All reports had the phone lines buzzing for weeks with people calling on to register their opposition to health care reform. In fact, we've watched all sorts of examples of critical mass against health care reform.
We saw it with town halls. We saw it with the elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. We also saw it with the explosion of the Tea Party movement which has been dedicated to defeating this legislation.
In fact, we saw this type of critical mass once before recently. That was when John McCain and Ted Kennedy proposed their immigration reform. Once again, the phone lines lit up with people's displeasure with that bill. There was protest, outrage, and that bill was ultimately defeated in part because of that outrage.
What we haven't seen in a long time is a critical mass for something. There was a glimmer of hope a few years ago when Heath Shuler proposed the SAVE Act. That is Secure America through Verification and Enforcement. It was a bill that would have created a database, id cards, and stronger border enforcement against illegal immigration.
Everyone that learned about supported the bill. Some supported it enthusiastically. Furthermore, because Shuler is a Democrat and the bill has tough border enforcement, it enjoyed bi partisan support.
Unfortunately, the bill was introduced under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and so it had no chance of reaching the floor. Because it had no chance of being introduced, most people never heard about it. Instead of reaching critical mass, the SAVE Act turned into a sort of cult favorite among political junkies.
Still, we've been stuck in such a cynical political climate that we only reach critical mass when we are against something.
Showing posts with label SAVE Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAVE Act. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The Blue Dogs: The New Congressional Rainmakers
In much of Europe, Israel, Canada, Mexico and many other places their governments run in a parlimentary system. In such a system, there are always several parties that field candidates. One party almost never gets a majority but rather a plurality of the vote. As such, in order to govern, that party forms coalition with one or more of the smaller parties. In such a system, it is usually one of the smaller parties that plays rainmaker. Because both major parties are a known entity, and opponents of each other, it is one of the smaller parties that is needed to form. As such, while they may only make up about ten percent of the parliament, they ultimately hold much of the power.
Here in the United States, we don't have a parlimentary system. Yet, we may have a dynamic in place in which a small coalition will wind up holding all the power in Congress. That group is the Blue Dog Democrats. This is a group of about 40 Representatives and 10 Senators. This group is moderate. In fact, they are so moderate, that some, like me, consider most to be more conservative than many of their Republican counterparts. Furthermore, they are all from red states and districts. As such, they can't afford a liberal agenda or they will face a conservative Republican in their next re election running to their right.
The Blue Dogs have made their first demand for power.
It will be interesting to see just how much leadership power the Blue Dogs gain in terms of committee charimanship. Yet, their real power will be in crafting legislation. The Blue Dogs are just as likely to be voting with the Republicans (if not frankly more likely) as they are with the Democrats. They are certainly a lot more afraid of a radical Congress than are the Republicans. Republicans are hoping for a far left Congress so that they can use it as bludgeon against folks JUST LIKE the Blue Dogs in 2010. The Blue Dogs would of course be the recipients of just such an attack. Blue Dogs are so fiscally conservative that they favor the tool of PAYGO, offsetting spending increases with spending cuts elsewhere. They are also generally socially conservative. It was Blue Dog Rep, Heath Shuler, that introduced the very pro enforcement anti illegal immigration bill, the SAVE Act. Finally, it was the Blue Dogs that couldn't be gotten in order to pass the Iraq War funding bill with a timetable. On all these crucial issues, the Blue Dogs will be up for grab so to speak.
As such, the Blue Dogs are position to be the ultimate rainmakers on any legislation. It will be their vote that will be crucial for any legislation to pass. It was in fact Speaker Pelosi's failure to craft legislation that the Blue Dogs would favor that caused the last Congress to be so impotent. President Elect Obama may think that he has a mandate for a sharp move to the left, however I am of the opinion that in the districts of the Blue Dogs there is no such mandate. In order for any legislation to pass, it will have to get the Blue Dog's seal of approval. For the Blue Dogs crafting legislation with enough moderation to be acceptable in their own districts is a matter of survival. They will act as such, and thus, they are now the rainmakers of D.C.
Here in the United States, we don't have a parlimentary system. Yet, we may have a dynamic in place in which a small coalition will wind up holding all the power in Congress. That group is the Blue Dog Democrats. This is a group of about 40 Representatives and 10 Senators. This group is moderate. In fact, they are so moderate, that some, like me, consider most to be more conservative than many of their Republican counterparts. Furthermore, they are all from red states and districts. As such, they can't afford a liberal agenda or they will face a conservative Republican in their next re election running to their right.
The Blue Dogs have made their first demand for power.
Blue Dog Democrats Friday called on the Democratic Caucus to support “moderate voices” in the slew of leadership decisions the party will be making this month.
The release did not name any of the races or contenders, but Blue Dog sources say it can be seen as preliminary support for Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) in a brewing bid for vice chairman of the caucus and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) in his fight to stave off a committee chairmanship challenge from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).
“As the moderate faction of our caucus has grown and contributed to our large majority, our leadership must have more moderate voices at the table if we want to continue to be successful, strong, and effective as a caucus,” said Blue Dog leader Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.).
It will be interesting to see just how much leadership power the Blue Dogs gain in terms of committee charimanship. Yet, their real power will be in crafting legislation. The Blue Dogs are just as likely to be voting with the Republicans (if not frankly more likely) as they are with the Democrats. They are certainly a lot more afraid of a radical Congress than are the Republicans. Republicans are hoping for a far left Congress so that they can use it as bludgeon against folks JUST LIKE the Blue Dogs in 2010. The Blue Dogs would of course be the recipients of just such an attack. Blue Dogs are so fiscally conservative that they favor the tool of PAYGO, offsetting spending increases with spending cuts elsewhere. They are also generally socially conservative. It was Blue Dog Rep, Heath Shuler, that introduced the very pro enforcement anti illegal immigration bill, the SAVE Act. Finally, it was the Blue Dogs that couldn't be gotten in order to pass the Iraq War funding bill with a timetable. On all these crucial issues, the Blue Dogs will be up for grab so to speak.
As such, the Blue Dogs are position to be the ultimate rainmakers on any legislation. It will be their vote that will be crucial for any legislation to pass. It was in fact Speaker Pelosi's failure to craft legislation that the Blue Dogs would favor that caused the last Congress to be so impotent. President Elect Obama may think that he has a mandate for a sharp move to the left, however I am of the opinion that in the districts of the Blue Dogs there is no such mandate. In order for any legislation to pass, it will have to get the Blue Dog's seal of approval. For the Blue Dogs crafting legislation with enough moderation to be acceptable in their own districts is a matter of survival. They will act as such, and thus, they are now the rainmakers of D.C.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Democrat's Governance Problem Remains the Same
Following the 2006 election, Dick Morris pointed out that the Democrat's new majority was largely ceremonial, and that ultimately, the Democratic caucus would wind up in total disarray. That's because the Democratic Party is much less one unified organ and much more series of competing factions each with their own agenda. Among the factions, it includes: The Blue Dogs, The Congressional Black Caucus, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the group allied with Soros and the Nutroot. Each of these factions have enough members that a revolt, on its own, would cause the Democratic majority to be a minority as long as the Republicans stuck together. Morris turned out to be absolutely correct and the Democratic Congress was a total nightmare. At this point, the Democratic Congress barely polls in double digits in terms in terms of approval. Nancy Pelosi swooped into Congress with a bold agenda and ultimately only showed a modest increase to the minimum wage (something she added to an Iraq War funding bill) as her "major" accomplishment.
In this Congress, we will see a similar dynamic. We are already seeing this tension surfacing.
Leadership posts are going to be the least of the problems of this tension. The real problem will be in crafting policy that can get a majority. The Democratic Soros types in the Caucus are folks like Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and the House Speaker herself, Nancy Pelosi. Their agenda can best be summed up by this Frank interview.
Folks like Barney Frank make up a good quarter to one third of the caucus. They are also, CURRENTLY, most of its leadership.
Then, on the other hand, there are the Blue Dog Democrats. This is a coalition of about 40 "moderates" in the House and about 10 in the Senate. I say they are "moderate" because in reality they are usually a lot more Conservative these days than the Republicans themselves. While Barney Frank is calling massive new spending and dismisses any worries about deficits, the Blue Dogs are calling for PAYGO spending policies.
So, on the one hand, we have Barney Frank and his cohorts ready to spend with reckless abandon. On the other hand, we have the Blue Dogs who demand that any spending increase be offset by spending cuts somewhere else. Somewhere in the middle lies a policy that can turn into law.
It's important to understand the stakes. For someone like Barney Frank, spending is a matter of ideology. He believes in big government and he believes in big spending. Now that his ideological bent has power he intends to implement it. For the Blue Dogs, this is a matter of survival. They are not merely conservative philosophically. They also come from conservative areas. Many of them swept into victory in 2006 promising essentially to be more conservative than their Republican counterparts. Because the Republicans failed to hold the line on spending when in power, there was an opening. If Nancy Pelosi's Congress goes wild though, there WILL be a Republican opponent waiting to use the spending spree as a bludgeon.
Spending is only one area where this tension occurs. Most of these Blue Dogs are also socially conservative. Barack Obama has indicated that he wants all sorts of extreme abortion policies like federal funding for abortions, eliminating parental notifications, etc. The Blue Dogs would be taking huge risks in voting for these policies as well. The folks in their districts are as socially conservative as they are fiscally conservative. Having their Congress person rubber stamp any sort of radical abortion policy is not something they are likely to forget come 2011. Of course, without the Blue Dogs, there is no majority for any such radical measure.
On immigration, the Blue Dogs again act even more conservative than the Republicans. It was in fact Blue Dog Democrat Congressman and former Quarterback Heath Shuler that introduced the toughest border security bill, the SAVE Act. Anything that sniffs of amnesty will also be furiously opposed by the Blue Dogs. On the issue of immigration, illegal and otherwise, the Blue Dogs will face tension with not only the Soros types but the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. While President elect Obama is quite sympathetic to the open borders crowd, he will have a hard time passing things like the DREAM ACT, driver's licenses for illegals, etc. At best, what we will have is a stalled agenda.
Finally, there is the Congressional Black Caucus. For obvious reason, they will likely feel as though they should have more power. Here, the tension will likely be between the President himself and the Caucus. If it looks as though he is governing as an African American, that would be the worst thing that could happen to his Presidency. If legislation even sniffs of "Afro centricity" that would face an overwhelming rejection by the public at large. As such, whatever power they have, it will have to be tempered by the President himself.
The reality is that in such cases it is up to the leadership to bring all sides to the table and compromise. It is one thing not to be able to reach out to the other party. It is something quite different not to be able to reach out to the many factions of your own party. The fact that the last Congress was totally impotent in dealing with its many factions can be laid squarely on two people, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Their grades in their first terms were both F's. In order to govern all factions need to come together and compromises reached. There is a middle ground between Barney Frank's total lack of fiscal responsibility and the Blue Dog's rigid PAYGO ideas. It is the job of the Speaker and the Senate leader to get there. That they couldn't reflected badly on them. Whether they can or not in the next Congress remains to be seen, however the Democrat's governance problems remain the same as they were in 2006.
In this Congress, we will see a similar dynamic. We are already seeing this tension surfacing.
Blue Dog Democrats Friday called on the Democratic Caucus to support “moderate voices” in the slew of leadership decisions the party will be making this month.
The release did not name any of the races or contenders, but Blue Dog sources say it can be seen as preliminary support for Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) in a brewing bid for vice chairman of the caucus and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) in his fight to stave off a committee chairmanship challenge from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).
“As the moderate faction of our caucus has grown and contributed to our large majority, our leadership must have more moderate voices at the table if we want to continue to be successful, strong, and effective as a caucus,” said Blue Dog leader Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.).
Leadership posts are going to be the least of the problems of this tension. The real problem will be in crafting policy that can get a majority. The Democratic Soros types in the Caucus are folks like Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and the House Speaker herself, Nancy Pelosi. Their agenda can best be summed up by this Frank interview.
Folks like Barney Frank make up a good quarter to one third of the caucus. They are also, CURRENTLY, most of its leadership.
Then, on the other hand, there are the Blue Dog Democrats. This is a coalition of about 40 "moderates" in the House and about 10 in the Senate. I say they are "moderate" because in reality they are usually a lot more Conservative these days than the Republicans themselves. While Barney Frank is calling massive new spending and dismisses any worries about deficits, the Blue Dogs are calling for PAYGO spending policies.
The PAYGO or pay-as-you-go rule compels new spending or tax changes to not add to the federal deficit. New proposals must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds. [1] The goal of this is to require those in control of the budget to engage in the diligence of prioritizing expenses and exercising fiscal restraint.
So, on the one hand, we have Barney Frank and his cohorts ready to spend with reckless abandon. On the other hand, we have the Blue Dogs who demand that any spending increase be offset by spending cuts somewhere else. Somewhere in the middle lies a policy that can turn into law.
It's important to understand the stakes. For someone like Barney Frank, spending is a matter of ideology. He believes in big government and he believes in big spending. Now that his ideological bent has power he intends to implement it. For the Blue Dogs, this is a matter of survival. They are not merely conservative philosophically. They also come from conservative areas. Many of them swept into victory in 2006 promising essentially to be more conservative than their Republican counterparts. Because the Republicans failed to hold the line on spending when in power, there was an opening. If Nancy Pelosi's Congress goes wild though, there WILL be a Republican opponent waiting to use the spending spree as a bludgeon.
Spending is only one area where this tension occurs. Most of these Blue Dogs are also socially conservative. Barack Obama has indicated that he wants all sorts of extreme abortion policies like federal funding for abortions, eliminating parental notifications, etc. The Blue Dogs would be taking huge risks in voting for these policies as well. The folks in their districts are as socially conservative as they are fiscally conservative. Having their Congress person rubber stamp any sort of radical abortion policy is not something they are likely to forget come 2011. Of course, without the Blue Dogs, there is no majority for any such radical measure.
On immigration, the Blue Dogs again act even more conservative than the Republicans. It was in fact Blue Dog Democrat Congressman and former Quarterback Heath Shuler that introduced the toughest border security bill, the SAVE Act. Anything that sniffs of amnesty will also be furiously opposed by the Blue Dogs. On the issue of immigration, illegal and otherwise, the Blue Dogs will face tension with not only the Soros types but the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. While President elect Obama is quite sympathetic to the open borders crowd, he will have a hard time passing things like the DREAM ACT, driver's licenses for illegals, etc. At best, what we will have is a stalled agenda.
Finally, there is the Congressional Black Caucus. For obvious reason, they will likely feel as though they should have more power. Here, the tension will likely be between the President himself and the Caucus. If it looks as though he is governing as an African American, that would be the worst thing that could happen to his Presidency. If legislation even sniffs of "Afro centricity" that would face an overwhelming rejection by the public at large. As such, whatever power they have, it will have to be tempered by the President himself.
The reality is that in such cases it is up to the leadership to bring all sides to the table and compromise. It is one thing not to be able to reach out to the other party. It is something quite different not to be able to reach out to the many factions of your own party. The fact that the last Congress was totally impotent in dealing with its many factions can be laid squarely on two people, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Their grades in their first terms were both F's. In order to govern all factions need to come together and compromises reached. There is a middle ground between Barney Frank's total lack of fiscal responsibility and the Blue Dog's rigid PAYGO ideas. It is the job of the Speaker and the Senate leader to get there. That they couldn't reflected badly on them. Whether they can or not in the next Congress remains to be seen, however the Democrat's governance problems remain the same as they were in 2006.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The Surreal Life: Starring the Legislature
According to dictionary.com the meaning of the word surreal is
The way I understand the word surreal is when you are witnessing something and it is so unbelievable that it just doesn't seem real. As I have witnessed this Congress for the last seven years, it all seems surreal. Whether they bury good sensible bills on committee or rush out to pass corrupt bills, it as though they are trying to make things worse and the whole thing is surreal.
I first started following the SAVE Act back last fall. At the time, it appeared to be a bill on the fast track to being law. After all, it was sponsored by Heath Shuler, a Democrat, supported by an eclectic and bi partisan group of politicians, activists and special interest groups. The SAVE Act is an enforcement only anti illegal immigration bill. It was an enforcement only bill and its focus was a verification system that all employers would eventually be able to use to verify the legal status of their employees. As we all saw last summer, the folks overwhelmingly want to enforce the border and this bill would go a long way toward that. Yet, after some fanfare and all sorts of political support, the bill is languishing in committee. The Speaker refuses to vote on the bill because Ms. Pelosi insists on adding some sort of amnesty to the bill. Of course, an amnesty provision would ruin a bill meant strictly to enforce the borders. The bill continues to need about thirty more signatures on something known as a discharge petition to force it to the floor. I suppose the bill made so much sense that it made too much sense to simply pass through our Legislature. (even though it would be supported by the overwhelming majority of the public)
The Broadcast Freedom Act would banish the Fairness Doctrine once and for all. The Fairness Doctrine would mandate that on any "controversial" topic there would be a mandated equal time for both sides of the issue. The Fairness Doctrine was abolished during the Reagan administration and not surprisingly Rush Limbaugh started a revolution on talk radio that has made that media a force it never was before. While Rush Limbaugh has lead an army of Conservative voices on radio, liberals have mostly failed on that medium like a lead zeppelin, as exemplified by Air America (short of Alan Colmes). The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than an end run around the 1st amendment. By forcing radio stations so called "equal time" they will in reality simply be removing most voices from the media. The banishment of the Fairness Doctrine is an example of what happens when the free market is allowed to flourish and government stays out of the way. Had Reagan not been such an effective President his decision to remove the Fairness Doctrine would have been a bigger part of his legacy. The Broadcast Freedom Act is also languishing in committee. Its sponsor, Mike Pence, is also attempting to generate a discharge petition and is still twenty signatures short.
Meanwhile, the signature piece of legislation of this Congress in both 2007 and 2008 was their so called landmark Energy Bill. This bill was so full of mandates and subsidies for ethanol that farmers haven't been planting much of anything but corn to use for fuel. Never mind that most experts said that best case scenario ethanol would only fuel 15-20% of our vehicles, our legislators wanted to make sure that ethanol was given its due. I'm sure it is only coincidental that corn is found in plethora in the state of Iowa, the first to vote in the primaries. Whatever the reason, the only effect of this so called Energy Bill was its contribution to the explosion in food prices. Since farmers grew nothing but corn to go into cars, there wasn't anything left over for other crops. Then, supply and demand took over and food prices shot up.
Just so no one thinks this is some partisan hit job, let's remember that the incompetent Democratic lead Congress is only in power because the Republican lead Congress was equally as corrupt and incompetent. They came to power under the principle of fiscal discipline and yet each and every bill was so full of pork that their spending gave drunken sailors a bad name. Their excessive spending was epitomized by the Farm Bill and the so called bridge to nowhere, an earmark sponsored by Ted Stevens to build a bridge in Alaska. We learned only recently that among the many earmarks and pet projects in the farm bill was a special project for Speaker Hastert's district that wound up making the former Speaker quite the pretty penny. The Republicans were thrown out largely because they represented folks that valued fiscal responsibility. Yet, it appears no lessons were learned because these same Republicans mostly went along with another Farm Bill passed just last month full of nearly as much pork.
Of course, nothing has been as surreal as watching the Congress, on both sides, trying to fall over themselves to pass legislation in response the mortgage crisis. It all started with H.R. 3915. This was a punitive bill and its only effect would have been killing the mortgage broker industry. While that failed to get passed, what happened next was proposal after proposal that for larger and larger bailouts of troubled borrowers. The proposals started at one billion, then ten billion, thirty billion, and now the Dodd/Frank bill which is a mega $300 billion bailout. While this bill was sold as a bailout for struggling borrowers, the nefarious nature of the bill is that it will also bail out struggling banks holding onto mortgages for these so called struggling borrowers. The two main recepients of this bill will be Countrywide and Bank of America.
Nothing has been as surreal as watching the progression of the corrupt Dodd/Frank bill come to the edge of being law. In the last two weeks we have found out that Chris Dodd, its main sponsor, has received favorable treatment from Countrywide, received about $1000 a week for the last 18 months from Bank of America, and of course Bank of America was allowed to write major parts of the bill. The last piece of information was never meant for the public as it came from "proprietary" documents from the Congress. Now, given the obscene corruption going on behind this bill, one would think that legislators would be jumping over themselves to be the first to bring the corruption to light. Not these legislators. In fact, the bill overcame a filibuster attempt 83-9 with a majority of Republicans voting with EVERY SINGLE Democrat to move this bill toward a final vote. Even though we know that its chief sponsor has been totally and completely corrupted, the bill will likely not only pass but overwhelmingly.
According to the Hill, the bill's passage has earned a reprieve for now.
Neither Reid himself, nor the story, mentioned that this bill has been corrupted. It is as though it never happened, and the only problems with it are procedural. So while perfectly reasonable bills like the SAVE Act and the Broadcast Freedom Act languish in committee, the corrupt monstrocity known as Dodd/Frank is on the brink of being law. Its a pattern over the last eight years at least, and it is like the Congress is trying to pass bad bills and force good bills to languish. Like I said, the whole thing is surreal.
Having an oddly dreamlike quality.
The way I understand the word surreal is when you are witnessing something and it is so unbelievable that it just doesn't seem real. As I have witnessed this Congress for the last seven years, it all seems surreal. Whether they bury good sensible bills on committee or rush out to pass corrupt bills, it as though they are trying to make things worse and the whole thing is surreal.
I first started following the SAVE Act back last fall. At the time, it appeared to be a bill on the fast track to being law. After all, it was sponsored by Heath Shuler, a Democrat, supported by an eclectic and bi partisan group of politicians, activists and special interest groups. The SAVE Act is an enforcement only anti illegal immigration bill. It was an enforcement only bill and its focus was a verification system that all employers would eventually be able to use to verify the legal status of their employees. As we all saw last summer, the folks overwhelmingly want to enforce the border and this bill would go a long way toward that. Yet, after some fanfare and all sorts of political support, the bill is languishing in committee. The Speaker refuses to vote on the bill because Ms. Pelosi insists on adding some sort of amnesty to the bill. Of course, an amnesty provision would ruin a bill meant strictly to enforce the borders. The bill continues to need about thirty more signatures on something known as a discharge petition to force it to the floor. I suppose the bill made so much sense that it made too much sense to simply pass through our Legislature. (even though it would be supported by the overwhelming majority of the public)
The Broadcast Freedom Act would banish the Fairness Doctrine once and for all. The Fairness Doctrine would mandate that on any "controversial" topic there would be a mandated equal time for both sides of the issue. The Fairness Doctrine was abolished during the Reagan administration and not surprisingly Rush Limbaugh started a revolution on talk radio that has made that media a force it never was before. While Rush Limbaugh has lead an army of Conservative voices on radio, liberals have mostly failed on that medium like a lead zeppelin, as exemplified by Air America (short of Alan Colmes). The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than an end run around the 1st amendment. By forcing radio stations so called "equal time" they will in reality simply be removing most voices from the media. The banishment of the Fairness Doctrine is an example of what happens when the free market is allowed to flourish and government stays out of the way. Had Reagan not been such an effective President his decision to remove the Fairness Doctrine would have been a bigger part of his legacy. The Broadcast Freedom Act is also languishing in committee. Its sponsor, Mike Pence, is also attempting to generate a discharge petition and is still twenty signatures short.
Meanwhile, the signature piece of legislation of this Congress in both 2007 and 2008 was their so called landmark Energy Bill. This bill was so full of mandates and subsidies for ethanol that farmers haven't been planting much of anything but corn to use for fuel. Never mind that most experts said that best case scenario ethanol would only fuel 15-20% of our vehicles, our legislators wanted to make sure that ethanol was given its due. I'm sure it is only coincidental that corn is found in plethora in the state of Iowa, the first to vote in the primaries. Whatever the reason, the only effect of this so called Energy Bill was its contribution to the explosion in food prices. Since farmers grew nothing but corn to go into cars, there wasn't anything left over for other crops. Then, supply and demand took over and food prices shot up.
Just so no one thinks this is some partisan hit job, let's remember that the incompetent Democratic lead Congress is only in power because the Republican lead Congress was equally as corrupt and incompetent. They came to power under the principle of fiscal discipline and yet each and every bill was so full of pork that their spending gave drunken sailors a bad name. Their excessive spending was epitomized by the Farm Bill and the so called bridge to nowhere, an earmark sponsored by Ted Stevens to build a bridge in Alaska. We learned only recently that among the many earmarks and pet projects in the farm bill was a special project for Speaker Hastert's district that wound up making the former Speaker quite the pretty penny. The Republicans were thrown out largely because they represented folks that valued fiscal responsibility. Yet, it appears no lessons were learned because these same Republicans mostly went along with another Farm Bill passed just last month full of nearly as much pork.
Of course, nothing has been as surreal as watching the Congress, on both sides, trying to fall over themselves to pass legislation in response the mortgage crisis. It all started with H.R. 3915. This was a punitive bill and its only effect would have been killing the mortgage broker industry. While that failed to get passed, what happened next was proposal after proposal that for larger and larger bailouts of troubled borrowers. The proposals started at one billion, then ten billion, thirty billion, and now the Dodd/Frank bill which is a mega $300 billion bailout. While this bill was sold as a bailout for struggling borrowers, the nefarious nature of the bill is that it will also bail out struggling banks holding onto mortgages for these so called struggling borrowers. The two main recepients of this bill will be Countrywide and Bank of America.
Nothing has been as surreal as watching the progression of the corrupt Dodd/Frank bill come to the edge of being law. In the last two weeks we have found out that Chris Dodd, its main sponsor, has received favorable treatment from Countrywide, received about $1000 a week for the last 18 months from Bank of America, and of course Bank of America was allowed to write major parts of the bill. The last piece of information was never meant for the public as it came from "proprietary" documents from the Congress. Now, given the obscene corruption going on behind this bill, one would think that legislators would be jumping over themselves to be the first to bring the corruption to light. Not these legislators. In fact, the bill overcame a filibuster attempt 83-9 with a majority of Republicans voting with EVERY SINGLE Democrat to move this bill toward a final vote. Even though we know that its chief sponsor has been totally and completely corrupted, the bill will likely not only pass but overwhelmingly.
According to the Hill, the bill's passage has earned a reprieve for now.
The Senate hit impasses over legislation aimed at helping struggling homeowners and a rewrite of spying laws, forcing Democratic leaders to push back consideration of those measures until next month.
...
On the housing legislation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said an amendment squabble pressed by Republicans this week was too difficult to overcome in the time lawmakers have left before the break.
...
Reid suggested Wednesday night that the housing bill could be delayed, but finally slammed the door on the possibility Thursday morning. Reid also said that when the Senate returns, he still will not allow Republican amendments that did not pertain to housing issues.
"There will be no amendments other than housing-related amendments," he said.
Neither Reid himself, nor the story, mentioned that this bill has been corrupted. It is as though it never happened, and the only problems with it are procedural. So while perfectly reasonable bills like the SAVE Act and the Broadcast Freedom Act languish in committee, the corrupt monstrocity known as Dodd/Frank is on the brink of being law. Its a pattern over the last eight years at least, and it is like the Congress is trying to pass bad bills and force good bills to languish. Like I said, the whole thing is surreal.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Pelosi,The Fairness Doctrine, and the SAVE Act
In a wide ranging interview, Nancy Pelosi made a startling admission.
The Fairness Doctrine again would, among other things, force radio stations to give equal time to liberal topics if they have any radio personality that is Conservative. Thus, all stations that carry the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham herself, would be forced to find equal time for liberal commentators. Of course, this bill is nothing more than a sneaky end run around the first amendment. More than that, most of the public understands this. Polling is always overwhelmingly against the Fairness Doctrine.
Now, last Friday, Laura Ingraham gave a nightmare scenario about the Fairness Doctrine.
Now, Pelosi is only feeding into the perception that the Democrats are trying to wait this term out and then institute the Fairness Doctrine. There are few political moves more stunningly counter productive and self destructive than the Democrats indicating they are serious about reinstituting this law.
Right now, Mike Pence is sponsoring a bill called the Broadcast Freedom Act. It is being bottled up in committee on a mostly party line vote. Pence is attempting to gather enough signatures to get what is called a discharge petition. In fact, this is what Heath Shuler is doing in order to get the SAVE Act to the floor. Pence is just 21 votes short of getting the discharge petition.
It goes without saying that the Speaker would be quite embarrassed if either of these bills got the necessary backers of the discharge petition to bring them to a vote despite her vociferous objection. There is actually an opportunity for both to get the votes necessary. It also goes without saying that successful discharge petitions are rare.
Thus, there is an opportunity not only to see two very good bills become law but at the same time, greate embarrassment and weakening to the Speaker. Here is more information if you want to help with the discharge petition for the SAVE Act. Here is more information if you want to help with the discharge petition of the Freedom Broadcast Act.
“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.
“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.
“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation.
The Fairness Doctrine again would, among other things, force radio stations to give equal time to liberal topics if they have any radio personality that is Conservative. Thus, all stations that carry the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham herself, would be forced to find equal time for liberal commentators. Of course, this bill is nothing more than a sneaky end run around the first amendment. More than that, most of the public understands this. Polling is always overwhelmingly against the Fairness Doctrine.
Now, last Friday, Laura Ingraham gave a nightmare scenario about the Fairness Doctrine.
Now, Pelosi is only feeding into the perception that the Democrats are trying to wait this term out and then institute the Fairness Doctrine. There are few political moves more stunningly counter productive and self destructive than the Democrats indicating they are serious about reinstituting this law.
Right now, Mike Pence is sponsoring a bill called the Broadcast Freedom Act. It is being bottled up in committee on a mostly party line vote. Pence is attempting to gather enough signatures to get what is called a discharge petition. In fact, this is what Heath Shuler is doing in order to get the SAVE Act to the floor. Pence is just 21 votes short of getting the discharge petition.
It goes without saying that the Speaker would be quite embarrassed if either of these bills got the necessary backers of the discharge petition to bring them to a vote despite her vociferous objection. There is actually an opportunity for both to get the votes necessary. It also goes without saying that successful discharge petitions are rare.
Thus, there is an opportunity not only to see two very good bills become law but at the same time, greate embarrassment and weakening to the Speaker. Here is more information if you want to help with the discharge petition for the SAVE Act. Here is more information if you want to help with the discharge petition of the Freedom Broadcast Act.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Latinos to Obama: Open Borders or Else
According to the Hill, Latino lawmakers have given Barack Obama an ultimatum regarding the Latino vote.
Earlier, I wrote a piece about the the make up of the constituencies of the two parties. Whereas, with Republicans, the constituency is made up almost entirely based on ideology, for the Democrats the make up is made up nearly entirely on race, sex, and ethnicity. Once again, it rears its ugly head.
Fortunately, Barack Obama has been an open borders proponent for years. He has supported everything from driver's licenses to illegals, to the DREAM Act, and he has been against building the fence and the SAVE Act. Unfortunately, if he is to be totally open borders in order to please his base, he will also lose most folks in the middle. Illegal immigration will be one of the most important issues in November, and Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of tough border policy. That is NOT what Barack Obama has favored, and that is clearly not what his Latino constituency is demanding. With his opponent having a relatively moderate position as well, Obama will have to show a great deal of deference to open borders policies in order to secure that vote.
UPDATE:
Hello all VDARE readers for a full dossier of Obama's open borders policy please click here.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election, Hispanic Democratic lawmakers are warning.If he does not promise so-called comprehensive immigration reform, the lawmakers say, the only other way to win over Hispanic supporters of his erstwhile rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), may be to pick her as his running mate.
Obama’s National Latino Vote Director, Cuauhtemoc “Temo” Figueroa, will have his first meeting in Washington Thursday with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).
Earlier, I wrote a piece about the the make up of the constituencies of the two parties. Whereas, with Republicans, the constituency is made up almost entirely based on ideology, for the Democrats the make up is made up nearly entirely on race, sex, and ethnicity. Once again, it rears its ugly head.
Fortunately, Barack Obama has been an open borders proponent for years. He has supported everything from driver's licenses to illegals, to the DREAM Act, and he has been against building the fence and the SAVE Act. Unfortunately, if he is to be totally open borders in order to please his base, he will also lose most folks in the middle. Illegal immigration will be one of the most important issues in November, and Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of tough border policy. That is NOT what Barack Obama has favored, and that is clearly not what his Latino constituency is demanding. With his opponent having a relatively moderate position as well, Obama will have to show a great deal of deference to open borders policies in order to secure that vote.
UPDATE:
Hello all VDARE readers for a full dossier of Obama's open borders policy please click here.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Border Security Victory
According to Numbers USA, the amnesty amendment to the war funding bill has been stripped.
There is a lot to analyze here. First, as you can see, there is still yet another provision open borders provision that has yet to be stripped.
What is impressive is the coordinated email campaign that the likes of Numbers USA, Townhall, GOP USA, the Minuteman, and Human Events, have created to wage a twenty first century grass roots campaign to mobilize anti illegal immigration forces. I received emails from each of the groups in the last twenty four hours regarding this matter.
Second, the forces that continue to push pro open borders legislation are constantly thwarted by this grass roots effort. Yet, there maybe a method to their so called madness. With each piece of pro open borders legislation, these groups mobilize into a full effort of emails, phone calls, and faxes. Each piece of legislation is thwarted.
Yet, what this has done is drained valuable resources from their main priority, the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act is the only enforcement only bill currently being considered. Nancy Pelosi refuses to move the bill to the floor unless it includes blanket amnesty. The sponsor, Heath Shuler, is trying to mobilize an effort for something called a discharge petition. If he is able to get a majority of Representatives to sign onto this discharge petition, Shuler can force the SAVE Act onto the floor without the approval of Pelosi.
Shuler is being supported in this effort by the same groups that mobilize against all of these open borders efforts. Since I first noticed their grass roots campaign they have secured about ten new members for the discharge petition. Shuler is now within thirty signatures. A successful discharge petition is nearly unheard of, and yet the SAVE Act is a unique bill. It enjoys bi partisan support from an eclectic group of politicians, activists, and special interests. Everyone from Tom Tancredo to John Murtha has backed the bill.
By placing unnecessary open borders amendments into war funding bill, grass roots groups are forced to limit their energies on the SAVE Act and focus those same energies onto fighting these pieces of legislation. Whether or not this is in fact the machiavellian plans of the open borders folks is something only they can say, however the effect is the same regardless.
CongressDaily AM today reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stripped the AgJOBS amnesty from the Iraq supplemental spending bill (H.R. 2642) last night as well as the increase in visas for employment-based permanent workers. Provisions to increase H-2B visas for unskilled seasonal workers remain in the bill. Please call your Senators to tell them to remove the H-2B visa increases as well, and to keep the AgJOBS amnesty and employment-based permanent worker increases off the bill.
There is a lot to analyze here. First, as you can see, there is still yet another provision open borders provision that has yet to be stripped.
What is impressive is the coordinated email campaign that the likes of Numbers USA, Townhall, GOP USA, the Minuteman, and Human Events, have created to wage a twenty first century grass roots campaign to mobilize anti illegal immigration forces. I received emails from each of the groups in the last twenty four hours regarding this matter.
Second, the forces that continue to push pro open borders legislation are constantly thwarted by this grass roots effort. Yet, there maybe a method to their so called madness. With each piece of pro open borders legislation, these groups mobilize into a full effort of emails, phone calls, and faxes. Each piece of legislation is thwarted.
Yet, what this has done is drained valuable resources from their main priority, the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act is the only enforcement only bill currently being considered. Nancy Pelosi refuses to move the bill to the floor unless it includes blanket amnesty. The sponsor, Heath Shuler, is trying to mobilize an effort for something called a discharge petition. If he is able to get a majority of Representatives to sign onto this discharge petition, Shuler can force the SAVE Act onto the floor without the approval of Pelosi.
Shuler is being supported in this effort by the same groups that mobilize against all of these open borders efforts. Since I first noticed their grass roots campaign they have secured about ten new members for the discharge petition. Shuler is now within thirty signatures. A successful discharge petition is nearly unheard of, and yet the SAVE Act is a unique bill. It enjoys bi partisan support from an eclectic group of politicians, activists, and special interests. Everyone from Tom Tancredo to John Murtha has backed the bill.
By placing unnecessary open borders amendments into war funding bill, grass roots groups are forced to limit their energies on the SAVE Act and focus those same energies onto fighting these pieces of legislation. Whether or not this is in fact the machiavellian plans of the open borders folks is something only they can say, however the effect is the same regardless.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Update on the SAVE Act
With little fanfare, the proponents of the SAVE Act are getting closer and closer to pulling off a herculean act of legislative imagination and ingenuity. The SAVE Act is an enforcement only bill that will create a system, if properly implemented, that will have a full proof identification and verfication mechanism for all employees so that employers can easily verify that each employee is in fact legal.
The bill has been introduced and is being lead by former QB and current Rep Heath Shuler. Despite the fact that Shuler is a Dem, the leadership in the House has refused to bring the bill to the floor unless it includes a mechanism for amnesty. Of course, this would defeat the purpose of the bill. Shuler and his allies have been undaunted. The bill has enjoyed bi partisan support as well as support from an eclectic group of activists and special interest groups. Shuler has pushed for what is called a discharge petition. He needs a majority of the Representatives to sign it and then the bill will reach the floor outside the authority of the Speaker. Normally, such a move has about a snowball's chance in hell of working. With the SAVE Act, the discharge petition has meticulously reached 189 and only needs 31 more signatures.
What is most amazing about what has happened is that it has been done with little if any media attention. Because this bill is enforcement only, the MSM has naturally nearly totally ignored it. Furthermore, the right blogosphere has given it little attention as well. Besides a few mentions on Michelle Malkin's site the right blogosphere has been totally asleep at the wheel in promoting this bill. Despite the fact that the right blogosphere claims to be so concerned about illegal immigration, they have said little about a bill that finally attempts to sensible deal with the problem.
In fact, the bill has been promoted through a sophisticated if low key network of special interest sites that include: Numbers USA, GOP USA, Human Events, Townhall, and the Minute Men Civil Defense Corps. These groups use a sophisticated system of emailed updates using their vast network of members to create the sort of grass roots ground game necessary to push this discharge petition through. Here is a part of the latest email alert from Numbers...
Thus, what is happening is a ground swell of excitement that is happening largely with the mainstream of the public not noticing. If the MSM or even the blogosphere had created the sort of buzz they would for any number of other bills, the SAVE Act would already be law. Instead, what is happening is a sophisticated 21st century viral grass roots effort being run and maintained solely by the most vocal and dedicated of anti illegal immigration activists. If 31 more signatures get signed on this petition, it will be a feat of legislative history, and furthermore, it will be one the mainstream public won't know about until it has already happened.
The bill has been introduced and is being lead by former QB and current Rep Heath Shuler. Despite the fact that Shuler is a Dem, the leadership in the House has refused to bring the bill to the floor unless it includes a mechanism for amnesty. Of course, this would defeat the purpose of the bill. Shuler and his allies have been undaunted. The bill has enjoyed bi partisan support as well as support from an eclectic group of activists and special interest groups. Shuler has pushed for what is called a discharge petition. He needs a majority of the Representatives to sign it and then the bill will reach the floor outside the authority of the Speaker. Normally, such a move has about a snowball's chance in hell of working. With the SAVE Act, the discharge petition has meticulously reached 189 and only needs 31 more signatures.
What is most amazing about what has happened is that it has been done with little if any media attention. Because this bill is enforcement only, the MSM has naturally nearly totally ignored it. Furthermore, the right blogosphere has given it little attention as well. Besides a few mentions on Michelle Malkin's site the right blogosphere has been totally asleep at the wheel in promoting this bill. Despite the fact that the right blogosphere claims to be so concerned about illegal immigration, they have said little about a bill that finally attempts to sensible deal with the problem.
In fact, the bill has been promoted through a sophisticated if low key network of special interest sites that include: Numbers USA, GOP USA, Human Events, Townhall, and the Minute Men Civil Defense Corps. These groups use a sophisticated system of emailed updates using their vast network of members to create the sort of grass roots ground game necessary to push this discharge petition through. Here is a part of the latest email alert from Numbers...
The most powerful way to stop any new attempts to reward illegal aliens with amnesty is to prove that enforcement can dramatically reduce the current illegal population. We have a chance to do that this year if we can force a vote in the U.S. House on the bi-partisan SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) of Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.).
But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't allow a vote on SAVE.So, 187 Members of the U.S. House have signed a Discharge Petition to force a vote. If we can persuade just 31 more Members of the 435 in the House to sign the petition, Pelosi will be required to put the SAVE Act to a vote.
Thus, what is happening is a ground swell of excitement that is happening largely with the mainstream of the public not noticing. If the MSM or even the blogosphere had created the sort of buzz they would for any number of other bills, the SAVE Act would already be law. Instead, what is happening is a sophisticated 21st century viral grass roots effort being run and maintained solely by the most vocal and dedicated of anti illegal immigration activists. If 31 more signatures get signed on this petition, it will be a feat of legislative history, and furthermore, it will be one the mainstream public won't know about until it has already happened.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The Dem House Leadership Vs the SAVE Act
Hat tip to Human Events
Why would the House leadership block the one bi partisan sensible piece of legislation they have? That answer I don't know, however that appears to be exactly what the House leadership is doing to the SAVE Act (Secure America through Verification and Enforcement) Here is the key element of the SAVE Act.
The SAVE Act happens to be an enforcement only bill and that is likely the source of the opposition from the House. There are several ironic twists of fate in the tale of the SAVE Act and not the least of which is that this bill is being sponsored by a Democrat. (Heath Shuler (D)NC) It had so much support from both sides that I once referred to it as the rock star bill. Everyone from Tom Tancredo to John Murtha had gotten behind the bill. Yet, in a blatant play to her open borders allies, Nancy Pelosi has decided to bury the bill and not allow it a vote in front of the full House. (which most backers believe would result in overwhelming approval)
Now, Shuler has teamed up with Congressmen Brian Bilbray (R-California) to bring what is called a "discharge petition." Under House rules, if a simple majority, 218 Members, sign this discharge petition, the SAVE Act of 2007 will be forced to the floor of the House for an up-or-down vote! Ironically enough while 181 members have signed the petition, there are 38 co sponsors of the bill that still haven't signed the petition. If they did, the petition would have enough votes to go through.
Here is all the sponsors who still haven't signed the petition.
Many of these are of course Dems that are currently being strong armed by Pelosi and the rest of the apparatus. It appears the House leadership is determined to torpedo the one good piece of legislation we have all year.
Human Events has nefarious intentions for Pelosi's behavior...
I will leave it up to the reader to decide, however a piece of legislation with a lot of potential to put a dent in illegal immigration (Here is my criticism of the SAVE Act) will die in committee unless something happens soon.
If you want to make a difference, here is a good place to start.
Why would the House leadership block the one bi partisan sensible piece of legislation they have? That answer I don't know, however that appears to be exactly what the House leadership is doing to the SAVE Act (Secure America through Verification and Enforcement) Here is the key element of the SAVE Act.
SAVE would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system. This internet system provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify that employees are not illegal aliens. The rules for use are such that no employee or employer suffers if there is a mistake in the system because there is ample time to correct errors on the employee's side and on the government's side.
The SAVE Act happens to be an enforcement only bill and that is likely the source of the opposition from the House. There are several ironic twists of fate in the tale of the SAVE Act and not the least of which is that this bill is being sponsored by a Democrat. (Heath Shuler (D)NC) It had so much support from both sides that I once referred to it as the rock star bill. Everyone from Tom Tancredo to John Murtha had gotten behind the bill. Yet, in a blatant play to her open borders allies, Nancy Pelosi has decided to bury the bill and not allow it a vote in front of the full House. (which most backers believe would result in overwhelming approval)
Now, Shuler has teamed up with Congressmen Brian Bilbray (R-California) to bring what is called a "discharge petition." Under House rules, if a simple majority, 218 Members, sign this discharge petition, the SAVE Act of 2007 will be forced to the floor of the House for an up-or-down vote! Ironically enough while 181 members have signed the petition, there are 38 co sponsors of the bill that still haven't signed the petition. If they did, the petition would have enough votes to go through.
Here is all the sponsors who still haven't signed the petition.
The Hon. Jason Altmire, The Hon. Michael A. Arcuri, The Hon. Brian Baird, The Hon. Melissa L. Bean, The Hon. Marion Berry, The Hon. Sanford Bishop, The Hon. Dan Boren, The Hon. Leonard L. Boswell, The Hon. Rick Boucher, The Hon. Allen Boyd, The Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, The Hon. Steve Cohen, The Hon. Jim Cooper, The Hon. Robert E. (Bud), Cramer Jr., The Hon. Artur Davis, The Hon. Lincoln Davis, The Hon. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, The Hon. Bart Gordon, The Hon. Brian Higgins, The Hon. Baron P. Hill, The Hon. Paul W. Hodes, The Hon. Tim Holden, The Hon. Steve Kagen, The Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, The Hon. Ron Klein, The Hon. Jim Marshall, The Hon. Jim Matheson, The Hon. Jerry McNerney, The Hon. Charlie Melancon, The Hon. Patrick J. Murphy, The Hon. John P. Murtha, The Hon. Ed Perlmutter, The Hon. Ciro D. Rodriguez, The Hon. Mike Ross, The Hon. Tim Ryan, The Hon. Joe Sestak, The Hon. Zachary T. Space, The Hon. Bart Stupak, The Hon. John S. Tanner, The Hon. Mark Udall, The Hon. Don Young, The Hon. Peter J. Visclosky
Many of these are of course Dems that are currently being strong armed by Pelosi and the rest of the apparatus. It appears the House leadership is determined to torpedo the one good piece of legislation we have all year.
Human Events has nefarious intentions for Pelosi's behavior...
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a handful of her far-left cronies in Congress are plotting to put amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens back on the table!
And their first order of business is BLOCKING legislation that
would finally beef up our nation's border security and crack down on employers that hire illegal aliens.
I will leave it up to the reader to decide, however a piece of legislation with a lot of potential to put a dent in illegal immigration (Here is my criticism of the SAVE Act) will die in committee unless something happens soon.
If you want to make a difference, here is a good place to start.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Hardball Politics on the Save Act?
So sayeth the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps... Once again the SAVE Act is a bill, sponsored by former qb and current NC Congressman Heath Shuler, which would among other things set up a system where all employees would be identified and matched up against a central database so that employers can make sure that all their employees are legal. Here is a quick summary of how it would work...
Now, I have some reservations about the potential new bloated bureaucracy that this would create, however on paper this is by far the most sensible and productive bill dealing with illegal immigration that we have. Not only that, it is supported by an eclectic group of politicians and activist ranging from Latino groups to Tom Tancredo to John Murtha.
This bill should be on the fast track to becoming legislation. So why is it withering away in committee? The Minutemen have a theory. Here is a bit of an email I received...
SAVE would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system. This internet system provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify that employees are not illegal aliens. The rules for use are such that no employee or employer suffers if there is a mistake in the system because there is ample time to correct errors on the employee's side and on the government's side.
Now, I have some reservations about the potential new bloated bureaucracy that this would create, however on paper this is by far the most sensible and productive bill dealing with illegal immigration that we have. Not only that, it is supported by an eclectic group of politicians and activist ranging from Latino groups to Tom Tancredo to John Murtha.
This bill should be on the fast track to becoming legislation. So why is it withering away in committee? The Minutemen have a theory. Here is a bit of an email I received...
Speaker Pelosi and her cronies are doing everything they can to keep House Democrats from signing a discharge petition that would bring the bi-partisan SAVE ACT (H.R. 4088) to a vote on the House floor. House rules require 218 Congressmen to sign the petition in order for a vote to occur, but only a handful of House Democrats have been brave enough to oppose Pelosi in order to save our country from the dangers of an open border and lax enforcement of our immigration laws.Now, it goes without saying that the Minutemen and Pelosi are bitter political rivals. They are nothing if not without an agenda. That said, this bill has been around since September. It was created by a Democrat. There is absolutely no reason why this bill shouldn't have seen a floor vote by now...unless the leadership doesn't want it. That is the clear implication of the email. Keep in mind the quasi amnesty DREAM Act saw a full legislature vote. If the leadership insists on seeing amnesty bills get votes, they should also allow enforcement bills the same luxury.
As of this writing, only 150 Congressmen have added their names to the discharge petition in hopes of moving a vote this week, before the start of their two-week Easter recess. Some original co-sponsors of this bill have not added their names to the petition, for fear of reprisals by the House Democratic Leadership.
At least 69 Congressmen still need to sign the discharge petition in order for a vote to be held this week.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Update on H.R. 1955, H.R. 505, and the SAVE Act.
I think it is a good time to give some quick updates on some of the bills I have been tracking.
First, let's start with H.R. 1955. This is a bill that tries to address the increasingly concerning threat of homegrown terrorism. I, like most, agree that homegrown terrorism is a serious issue and it should be addressed by the government. While this bill is well intentioned, I did find some things that were troubling...
The vague definition I referred to was to the bill's definition of a homegrown terrorist.
As with many bills, this one came out of committee in the house, and then it passed the full House only to languish in committee in the Senate. This bill looks to be one of many that has a quick move through the House and then meets roadblocks when it enters the Senate.
H.R. 505...This is a bill that looked to establish certain sovereign rights within the state of Hawaii. Here is the pertinent part.
This bill is another example of one that made some ripples while it moved through the House only to be dead on arrival once it reached the Senate. It languishes in committee along with H.R. 1955.
The SAVE Act. I once referred to this bill as a rock star. I stand by that. It has 122 co sponsors. It is being sponsored by such names as John Murtha and Tom Tancredo. It is being hailed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus as well as several business groups. There is a wide ranging and eclectic group of law makers, civic groups, and other power players that are backing this bill. Here is the quick rundown...
It is currently in no less than eight committees...in one stage or another. While there is no recent news, I absolutely believe that it will be taken up next year and is very likely to become law. There are simply too many folks that occupy too many different parts of the ideological world that are all behind it for anything else to happen. It is interesting that this is the only one to not quickly pass out of committee and the full House. That just shows the contrarian nature of which bills are legit and which aren't. I will continue to watch this bill and I do expect serious and tangible action on it in the new year.
First, let's start with H.R. 1955. This is a bill that tries to address the increasingly concerning threat of homegrown terrorism. I, like most, agree that homegrown terrorism is a serious issue and it should be addressed by the government. While this bill is well intentioned, I did find some things that were troubling...
I think the vague definitions that this bill appears to have lends itself to potential abuses of civil liberties. The bill is certainly well intentioned. Home grown terrorists are a big and bigger problem. That said, it doesn't seem to me to be something that can be legislated. This seems to be a priority law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security matter. I don't think you can legislate tougher measures against homegrown terrorists. That happens when departments apply more pressure, more focus, and more resources to the matter.Finally, from scanning the bill, I have found one other big potential problem. Here is the full text of the bill. Here is the part that concerns me.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection...
The vague definition I referred to was to the bill's definition of a homegrown terrorist.
As with many bills, this one came out of committee in the house, and then it passed the full House only to languish in committee in the Senate. This bill looks to be one of many that has a quick move through the House and then meets roadblocks when it enters the Senate.
H.R. 505...This is a bill that looked to establish certain sovereign rights within the state of Hawaii. Here is the pertinent part.
Recognizes the right of the Nativ more...e Hawaiian people to reorganize the single Native Hawaiian governing entity to provide for their common welfare and to adopt appropriate organic governing documents. Establishes a Commission to: (1) prepare and maintain a roll of the adult members of the Native Hawaiian community who elect to participate in such reorganization; and (2) certify that the adult members of the Native Hawaiian community proposed for inclusion on the roll meet the definition of Native Hawaiian.This is a dangerous bill and I said as much. The sort of sovereignty this would create for some in the state of Hawaii would threaten the very sovereignty of the United States. This bill is modeled on the special treatment that our government gives to Indian Reservations. While we can debate the merits of giving the Native Americans special rights, I am firmly against expanding those rights to other groups.
This bill is another example of one that made some ripples while it moved through the House only to be dead on arrival once it reached the Senate. It languishes in committee along with H.R. 1955.
The SAVE Act. I once referred to this bill as a rock star. I stand by that. It has 122 co sponsors. It is being sponsored by such names as John Murtha and Tom Tancredo. It is being hailed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus as well as several business groups. There is a wide ranging and eclectic group of law makers, civic groups, and other power players that are backing this bill. Here is the quick rundown...
SAVE Act would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system. This internet system provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify that employees are not illegal aliens. The rules for use are such that no employee or employer suffers if there is a mistake in the system because there is ample time to correct errors on the employee's side and on the government's side.So, in theory, this bill would provide a system for creating an ID card that would be able to identify quickly and easily the legal status of every potential and current employee. As Yogi once said,
in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there isThat seems to be the operative language with this bill. While there are things that trouble me about it, it continues to be the first bill vis a vis illegal immigration to at least have the right idea.
It is currently in no less than eight committees...in one stage or another. While there is no recent news, I absolutely believe that it will be taken up next year and is very likely to become law. There are simply too many folks that occupy too many different parts of the ideological world that are all behind it for anything else to happen. It is interesting that this is the only one to not quickly pass out of committee and the full House. That just shows the contrarian nature of which bills are legit and which aren't. I will continue to watch this bill and I do expect serious and tangible action on it in the new year.
Monday, December 24, 2007
The Peculiar Inegmatic H.R. 1955
I have only recently been made aware of this bill and for now I will reserve judgement besides the observation that it is peculiar and enigmatic. It is called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 and it is sponsored and promoted almost exclusively by Democrats led by Jane Harmon. Thus, not surprisingly, this has made it the target of conservative pundits.
I have personal experience with the dangerous and corrosive effect of vague legislation in my business, mortgages. Thus, my radar is up to the potential dangers pointed out in this column.It is also being challenged on civil liberties grounds.
I think the vague definitions that this bill appears to have lends itself to potential abuses of civil liberties. The bill is certainly well intentioned. Home grown terrorists are a big and bigger problem. That said, it doesn't seem to me to be something that can be legislated. This seems to be a priority law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security matter. I don't think you can legislate tougher measures against homegrown terrorists. That happens when departments apply more pressure, more focus, and more resources to the matter.Finally, from scanning the bill, I have found one other big potential problem. Here is the full text of the bill. Here is the part that concerns me.
Invariably, whenever Congress identifies a problem they want to study it. Invariably, this group turns into nothing more than an added layer to the bureaucracy that comes to the federal government for money, my money and every other tax payer's money. I have already pointed out the huge potential problem of the added bureaucracy of the SAVE Act. Yet again, Congress has created a bill that will ultimately add to the size of government.
I am not against studying homegrown terrorists, however there are two things that I see to be problematic here. The first is that it is best studied through field work. In other words, the FBI agents, secret service, and police that are out on the street battling homegrown terrorist are in effect engaged in the study of homegrown terrorists. This isn't the sort of thing that academics studying theory would contribute in any reasonable way. We don't need Congress to act to do this. Hopefully, it is already happening. Second, I don't think my tax dollars should go to such theoretical research. If someone wants to fund a university to study homegrown terrorists, let them but it shouldn't be my money.
Thus, Orwell says, we end up with political language that consists "largely of euphemism ... and sheer cloudy vagueness."That's how we end up with terms like "surge" for escalation, or "enhanced interrogation techniques" for torture.The language of H.R. 1955, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown TerrorismPrevention Act, which passed the House on Oct. 23 and is now in committee in the Senate, has that Orwellian quality of sheer cloudy vagueness, and as such lends itself to the potential for 1984-ish Thought Police in the form of a committee.
I have personal experience with the dangerous and corrosive effect of vague legislation in my business, mortgages. Thus, my radar is up to the potential dangers pointed out in this column.It is also being challenged on civil liberties grounds.
Many scholars, historians and civil liberties experts say they fear that the proposed bill will set the stage for future criminal legislation that be used against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations."
This bill fits the pattern we are seeing coming out of Congress - both Republican and Democratic - of a continued campaign of fear, which gets into heads of Americans that we now need to start criminalizing ideology," said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. H said he is very concerned about the bill's vague definitions of "violent radicalization," "homegrown terrorism," and the terms within the definitions including "extremist belief system," "violence" and "force."
"What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this?" Queral questioned. "Planes flying into the World Trade Center is an extremist belief, but are anti-abortion activists extremists? Are individuals who liberate mink extremists? These are broad definitions that encompass so much, which need to rather be very narrowly tailored. It is criminalizing thought and ideology, rather than criminal activity."
I think the vague definitions that this bill appears to have lends itself to potential abuses of civil liberties. The bill is certainly well intentioned. Home grown terrorists are a big and bigger problem. That said, it doesn't seem to me to be something that can be legislated. This seems to be a priority law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security matter. I don't think you can legislate tougher measures against homegrown terrorists. That happens when departments apply more pressure, more focus, and more resources to the matter.Finally, from scanning the bill, I have found one other big potential problem. Here is the full text of the bill. Here is the part that concerns me.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection...
Invariably, whenever Congress identifies a problem they want to study it. Invariably, this group turns into nothing more than an added layer to the bureaucracy that comes to the federal government for money, my money and every other tax payer's money. I have already pointed out the huge potential problem of the added bureaucracy of the SAVE Act. Yet again, Congress has created a bill that will ultimately add to the size of government.
I am not against studying homegrown terrorists, however there are two things that I see to be problematic here. The first is that it is best studied through field work. In other words, the FBI agents, secret service, and police that are out on the street battling homegrown terrorist are in effect engaged in the study of homegrown terrorists. This isn't the sort of thing that academics studying theory would contribute in any reasonable way. We don't need Congress to act to do this. Hopefully, it is already happening. Second, I don't think my tax dollars should go to such theoretical research. If someone wants to fund a university to study homegrown terrorists, let them but it shouldn't be my money.
The SAVE Act and My Favorite Yogi Berra Quote
Yogi Berra once said this...
Here is how Numbers USA analyzed the most important part of the bill, the verification system of employees by employers.
Yet, no one is asking the sort of critical questions necessary to figure out how to resolve all the potential nightmares that this bureaucracy may bring. Here is what Numbers USA says.
The SAVE Act will broaden and enhance border security and interior enforcement. With a number of border security Democrats and Republicans already agreeing to co-sponsor, this bipartisan effort may be Congress’s best chance to achieve substantial immigration reform this Congress.
Here is how Michelle Malkin sees the bill.
No one is talking about any of these vital issues because we finally have a piece of legislation vis a vis illegal immigration that actually sounds good in concept. Most people take its goals at face without ever asking how the bill will be carried out to accomplish them. Just because a bill has good intentions, and this one clearly does, doesn't mean that the bill will accomplish those goals.
Everyone is fawning over this bill like it is the prom queen and no one is asking any critical questions. If we don't ask any critical questions then we will fawn over yet another counter productive bureaucracy.
in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practiceI get that feeling when breaking down the SAVE Act. There are frankly very few laws that sound bad in theory. That unfortunately is not true in the debate over illegal immigration. Most of the proposed laws to deal with illegal immigration weren't just bad in practice but in theory. Whether it is driver's licenses for illegals, the mass amnesty of last summer's comprehensive bill, or the mass amnesty of the DREAM Act, most of the bills that deal with illegal immigration are bad even in theory. Not so with the SAVE Act, this bill sounds absolutely wonderful in theory. Here are the particulars as enumerated by one of my readers.
there is.
8000 more Border Patrol agentsMore Judges, courts, and detention centers. Border fencing and vehicle barriers (where needed), and all-weather surveillance roads in conjunction with high tech surveillance equipment including satellite surveillance, infra red, and seismic detection. It requires construction along the border to take into account environmental and private land use needs.Requires development of a national strategy to secure the borders and all ports of entry to the United States by December 31, 2010.
This Bill even has accountable and transparent financing of the effort built into it giving power of oversight to the Comptroller and Inspector Generals to keep Congress appraised.This bill is going to receive some stiff opposition from organizations like LULAC and LaRaza, and incumbent Democrats beholding to the illegal immigrant population communities, and incumbent Republicans beholding to employers pressing for cheap illegal labor. They will try to fight this Bill. This SAVE Act offers the Independent voters in America the first real opportunity to flex their newfound muscle by supporting this Bill and pressing their representatives to vote for this legislation.
Here is how Numbers USA analyzed the most important part of the bill, the verification system of employees by employers.
provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify employee eligibility. E-Verify has already achieved tremendous success, but is currently voluntary and offers little incentive for employers to participate. This puts users at an economic disadvantage when it is only being used by a fraction of U.S. employers and competitors continue to hire illegal aliens.All of this sounds great "in theory" however...
in theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practiceSure, it all sounds great that we will finally have a system where employers can verify the legal status of all of their employees. In practice that system will be done by a new government bureaucracy. In practice, most government bureaucracies fail in their mission and become counter productive. In theory, the DMV sounded like a great idea. In theory, Medicare was a great idea. In theory, social security was a good... all right that would be taking things too far. Still, the difference between whether or not most bills become good bills isn't theory but practice.
there is
Yet, no one is asking the sort of critical questions necessary to figure out how to resolve all the potential nightmares that this bureaucracy may bring. Here is what Numbers USA says.
The SAVE Act will broaden and enhance border security and interior enforcement. With a number of border security Democrats and Republicans already agreeing to co-sponsor, this bipartisan effort may be Congress’s best chance to achieve substantial immigration reform this Congress.
Here is how Michelle Malkin sees the bill.
There are, believe it or not, a few Democrats who have their heads screwed on straight when it comes to immigration enforcement. Several were elected last fall; the open-borders lobby has conveniently ignored them.Referring of course to Congressman Heath Shuler who is the main sponsor of the bill.Here is the word from Tom Tancredo's PAC.
Well, now there is a bipartisan immigration bill that actually reforms our immigration system rather than just opening our borders and granting amnesty. We need to put the pressure on members of both parties to support this bill!Even John Murtha showers this bill with nothing but fawning accolades.
This bipartisan bill will help our law enforcement agencies provide tighter border security and give our employers the resources they need to verify documented and undocumented workers,” noted Murtha.No one is talking about exactly how this bill will be carried out. What will the new bureaucracy look like? How will it carry out its mission? How will this bureaucracy be any different than Social Security which was supposed to do the exact same thing? Everyone is just impressed how in vague theory it will secure our borders and help verify employees legal status. Just because it will do this in theory doesn't mean it will do it in practice.
No one is talking about any of these vital issues because we finally have a piece of legislation vis a vis illegal immigration that actually sounds good in concept. Most people take its goals at face without ever asking how the bill will be carried out to accomplish them. Just because a bill has good intentions, and this one clearly does, doesn't mean that the bill will accomplish those goals.
Everyone is fawning over this bill like it is the prom queen and no one is asking any critical questions. If we don't ask any critical questions then we will fawn over yet another counter productive bureaucracy.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Passing Along Vital Information on Illegal Immigration
Number USA sent me this email this morning.
Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have introduced Senate versions of Rep. Heath Shuler's (D-N.C.) SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement [H.R. 4088]). Sen. Pryor's bill is S. 2368 and Sen. Vitter's bill is S. 2366.
The two bills are substantively the same -- essentially both bills are identical, so the best thing would be to encourage your Senator to sign onto both. If they want to make a choice based on something other that the substance of the bill, that is their call, but NumbersUSA has endorsed both.
Send this fax asking your Senators to cosponsor BOTH S. 2368 and S. 2366, important bills that would immediately begin to reduce illegal immigration.
My last post on the matter pointed out that the SAVE Act has started to gain a sort of rockstar status. I believe this believe has all the right intentions and it has a ton of potential, however the fawning which is being given to it scares me.
This bill has a huge potential flaw that no one but me it seems is willing to talk about. This will create yet another massive government bureaucracy and that is almost never good and I have heard nothing about this bureaucracy.Thus, my advice is that everyone do what Numbers asks, but that you also ask about this new bureaucracy and see if the pols know how it will be implemented.
Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have introduced Senate versions of Rep. Heath Shuler's (D-N.C.) SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement [H.R. 4088]). Sen. Pryor's bill is S. 2368 and Sen. Vitter's bill is S. 2366.
The two bills are substantively the same -- essentially both bills are identical, so the best thing would be to encourage your Senator to sign onto both. If they want to make a choice based on something other that the substance of the bill, that is their call, but NumbersUSA has endorsed both.
Send this fax asking your Senators to cosponsor BOTH S. 2368 and S. 2366, important bills that would immediately begin to reduce illegal immigration.
My last post on the matter pointed out that the SAVE Act has started to gain a sort of rockstar status. I believe this believe has all the right intentions and it has a ton of potential, however the fawning which is being given to it scares me.
This bill has a huge potential flaw that no one but me it seems is willing to talk about. This will create yet another massive government bureaucracy and that is almost never good and I have heard nothing about this bureaucracy.Thus, my advice is that everyone do what Numbers asks, but that you also ask about this new bureaucracy and see if the pols know how it will be implemented.
SAVE Act: The New Rockstar Bill
If you ever wanted to compare a bill to a rock star, then the SAVE Act would be the rock star. Most bills are much to mundane and wordy to ever warrant such a comparison, however this one may be different. While I support the idea of this bill, and much of its content, I am concerned that the rock star status of the bill may lead to trouble.
First, let's get everyone a brief background on the SAVE Act. It does several things to beef border security however the center piece of the act is a new verification system, that if it works properly, will insure that every employer can easily verify if their employees are here legally. (Go here for more reference) This bill is being introduced by former quarterback now Congressman Heath Shuler of North Carolina. It has an impressive array of supporters. Everyone from Tom Tancredo, to the National Federation of Independent Business, to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers support this bill.
Congressmen from every stripe are lining up to support this bill. Everyone from members of the Congressional Black Caucus like Congressmen Davis (D-Alabama) and Bishop (D-Georgia), to members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus like Congressman Rodriguez (D-Texas), to strange bedfellows like Congressmen Rohrbacher and Murtha.
Numbers USA speaks about this bill the way most dorky high schoolers describe the head cheerleader.
NumbersUSA believes that this legislation originating on the Democratic side of the House is just the vehicle to give us a chance to actually pass immigration legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress that would significantly improve the lives of most Americans.
Well, with all due respect to the fawning supporters of SAVE Act, it won't necessarily be a minor inconvenience. It may just be a disaster waiting to happen. This new bureaucracy sounds good on paper but there are no guarantees that it will do what it is supposed to do. INS and subsequent metamorpheses in the DHS have shown time and again that they fail to do what they are supposed to do. How many times do we hear stories of the Feds losing track of illegals.
This system can very well be headed for the same type of disaster if everyone that fawns over it refuses to address what I see as a huge potential problem. While politicians of both stripes push others out of the way to be the first in line to support this bill, I hope they also understand that just because a bill has good intentions doesn't mean it will actually be implemented effectively.
I have heard absolutely nothing from anyone about how this massive new bureaucracy is going to function. The only thing I hear is that we will finally have a system that tracks the legal status of employees. With all due respect to everyone, I thought that social security numbers were designed to do that. If those have proven ineffective, there are no guarantees that this will either. I am not saying this system will fail. In fact, I hope it won't. What I am saying is that everyone needs to stop fawning over this thing like a beauty queen and actually examine it in a sober manner. No bill is ever perfect and the worst are often those that everyone thinks at the time is great.
This bill has potential to do great things against the cancer of illegal immigration, however it also has the potential of creating yet another massive non functioning bureaucracy. Just because we want it to do the first doesn't mean it won't actually do the second.
First, let's get everyone a brief background on the SAVE Act. It does several things to beef border security however the center piece of the act is a new verification system, that if it works properly, will insure that every employer can easily verify if their employees are here legally. (Go here for more reference) This bill is being introduced by former quarterback now Congressman Heath Shuler of North Carolina. It has an impressive array of supporters. Everyone from Tom Tancredo, to the National Federation of Independent Business, to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers support this bill.
Congressmen from every stripe are lining up to support this bill. Everyone from members of the Congressional Black Caucus like Congressmen Davis (D-Alabama) and Bishop (D-Georgia), to members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus like Congressman Rodriguez (D-Texas), to strange bedfellows like Congressmen Rohrbacher and Murtha.
Numbers USA speaks about this bill the way most dorky high schoolers describe the head cheerleader.
NumbersUSA believes that this legislation originating on the Democratic side of the House is just the vehicle to give us a chance to actually pass immigration legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress that would significantly improve the lives of most Americans.
"It's the one [immigration] bill that will pass this Congress," said Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus Chairman Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) in an interview with The Hill. "We have to make this about illegal employment and crack down on employers."My own blog has lit up with readers of previous blog entries. It seems everyone is fawning over this bill as though it is infallable. The problem is that it is fallable. There is a huge potential problem that all the fawning supporters overlook and disregard. This bill would create a huge new bureaucracy. Most massive bureaucracies aren't merely a headache but frankly counter productive. Most people that I mention this to write it off and say it is just something we will need to deal with for border security.
Well, with all due respect to the fawning supporters of SAVE Act, it won't necessarily be a minor inconvenience. It may just be a disaster waiting to happen. This new bureaucracy sounds good on paper but there are no guarantees that it will do what it is supposed to do. INS and subsequent metamorpheses in the DHS have shown time and again that they fail to do what they are supposed to do. How many times do we hear stories of the Feds losing track of illegals.
This system can very well be headed for the same type of disaster if everyone that fawns over it refuses to address what I see as a huge potential problem. While politicians of both stripes push others out of the way to be the first in line to support this bill, I hope they also understand that just because a bill has good intentions doesn't mean it will actually be implemented effectively.
I have heard absolutely nothing from anyone about how this massive new bureaucracy is going to function. The only thing I hear is that we will finally have a system that tracks the legal status of employees. With all due respect to everyone, I thought that social security numbers were designed to do that. If those have proven ineffective, there are no guarantees that this will either. I am not saying this system will fail. In fact, I hope it won't. What I am saying is that everyone needs to stop fawning over this thing like a beauty queen and actually examine it in a sober manner. No bill is ever perfect and the worst are often those that everyone thinks at the time is great.
This bill has potential to do great things against the cancer of illegal immigration, however it also has the potential of creating yet another massive non functioning bureaucracy. Just because we want it to do the first doesn't mean it won't actually do the second.
SAVE Act Builds Momentum
According to Numbers USA, both business and labor leaders have endorsed this bill.
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), representing more than 600,000 small businesses in every state endorsed SAVE's requirement that every employer run every new hire (and eventually old hires) through the electronic E-Verify system to ensure that illegal aliens don't get American jobs. It said the bill strikes a “fair balance between increased enforcement and limiting regulatory burdens placed on small business.”
The 752,000-member International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -- as a way to protect American jobs for American workers -- endorsed the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement Act (SAVE Act).
In politics you never say never, however it is fair to say that the SAVE Act has some great momentum. It certainly has all the political elements in place to become law. Here is how Heath Shuler, the man that introduced the bill, put it.
The SAVE Act is commonsense legislation that is bringing people together to address this difficult issue," Shuler said. "I was proud to work with the NFIB and IBEW while drafting this legislation because of their strong representation of American businesses and American workers. I deeply appreciate their continued support for this bill as we work to pass the SAVE Act into law.”
Numbers says that some bloggers have expressed doubts that it isn't tough enough. I have not heard and my doubts are different and so far they haven't been heard. SAVE Act will most likely create a massive new government bureaucracy. This bill has all the right intentions and lots of people behind it and for that matter I am afraid that many are overlooking its potential problem. I firmly believe that with proper attention and debate the Congress can work it out so that this bureaucracy doesn't become counter productive. That won't happen unless people recognize the potential problem.
Too often we fawn over good work. I believe that some of that is happening here. I firmly believe that Congressman Shuler has created a bill that can have tangible positive effects on stemming the flow of illegal immigration. That doesn't mean that there aren't potential flaws. If we don't address the right way to deal with the massive new bureaucracy that will be put in place, it will wind up working about as well as much of the rest of INS and other such bureaus.
I support the concept behind this bill and I believe that it needs a full and fair hearing, however I am troubled by the way in which a bi partisan group of legislators and special interests are falling over each other without offering any constructive criticism to make it better. We don't need another massive non functioning bureaucracy, and that is what we will have if the powers that be don't recognize that potential flaw and address it. It won't be addressed if every group under the sun is fawning over this bill like a rock star.
As always, the hat tip goes again to Numbers USA. The SAVE Act is picking up steam. It now has more than seventy sponsors and most importantly we are getting a cross section of sponsorship. Republicans and Democrats alike are getting behind this bill. It received a crucial endorsement last week when it received the endorsement of Tom Tancredo. This bill has two members of the Congressional Black Caucus (Rep. Davis (D-Ala.) and Rep. Bishop (D-Ga.) and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (Rep. Rodriguez (D-Texas). It has 46 Republicans and 44 Democrats that have signed on. Even the unlikely bedfellows of Dana Rohrbacher and John Murtha have both gotten on board.
We should all temper our excitement. While I like the bill, I believe it has a serious potential problem. This bill will in fact create a massive new government bureaucracy. More times then not, that does more harm than good. I still have heard nothing about how this will be dealt with. Before this bill gets passed, I hope this is dealt with. Here is numbers on the inside baseball of it.
.I am also happy to report that Representative Shuler has finally made information about this bill available on his site. This bill has a lot of potential and I believe that when it is passed it WILL be landmark legislation, however everyone must stay on top of it. We cannot assume that big bureaucracy will fix itself. Please urge all legislators to give it a full and fair hearing but also encourage everyone to work on resolving the massive government bureaucracy it may start.
We should all temper our excitement. While I like the bill, I believe it has a serious potential problem. This bill will in fact create a massive new government bureaucracy. More times then not, that does more harm than good. I still have heard nothing about how this will be dealt with. Before this bill gets passed, I hope this is dealt with. Here is numbers on the inside baseball of it.
Our Capitol Hill Team is finding that most of the Republicans who have not yet signed onto this bill have been slowed down by caution from House Republican leadership. The House GOP leaders feel that other enforcement bills introduced this year solely by Republicans are tougher, especially in terms of local arrests and detentions. But it is highly unlikely that any of the GOP bills can be pushed onto the House floor for a vote before the next elections.
GOP leaders also are questioning signing onto the Shuler bill alongside a lot of Democratic freshmen whom they have hoped to defeat next year, in part because they aren't tough enough against illegal immigration. You will want to push your Republican non-signers into co-sponsoring the Shuler bill by putting the improvement of American communities ahead of partisan advantage.As for Democrats, your Capitol Hill Team is hearing that talk about the Shuler bill is spreading through the Members like wildfire, causing a lot of fence-sitting Democrats to consider appeasing their louder and louder constituents by signing onto this bill.
After being crushed by hostile phone and fax from constituents for several years, many of these Democrats are being tempted to do something popular on immigration with this bill which they consider more moderate than previous enforcement bills that have come before them. Your pressure on your DemocraticRepresentatives may create just the right amount of extra rationale for Democratic leaders in the House to waive aside their preference for amnesties and allow this enforcement bill to get a vote
.I am also happy to report that Representative Shuler has finally made information about this bill available on his site. This bill has a lot of potential and I believe that when it is passed it WILL be landmark legislation, however everyone must stay on top of it. We cannot assume that big bureaucracy will fix itself. Please urge all legislators to give it a full and fair hearing but also encourage everyone to work on resolving the massive government bureaucracy it may start.
SAVE Act: The Follow Up
As with most matters on illegal immigration, the hat tip goes to Numbers USA. They are all over such matters. Here is the latest coming from them.
Once again, the SAVE Act would create a system where each employer can verify the status of each and every employee and potential employee. My main potential problem with this bill is that it sounds good in theory but may wind up being a scary monstrocity in practice. This bill would no doubt create another massive government bureaucracy and that almost never works. I want to hear some details about how this will be addressed, however that is what a full and fair debate is for, and everyone should be for that. Here are some more details.
UPDATE:Here is my email to my Representative Rahm Emanuel.Congressman,
Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC) is expected to introduce the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement Act (SAVE Act) November 5th. NumbersUSAbelieves this immigration enforcement-only bill is just the vehicle to give us a chance to pass immigration legislation through the Democrat-controlled Congress that would actually improve the lives of most Americans.
Your Democratic U.S. Representative could quickly improve his/her immigration-reduction grade (click here to his/her see ABI gradecard) by becoming an original co-sponsor of the SAVE Act. He/she needs to hear from you TODAY. Call your representative and urge him/her to sign on as an original cosponsor to this important legislation, which would immediately begin to reduce the magnet for illegal immigration.
Once again, the SAVE Act would create a system where each employer can verify the status of each and every employee and potential employee. My main potential problem with this bill is that it sounds good in theory but may wind up being a scary monstrocity in practice. This bill would no doubt create another massive government bureaucracy and that almost never works. I want to hear some details about how this will be addressed, however that is what a full and fair debate is for, and everyone should be for that. Here are some more details.
We know Attrition Through Enforcement works because, in states that have passed tough new laws to penalize employers of and deny public benefits to illegal aliens, the illegal aliens began to move out of those states, often before the new laws are even implemented. As it currently stands, almost 200,000 illegal aliens self-deport from the United States every year, but imagine how many more would leave if our government refused to award illegal aliens another amnesty, mandated all employers to verify a person’s eligibility to work here, cracked down on identity fraud and enabled local police to easily transfer illegal aliens in their custody to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.Again, this all sounds great in theory and I hope it can be worked out but it needs to be debated fully first. The political dynamics on this are very interesting. While Shuler is a Democrat, he is also a Blue Dog, or quite moderate. The far left hates the Blue Dogs almost as much as they hate the Republicans. Don't look for any Soros disciples in Congress to back this up. They won't need to if the Reps get behind it in unison, but since he is still a Democrat, will they allow politics to trump policy? Only time will tell if that will happen. Please go here, find your representative and let them know that this bill needs a full and fair hearing.
Among many detailed border security provisions stressing more agents and better technology at minimal operating costs, the SAVE Act would: increase border patrol agents by 8,000, utilize new technology and fencing to secure the border; expand specialized enforcement programs, such as the "Tunnel Task Force"; and, address the "jobs magnet" by strengthening The Employment Verification Program (E-Verify) to close security gaps, address loopholes, and make it mandatory for employers.
The E-Verify program provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify employee eligibility. E-Verify has already achieved tremendous success, but is currently voluntary and offers little incentive for employers to participate. This puts users at an economic disadvantage when it is only being used by a fraction of U.S. employers and competitors continue to hire illegal aliens.
Last, but not least, the SAVE Act would address interior enforcement by employing more ICE agents, training additional state and local law enforcement personnel, and expediting the removal of illegal aliens by expanding detention capacity and increasing the number of Federal District Court Judges. Furthermore, this legislation would begin a targeted media campaign to inform illegal aliens of new laws and penalties, while also informing employers of penalties for hiring illegal immigrants.
UPDATE:Here is my email to my Representative Rahm Emanuel.Congressman,
Your colleague Heath Shuler is about to present the SAVE Act on the floor of the House within a week. This bill creates a system in which every employer can identify the status of everyone of their employees,. I think we finally have some sensible legislation with a lot of potential to do some real good in ridding this country of the Cancer of illegal immigration. More than once I believe your party has played politics with this issue rather than looking to make good policy. A couple weeks ago your Senate colleagues voted against making cities like ours, sanctuary cities, illegal. All but one Democrat voting against this bill. That is frankly reprehensible.Now, it is your turn to do the same.
I don't know if the Democratic leadership is pandering to the Hispanics, trying to create a new base of current illegals, or simply bowing down to your puppetmaster, George Soros. Either way, your party has shown that it is more interested in compassion for law breakers than it is for the rule of law. I hope that will change with this bill.
This bill is being introduced by a fellow Democrat. I have one major problem with this bill. It appears to create a new huge government bureaucracy and that is almost never good. I believe with the proper debate this can be addressed and resolved. I hope that as a leader in your party and in the House in general, you will show that leadership in doing your part to make sure that this bill gets the debate it needs.
The SAVE Act: Finally Some Sensible Legislation vis a vis Illegal Immigration?
Another hat tip goes to Numbers USA for bringing this to my attention. Heath Shuler, of North Carolina, has come up with a bill that may in fact be some sensible legislation to deal with the illegal immigration mess. The SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement) creates a system where employers can easily verify the status of all their employees. Here is how Numbers put it.
SAVE would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system. This internet system provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify that employees are not illegal aliens. The rules for use are such that no employee or employer suffers if there is a mistake in the system because there is ample time to correct errors on the employee's side and on the government's side.Here are the nuts and bolts of the loan again according to Numbers.
require during Year 1 that all government agencies, government contractors, plus all businesses with more than 250 employees run all NEW hires through E-Verify.
... require during Year 2 that all businesses with 100 or more employees use E-Verify for new hires.
... require during Year 3 that all businesses with more than 20 employees use E-Verify for new hires.
... during Year 4 add businesses with fewer than 20 employees so that all businesses use E-Verify for new hires.
... also during Year 4 require all businessese to run all their previous hires through E-Verify.
There is a huge potential pitfall that I see with this bill. As my favorite quote goes, "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help''. This looks like the beginning of a massive new bureaucracy and for it to work the government would need to stay streamlined without being bloated. While this is certainly a concern, I also look forward to Shuler explaining the logistics of the system.
On the flipside, almost everyone agrees that without the temptation of jobs illegal immigration dries up. This deals with that temptation head on, and it isn't just some token measure. Shuler's plan at least appears deadly serious.
Currently, Shuler's own website has no information about this bill. That is problematic and besides Numbers USA there are very few resources touting this bill. That is also problematic. This bill has a lot of potential and I believe that with the proper debate it can be turned into one that deals with the problem of illegal immigration correctly without bloating government in an unnecessary way. Please contact your representative here and demand that the SAVE Act get a full and fair debate.
SAVE would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system. This internet system provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify that employees are not illegal aliens. The rules for use are such that no employee or employer suffers if there is a mistake in the system because there is ample time to correct errors on the employee's side and on the government's side.Here are the nuts and bolts of the loan again according to Numbers.
require during Year 1 that all government agencies, government contractors, plus all businesses with more than 250 employees run all NEW hires through E-Verify.
... require during Year 2 that all businesses with 100 or more employees use E-Verify for new hires.
... require during Year 3 that all businesses with more than 20 employees use E-Verify for new hires.
... during Year 4 add businesses with fewer than 20 employees so that all businesses use E-Verify for new hires.
... also during Year 4 require all businessese to run all their previous hires through E-Verify.
There is a huge potential pitfall that I see with this bill. As my favorite quote goes, "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help''. This looks like the beginning of a massive new bureaucracy and for it to work the government would need to stay streamlined without being bloated. While this is certainly a concern, I also look forward to Shuler explaining the logistics of the system.
On the flipside, almost everyone agrees that without the temptation of jobs illegal immigration dries up. This deals with that temptation head on, and it isn't just some token measure. Shuler's plan at least appears deadly serious.
Currently, Shuler's own website has no information about this bill. That is problematic and besides Numbers USA there are very few resources touting this bill. That is also problematic. This bill has a lot of potential and I believe that with the proper debate it can be turned into one that deals with the problem of illegal immigration correctly without bloating government in an unnecessary way. Please contact your representative here and demand that the SAVE Act get a full and fair debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
