.
Carl D. Goodson
Open registration will also override some states laws that prohibit convicted felons and mentally disturbed people from voting. This legislation will place the burden of proving these people are not qualified to vote on the government instead of making these people prove they deserve the right and the privilege of voting.
Whatever happened to registering to vote and showing a photo identification at the voting poll. The Democrats now believe they have found a way to add 20 to 30 million voters to their core voting base.Almost 50% of Americans pay no taxes and in fact receive some type of benefit from the government and will not vote out the politicians that provide these benefits, adding these previously ineligible voters to the rolls will give the Democrats a majority that will be extremely difficult for conservatives to overcome.
Dictatorships are born this way. Shrewd leaders know that a populace that is dependent on the government will not change or overthrow the government that provides their existence.
Carl D. Goodson
Saturday, April 3, 2010
When I awoke this morning I noticed the crawler that was creeping across the bottom of the news cast was touting the Presidents plan to expand the area of offshore waters that are open for the exploration of oil.
Critics of the expansion of drilling claim that it would take at least five to ten years for increased drilling activity to impact the price of oil. While I know this is true I also know the sooner we get started the sooner more Americans will find well paying jobs. The oil and gas industry is directly responsible for 9.2 million jobs (1) and the expansion of the industry to its full potential could easily create another nine million jobs.
Environmentalist worry that drilling will cause pollution of the oceans but the fact is that natural oil seeps on the ocean floor account for 60% of all oil in North American waters while releases from oil platforms account for only about one percent of the oil in these same waters (2).
I have been employed in the offshore oil and gas industry for most of my adult life so when I heard this announcement I was cautiously optimistic concerning the long term economic benefits this act would provide our nation. With our unemployment rate continually hovering near 10% coupled with the fact that our economy loses over three hundred billion dollars per year to foreign oil companies and governments would seem to indicate the expansion of drilling activity in offshore waters would be a common sense proposition. Results of some of the most recent polling demonstrate that the majority of Americans support offshore drilling by a 72% to 28% margin while 59% of Americans believe drilling should be allowed of the coast of California and the New England states (3).
While I am enjoying dinner this evening and watching the nightly news I am disappointed to discover the President is opening only a small portion of our country’s available oil rich outer continental shelf. He is leaving off limits the oil rich waters of the Pacific Ocean and the near coastal waters of the State of Florida.
This action is a decision that has angered both the Republican Party and the President’s anti-drilling Liberal base and places the President in the middle of an argument that has persisted for years between pro-drilling factions and anti-drilling environmental protection groups. True conservatives in the Republican Party believe this action does not go far enough, that it is still places too many oil rich lands off limits. Environmental groups that supported Mr. Obama’s Presidential campaign sees this action as a stab in the back because the promises he made to emphasize “green” renewable sources of energy and curtail oil drilling seem to have been abandoned.
When I was growing up my father taught me the middle of an argument was never a good place to be, that you would catch heck from both sides. The President obviously was not taught this. The President has once again managed to simultaneously anger conservative opposition groups and his liberal base of supporters.
There is a wives tale that says cats have nine lives. One has to wonder how many political “lives” this President has remaining.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, a suburb of Houston TX and is the author of “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?”
(1) www.energytomorrow.org/Industry_Jobs.aspx
(2) http://books.nap.edu/html/oil_in_the_sea/reportbrief.pdf
(3) www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/offshore_drilling/72_support_offshore_drilling_59_favor_it_california_and_new_england
Critics of the expansion of drilling claim that it would take at least five to ten years for increased drilling activity to impact the price of oil. While I know this is true I also know the sooner we get started the sooner more Americans will find well paying jobs. The oil and gas industry is directly responsible for 9.2 million jobs (1) and the expansion of the industry to its full potential could easily create another nine million jobs.
Environmentalist worry that drilling will cause pollution of the oceans but the fact is that natural oil seeps on the ocean floor account for 60% of all oil in North American waters while releases from oil platforms account for only about one percent of the oil in these same waters (2).
I have been employed in the offshore oil and gas industry for most of my adult life so when I heard this announcement I was cautiously optimistic concerning the long term economic benefits this act would provide our nation. With our unemployment rate continually hovering near 10% coupled with the fact that our economy loses over three hundred billion dollars per year to foreign oil companies and governments would seem to indicate the expansion of drilling activity in offshore waters would be a common sense proposition. Results of some of the most recent polling demonstrate that the majority of Americans support offshore drilling by a 72% to 28% margin while 59% of Americans believe drilling should be allowed of the coast of California and the New England states (3).
While I am enjoying dinner this evening and watching the nightly news I am disappointed to discover the President is opening only a small portion of our country’s available oil rich outer continental shelf. He is leaving off limits the oil rich waters of the Pacific Ocean and the near coastal waters of the State of Florida.
This action is a decision that has angered both the Republican Party and the President’s anti-drilling Liberal base and places the President in the middle of an argument that has persisted for years between pro-drilling factions and anti-drilling environmental protection groups. True conservatives in the Republican Party believe this action does not go far enough, that it is still places too many oil rich lands off limits. Environmental groups that supported Mr. Obama’s Presidential campaign sees this action as a stab in the back because the promises he made to emphasize “green” renewable sources of energy and curtail oil drilling seem to have been abandoned.
When I was growing up my father taught me the middle of an argument was never a good place to be, that you would catch heck from both sides. The President obviously was not taught this. The President has once again managed to simultaneously anger conservative opposition groups and his liberal base of supporters.
There is a wives tale that says cats have nine lives. One has to wonder how many political “lives” this President has remaining.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, a suburb of Houston TX and is the author of “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?”
(1) www.energytomorrow.org/Industry_Jobs.aspx
(2) http://books.nap.edu/html/oil_in_the_sea/reportbrief.pdf
(3) www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/offshore_drilling/72_support_offshore_drilling_59_favor_it_california_and_new_england
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Third party payer
Once again there is talk in Washington that the public option may be a component of President Obama’s health care plan. The President has repeatedly stated his desire for a single payer or “universal”, health care system in the United States and has spent much of the past week demonizing insurance companies.
Liberals and Conservatives are constantly debating the proposed health care plan with each side holding firmly to their beliefs. Liberals believe that only the government has the size or the power needed to provide equal health care for all and the greedy insurance companies need to be regulated out of existence. Conservatives believe the capitalist system with it’s free markets are the responsible and correct way to proceed.
Liberals will recite tales of the horror insurance companies have inflicted upon families or they will numb you with statistics detailing how many Americans have been forced to declare bankruptcy because of the lack of coverage some 30 million people face every day. Liberals will shock you with tales of people that are forced to wear their dead sister’s dentures because they cannot afford to buy their own and then try to convince you the government has all the answers to all problems.
Conservatives will warn of the control government will have over ordinary Americans. They will speak of the cost of the plan which they claim will be much higher than the cost forecast by the Presidents administration. Conservatives will swear that free market principles such as portability, tort reform and health savings accounts are the type of reform needed.
The truth is there is almost no difference between a single payer system and the system currently in place except the single payer makes individual participation mandatory while the current system depends upon voluntary participation. A single payer system would collect premiums in the form of taxes and then reimburse health care providers. Since 50% of Americans pay no taxes they will be subsidized by those working Americans that do pay taxes, making this a wholly socialistic plan. Insurance companies act as a single payer system in that they collect premiums from individuals and reimburse health care providers but they also keep a percentage as profit.
As long as there are third parties such as insurance companies or a government paying the health care tab in America there are no real free market forces at work. A true free market would be a market in which each individual would be responsible for his or her health care. Free market forces known as supply and demand would determine the cost of health care.
Humans rights come from a creator not a government and in America health care has always been considered a commodity, not a right. To make health care a right instead of a commodity would shift the responsibility for one persons decisions onto another person thereby infringing upon that persons right to not care about anyone else.
Just remember, any right the government provides can also be taken away.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX 77531
Carl is the author of the book “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?”
www.carldgoodson.com
Liberals and Conservatives are constantly debating the proposed health care plan with each side holding firmly to their beliefs. Liberals believe that only the government has the size or the power needed to provide equal health care for all and the greedy insurance companies need to be regulated out of existence. Conservatives believe the capitalist system with it’s free markets are the responsible and correct way to proceed.
Liberals will recite tales of the horror insurance companies have inflicted upon families or they will numb you with statistics detailing how many Americans have been forced to declare bankruptcy because of the lack of coverage some 30 million people face every day. Liberals will shock you with tales of people that are forced to wear their dead sister’s dentures because they cannot afford to buy their own and then try to convince you the government has all the answers to all problems.
Conservatives will warn of the control government will have over ordinary Americans. They will speak of the cost of the plan which they claim will be much higher than the cost forecast by the Presidents administration. Conservatives will swear that free market principles such as portability, tort reform and health savings accounts are the type of reform needed.
The truth is there is almost no difference between a single payer system and the system currently in place except the single payer makes individual participation mandatory while the current system depends upon voluntary participation. A single payer system would collect premiums in the form of taxes and then reimburse health care providers. Since 50% of Americans pay no taxes they will be subsidized by those working Americans that do pay taxes, making this a wholly socialistic plan. Insurance companies act as a single payer system in that they collect premiums from individuals and reimburse health care providers but they also keep a percentage as profit.
As long as there are third parties such as insurance companies or a government paying the health care tab in America there are no real free market forces at work. A true free market would be a market in which each individual would be responsible for his or her health care. Free market forces known as supply and demand would determine the cost of health care.
Humans rights come from a creator not a government and in America health care has always been considered a commodity, not a right. To make health care a right instead of a commodity would shift the responsibility for one persons decisions onto another person thereby infringing upon that persons right to not care about anyone else.
Just remember, any right the government provides can also be taken away.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX 77531
Carl is the author of the book “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?”
www.carldgoodson.com
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The right to work?
While campaigning for the Presidency Senator Barak Obama promised organized labor he would make enacting the Employee Free Choice Act (card-check) legislation, which would eliminate the secret ballot to unionize a work place, one of his priorities if he was elected. After more than one year in office the President has not acted upon his promise. Leaders of organized labor are becoming concerned about the lack of progress and union members are beginning to voice their disapproval.
Many people feel the card-check legislation would undermine legislation passed in right-to-work states. Many Americans live in states that are known as forced union states where there are no right to work laws and therefore they are required to join a union if they land a job at a unionized work site. Most people feel forcing someone to join a union as a condition of employment is un-American. Currently there are only 22 states that have right-to-work laws and most of these states are in the south.
Organized labor opposes right-to-work laws because they say workers can be “free riders” by choosing not to join a union thereby denying the union the fees that members pay. The reality is that three out of every four employees covered by union contracts opt to join the union and pay dues (1). Union officials argue that wages and benefits are higher in unionized states and that fewer occupational injuries occur in unionized settings. The truth is that in almost every measurable category statistics show citizens that reside in states with a right-to-work law fare better economically than citizens in states that have no right-to-work legislation.
During what President Obama calls the worst economic crisis of our time, right-to-work states had job growth at .1% while forced union states lost .3% of their jobs (2). A telling statistic concerns construction job growth; in the last five years of available data construction jobs in right-to -work states have grown at a rate of 10.6% compared to 1.8% in forced union states (3).
Union officials claim that wages are 6.5% lower in right-to-work states than forced union states (4) but that difference disappears when local cost of living is accounted for (5). Workers in right-to-work states enjoy a faster growth rate in real disposable income, 15.8% versus 9.1%, than workers in forced union states and they have a higher disposable income at $34,878 versus $32,811 (6). There are only seven residents per 1,000 that receive welfare in right-to-work states as opposed to forced union states where the rate is more than doubled at 16 in every 1,000 (7).
While it is true the rate of fatal injuries is higher in right-to-work states as a group, three of the four states with the highest rate of fatal injuries are forced union states, with Wyoming being the exception (8).
The Employee Free Choice Act is being debated in both houses of Congress and enjoys broad support among Democrats but is opposed by conservative Republicans. Contrary to the statements made by union supporters, enacting “card-check” will undermine right-to-work laws. It is a fact enacting “card-check” will lower the standard of living for every one in all right to work states.
Carl Goodson is the author of “Letters to the editor; What is your government doing to you?”
(1) www.mackinac.org/9180
(2) www.mackinac.org/10515
(3) Ibid.
(4) www.wslc.org/legis/ri-work.htm
(5)www.mackinac.org/9180
(6) www.nilrr.org/files/NILRR%20FACT%20SHEET%20RTW%20States%20Benefit%202009.pdf
(7) Ibid.
(8) www.mackinac.org/9180
Many people feel the card-check legislation would undermine legislation passed in right-to-work states. Many Americans live in states that are known as forced union states where there are no right to work laws and therefore they are required to join a union if they land a job at a unionized work site. Most people feel forcing someone to join a union as a condition of employment is un-American. Currently there are only 22 states that have right-to-work laws and most of these states are in the south.
Organized labor opposes right-to-work laws because they say workers can be “free riders” by choosing not to join a union thereby denying the union the fees that members pay. The reality is that three out of every four employees covered by union contracts opt to join the union and pay dues (1). Union officials argue that wages and benefits are higher in unionized states and that fewer occupational injuries occur in unionized settings. The truth is that in almost every measurable category statistics show citizens that reside in states with a right-to-work law fare better economically than citizens in states that have no right-to-work legislation.
During what President Obama calls the worst economic crisis of our time, right-to-work states had job growth at .1% while forced union states lost .3% of their jobs (2). A telling statistic concerns construction job growth; in the last five years of available data construction jobs in right-to -work states have grown at a rate of 10.6% compared to 1.8% in forced union states (3).
Union officials claim that wages are 6.5% lower in right-to-work states than forced union states (4) but that difference disappears when local cost of living is accounted for (5). Workers in right-to-work states enjoy a faster growth rate in real disposable income, 15.8% versus 9.1%, than workers in forced union states and they have a higher disposable income at $34,878 versus $32,811 (6). There are only seven residents per 1,000 that receive welfare in right-to-work states as opposed to forced union states where the rate is more than doubled at 16 in every 1,000 (7).
While it is true the rate of fatal injuries is higher in right-to-work states as a group, three of the four states with the highest rate of fatal injuries are forced union states, with Wyoming being the exception (8).
The Employee Free Choice Act is being debated in both houses of Congress and enjoys broad support among Democrats but is opposed by conservative Republicans. Contrary to the statements made by union supporters, enacting “card-check” will undermine right-to-work laws. It is a fact enacting “card-check” will lower the standard of living for every one in all right to work states.
Carl Goodson is the author of “Letters to the editor; What is your government doing to you?”
(1) www.mackinac.org/9180
(2) www.mackinac.org/10515
(3) Ibid.
(4) www.wslc.org/legis/ri-work.htm
(5)www.mackinac.org/9180
(6) www.nilrr.org/files/NILRR%20FACT%20SHEET%20RTW%20States%20Benefit%202009.pdf
(7) Ibid.
(8) www.mackinac.org/9180
Monday, February 22, 2010
Wiil American debt lead to war?
On February 11, the 31st anniversary of the Revolution, Iran announced that it had become a nuclear state. Iran has refined uranium well below the 90% purity that is needed for nuclear weapons but many scientists acknowledge that 90% uranium may be only months away due to the great number of centrifuges that Iran possesses. For many years our Intelligence agencies have been warning that Iran was pursuing a nuclear capability and now it seems their warnings have come to fruition.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has stated publicly and repeatedly his desire to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth”. In 1981 Israel bombed and destroyed the nuclear reactor under construction in Baghdad, Iraq. The result of this bombing mission was Saddam Hussein was never able to develop nuclear weapons. In 2007 Israel repeated their attack but this time the target was a reactor in the nation of Syria (1). The world must understand Israel will act independently if they believe they are at risk.
After a wasted year trying to negotiate with Ahmedinejad, President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are now calling for immediate sanctions against Iran. Many experts believe sanctions are not possible because China and Russia have close economic ties with Iran and are members of the U.N. Security council which gives them veto power over all resolutions.
Russia has signed an agricultural and telecommunications agreement with Iran and there is $3.7 billion in trade conducted annually between the two countries. China has become Iran’s largest trading partner and relies on Iran for 11% of its energy needs. Trade between the two countries is now valued at over $36 billion annually (2). Both the Chinese and Russian governments have indicated they will not support sanctions against Iran.
In the United States the Medicare program began paying more in benefits than it collected in tax revenue in 2008 while Social Security will begin to do the same in 2016 (3). Deficits in these two programs will have to be covered by drawing money from the general fund of the United States Treasury. Most of this money will be borrowed from China in the form of Treasury note sales.
Currently the United States is carrying $12.3 trillion in debt (4) and Congress has just voted to increase the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to $14.3 trillion. China and Russia hold a combined $918 billion (about 25%) of the $3.6 trillion the United States owes to foreign countries (5).
On February 10, the day before Iran’s nuclear announcement, the Chinese military threatened to dump its U.S. bonds on the open market (6). This would drive interest rates so high it would disrupt our already ailing economy. It is a fact that China’s position on this issue must be considered before any action is taken against Iran.
If Israel acts militarily against Iran our President will have a difficult choice to make. Will he defend Israel in a war that would surely follow an attack and risk having China destroy our economy or will he forsake Israel to delay the inevitable day of reckoning with our creditors? Israel may already know the answer to that question; one of their ministers, Limor Livnat, was reported to have remarked “Israel has fallen into the hands of a terrible American administration” (7).
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, TX
(1) www.economist.com/world/middleast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15213442
(2) www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/02/09/China-passes-EU-in-trade-with-Iran/UPI-55541265737793
(3) www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
(4) www.usdebtclock.org/
(5) www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
(6) www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/10/chinese-see-us-debt-as-weapon/
(7) www.economist.com/world/middleast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15213442
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has stated publicly and repeatedly his desire to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth”. In 1981 Israel bombed and destroyed the nuclear reactor under construction in Baghdad, Iraq. The result of this bombing mission was Saddam Hussein was never able to develop nuclear weapons. In 2007 Israel repeated their attack but this time the target was a reactor in the nation of Syria (1). The world must understand Israel will act independently if they believe they are at risk.
After a wasted year trying to negotiate with Ahmedinejad, President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are now calling for immediate sanctions against Iran. Many experts believe sanctions are not possible because China and Russia have close economic ties with Iran and are members of the U.N. Security council which gives them veto power over all resolutions.
Russia has signed an agricultural and telecommunications agreement with Iran and there is $3.7 billion in trade conducted annually between the two countries. China has become Iran’s largest trading partner and relies on Iran for 11% of its energy needs. Trade between the two countries is now valued at over $36 billion annually (2). Both the Chinese and Russian governments have indicated they will not support sanctions against Iran.
In the United States the Medicare program began paying more in benefits than it collected in tax revenue in 2008 while Social Security will begin to do the same in 2016 (3). Deficits in these two programs will have to be covered by drawing money from the general fund of the United States Treasury. Most of this money will be borrowed from China in the form of Treasury note sales.
Currently the United States is carrying $12.3 trillion in debt (4) and Congress has just voted to increase the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to $14.3 trillion. China and Russia hold a combined $918 billion (about 25%) of the $3.6 trillion the United States owes to foreign countries (5).
On February 10, the day before Iran’s nuclear announcement, the Chinese military threatened to dump its U.S. bonds on the open market (6). This would drive interest rates so high it would disrupt our already ailing economy. It is a fact that China’s position on this issue must be considered before any action is taken against Iran.
If Israel acts militarily against Iran our President will have a difficult choice to make. Will he defend Israel in a war that would surely follow an attack and risk having China destroy our economy or will he forsake Israel to delay the inevitable day of reckoning with our creditors? Israel may already know the answer to that question; one of their ministers, Limor Livnat, was reported to have remarked “Israel has fallen into the hands of a terrible American administration” (7).
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, TX
(1) www.economist.com/world/middleast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15213442
(2) www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/02/09/China-passes-EU-in-trade-with-Iran/UPI-55541265737793
(3) www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
(4) www.usdebtclock.org/
(5) www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
(6) www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/10/chinese-see-us-debt-as-weapon/
(7) www.economist.com/world/middleast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15213442
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The end of Social Security
On Thursday Feb.18 President Obama signed an executive order creating a “Deficit Reduction Commission” (DRC). Former Senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton Whitehouse Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles have been appointed to lead the commission. Both Simpson and Bowles acknowledge that serious consideration must be given to the Social Security Program which includes Medicare.
Senator Simpson stated that the President has told them that everything is “on the table” and Mr. Bowles says that the discussion cannot start with certain programs or tax increases being declared non-touchable. Sen. Simpson says there are really only two ways to fix Social Security; a) increase taxes or reduce benefits and/or b) institute an affluence test to see if individuals are in real need of benefits. Reducing benefits is a move that would surely anger progressive liberals that believe in big government programs.
Author Paul Waldman writes in 2009 for The American Prospect Magazine “Social Security is not going broke….in fact there is a $2 trillion surplus” (1). The truth is since 1977 the FICA tax that funds Social Security has collected over $14.5 trillion (2) while paying only $10.4 trillion in benefits (3). This has created a $4 trillion surplus over the past 33 years. Social Security suffered irreparable damage with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1965 which allowed any surpluses in the Social Security trust fund to be withdrawn and used by Congress as part of the general fund.
Congress would replace the $4 trillion withdrawn from the trust fund with I.O.U.’s that would be cashed in if the fund ever began to be depleted. Well Congress has managed to spend the extra $4 trillion and now Social Security, for the first time ever, will have outlays that total more than revenues. It is time to begin cashing in those I.O.U.’s but we will have to do that by borrowing from foreign countries as there is no money left in the treasury.
Some conservatives are proponents of abolishing Social Security and Medicare. This idea would create unimaginable hardships for millions of Americans and is the most unlikely if not inevitable conclusion of the DRC. The debate that would follow any such suggestion would surely be one that every American would watch with keen interest.
A co-worker of mine suggested each individual under the age of 65 that has contributed any FICA tax to the system for at least 20 years be refunded their contribution and let them invest it themselves. This would be a means of ending Social Security and still giving Americans back some of their money. This seems like a reasonable proposal (if you do not mind excluding the millions of people age 18 to 44 that have made some form of contribution) but some cursory fact checking reveals that our government cannot afford to even pay these people what is owed them.
Over the last 20 years the average American’s median income is $23,155 (4). The FICA tax paid on $23,155 is $1,435 per year or $28,700 over the last 20 years. There are approximately 85 million people under age 65 that have contributed FICA taxes for at least 20 years. To refund these 85 million people their contributions (without any earned interest) would cost the Treasury almost $2.5 trillion. Once again these payments would be made with money borrowed from foreign nations.
Americans must realize that Social Security and Medicare are the federal budget “busters” and must be reformed before our country can begin to repair its’ financial situation. It is time politicians began telling the citizenry the truth about our finances. Americans are tough and resilient and will deal with any problem that arises as long as we know the real score. I am afraid the only reform that will allow our country to avoid bankruptcy and becoming a third world nation is for everyone to realize there will be no Social Security for them and to plan accordingly.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
www.carldgoodson.com
www.conservativecarl.blogspot.com
(1) www.prospect.org/cs/article?article=there_is_no_social_security_crisis
(2) www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
(3) www.truthandpolitics.org/budget-numbers-intro.php
(4) www.bea.gov/bea/regional/spi/
Senator Simpson stated that the President has told them that everything is “on the table” and Mr. Bowles says that the discussion cannot start with certain programs or tax increases being declared non-touchable. Sen. Simpson says there are really only two ways to fix Social Security; a) increase taxes or reduce benefits and/or b) institute an affluence test to see if individuals are in real need of benefits. Reducing benefits is a move that would surely anger progressive liberals that believe in big government programs.
Author Paul Waldman writes in 2009 for The American Prospect Magazine “Social Security is not going broke….in fact there is a $2 trillion surplus” (1). The truth is since 1977 the FICA tax that funds Social Security has collected over $14.5 trillion (2) while paying only $10.4 trillion in benefits (3). This has created a $4 trillion surplus over the past 33 years. Social Security suffered irreparable damage with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1965 which allowed any surpluses in the Social Security trust fund to be withdrawn and used by Congress as part of the general fund.
Congress would replace the $4 trillion withdrawn from the trust fund with I.O.U.’s that would be cashed in if the fund ever began to be depleted. Well Congress has managed to spend the extra $4 trillion and now Social Security, for the first time ever, will have outlays that total more than revenues. It is time to begin cashing in those I.O.U.’s but we will have to do that by borrowing from foreign countries as there is no money left in the treasury.
Some conservatives are proponents of abolishing Social Security and Medicare. This idea would create unimaginable hardships for millions of Americans and is the most unlikely if not inevitable conclusion of the DRC. The debate that would follow any such suggestion would surely be one that every American would watch with keen interest.
A co-worker of mine suggested each individual under the age of 65 that has contributed any FICA tax to the system for at least 20 years be refunded their contribution and let them invest it themselves. This would be a means of ending Social Security and still giving Americans back some of their money. This seems like a reasonable proposal (if you do not mind excluding the millions of people age 18 to 44 that have made some form of contribution) but some cursory fact checking reveals that our government cannot afford to even pay these people what is owed them.
Over the last 20 years the average American’s median income is $23,155 (4). The FICA tax paid on $23,155 is $1,435 per year or $28,700 over the last 20 years. There are approximately 85 million people under age 65 that have contributed FICA taxes for at least 20 years. To refund these 85 million people their contributions (without any earned interest) would cost the Treasury almost $2.5 trillion. Once again these payments would be made with money borrowed from foreign nations.
Americans must realize that Social Security and Medicare are the federal budget “busters” and must be reformed before our country can begin to repair its’ financial situation. It is time politicians began telling the citizenry the truth about our finances. Americans are tough and resilient and will deal with any problem that arises as long as we know the real score. I am afraid the only reform that will allow our country to avoid bankruptcy and becoming a third world nation is for everyone to realize there will be no Social Security for them and to plan accordingly.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
www.carldgoodson.com
www.conservativecarl.blogspot.com
(1) www.prospect.org/cs/article?article=there_is_no_social_security_crisis
(2) www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
(3) www.truthandpolitics.org/budget-numbers-intro.php
(4) www.bea.gov/bea/regional/spi/
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Could illegal aliens choose our next President?
Along with the New Year comes the once per decade United States census. The more recent censuses have created heated debates and this year is no different. Senator David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, introduced legislation that would require persons not in the country legally to be omitted in the counting of our population.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allowed the bill to come to the floor of the Senate but did not allow any debate to take place. The Vitter amendment was defeated 60 to 39 on a vote that was strictly along party lines. The only Senator not voting was the too liberal Republican John McCain of Arizona.
In 1790 the first Census Act stated that “only bona fide members of a state, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer” shall be counted. The first census actually asked individuals their place of birth to determine if they were a lawful citizen that should be counted (1). The decision to count or not count illegal aliens is a decision that will have consequences for the next decade. Yet many Americans do not realize the ramifications of an inaccurate count of lawful citizens.
Each year there is approximately $400 billion in discretionary funds in the Federal budget. Using data furnished by the census bureau the federal government disperses these funds based on an areas total population (2). The more populated an area is the more federal dollars that area receives for social services such as unemployment benefits. Is it really fair that an area flush with illegal aliens receive more Federal dollars than an area that is more heavily populated with American citizens?
If illegal aliens are counted in the 2010 census nine states, ( Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Oregon), will each lose one representative in the House of Representatives. Four states (California, Texas, Illinois and New York) will gain representatives (3). This means that illegal aliens will have a voice in Congress and influence American policy.
The Electoral College consists of voters from each state called Electors. Each state sends as many Electors to the Electoral College as they have Senators and Representatives. For example if a state has two Senators and 46 Representatives they would send 48 electors to the electoral college.. If illegal aliens are counted in the census and the result is some states losing representatives while others gain representatives, the Electoral College will not reflect the true counting of legal citizens. An example of this is the 2004 Presidential election. Because Illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 census John Kerry received five electoral votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush (4). States with a high population of illegal aliens will have more representation than states with a low population of illegals even if the population of legitimate citizens is the same. Therefore it could be argued that illegal aliens could influence the outcome of an American presidential election. Is this the outcome the American public desires? I believe this is the outcome the liberal politician desires.
Americans should petition Senator Vitter to reintroduce his legislation to the Senate and then contact their Senator and ask them to vote for this bill.
Carl D. Goodson
(1)http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB10001424042970204908604574332950796281832.html
(2) http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21803&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
(3) http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/apportion.pdf?docID=2061
(4) Ibid.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allowed the bill to come to the floor of the Senate but did not allow any debate to take place. The Vitter amendment was defeated 60 to 39 on a vote that was strictly along party lines. The only Senator not voting was the too liberal Republican John McCain of Arizona.
In 1790 the first Census Act stated that “only bona fide members of a state, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer” shall be counted. The first census actually asked individuals their place of birth to determine if they were a lawful citizen that should be counted (1). The decision to count or not count illegal aliens is a decision that will have consequences for the next decade. Yet many Americans do not realize the ramifications of an inaccurate count of lawful citizens.
Each year there is approximately $400 billion in discretionary funds in the Federal budget. Using data furnished by the census bureau the federal government disperses these funds based on an areas total population (2). The more populated an area is the more federal dollars that area receives for social services such as unemployment benefits. Is it really fair that an area flush with illegal aliens receive more Federal dollars than an area that is more heavily populated with American citizens?
If illegal aliens are counted in the 2010 census nine states, ( Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Oregon), will each lose one representative in the House of Representatives. Four states (California, Texas, Illinois and New York) will gain representatives (3). This means that illegal aliens will have a voice in Congress and influence American policy.
The Electoral College consists of voters from each state called Electors. Each state sends as many Electors to the Electoral College as they have Senators and Representatives. For example if a state has two Senators and 46 Representatives they would send 48 electors to the electoral college.. If illegal aliens are counted in the census and the result is some states losing representatives while others gain representatives, the Electoral College will not reflect the true counting of legal citizens. An example of this is the 2004 Presidential election. Because Illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 census John Kerry received five electoral votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush (4). States with a high population of illegal aliens will have more representation than states with a low population of illegals even if the population of legitimate citizens is the same. Therefore it could be argued that illegal aliens could influence the outcome of an American presidential election. Is this the outcome the American public desires? I believe this is the outcome the liberal politician desires.
Americans should petition Senator Vitter to reintroduce his legislation to the Senate and then contact their Senator and ask them to vote for this bill.
Carl D. Goodson
(1)http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB10001424042970204908604574332950796281832.html
(2) http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21803&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
(3) http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/apportion.pdf?docID=2061
(4) Ibid.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Virtual fence
On January 13, 2010 Conses Garcia-Zacarias was sentenced to a maximum of 8-1/3 to 25 years in prison for running over and killing 37 year old Lori Donohue and her eight year old daughter Kayla as they walked from Kayla’s dance class to their car. Garcia-Zacarias was intoxicated at the time of the killings and was in the United States illegally (1).
Angel Maturino Resendiz was arrested 18 times by 11 different Federal or State law enforcement agencies in a 25 year period with the last arrest occurring in Lexington, Kentucky in 1996. From March 23, 1997 until he surrendered to officials in July 1999 he murdered 12 people. A sad fact is Resendiz, after killing eight people, was in custody but was released by immigration enforcement authorities on June 1, 1999. After being released Resendiz continued his murderous ways and committed four more murders (2). Resendiz’s crime spree was so horrific he became known as the “Railway Killer”.
On September 11, 2001 2,973 people lost their lives in the worst single attack ever on U.S. soil. 15 of the 19 hijackers that flew those airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania should have never been issued visas or granted entry into the country (3). As sad and frightening as 9/11 was, most people would be shocked to learn that, on average, 4,380 people each year lose their lives to people that enter our country illegally or overstay their visa’s (4).
In May 2009 President Barak Obama’s de-funded plans to finish the construction of the barrier fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. $147 million was slashed from the barrier project’s budget by the President (5). Now President Obama has submitted his 2011 budget proposal which will eliminate 180 border agent positions and reduces funding for the “virtual” portion of the fence system by $226 million (6).
Given the events of 9/11/2001 it is easy to understand the attention that focuses on any incident involving airplanes. In response to the Christmas day bombing attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab President Obama is shifting resources away from the Southern border and emphasizing air travel security.
In January 2009 our new President signed an executive order authorizing the spending of $400 million annually for abortions performed overseas (7). Now that our country is in an economically challenged position maybe it is time to rethink and re-prioritize our spending. Common sense would dictate that $400 million dollars should be spent protecting American lives instead of being used to kill the unborn in far away countries.
$400 million would replace the $226 million the President has removed from border security activities and still leave a $174 million surplus. How many Border Patrol Agent positions would $174 million create? 1500, 2000 or maybe even more? After the initial $226 million outlay in year one the entire $400 million could be earmarked to secure our nations borders with additional agents and equipment.
A secure non-penetrable border fence is not a tool to practice prejudice against a group of people but rather a tool to ensure the safety of the American citizen that pays for that fence and their safety with their tax money.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
(1) www.lohud.com/article/20100114/NEWS01/1140367/DWI-killer-of-mother--daughter-gets-maximum-sentence
(2) “Invasion” Michelle Malkin Copyright 2002 Regnery Publishing inc. pp.87-102
(3) “Outrage” by Dick Morris and Eileen McCann copyright 2007 HarperCollins Publishing p.21
(4) www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
(5) www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/050809dnnatborderfence.4053ed2.html
(6) www.infowars.com/obama-proposes-to-cut-180-border-patrol-agents/
(7) www.rueters.com/article/idUSTRE50M3PQ20090123
Angel Maturino Resendiz was arrested 18 times by 11 different Federal or State law enforcement agencies in a 25 year period with the last arrest occurring in Lexington, Kentucky in 1996. From March 23, 1997 until he surrendered to officials in July 1999 he murdered 12 people. A sad fact is Resendiz, after killing eight people, was in custody but was released by immigration enforcement authorities on June 1, 1999. After being released Resendiz continued his murderous ways and committed four more murders (2). Resendiz’s crime spree was so horrific he became known as the “Railway Killer”.
On September 11, 2001 2,973 people lost their lives in the worst single attack ever on U.S. soil. 15 of the 19 hijackers that flew those airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania should have never been issued visas or granted entry into the country (3). As sad and frightening as 9/11 was, most people would be shocked to learn that, on average, 4,380 people each year lose their lives to people that enter our country illegally or overstay their visa’s (4).
In May 2009 President Barak Obama’s de-funded plans to finish the construction of the barrier fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. $147 million was slashed from the barrier project’s budget by the President (5). Now President Obama has submitted his 2011 budget proposal which will eliminate 180 border agent positions and reduces funding for the “virtual” portion of the fence system by $226 million (6).
Given the events of 9/11/2001 it is easy to understand the attention that focuses on any incident involving airplanes. In response to the Christmas day bombing attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab President Obama is shifting resources away from the Southern border and emphasizing air travel security.
In January 2009 our new President signed an executive order authorizing the spending of $400 million annually for abortions performed overseas (7). Now that our country is in an economically challenged position maybe it is time to rethink and re-prioritize our spending. Common sense would dictate that $400 million dollars should be spent protecting American lives instead of being used to kill the unborn in far away countries.
$400 million would replace the $226 million the President has removed from border security activities and still leave a $174 million surplus. How many Border Patrol Agent positions would $174 million create? 1500, 2000 or maybe even more? After the initial $226 million outlay in year one the entire $400 million could be earmarked to secure our nations borders with additional agents and equipment.
A secure non-penetrable border fence is not a tool to practice prejudice against a group of people but rather a tool to ensure the safety of the American citizen that pays for that fence and their safety with their tax money.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
(1) www.lohud.com/article/20100114/NEWS01/1140367/DWI-killer-of-mother--daughter-gets-maximum-sentence
(2) “Invasion” Michelle Malkin Copyright 2002 Regnery Publishing inc. pp.87-102
(3) “Outrage” by Dick Morris and Eileen McCann copyright 2007 HarperCollins Publishing p.21
(4) www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
(5) www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/050809dnnatborderfence.4053ed2.html
(6) www.infowars.com/obama-proposes-to-cut-180-border-patrol-agents/
(7) www.rueters.com/article/idUSTRE50M3PQ20090123
Zero Liability Voters
Yesterday I was completing my tax returns for the year just ended when I remembered a passage from a book I had recently read. The author of the book claimed that 50% of Americans pay no income taxes. I thought that 50% seemed excessive so I took the opportunity to conduct an experiment.
For my experiment I assumed I had a decent job that paid me $20 per hour which is $41,600 per year with no overtime. I also decided I had a wife that was the most wonderful stay at home mom in the world and took excellent care of my two young children.
I completed form 1040 from the IRS and took the standard deductions, the child tax credit and, since I would qualify under this scenario, the Earned Income Tax Credit. I couldn’t believe the results I was seeing on paper.
Did you know that if you are married and have children and make up to $23.21 per hour or $48,279 per year the government wants to give you some of my money? That’s right. Our fearless leaders, we call them politicians, have determined you deserve a hand out from the federal government at tax payer expense.
A family of four, two adults and two children that earn $20 per hour ($41,600 per year) will receive 773 taxpayer dollars. This is true even if they had no taxes withheld from their paycheck throughout the year. If they had some payroll tax withheld during the year they would get back every penny they had withheld.
Thanks to a system that has the Earned Income Tax Credit and is totally socialistic, a family of four whose breadwinner earns $20 per hour would have no tax liability and would actually receive welfare from the federal government in the amount of $773.
President Gerald Ford created the earned Income Tax Credit in 1975 and it has been expanded several times most notably by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. 25 million families (by definition at least 50 million people) received the EITC in 2007 but only 6.6 million of these people were at or below the poverty level (1) which was $25,080 or $12.05 per hour at a 40 hour per week job (2).
In our great country no one should live in poverty and the EITC is a great aid to the poorest of people. The 43.4 million people that earn more than the poverty threshold should not be entitled to someone else’s money. I would consider these 43.4 million people to be zero liability voters that will not vote against the party that provides them other people’s money.
The thing American taxpayers need to realize is this is not a Democrat or Republican creation; this is a Democrat and Republican creation. When they disguise their intentions by claiming to help the poor the politicians are buying votes.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
www.conservativeCarl.blogspot.com
www.Carldgoodson.com
(1) www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2505
(2) www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html
For my experiment I assumed I had a decent job that paid me $20 per hour which is $41,600 per year with no overtime. I also decided I had a wife that was the most wonderful stay at home mom in the world and took excellent care of my two young children.
I completed form 1040 from the IRS and took the standard deductions, the child tax credit and, since I would qualify under this scenario, the Earned Income Tax Credit. I couldn’t believe the results I was seeing on paper.
Did you know that if you are married and have children and make up to $23.21 per hour or $48,279 per year the government wants to give you some of my money? That’s right. Our fearless leaders, we call them politicians, have determined you deserve a hand out from the federal government at tax payer expense.
A family of four, two adults and two children that earn $20 per hour ($41,600 per year) will receive 773 taxpayer dollars. This is true even if they had no taxes withheld from their paycheck throughout the year. If they had some payroll tax withheld during the year they would get back every penny they had withheld.
Thanks to a system that has the Earned Income Tax Credit and is totally socialistic, a family of four whose breadwinner earns $20 per hour would have no tax liability and would actually receive welfare from the federal government in the amount of $773.
President Gerald Ford created the earned Income Tax Credit in 1975 and it has been expanded several times most notably by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. 25 million families (by definition at least 50 million people) received the EITC in 2007 but only 6.6 million of these people were at or below the poverty level (1) which was $25,080 or $12.05 per hour at a 40 hour per week job (2).
In our great country no one should live in poverty and the EITC is a great aid to the poorest of people. The 43.4 million people that earn more than the poverty threshold should not be entitled to someone else’s money. I would consider these 43.4 million people to be zero liability voters that will not vote against the party that provides them other people’s money.
The thing American taxpayers need to realize is this is not a Democrat or Republican creation; this is a Democrat and Republican creation. When they disguise their intentions by claiming to help the poor the politicians are buying votes.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
www.conservativeCarl.blogspot.com
www.Carldgoodson.com
(1) www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2505
(2) www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Are Unions in Decline?
Recently, while conducting a signing for my new book at a local store, I was confronted by a patron that became very agitated when he discovered I was a conservative person. This patron began to inform me, in a rather loud attention getting voice, that Ronald Reagan was the worst President to ever lead this country. The main thrust of this man’s tirade was that President Reagan destroyed organized labor.
In response to my questioning he told me his son is in the same union that represented him throughout his working life and is making less money then he did 20 years ago. Refusing to argue with him in a store, I told him that just meant his employers had probably been forced to pay him considerably more than his work was really worth. That seemed to work since he left the store using language I would not want any kids to hear.
My encounter with the union man left me wondering if the unions were indeed in decline. A quick check of the facts reveals that unions are indeed in decline if membership is any indication. Contrary to my liberal antagonist’s claims that President Reagan was the cause is the fact that membership has been spiraling downward since it reached its peak in 1954 with 39% of the work force (1). In 1983 membership was 20% and has steadily fallen to 12% today (2).
Membership numbers are only one way to measure union strength. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) donated $13.5 million to President Obama’s 2008 campaign (3). The United Auto Workers Union (UAW) spent $4.9 million helping Obama get elected (4). What does $18.4 million dollars buy from a newly elected President?
If you are a member of the UAW you now own 65% of Chrysler and almost 11% of General Motors even though shareholders and creditors received only pennies on the dollar for their investments or supplies and parts (5).
This morning I awoke to find our President had negotiated an agreement with organized labor, mainly the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, about the proposed 40% tax on the “Cadillac” health care insurance plans. It seems union members whose contract was settled under collective bargaining are exempt from the tax I will be paying for my insurance policy.
During his campaign for the Presidency, Obama promised me I would not experience any tax increases because I earn less than $80,000 per year. I guess I will put this promise with the one to let C-SPAN cover the health care negotiations.
I wish I could see my liberal antagonist again to reassure him the unions are more powerful than ever. They have a President in their pocket.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
(1) www.jstor.org/pss/2523761
(2) www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
(3) www.sacbee.com/statistic/weblogs/the_state_worker/2008/10/column-extra-your-money-and-pr.html
(4) www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/UAWs-only-GOP-Senate-donation-last-cycle-Arlen-Specter-Chrysler-Rattner-44448422.html
(5) www.newsweek.com/id/200194
In response to my questioning he told me his son is in the same union that represented him throughout his working life and is making less money then he did 20 years ago. Refusing to argue with him in a store, I told him that just meant his employers had probably been forced to pay him considerably more than his work was really worth. That seemed to work since he left the store using language I would not want any kids to hear.
My encounter with the union man left me wondering if the unions were indeed in decline. A quick check of the facts reveals that unions are indeed in decline if membership is any indication. Contrary to my liberal antagonist’s claims that President Reagan was the cause is the fact that membership has been spiraling downward since it reached its peak in 1954 with 39% of the work force (1). In 1983 membership was 20% and has steadily fallen to 12% today (2).
Membership numbers are only one way to measure union strength. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) donated $13.5 million to President Obama’s 2008 campaign (3). The United Auto Workers Union (UAW) spent $4.9 million helping Obama get elected (4). What does $18.4 million dollars buy from a newly elected President?
If you are a member of the UAW you now own 65% of Chrysler and almost 11% of General Motors even though shareholders and creditors received only pennies on the dollar for their investments or supplies and parts (5).
This morning I awoke to find our President had negotiated an agreement with organized labor, mainly the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, about the proposed 40% tax on the “Cadillac” health care insurance plans. It seems union members whose contract was settled under collective bargaining are exempt from the tax I will be paying for my insurance policy.
During his campaign for the Presidency, Obama promised me I would not experience any tax increases because I earn less than $80,000 per year. I guess I will put this promise with the one to let C-SPAN cover the health care negotiations.
I wish I could see my liberal antagonist again to reassure him the unions are more powerful than ever. They have a President in their pocket.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
(1) www.jstor.org/pss/2523761
(2) www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
(3) www.sacbee.com/statistic/weblogs/the_state_worker/2008/10/column-extra-your-money-and-pr.html
(4) www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/UAWs-only-GOP-Senate-donation-last-cycle-Arlen-Specter-Chrysler-Rattner-44448422.html
(5) www.newsweek.com/id/200194
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Illegal Immigrant Murderers!
It is Halloween October 31, 2008 in Lexington County, South Carolina and three men have just purchased a Mazda B-2000 pick up truck. The men are Juan Carrillo, Martin Teran and Josue Benitez and they are all members of the MS-13 gang and have traveled to South Carolina from Houston Texas on orders from Teran (1).
Three days later on November 2, 2008 51 year old Vindell Ramos is at home working on his car. Carrillo, Teran and Benitez approach Ramos, shoot him in the head and chest and flee in the Mazda B-2000. Juan Carrillo travels to Mexico while Teran and Benitez go home to Houston.
Fast forward eight months to June 23, 2009 in Southwest Houston. Juan Carrillo’s brother Roberto Carrillo along with Andres Nava-Maldonado, Xiomora Mendez-Rosales and a juvenile are in a Walgreens pharmacy parking lot. They are to meet with a man that has promised to sell them $30,000 worth of stolen Televisions for $6,500 (2).
Roberto Carrillo though has other plans. After paying the man for the stolen televisions Carrillo follows him to the front of the loaded rental truck, draws a gun and shoots the man in the back. As the man falls to the ground he manages to draw his own gun and shoot Carrillo in the chest. Carrillo makes his way to the rear of the rental truck and falls to the ground.
Houston Police Department officer Ruben Lopez arrives and approaches Carrillo who, upon seeing Lopez, twice fires at him. Officer Lopez returns fire and fatally wounds Carrillo (3). The man first shot by Carrillo is transported to Ben Taub hospital where he dies shortly after arrival. The slain man is Undercover Houston Police Department Officer Henry Canales.
The resulting investigation reveals that Juan Carrillo, Roberto Carrillo, Andres Nava-Maldonado and Xiomora Mendez-Rosales are in the country illegally. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials state that between 1990 and 1992 Nava-Maldonado was arrested in California for attempted murder, robbery, being under the influence of drugs, grand theft, assault and exhibiting a firearm (4). Yet 16 years later he is still leading a life of crime in Houston while being in the country illegally.
The Houston Police Department released information that determined Roberto Carrillo had been stopped and ticketed four times in the previous seven years. Houston Police Department policy does not allow an officer to inquire about a person’s citizenship or to fingerprint them if they have some form of identification on them. Each time Carrillo was stopped he had identification and on one occasion he had two drivers Licenses (5). If Carrillo had been fingerprinted there is the possibility that he would have been deported long before the events of June 23, 2009.
Officer Canales left behind a wife, son Henry Jr. age 15 and 17 year old daughter Stephanie. Our elected officials need to explain to the Canales family why illegal aliens should be allowed to roam our country, murder some of our finest and then have their fellow illegal aliens receive amnesty from a non-caring federal government. Someone should make Jerry Rivers (Geraldo Rivera) look the Canales family in the eye and explain how illegal aliens benefit our society.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
(1) www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0812/081216columbia.htm
(2) www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/houston/stories/khou090624_jj_cop-shooting-suspect-family-speaks-o.326de99.html
(3) http://blogs.chron.com/newswatch/2009/06/how_it_happened_killing_of_hou.html
(4) www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6498386.html
(5) Ibid
Three days later on November 2, 2008 51 year old Vindell Ramos is at home working on his car. Carrillo, Teran and Benitez approach Ramos, shoot him in the head and chest and flee in the Mazda B-2000. Juan Carrillo travels to Mexico while Teran and Benitez go home to Houston.
Fast forward eight months to June 23, 2009 in Southwest Houston. Juan Carrillo’s brother Roberto Carrillo along with Andres Nava-Maldonado, Xiomora Mendez-Rosales and a juvenile are in a Walgreens pharmacy parking lot. They are to meet with a man that has promised to sell them $30,000 worth of stolen Televisions for $6,500 (2).
Roberto Carrillo though has other plans. After paying the man for the stolen televisions Carrillo follows him to the front of the loaded rental truck, draws a gun and shoots the man in the back. As the man falls to the ground he manages to draw his own gun and shoot Carrillo in the chest. Carrillo makes his way to the rear of the rental truck and falls to the ground.
Houston Police Department officer Ruben Lopez arrives and approaches Carrillo who, upon seeing Lopez, twice fires at him. Officer Lopez returns fire and fatally wounds Carrillo (3). The man first shot by Carrillo is transported to Ben Taub hospital where he dies shortly after arrival. The slain man is Undercover Houston Police Department Officer Henry Canales.
The resulting investigation reveals that Juan Carrillo, Roberto Carrillo, Andres Nava-Maldonado and Xiomora Mendez-Rosales are in the country illegally. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials state that between 1990 and 1992 Nava-Maldonado was arrested in California for attempted murder, robbery, being under the influence of drugs, grand theft, assault and exhibiting a firearm (4). Yet 16 years later he is still leading a life of crime in Houston while being in the country illegally.
The Houston Police Department released information that determined Roberto Carrillo had been stopped and ticketed four times in the previous seven years. Houston Police Department policy does not allow an officer to inquire about a person’s citizenship or to fingerprint them if they have some form of identification on them. Each time Carrillo was stopped he had identification and on one occasion he had two drivers Licenses (5). If Carrillo had been fingerprinted there is the possibility that he would have been deported long before the events of June 23, 2009.
Officer Canales left behind a wife, son Henry Jr. age 15 and 17 year old daughter Stephanie. Our elected officials need to explain to the Canales family why illegal aliens should be allowed to roam our country, murder some of our finest and then have their fellow illegal aliens receive amnesty from a non-caring federal government. Someone should make Jerry Rivers (Geraldo Rivera) look the Canales family in the eye and explain how illegal aliens benefit our society.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
(1) www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0812/081216columbia.htm
(2) www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/houston/stories/khou090624_jj_cop-shooting-suspect-family-speaks-o.326de99.html
(3) http://blogs.chron.com/newswatch/2009/06/how_it_happened_killing_of_hou.html
(4) www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6498386.html
(5) Ibid
Thursday, January 28, 2010
What is a Liberal to do?
Poor Eugene Robinson; pity for Rachel “Madcow” Maddow; sorrow for Keith “Egghead” Olbermann! Lately these misguided people have lamented about the sad state the Democrat party finds itself adjusting to after Scott Brown’s upset of Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate election.
Eugene Robinson won the Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles he penned about the 2008 presidential election. Although Mr. Robinson is an educated and talented man he recently stated on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that he was “mystified by all the Democrats running around in sheer panic.” Mr. Robinson went on to state “In any other universe the Democrat majority would be considered a good situation and one would think you should proceed with the legislation any way you can.”
On her nightly talk show Rachel Maddow commented “What are you going to do, campaign and win the election on health care reform, spend a year getting legislation passed in the House and Senate and be closer than ever before and then give up on it? Get real”.
During one of the recent episodes of his nightly show Keith Olbermann, referring to Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, keenly observed “371 days after the President’s inauguration we still do not have health care. Why not? 20 Republicans were not elected the other night, one was”.
Mr. Robinson, Madcow and Egghead seemingly are failing to grasp the significance of Republican Senator Brown’s victory in a state that history proves is one of the most liberal. The majority of Massachusetts voters are registered as “un-enrolled” which most people in other states would recognize as “Independent”.
In the 2008 presidential election then Senator Obama received 52% of the independent vote nationwide and 57% in Massachusetts (1). On inauguration day in 2009 President Obama’s approval rating was 68% but according to the most recent polling data has fallen to 48%, a drop of 20 points (2). Most analysts attribute this downward spiral of the President’s approval rating to the mass shifting of the Independent voter’s preference to the Republican Party. The fact that Conservative Republican Senator Brown captured 65% of the un-enrolled vote in Massachusetts is powerful evidence of this shift (3).
Most career politicians are very adept at reading the “tea leaves” when it means their career may be endangered. These Democrats realize the nation is angry and that anger will be directed at the party in the position of majority power. These Democrat representatives will not lock arms and walk off the cliff for a man that may not be able to win his own next election and is in the process of alienating millions of centrist voters.
Mr. Robinson, Madcow and Egghead will never understand that these political leaders will put their careers ahead of any left wing liberal agenda. By taking this position the congressional politicians are in effect making Obama a first term, three year “Lame Duck” President.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, Texas
www.carldgoodson.com
www.conservativecarl.blogspot.com
(1) www.csmonitor.com/…/Scott-Brown-s-Massachusetts-win-fueled-by-independent-voters
(2) www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls
(3) www.csmonitor.com/…/Scott-Brown-s-Massachusetts-win-fueled-by-independent-voters
Eugene Robinson won the Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles he penned about the 2008 presidential election. Although Mr. Robinson is an educated and talented man he recently stated on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that he was “mystified by all the Democrats running around in sheer panic.” Mr. Robinson went on to state “In any other universe the Democrat majority would be considered a good situation and one would think you should proceed with the legislation any way you can.”
On her nightly talk show Rachel Maddow commented “What are you going to do, campaign and win the election on health care reform, spend a year getting legislation passed in the House and Senate and be closer than ever before and then give up on it? Get real”.
During one of the recent episodes of his nightly show Keith Olbermann, referring to Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, keenly observed “371 days after the President’s inauguration we still do not have health care. Why not? 20 Republicans were not elected the other night, one was”.
Mr. Robinson, Madcow and Egghead seemingly are failing to grasp the significance of Republican Senator Brown’s victory in a state that history proves is one of the most liberal. The majority of Massachusetts voters are registered as “un-enrolled” which most people in other states would recognize as “Independent”.
In the 2008 presidential election then Senator Obama received 52% of the independent vote nationwide and 57% in Massachusetts (1). On inauguration day in 2009 President Obama’s approval rating was 68% but according to the most recent polling data has fallen to 48%, a drop of 20 points (2). Most analysts attribute this downward spiral of the President’s approval rating to the mass shifting of the Independent voter’s preference to the Republican Party. The fact that Conservative Republican Senator Brown captured 65% of the un-enrolled vote in Massachusetts is powerful evidence of this shift (3).
Most career politicians are very adept at reading the “tea leaves” when it means their career may be endangered. These Democrats realize the nation is angry and that anger will be directed at the party in the position of majority power. These Democrat representatives will not lock arms and walk off the cliff for a man that may not be able to win his own next election and is in the process of alienating millions of centrist voters.
Mr. Robinson, Madcow and Egghead will never understand that these political leaders will put their careers ahead of any left wing liberal agenda. By taking this position the congressional politicians are in effect making Obama a first term, three year “Lame Duck” President.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, Texas
www.carldgoodson.com
www.conservativecarl.blogspot.com
(1) www.csmonitor.com/…/Scott-Brown-s-Massachusetts-win-fueled-by-independent-voters
(2) www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls
(3) www.csmonitor.com/…/Scott-Brown-s-Massachusetts-win-fueled-by-independent-voters
Monday, January 25, 2010
The cost of Illegal Immigrant Health Care
Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) became famous when he shouted the infamous “You lie” at President Obama during his speech to a joint session of congress to promote his national health care bill. Representative Wilson was upset because he knows that illegal aliens will be allowed to enroll in any national health care plan. Illegal aliens already receive federally funded health care at clinics such as the one operated by nurse practitioner Tiffany Revels in Benson, North Carolina (1).
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that any group of people residing in the United States could not be excluded from any benefit that everyone else residing in the country receives. The ruling came in the case of Plyler v Doe (1982) concerning the children of illegal immigrants having access to a free public education (2). Representative Wilson is aware of this ruling as are all policy makers and he knows illegal alien advocacy groups will use it as precedence to accomplish health care for anyone crafty enough to break our laws and enter America illegally.
The impact of the Supreme Court ruling can be seen in any hospital emergency room in metropolitan areas within the Border States. Any person that visits the E. R. on a weekend will see a room packed with people, many of whom have been waiting all week, that have a difficult time communicating and completing paperwork because it is in English. These people come on the weekend because they know all other Physician’s offices are closed so they cannot be told to go see their regular doctor.
The real question is how much does health care for illegal aliens cost the American Taxpayer. According to the Center for Immigration Studies there are 6.6 million uninsured illegal aliens in the United States and it cost $4.3 billion to treat these people primarily in emergency rooms. The national healthcare plan currently under consideration in congress would raise the cost of treating illegal aliens to over $30 billion (3).
In Houston, Texas the cost of treating and caring for illegal aliens is between $123 million and $145 million per year. In 2005 the federal government contributed just $100 million for the entire state; leaving local taxpayers to pay the remaining cost (4).
There are costs associated with treating illegal aliens that are not calculated in dollars. In California alone 84 hospitals are closing forever due to government mandates for treating illegal aliens (4). Hospital closures degrade the health care services provided to everyone including natural citizens that live in the area and hundreds of people lose their job with each closure.
If the proposed health care legislation is enacted and health care is provided as a “right” to every U. S. citizen, the court system will ensure it is provided to illegal aliens also. A mandate that forces the United States citizens to pay for the health care of people from all over the world is the true cost of health care.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, TX
(1) www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_n.htm
(2) http://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/illegal-healthcare-N.htm
(3) http://cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200
(4) www.portfolio.com/industry-nres/health-care/2009/11/20/illegal-immigrants-cost-local-hospitals-while-feds-avoid-issue/
(5) Madeleine Peiner Cosman, Ph.D., ESQ. “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, spring 2005
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that any group of people residing in the United States could not be excluded from any benefit that everyone else residing in the country receives. The ruling came in the case of Plyler v Doe (1982) concerning the children of illegal immigrants having access to a free public education (2). Representative Wilson is aware of this ruling as are all policy makers and he knows illegal alien advocacy groups will use it as precedence to accomplish health care for anyone crafty enough to break our laws and enter America illegally.
The impact of the Supreme Court ruling can be seen in any hospital emergency room in metropolitan areas within the Border States. Any person that visits the E. R. on a weekend will see a room packed with people, many of whom have been waiting all week, that have a difficult time communicating and completing paperwork because it is in English. These people come on the weekend because they know all other Physician’s offices are closed so they cannot be told to go see their regular doctor.
The real question is how much does health care for illegal aliens cost the American Taxpayer. According to the Center for Immigration Studies there are 6.6 million uninsured illegal aliens in the United States and it cost $4.3 billion to treat these people primarily in emergency rooms. The national healthcare plan currently under consideration in congress would raise the cost of treating illegal aliens to over $30 billion (3).
In Houston, Texas the cost of treating and caring for illegal aliens is between $123 million and $145 million per year. In 2005 the federal government contributed just $100 million for the entire state; leaving local taxpayers to pay the remaining cost (4).
There are costs associated with treating illegal aliens that are not calculated in dollars. In California alone 84 hospitals are closing forever due to government mandates for treating illegal aliens (4). Hospital closures degrade the health care services provided to everyone including natural citizens that live in the area and hundreds of people lose their job with each closure.
If the proposed health care legislation is enacted and health care is provided as a “right” to every U. S. citizen, the court system will ensure it is provided to illegal aliens also. A mandate that forces the United States citizens to pay for the health care of people from all over the world is the true cost of health care.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, TX
(1) www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_n.htm
(2) http://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/illegal-healthcare-N.htm
(3) http://cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200
(4) www.portfolio.com/industry-nres/health-care/2009/11/20/illegal-immigrants-cost-local-hospitals-while-feds-avoid-issue/
(5) Madeleine Peiner Cosman, Ph.D., ESQ. “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, spring 2005
Monday, January 18, 2010
MSNBC or is it MSLSD
I was watching The Joe Scarborough show on MSNBC this Monday morning. The round table discussion worked its way to the subject of the Massachusetts Senate race between Martha Coakely and Scott Brown. The previous guest happened to be Chris Matthews, yes the same Chris Matthews that has a tingly feeling up his leg whenever our Dear Leader speaks. Mr. Tingly Feeling reported that he had just spoken to a pollster in Massachusetts who had worked late into the night conducting and analyzing interviews of citizens. Mr. Tingly Feeling was sad because he had to report that Scott Brown had increased his lead in the race and it appeared he was going to win by a significant margin.
There was a guest contributor named Mike Barnicle who was supposedly imparting definitive, authoritative information. In a demonstration of his infinite wisdom Barnicle had the totally asinine gall to state “This election is not a reflection of the Tea Party Movement. This election is a reflection of the anger of the population as a whole with the establishment.” What an idiot. Evidently any knowledge Barnacle Mike has is like a BB rolling around in a metal trash can---it makes a lot of noise but there is no substance to it. Obviously Barnacle Mike does not understand what the Tea Party movement is all about.
Barnacle Mike, like so many Liberals, does not understand Tea Partiers are for a smaller government. We are tired of government intrusion into our personal lives. We are tired of people who bankrupt our nation in an effort to expand their political power. We are tired of politicians that will not tell the American public the truth about the true states of our nation’s treasury.
No more bribes to individual politicians to “buy” their support. No more backroom deals swapping votes with each other to get their agenda passed. If a bill or project does not stand on its own merit the country does not need it--let it fail. End the assault on religion; part of freedom of religion is the right to not practice religion- not to abolish it.
We do not want politicians that go to Washington to enrich their own pockets or acquire power at the expense of our great country and the citizens that sent them there. We want leaders, not politicians that go to serve their country, do their job and go home proud of what they have accomplished. It seems as if the people we have in Washington now are only proud of how well they lie, scam and cheat there way to fortune.
As long as these people keep their heads buried in the sand, or somewhere else that is dark, they will not understand until the next election when they will be exposed to the bright light of true reform. Send them packing and let them moan and groan as we take back this nation and right the wrong course we have let these idiots set us on.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, Texas
There was a guest contributor named Mike Barnicle who was supposedly imparting definitive, authoritative information. In a demonstration of his infinite wisdom Barnicle had the totally asinine gall to state “This election is not a reflection of the Tea Party Movement. This election is a reflection of the anger of the population as a whole with the establishment.” What an idiot. Evidently any knowledge Barnacle Mike has is like a BB rolling around in a metal trash can---it makes a lot of noise but there is no substance to it. Obviously Barnacle Mike does not understand what the Tea Party movement is all about.
Barnacle Mike, like so many Liberals, does not understand Tea Partiers are for a smaller government. We are tired of government intrusion into our personal lives. We are tired of people who bankrupt our nation in an effort to expand their political power. We are tired of politicians that will not tell the American public the truth about the true states of our nation’s treasury.
No more bribes to individual politicians to “buy” their support. No more backroom deals swapping votes with each other to get their agenda passed. If a bill or project does not stand on its own merit the country does not need it--let it fail. End the assault on religion; part of freedom of religion is the right to not practice religion- not to abolish it.
We do not want politicians that go to Washington to enrich their own pockets or acquire power at the expense of our great country and the citizens that sent them there. We want leaders, not politicians that go to serve their country, do their job and go home proud of what they have accomplished. It seems as if the people we have in Washington now are only proud of how well they lie, scam and cheat there way to fortune.
As long as these people keep their heads buried in the sand, or somewhere else that is dark, they will not understand until the next election when they will be exposed to the bright light of true reform. Send them packing and let them moan and groan as we take back this nation and right the wrong course we have let these idiots set us on.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, Texas
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Private Meetings?
Last Wednesday Fox News host Bill Hemmer was interviewing a Democrat congressman. Hemmer was asking the congressman if he considered the closed door conference committee meeting about national health care breaking Obama's pledge to have the meetings open. Fox News played eight seperate videos of Obama saying C-SPAN would cover any debate on pending legislation. The congressman answered that Obama did not break his promise and the negotiations about the health care plan were the most open debates he had witnessed since coming to Washington.Hemmer then told him many people thought that taking the meetings behind closed doors to finish it was breaking that promise. The congressman replied that most all legislation was finished behind closed doors because there had to be "private" discussions. The congressman was speaking politicalese for secret negotiations, deal making and bribing that is necessary to get bills done. The thing the congressman and his sidekicks fail to understand is this is exactly the thing Americans have grown weary of. If a bill can only garner support through deal making and bribery the American people think the bill is not worth passing. Legislation is either good enough to stand on it's own or it is not. If it is not it should be scrapped and forgotten! The mid term elections are only 10 months away and I believe it is time to send Washington a message. Americans should scrutinize the way their representative conducts business. If they are not above board and out in the open or if it does not benefit the country as a whole it is time to be rid of them. VOTE THE BUMS OUT!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Cost of Illegals
Illegal aliens cost our country billions of dollars every year. After accounting for any tax revenues generated by illegal aliens they are costing American taxpayers approximately $45 billion per year. The latest information available from the Federation of American Immigration Reform is from the year 2003. The education of children of illegals cost taxpayers $7.7 billion per year. Housing, food stamps and Social Security benefits cost $6.15 billion. medical care (Medicare and Medicaid) cost another $3.7 billion. The criminal justice system and corrections cost an additional $7.75 billion. Local governments absorb another $5 billion in expenses while various other federal programs cost more than $9 billion. According to a Rasmussen poll taken in June 2009, 80% of Americans oppose healthcare coverage for illegal aliens. 68% believe that employers who hire illegals should be punished while 79% say the military should be deployed along the border for security. A result of the polling the Obama administration will not like is 67% of Americans think police should conduct surprise raids in places immigrants are known to gather. Why would Obama not like this? It is really a simple question to answer. The more people that rely on the government for their needs tend to vote for the party that provides the freebies.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
loss of some freedom?
President Obama wants everyone in the United States to be covered by some form of health insurance, be it privately provided ( individual or employer) or single payer ( government provided). While this is an indication of his caring for fellow human beings, it is a misguided idea that will result in a financial hardship unlike any other in the history of the United States. It is estimated there are 42 million people in the United States that are un-insured. The President would like these people to be insured and have the federal government pay the bill. What is not being said though, is 12 million of these people are in the United States illegally. Another 10 to 12 million are college age people that could buy private insurance for around $200 per month but do not because they are young and have the “ I am invincible” attitude or simply believe that nothing bad can happen to them, that it is always “the other guy” that falls ill. Not only will this policy saddle Americans with astronomically high taxes, it is a policy that blurs the line between rights and responsibilities. True freedom is a balance between rights and responsibilities. Everyone is free (has the right) to engage in any activity that does not hurt someone else or infringe upon that other persons rights. This freedom, however, has responsibilities attached. In other words, you are responsible for your own actions. Placing the consequences of one persons actions on a different person is a loss of freedom for the person on whom the consequences is placed. Asking taxpayers that try to live a healthy lifestyle to pay medical bills of people that do not try to be healthy is Socialism. Asking the federal government (taxpayers) to pay for the bad decisions and poor lifestyles of a few is unfair to the many who make wise decisions.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Should illegal aliens choose our President?
Along with the New Year comes the once per decade United States census. The more recent censuses have created heated pre-census debates and this year is no different. Senator David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, introduced legislation that would require persons not in the country legally to be skipped over in the counting of our population.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allowed the bill to come to the floor of the Senate but did not allow any debate to take place. The Vitter amendment was defeated 60 to 39 on a vote that was strictly along party lines. The only Senator not voting was the too liberal Republican John McCain of Arizona.
In 1790 the first Census Act stated that “only bona fide members of a state, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer” shall be counted. The first census actually asked individuals their place of birth to determine if they were a lawful citizen that should be counted. The decision to count or not count illegal aliens is a decision that will have consequences for the next decade. Yet many Americans do not realize the ramifications of an inaccurate count of lawful citizens.
Each year there is approximately $400 billion in discretionary funds in the Federal budget. Using data furnished by the census bureau the federal government disperses these funds based on an areas population total (2). The more populated an area is the more federal dollars that area receives for social services such as unemployment benefits. Is it really fair that an area flush with illegal aliens receive more Federal dollars than an area that is flush with American citizens?
If illegal aliens are counted in the 2010 census nine states, ( Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Oregon), will each lose one representative in the House of Representatives. Four states (California, Texas, Illinois and New York) will gain representatives (3). This means that illegal aliens will have a voice in Congress and influence American policy.
The Electoral College consists of voters from each state called Electors. Each state sends as many Electors to the Electoral College as they have Senators and Representatives. For example if a state has two Senators and 46 Representatives they would send 48 electors to the electoral college.. If illegal aliens are counted in the census and the result is some states losing representatives while others gain representatives, the Electoral College will not reflect the true counting of legal citizens. An example of this is the 2004 Presidential election. Because Illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 census John Kerry received five electoral votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush (4). States with a high population of illegal aliens will have more representation than states with a low population of illegals even if the population of legitimate citizens is the same. Therefore it could be argued that illegal aliens could influence the outcome of an American presidential election. Is this outcome the American public desires or is this the outcome the liberal politician desires?
Americans should petition Senator Vitter to reintroduce his legislation to the Senate and then contact their Senator and ask them to vote for this bill.
Carl D. Goodson
ConservativeCarl.blogspot.com
(1)http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB10001424042970204908604574332950796281832.html
(2) http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21803&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
(3) http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/apportion.pdf?docID=2061
(4) Ibid.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allowed the bill to come to the floor of the Senate but did not allow any debate to take place. The Vitter amendment was defeated 60 to 39 on a vote that was strictly along party lines. The only Senator not voting was the too liberal Republican John McCain of Arizona.
In 1790 the first Census Act stated that “only bona fide members of a state, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer” shall be counted. The first census actually asked individuals their place of birth to determine if they were a lawful citizen that should be counted. The decision to count or not count illegal aliens is a decision that will have consequences for the next decade. Yet many Americans do not realize the ramifications of an inaccurate count of lawful citizens.
Each year there is approximately $400 billion in discretionary funds in the Federal budget. Using data furnished by the census bureau the federal government disperses these funds based on an areas population total (2). The more populated an area is the more federal dollars that area receives for social services such as unemployment benefits. Is it really fair that an area flush with illegal aliens receive more Federal dollars than an area that is flush with American citizens?
If illegal aliens are counted in the 2010 census nine states, ( Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Oregon), will each lose one representative in the House of Representatives. Four states (California, Texas, Illinois and New York) will gain representatives (3). This means that illegal aliens will have a voice in Congress and influence American policy.
The Electoral College consists of voters from each state called Electors. Each state sends as many Electors to the Electoral College as they have Senators and Representatives. For example if a state has two Senators and 46 Representatives they would send 48 electors to the electoral college.. If illegal aliens are counted in the census and the result is some states losing representatives while others gain representatives, the Electoral College will not reflect the true counting of legal citizens. An example of this is the 2004 Presidential election. Because Illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 census John Kerry received five electoral votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush (4). States with a high population of illegal aliens will have more representation than states with a low population of illegals even if the population of legitimate citizens is the same. Therefore it could be argued that illegal aliens could influence the outcome of an American presidential election. Is this outcome the American public desires or is this the outcome the liberal politician desires?
Americans should petition Senator Vitter to reintroduce his legislation to the Senate and then contact their Senator and ask them to vote for this bill.
Carl D. Goodson
ConservativeCarl.blogspot.com
(1)http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB10001424042970204908604574332950796281832.html
(2) http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21803&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
(3) http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/apportion.pdf?docID=2061
(4) Ibid.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Tea Party Strikers?
There is a message floating around the internet about an upcoming strike by Tea Party members on January 20; the anniversary of the inauguration of Barak Obama. This is without a doubt the most incorrect thing to do. The Tea Party is not about disruption of business or civil disobedience. Members have demonstrated at town hall meetings and in peaceable gatherings all across this great country and have done so peacebly and with the utmost respect to all concerned.
The liberal mainstream media would not pass the opportunity to mis-characterize any national strike as Tea Partiers "out of control" and label any striker as part of an angry white mob. Chris Matthews on MSNBC already dismisses the diversity of the tea party movement by stating the protest are conducted by "Mono-chromatic" mobs. Do not give this man or any of his colleagues the opportunity to degrade a true national movement of concerned citizens.
Tea Partiers should continue to assemble peacefully, contact their representatives and become engaged in national and local issues and elections. Campaign and support candidates that reflect conservative values. The tea party movement, although gaining momentum, is still in it's infancy. A strike would send the message the tea partiers are really just a crowd of fringe right wing extremists!
The liberal mainstream media would not pass the opportunity to mis-characterize any national strike as Tea Partiers "out of control" and label any striker as part of an angry white mob. Chris Matthews on MSNBC already dismisses the diversity of the tea party movement by stating the protest are conducted by "Mono-chromatic" mobs. Do not give this man or any of his colleagues the opportunity to degrade a true national movement of concerned citizens.
Tea Partiers should continue to assemble peacefully, contact their representatives and become engaged in national and local issues and elections. Campaign and support candidates that reflect conservative values. The tea party movement, although gaining momentum, is still in it's infancy. A strike would send the message the tea partiers are really just a crowd of fringe right wing extremists!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
