Posted on 01/06/2004 11:26:08 PM PST by JohnHuang2
My 8-week-old son's Social Security card recently arrived in the mail. On the back, there's a stern warning: "Improper use of this card or number by anyone is punishable by fine, imprisonment or both."
Welcome to the world of government theft and selective enforcement, my boy.
While innocent babes who have yet to earn a penny are threatened with jail time for misusing Social Security cards, the Bush administration appears set this week to turn the ailing government pension program into an international relief fund for illegal alien workers who used counterfeit Social Security cards and stolen numbers to secure illegal jobs.
Unlike the bedtime stories I tell at night, I am not making this up.
This belated gift to the open-borders lobby and Mexican President Vicente Fox is part of a larger amnesty plan that has been in the works since before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. So, why exactly are we rewarding a country that has been obstinately opposed to the War on Terror? Go ask Mr. Brilliant, Karl Rove. This I do know: It couldn't have come at a worse time from either a fiscal or national security standpoint.
According to Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla., chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, benefits paid to retirees will exceed revenues in just 15 years. The pay-as-you-go system could go belly up as early as 2030. These projections don't take into account the economic impact of the Bush proposal, which would allow untold millions of illegal aliens from Mexico to collect full cash benefits for themselves and their families from their home country -- without having to work the required number of years that law-abiding American citizens must work to be eligible for payouts.
Reporter Joel Mowbray, who first exposed this treachery a year ago, noted that this raw deal may well cost overburdened U.S. taxpayers $345 billion over the next 20 years. Probably much more. As we know from experience, Social Security projections are notoriously off the mark.
The bureaucrats call this scheme "totalization." Try total prostration. The proposed agreement is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from those who play by the rules to those who willingly and knowingly mock our own immigration and tax laws. What are we doing promising lifetime Social Security paychecks to day laborers in Juarez when we can't even guarantee those benefits to workers here at home?
Unbelievably, the White House is trying to convince us to embrace this global ripoff because it "rewards work." No, it rewards criminal behavior. The plan will siphon off the hard-earned tax dollars of American workers who may never see a dime of their confiscated earnings and fork it over to foreigners guilty of at least four acts of federal law-breaking: crossing the border illegally, working illegally, engaging in tax fraud and using bogus documents.
Giving money to scam artists will simply result in more fraud -- not only by Mexican agricultural workers, but also by Middle Easterners such as Youssef Hmimssa, who provided fake Social Security numbers and fraudulent drivers' licenses to members of an accused terrorist cell in Detroit. "If you have the right connection, you can get anything," he testified before the Senate last fall.
The door is now open for all illegal aliens to collect retirement benefits using bogus Social Security cards. What's next: survivors' benefits for the families of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers?
Unfortunately, it's just ink on a page (or electrons on a screen.) Her, and those with similar concerns, will be ignored by the powers that be. Unless somehow conservatives can find some way to quickly mobilize and make their voices heard - and it doesn't look like that will happen.
The bureaucrats call this scheme "totalization." Try total prostration.
Well said.
A sure, swift drop in the polls is probably the ONLY thing that will stop this amnesty fiasco. The remaining question: Which of the Democrat candidates will be smart enough to take advantage of this issue?
Some people think one is too many, some think a million. It's realitive.
That didn't answer my question and you're wrong about my motives. I'm driven my what's practical and in the best interest of our standard of living. Don't try to pigeon-hole me into some kind of emotional bigot. I've seen my "Golden State" turn into a third world country in many areas. These are facts, not emotions.
Which is all subjective. What "you" consider in the best interest of "our" standard of living might not be what "I" consider in "our" best interest.
America has been degenerating from a constitutional republic into a democracy for a hundred years, at least, though it wasn't the norm to refer to America as a "democracy" until the regime of Uncle Joe Stalin's good buddy FDR. In a democracy, politicians are by definition demagogues and will sacrifice the long-term interests of the nation for short-term political gain. You are correct, the framers of the U.S. Constitution repeatedly warned against "democracy."
Uh no, a standard of living viewed within the context of the traditional American "dream" is very objective. However, you are entitled to your interpretation.
Again, how many immigrants do we let in yearly before we become another India or Bangeledesh, with the the poverty and crime associated with dense population? 1,000,000? 15,000,000? 25,000,000? 80,000,000? 150,000,000? 300,000,000? Pick a number anywhere or in between.
LOL! And who determines what the "traditional American dream" is? S-U-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-E.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.