Unintended Consequences

The Congress of the United States has begun debating "Immigration Reform". The House wants to enforce the laws on the books currently,and generally make an effort to stop illegal immigration, but the Senate and the President seem Hell bent on an "amnesty" plan with a number of so called "requirements that must be adhered to by the illegals presently here and those which continue to flow over our borders at an even greater rate then the estimated 1300 per day that are now illegally entering border states with Mexico.
Even though a large portion of legal Americans,probably a majority, oppose any attempt to not enforce our immigration laws. It would seem democrats and liberal Republicans, including unfortunately President Bush, want to pass a bill which would reward all those who are here illegally, yes broke the law, with a program that essentially leads to legal status.
Lets take a moment to review a few facts. Princeton University professors have estimated that 66% of all illegals pay social security taxes, and 62% pay income taxes. This leaves 34% that pay no taxes, but they all are permitted by law to obtain emergency care in our hospitals. They are also allowed by law to send there children to our public schools, which in most cases have to provide ,at tax payers expense, bi-lingual teachers. The prisons in this country are already overcrowded,and more illegals entering our Country will undoubtedly have a percentage of criminals. The unmentioned consequences of all this "immigration reform" is the continued growth of government. The more people you allow into our country with any form of "Worker Program". The more people the tax payers will have to pay for monitoring compliance with the many requirements of the program. Of course the Democrats love this, because the large base of unemployed, government employed (and there will be many more}, teachers union and the 12 million illegals will vote democratic.
It would not surprise me if this issue doesn't allow the democrats to regain control of the House and Senate in the next mid-term elections. And the real catastrophe will be if the Republican and Southern conservatives stay home in the 2008 elections, and Hillary makes it to the seat in the oval office!

Less Emotional Talk and More Facts are Needed

While doing my usual morning review of the contributing authors columns in the "Townhall" site. It occurred to me that the problem with the debate going on in congress regarding what to do with the illegal immigration problem is there is too much emotion and not enough facts in the debate.
Those who are for addressing the problem seem to think the best way to solve their dilemma is to sweep it under the rug with the "guest workers" program.
How can you refer to 12 million illegal aliens as guests? I voted for President Bush twice,but could somebody please wake him up. 92 percent of those polled by IQ research said "securing our borders should be a federal government priority.Of those polled by Time magazine, 72% said they believe,"illegal aliens increase the likelihood of terrorism." Even New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, wrote "illegals don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the government benefits they receive".
All the latest polls show a majority of Americans want the federal government to get tough on illegal immigration. As one author said, "we can't be the world HMO."
If only our elected representatives would listen to those who voted for them and quit worrying that they will offend or alienate the Hispanic population, and look at the facts they might have the courage to stop the tide of illegal and potentially dangerous people coming in to our country. There is enough evidence that many of these illegals work in government subsidized farm production which ends up being stored in government paid for storage. All of which takes another bite of poor "Joe Six Pack" in his taxes withheld from his paycheck.
We need to start refusing to re-elect those members of congress who don't stop this illegal problem. Are we willing to stand up and be counted?

If It Is Good For Presidents Why not Senators and Congressmen/Women

For very good reason,too numerous to enumerate now,we have term limits for our President. Why not for our members of both houses of congress?
With all the rhetoric about political influence and corruption surrounding the activities of Jack Abramhoff. There are many suggestions being floated as to how lobbyist reform is a must,and the definitive answer to this obvious adverse effect on our representative form of government. No one has come forward to propose what I think is this best way to stop this daily corruption of some of our elected representatives. Term limits for all members of congress. One term of six years or two of four years should help to reduce the need for members of congress to spend half of their time in office looking for money to get re-elected. The original framers of our constitution did not intend the elected members of congress to be career politicians. Citizen representatives of the people who elected them was the original intent. But now we have career politicians who learn to savor the power, prestige and special life of the inhabitant of a seat in the house or senate. Where the majority of the money comes from in incumbent re-election campaigns is not from "joe six-pack" who went to the poles and pulled the lever that put he or she in office. It is from the major lobbyist groups with special interests in mind that contribute or deny contribution to those who don't "play ball". Lobby groups like AARP, AIPAC, AFL-CIO, and NRA pour hundreds of millions of dollars into their support or opposition to re-election campaigns. This is a well documented fact. This will never change under our current system of government. Special interest groups can't be effectively legislated away by those who stand to gain the most by their continued existence. A national referendum which mandates term limits for all elected officials is the only way to get back to a elected congress that truly represents those that elected them. With no need to worry about being re-elected, maybe we would get back to real representative government. Not one that reflects special interest!

Truth In Advertising?

One of the most often used methods of advertising on both radio and television is to us a sports figure or a talk radio personality as the person encouraging you to buy a particular product or service. After extolling the merits of the product or service,and promises of life altering benefits from your purchase of the thing they are being paid to promote. The "celebrity" usually concludes the promotion with a statement similar to this. "I drive one myself", or "I sleep on one myself"! What they don't tell you, and should have to reveal if the add was truthful, is did he/she actually buy the product. Or was it given to them free as part of the promotional package, thus influencing their opinion. In this day of such great hero worship of sports and entertainment people it is easy for the average person to be mislead by the "hired gun" who is selling the products know there is always the "buyer beware" axiom , but many people are influenced by their "heroes and idols". It is only fair that they reveal the whole story about why they use what they are "hawking". That's my two cents worth on this subject.