Posted on 08/28/2006 2:00:36 AM PDT by goldstategop
WASHINGTON – The price tag for comprehensive immigration reform was not a key issue when the Senate passed its bill last May. But it is now. One reason: It took the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - the gold standard for determining what a bill will cost - until last week to estimate that federal spending for this vast and complex bill would hit $127 billion over the next 10 years.
At the same time, federal revenues would drop by about $79 billion, according to the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation. If lawmakers fix a tax glitch, that loss would be cut in half, they add.
In field hearings across the nation this month, House GOP leaders are zeroing in on the costs of the Senate bill. It's a bid to define the issue heading into fall elections and muster support for the House bill, which focuses on border security. They say that the more people know about the Senate version, including a path to citizenship for some 11 million people now in the country illegally, the less they will be inclined to support it.
"We are now just beginning to see a glimpse of the staggering burden on American taxpayers the Reid-Kennedy immigration legislation contains," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who convened a field hearing at the State House in Concord, N.H., Thursday on the costs of the Senate bill.
But business groups and others backing the Senate bill say that the cost to the US economy of not resolving the status of illegal immigrants and expanding guest-worker programs is higher still. "In my opinion, the fairer question is: How will illegal immigrants impact the costs of healthcare, local education, and social services without passage of comprehensive immigration reform?" said John Young, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, at Thursday's hearing.
"Had we solved this problem in a truly comprehensive way in 1986 ... we would not have the daily news reporting outright shortages of farm labor threatening the very existence of agricultural industries coast to coast," he adds.
Experts are poring over the new CBO data - and coming up with radically different assessments of the social costs of reform, ranging from tens of billions of dollars higher to a net wash.
On the issue of border security - a feature in both bills - there is little disagreement. The CBO estimates that the cost of hardening US borders in the Senate bill is $78.3 billion over 10 years, or about 62 percent of the bill's total cost.
The fireworks involve new entitlement spending in the Senate version. The CBO sets the price tag for services for some 16 million new citizens and guest workers at $48.4 billion through fiscal year 2016. That includes $24.5 billion for earned income and child tax credits, $11.7 billion for Medicaid, $5.2 billion for Social Security, $3.7 billion for Medicare, and $2.4 billion for food stamps.
But it's easier to estimate the cost of a mile of fence than to assess the prospects for millions of workers, once they can work legally and claim benefits.
"The amnesty alone will be the largest expansion of the welfare system in the last 25 years," says Robert Rector, a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and a witness at a House Judiciary Committee field hearing in San Diego Aug. 2. "Welfare costs will begin to hit their peak around 2021, because there are delays in citizenship. The very narrow time horizon [the CBO is] using is misleading," he adds. "If even a small fraction of those who come into the country stay and get on Medicaid, you're looking at costs of $20 billion or $30 billion per year."
Nonsense, say others who've studied the bill. Immigrant workers are also adding value to the economy, especially once they are working legally and paying taxes. Overall, it's a wash, they say.
"As you increase the number of immigrants to the US and as they get better jobs because a number of them will have attained legal status, they will pay higher taxes," says Leighton Ku, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. "On a longer-run basis, it looks as if the revenues will grow faster than the entitlement costs."
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
But but but I thought open borders were good for the market?!?!?!
My solution:
1 end the anchor baby policy
2 end welfare benefits for non-citizens
3 end subsidized health care and public education for non-citizens
4 swift and harsh jailtime for employers of illegals, plus seizure of assets
5 build a 1951 mile wall from the Pacific to the Gulf
6 allow non-citizens to cross into Mexico with impunity
7 Pass the FairTax
8 overthrow the current Mexican regime and install a non-corrupt, capitalistic government
Fed spending = tax payer money.
Bend over, spread cheeks, here it comes.
The Senate ALWAYS low-balls costs. Back in '69, Medicare was "supposed" to only cost 20-30 billion by now, instead of the 200+ billion it does now....
But when you're spending someone else's money....
As this article, and others on the subject, point out, the majority of the cost is in border enforcement.
I like it. I like it.
Except, I'd like to end welfare entitlements to able-bodied citizens as well.
9. Kill ALL farm subsidy programs, including this shameful cheap labor subsidy the ag interests continue to insist upon.
I went to high school with a fellow from a farm family. He has continued to farm all these years. He and his several farm "entities" have harvested nearly $10,000,000 in various government welfare programs for farmers since 2001. Nice guy or not, that is totally ridiculous.
Send all illegals home to their wonderful mother countries. They have no right whatsoever to be here.
Mexification of America is a worrisome post at News with a view--links to a Gov website to validate his take on plan by Bush, Fox and Martin (Canada) to "blur" borders for sake of commercial interests. Does anyone know of this?
(The post found http://seraph.typepad.com)
No, they will price themselves out of the market making illegals even more attractive thus increasing their demand and attracting more of them. The illegals who become legals will then go on welfare and become more of a burden on the social welfare system.
On the issue of border security - a feature in both bills - there is little disagreement. The CBO estimates that the cost of hardening US borders in the Senate bill is $78.3 billion over 10 years, or about 62 percent of the bill's total cost.
Little disagreement my patoot. I disagree.
Jeez Louise, we're talking about building a freaking WALL, preferably concrete, not a Ritz Carlton Hotel, every ten to fifteen miles.
In any case, even is the $78 Billion was right, illegals COST us $10 to $12 BILLION a year. Over ten years that $100 to $120 BILLION dollars, which by my math is STILL cheaper.
". . . the majority of the cost is in border enforcement."
As the article states, those 'border enforcement' figures are from the Senate bill.
And as we know, the Senate doesn't give a damn about actual enforcement.
All they is amnesty.
"6000 page noncontributory specifications" should be ... "contradictory specifications" ....
35,000 new govt employees.
All they is amnesty.=All the Senate wants is amnesty.
And Pence.
I noticed in this AM's paper there's another San Diego Union Ruben What'hisname OBL editorial out, in a nutshell:
`Give us amnesty. Now. Or you're a racist.'
Actually, pence would privatize some of it.
`Actually Pence would privatize some of it.'
To an arm of the US Chamber of Commerce?
And Old MacDonald is hiring a fox to guard the chicken-house....
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.