The Democrat Party and its allies in the media have coated the Head Start program in a slick veneer that shields it from criticism and protects its funding from the shears of budget cutters. However, the pre-school scheme deserves greater scrutiny in light of recent studies and investigations.
The program, a leftover from The Great Society, has a 50-year record of fraud, waste and gross mismanagement that has been thoroughly documented. Head Start has failed miserably to deliver educational advantages to the poor succeeding only in providing free breakfasts.
Yet during the battle over sequester, President Obama warned that 70,000 poor children would be turned away from the program if budget cuts were implemented. Head Start opponents were labeled racists and enemies of the poor for daring to suggest the scheme needed reform, not more funding.
Despite its sorry record, taxpayers have ponied up $170 billion since 1965 when Head Start was originally launched as a six-week program. As with many "temporary" government schemes, it has been enlarged over the intervening years without regard for the program's obvious deficiencies.
There is ample evidence that Head Start is a sham, failing to provide early childhood development services that could make a difference in a child's progress in school.
A blistering critique of the program was released last year by the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency which oversees Head Start. The study, finished in 2008, was withheld from the public for four years until it was quietly published on the Friday before Christmas of 2012.
The media ignored the explosive report. The president's mouthpiece, Jay Carney, dodged reporters' questions about the findings. Congressional Democrats buried the HHS report, shoveling platitudes on the program instead of using the findings to dig into its shortcomings.
In its report, the HHS unearthed little evidence that the program generates much of a return for the enormous taxpayer dollars invested in Head Start. The study found that children enrolled in Head Start gained no lasting advantages by participation in the pre-school program.
The report concluded that "the benefits of access to Head Start at age 4 are largely absent by first grade." Head Start graduates significantly lagged behind their peers who were not enrolled in the government run program, according to the findings.
The HHS report card isn't even the worst failing grade Head Start has received.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has documented since 2000 waste and blatant cheating at Head Start. Among its findings, about 76 percent of Head Start students did not meet the program's own financial guidelines geared to serve low-income families.
In addition, the GAO has exposed numerous conspiracies to register "fictitious children" to increase funding to local branches of Head Start. The agency also has unmasked attempts to enroll children from middle-income families in slots reserved for children in low-income households.
Despite the many recorded examples of gross mismanagement and fraud, Head Start funding keeps soaring. Obama has indicated he wants to increase annual Head Start funding by another $1 billion. Taxpayers are on the hook for $8 billion in 2013.
When will the mindless waste stop?
Don't expect cowardly politicians of either party to provide the answer. Reform will only come if taxpayers demand a full accounting of Head Start before Congress spends another nickel on a disgraced scheme that fails poor children and their families.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
The "S" Stands For Scam
Democrats in Washington are whispering the dreaded "S" word again.
It was first uttered last month when President Obama urged Congress to approve a $50 billion investment in the nation's aging infrastructure to help stimulate the lethargic economy. If Republicans didn't learn a lesson with the first stimulus four years ago, then shame on them.
In 2009, President Obama and his Democrat sheep hatched a stimulus scheme that was allegedly designed to rescue the nation from apocalyptic economic disaster. Many Republicans capitulated and backed the stimulus, fearing they would be blamed if the economic crisis deepened.
However, now there is a preponderance of evidence the $787 billion stimulus was nothing more than a boondoggle. That explains why the President and the sycophants in his party no longer mention it, even ignoring the law that mandates quarterly public reports.
The president's Council of Economic Advisors is required to issue the reports under Section 1513 of the legislation that created the horribly misnamed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Obama on February 17, 2009.
Fourteen quarters have passed since the last last time the council delivered a report in 2011.
In that report, the president's own appointees estimated that it cost $317,000 in stimulus spending to create or save one job. It marked the fifth consecutive report that inflated the economic cost. No wonder the council quit issuing reports, particularly in a presidential election year.
The outrageous price tag for a single job wasn't even the most scandalous shortcoming. Here are just a few facts the servile media has hidden from the public:
Numerous reports issued by inspector generals, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other federal agencies have documented the defects. The latest is a scathing audit performed by the inspector general for the Department of Energy.
In a January 28 report, the inspector uncovered funds designated for just a handful of smart grid projects involved fraud of $12.3 million. "It's safe to assume there's similar levels of mismanagement throughout the entire $4.5 billion" allocated for smart grid activities, the inspector general wrote.
No longer can anyone credibly claim the stimulus saved anything. Unless you count the job held by President Obama.
Government stimulus of the economy was a bad idea in 2009. The passage of time offers ample evidence that it is an even worse idea than originally imagined.
It was first uttered last month when President Obama urged Congress to approve a $50 billion investment in the nation's aging infrastructure to help stimulate the lethargic economy. If Republicans didn't learn a lesson with the first stimulus four years ago, then shame on them.
In 2009, President Obama and his Democrat sheep hatched a stimulus scheme that was allegedly designed to rescue the nation from apocalyptic economic disaster. Many Republicans capitulated and backed the stimulus, fearing they would be blamed if the economic crisis deepened.
However, now there is a preponderance of evidence the $787 billion stimulus was nothing more than a boondoggle. That explains why the President and the sycophants in his party no longer mention it, even ignoring the law that mandates quarterly public reports.
The president's Council of Economic Advisors is required to issue the reports under Section 1513 of the legislation that created the horribly misnamed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Obama on February 17, 2009.
Fourteen quarters have passed since the last last time the council delivered a report in 2011.
In that report, the president's own appointees estimated that it cost $317,000 in stimulus spending to create or save one job. It marked the fifth consecutive report that inflated the economic cost. No wonder the council quit issuing reports, particularly in a presidential election year.
The outrageous price tag for a single job wasn't even the most scandalous shortcoming. Here are just a few facts the servile media has hidden from the public:
- Despite the $787 billion sticker price, the stimulus' actual cost now stands at $831 billion. Even that figure does not represent the true cost. The 10-year tab for the stimulus is closer to $2.527 trillion in spending and another $744 billion in costs for interest on the money borrowed to finance the appropriation. These figures were tabulated by the Congressional Budget Office, which assumed most projects in the stimulus bill would continue to be funded.
- Obama claimed the stimulus was needed to immediately jump start the economy, yet federal spending trickled out over four years. A full year after Obama signed the law forty percent of the funds had not been spent. As of this January 18, the government had allocated $781.48 billion, but in many cases states and cities have held onto the money. The spending will continue through 2019, a full 10 years after the nation's economic emergency supposedly required an immediate infusion of massive government spending.
- Obama and Democrats made the case the bloated stimulus primarily supported shovel ready jobs. In truth, less than 32 percent of the spending was earmarked for loans, grants and contracts that were designed to create or save jobs. The stimulus contained $290.7 in tax benefits and $241.9 billion in entitlement spending. The methodologies used to support job creation have been thoroughly discredited because the numbers were based on self-reporting by the beneficiaries of the funding.
Numerous reports issued by inspector generals, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other federal agencies have documented the defects. The latest is a scathing audit performed by the inspector general for the Department of Energy.
In a January 28 report, the inspector uncovered funds designated for just a handful of smart grid projects involved fraud of $12.3 million. "It's safe to assume there's similar levels of mismanagement throughout the entire $4.5 billion" allocated for smart grid activities, the inspector general wrote.
No longer can anyone credibly claim the stimulus saved anything. Unless you count the job held by President Obama.
Government stimulus of the economy was a bad idea in 2009. The passage of time offers ample evidence that it is an even worse idea than originally imagined.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Democrats' Shocking Voter Legislation
With sequestration occupying the nation's attention, Democrats quietly have advanced a bill that would require all colleges that receive federal funds to actively register students to vote. The measure would effectively turn universities into voter outreach agencies for the Democrat Party.
The bill, co-sponsored by seven liberal Democrats in the House and Senate, is called the Voter Empowerment Act of 2013. It was introduced on January 23 and has been assigned to committee. Chief sponsors include Sen. Kristen Gillibrand of New York and Rep. John Lewis of Georgia.
In a news release, the co-sponsors claim the legislation was designed to "bring our antiquated voter registration system into the 21st century" by taking advantage of "existing technology" to increase "accessibility, accountability and integrity" in the election process.
Those noble sounding words are nothing more than a smokescreen. The legislation is aimed at producing more registered Democrat voters.
Buried in section 1301, the legislation vows to treat "universities as voter registration agencies." When a student enrolls in a course of study at a college, he or she will be given a voter registration form and urged to complete the information under the prying eyes of liberal university administrators.
This provision is never mentioned in the news releases issued by the seven Democrats. The media has not bothered to read the actual legislation, so the college registration plan has never been exposed. But that arrangement is not the only egregious scheme in the legislation.
Here are some of the other current voting laws the legislation would change:
The bill, co-sponsored by seven liberal Democrats in the House and Senate, is called the Voter Empowerment Act of 2013. It was introduced on January 23 and has been assigned to committee. Chief sponsors include Sen. Kristen Gillibrand of New York and Rep. John Lewis of Georgia.
In a news release, the co-sponsors claim the legislation was designed to "bring our antiquated voter registration system into the 21st century" by taking advantage of "existing technology" to increase "accessibility, accountability and integrity" in the election process.
Those noble sounding words are nothing more than a smokescreen. The legislation is aimed at producing more registered Democrat voters.
Buried in section 1301, the legislation vows to treat "universities as voter registration agencies." When a student enrolls in a course of study at a college, he or she will be given a voter registration form and urged to complete the information under the prying eyes of liberal university administrators.
This provision is never mentioned in the news releases issued by the seven Democrats. The media has not bothered to read the actual legislation, so the college registration plan has never been exposed. But that arrangement is not the only egregious scheme in the legislation.
Here are some of the other current voting laws the legislation would change:
- The bill restores voting rights to people with criminal records, previously precluded from voting in federal elections.
- The legislation would allow same-day voter registration for persons who showed up at polling places on election day.
- The act would require states to facilitate online voter registration as a means of frustrating state laws which require a valid photo identification to guard against election fraud.
- The law would require automatic registration of people who may have been registered at one time but no longer are registered. The state is required to notify the voter of the registration.
According to the bill's authors, their legislation's ultimate goal is to increase voter participation, particularly among minorities. However, minority voting has already risen to record levels in presidential elections under the current voter laws.
The non-partisan Pew Research organization has released a study showing that more African-Americans, Hispanics and Asian-Americans voted in the 2012 presidential election than at any time in the nation's history. So what problem is the legislation designed to address?
The inconvenient truth is the legislation doesn't empower voters. The proposed law gives power to Democrats to manipulate voter registration to their benefit. It is patently unfair and deserves an early death in committee.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Festering Sequester Fiction
After months of fear-mongering, scapegoating and brow-beating, President Obama finally has been convicted of deceit by his own words on the automatic budget cuts mandated by the sequestration.
In announcing his failure to strike a deal with Congress, the president told the White House press corps the following: "We will get through this. This is not going to be an apocalypse." Those words directly contradict what Obama has been saying in a series of orchestrated press appearances using first responders, military families and others as props.
On all those occasions, the president and his administration lackeys painted a doomsday scenario. Children would go hungry. Airline safety would be imperiled. The economy would collapse. Schools would furlough teachers. The military would be gutted. And on and on.
But Obama's biggest whopper was alleging the sequester was a Republican idea. He repeatedly claimed the sequester was "not something I proposed." As it turns out, that too was a falsehood.
His house of lies crumbled when a few news outlets, most notably The Washington Post, decided to lift the protective veil the media had used to shield the thin-skinned Obama from criticism. As the facts dribbled out, Obama blamed the messengers instead of accepting responsibility for his dishonesty.
Here is the truth about sequestration, undoubtedly the worst example of a gobbledygook word ever coined by politicians:
On all those occasions, the president and his administration lackeys painted a doomsday scenario. Children would go hungry. Airline safety would be imperiled. The economy would collapse. Schools would furlough teachers. The military would be gutted. And on and on.
But Obama's biggest whopper was alleging the sequester was a Republican idea. He repeatedly claimed the sequester was "not something I proposed." As it turns out, that too was a falsehood.
His house of lies crumbled when a few news outlets, most notably The Washington Post, decided to lift the protective veil the media had used to shield the thin-skinned Obama from criticism. As the facts dribbled out, Obama blamed the messengers instead of accepting responsibility for his dishonesty.
Here is the truth about sequestration, undoubtedly the worst example of a gobbledygook word ever coined by politicians:
- The sequestration suggestion came directly from the White House. It was the president's negotiating team that first raised the idea. It was then championed by Obama. Yet he denied that fact until The Washington Post's Bob Woodward exposed the lie. Obama is also the person who suggested half the cuts be cleaved from the defense budget, but he continues to moan about massive furloughs and cutbacks in the defense industry as if he is blameless.
- The $85 billion in budget cuts are a tiny percentage of the nation's overall annual spending. It represents a mere two percent of the $3.54 trillion 2012 federal budget. How can such a minuscule percentage of government spending have such massive repercussions? Answer: it doesn't.
- Republicans in the Senate offered a proposal that would give the president and his administration time to reallocate the mandated cuts to protect critical services. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats defeated the measure. Obviously, the president's goal is to extract maximum pain from the sequester for political gain. He has no interest in mitigating the impact of reductions.
Finding $85 billion to slice from the bloated federal budget should be a no-brainer. In just the past two years, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more than 1,362 duplicate federal programs that waste $364.5 billion annually. Why not start there to trim the budget?
Obama would rather engage in cheap theatrics, playing to his legion of uniformed disciples. His partisanship and political pugilism suit his ends. However, most Americans outside the Washington Beltway are growing weary of his lack of leadership and his cavalier attitude towards the truth.
Obama would rather engage in cheap theatrics, playing to his legion of uniformed disciples. His partisanship and political pugilism suit his ends. However, most Americans outside the Washington Beltway are growing weary of his lack of leadership and his cavalier attitude towards the truth.
Monday, February 25, 2013
A Killer That Stalks Seniors
Alzheimer's disease is a ticking time bomb for a nation with an aging population that keeps doubling. Unless a cure is found soon, exploding medical costs will reduce Medicare and Medicaid to rubble, buried under the weight of $1.1 trillion in expenses for care and treatment for a single disease.
That dire prediction by the national Alzheimer's Association is an estimate for the year 2050. If that seems far fetched, consider that today there are 5.4 million Americans living with Alzheimer's. The annual cost in 2012 for the disease was $200 billion, according to data furnished by the association.
One in every eight older Americans has Alzheimer's. It is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, but it is the only one of the top ten diseases that cannot be prevented, cured or even slowed. While death rates for other major diseases have dipped since 2000, Alzheimer's has accelerated 66 percent.
Alzheimer's does more than extract a heavy toll on the medical system. The Alzheimer assocation's annual report estimated that 15 million Americans today provide unpaid care for patients with the disease. Without their help, Medicare and Medicaid would bear an additional $210 billion in costs.
As tragic as the statistics are today, the number of Americans affected by the disease is projected to mushroom. More than 13.8 million Americans are expected to suffer from Alzheimer's by the year 2050, a three-fold increase.
An aging population is to blame. Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, will be turning 65 and older, swelling the ranks of the aged. The number of Americans 65+ will double by 2050, growing from 40.3 million to 88.5 million, according to the 2010 Census.
Americans living longer will tax the Medicare and Medicaid programs with skyrocketing costs for the treatment of Alzheimer's. The association estimates the combined expense burden for the two entitlement programs will soar by 500 percent by 2050, less than four decades from now.
There needs to be a sense of urgency to deal with the impending financial combustion. Government funding for the disease was $606 million last year, far less than what the nation spends on research for HIV ($3 billion) and cancer ($6 billion).
There are obviously humanitarian reasons for the country to make Alzheimer's a priority. The disease is a death sentence for everyone with the condition. Saving lives will also reduce the long term care costs associated with the disease that robs people of their memory and saps their financial resources.
A public-private partnership, spearheaded by the medical community and the government, is the best hope for finding a cure. The country needs to make it a top priority on par with the United States effort to launch a man into space.
The U.S. can't afford to wait until 2050 to deal with this issue. By then it will be too late for the 13.8 million Americans expected to be impacted by the disease.
That dire prediction by the national Alzheimer's Association is an estimate for the year 2050. If that seems far fetched, consider that today there are 5.4 million Americans living with Alzheimer's. The annual cost in 2012 for the disease was $200 billion, according to data furnished by the association.
One in every eight older Americans has Alzheimer's. It is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, but it is the only one of the top ten diseases that cannot be prevented, cured or even slowed. While death rates for other major diseases have dipped since 2000, Alzheimer's has accelerated 66 percent.
Alzheimer's does more than extract a heavy toll on the medical system. The Alzheimer assocation's annual report estimated that 15 million Americans today provide unpaid care for patients with the disease. Without their help, Medicare and Medicaid would bear an additional $210 billion in costs.
As tragic as the statistics are today, the number of Americans affected by the disease is projected to mushroom. More than 13.8 million Americans are expected to suffer from Alzheimer's by the year 2050, a three-fold increase.
An aging population is to blame. Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, will be turning 65 and older, swelling the ranks of the aged. The number of Americans 65+ will double by 2050, growing from 40.3 million to 88.5 million, according to the 2010 Census.
Americans living longer will tax the Medicare and Medicaid programs with skyrocketing costs for the treatment of Alzheimer's. The association estimates the combined expense burden for the two entitlement programs will soar by 500 percent by 2050, less than four decades from now.
There needs to be a sense of urgency to deal with the impending financial combustion. Government funding for the disease was $606 million last year, far less than what the nation spends on research for HIV ($3 billion) and cancer ($6 billion).
There are obviously humanitarian reasons for the country to make Alzheimer's a priority. The disease is a death sentence for everyone with the condition. Saving lives will also reduce the long term care costs associated with the disease that robs people of their memory and saps their financial resources.
A public-private partnership, spearheaded by the medical community and the government, is the best hope for finding a cure. The country needs to make it a top priority on par with the United States effort to launch a man into space.
The U.S. can't afford to wait until 2050 to deal with this issue. By then it will be too late for the 13.8 million Americans expected to be impacted by the disease.
Monday, February 18, 2013
The No Fault Nation
If The Declaration of Independence was drafted today it would be vastly different. References to God, liberty and life would vanish. Too radical concepts for the current Washington political class. With apologies to Thomas Jefferson, the document might read like this if it was written today:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that no individual can be held responsible for his or her actions. It shall be the government's duty to protect its citizens from themselves. Happiness is defined as having the government bail out individuals guilty of bad decisions."
If that sounds far fetched, then consider the transformation of the respective roles of individuals and the government in our nation.
Thousands of Americans purchased homes they couldn't afford before the recession. They lied about their income. Many flipped homes in a fit of speculative greed. They incurred more debt than they could handle. It wasn't their fault home prices plummeted. The government stepped in and bailed out many homeowners with a slew of acronym programs. Taxpayers were on the hook for $127.6 billion.
One in ten Americans default every year on their student loans underwritten by the federal government. Going to a less expensive college was never an option. Working to help defray expenses while attending college was too old fashioned. It isn't their fault college prices have soared. Student loan debt stands at $1 trillion and the government has made it easier for students to default or pay less than the full amount owed.
Ten million unemployed Americans have quit looking for work. Accepting a low paying job is beneath many. Working part-time hardly seems worth the effort. It isn't their fault jobs are scare in the Obama economy. Not to worry because Washington just keeps extending the number of weeks the jobless receive benefits. Every time it does, it costs taxpayers an additional $30 billion annually.
Nearly 19 million young people under the age of 34 do not have health insurance. The majority work at firms that offer insurance, but they choose not to pay for it. It isn't their fault they spend their earnings on other priorities. Now the government has decreed these individuals must carry insurance or face a tax penalty when Obama Care is implemented in 2014. Total cost of the health care reform is more than $1 trillion.
Millions of American children are overweight. They slurp too much soda, gobble too many chips, woof down too many sweet treats. As a result, there are three million youngsters with Type 1 diabetes. Parents claim they are powerless to do anything about it. It isn't their fault that they can't stop their children from eating and drinking too much. The health care costs for treatment of Type 1 diabetes are estimated at $14.9 billion annually.
Holding individuals responsible for their behavior is passé. That attitude has given rise to billions of dollars in government programs designed to ease the burden of living irresponsibly.
Individuals aren't the only ones shirking accountability. President Obama has set the national tone in winning two elections by blaming the country's ills on former President George W. Bush, Congress, The Tea Party, Republicans, corporate greed, the wealthy, private jets, tax loopholes and an uneven playing field. It is never his fault.
The individual rights guaranteed in The Declaration of Independence are worth sustaining. However, those rights carry responsibilities. The government's role is to uphold those rights, not to reward irresponsible behavior at taxpayer's expense.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that no individual can be held responsible for his or her actions. It shall be the government's duty to protect its citizens from themselves. Happiness is defined as having the government bail out individuals guilty of bad decisions."
If that sounds far fetched, then consider the transformation of the respective roles of individuals and the government in our nation.
Thousands of Americans purchased homes they couldn't afford before the recession. They lied about their income. Many flipped homes in a fit of speculative greed. They incurred more debt than they could handle. It wasn't their fault home prices plummeted. The government stepped in and bailed out many homeowners with a slew of acronym programs. Taxpayers were on the hook for $127.6 billion.
One in ten Americans default every year on their student loans underwritten by the federal government. Going to a less expensive college was never an option. Working to help defray expenses while attending college was too old fashioned. It isn't their fault college prices have soared. Student loan debt stands at $1 trillion and the government has made it easier for students to default or pay less than the full amount owed.
Ten million unemployed Americans have quit looking for work. Accepting a low paying job is beneath many. Working part-time hardly seems worth the effort. It isn't their fault jobs are scare in the Obama economy. Not to worry because Washington just keeps extending the number of weeks the jobless receive benefits. Every time it does, it costs taxpayers an additional $30 billion annually.
Nearly 19 million young people under the age of 34 do not have health insurance. The majority work at firms that offer insurance, but they choose not to pay for it. It isn't their fault they spend their earnings on other priorities. Now the government has decreed these individuals must carry insurance or face a tax penalty when Obama Care is implemented in 2014. Total cost of the health care reform is more than $1 trillion.
Millions of American children are overweight. They slurp too much soda, gobble too many chips, woof down too many sweet treats. As a result, there are three million youngsters with Type 1 diabetes. Parents claim they are powerless to do anything about it. It isn't their fault that they can't stop their children from eating and drinking too much. The health care costs for treatment of Type 1 diabetes are estimated at $14.9 billion annually.
Holding individuals responsible for their behavior is passé. That attitude has given rise to billions of dollars in government programs designed to ease the burden of living irresponsibly.
Individuals aren't the only ones shirking accountability. President Obama has set the national tone in winning two elections by blaming the country's ills on former President George W. Bush, Congress, The Tea Party, Republicans, corporate greed, the wealthy, private jets, tax loopholes and an uneven playing field. It is never his fault.
The individual rights guaranteed in The Declaration of Independence are worth sustaining. However, those rights carry responsibilities. The government's role is to uphold those rights, not to reward irresponsible behavior at taxpayer's expense.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Why Mexico Remains Mum On Immigration
While the debate over immigration simmers in Washington, Mexico has been strangely silent. The government, often a vocal critic of U.S. policy in the past, has chosen to sit on the sidelines for a good reason. Mexico's interests are best served if our nation's southern border remains a sieve.
The reason is that Mexico's economy would crater without the billions of dollars legal and illegal immigrants ship from the U.S. back to their home country.
The flow of money, once a lazy river, has turned into a flood of cash. In 2000, Mexican immigrants pumped $6.6 billion into the hands of relatives in their home country, according to the Bank of Mexico. In 11 years, the money train chugging south has nearly quadrupled.
Estimates are Mexicans dispatched $23 billion from this country to relatives in their native homeland in 2011. That figure represents an eight percent increase over the previous year. However, it is down from the peak in 2007 when immigrants funneled $26 billion south of the border.
Each American greenback yields about six pesos under traditional exchange rates. That increases the purchasing power of Mexican recipients. Without those dollars, Mexico's poverty rates would spike, the country's social development ministry has admitted.
Today immigrant dollars represent the second largest source of income for Mexico. Only Mexico's oil industry generates more income for the country.
That explains why the Mexican government has no interest in working with U.S. officials to stem the tide of its citizens slipping over the border. In fact, the government published a 32-page guide on migrating to the U.S., which included a chapter on how to live "unobtrusively" to avoid detection.
This laisser faire attitude has led to millions of Mexicans living and working illegally in our country. A Pew Research Center study, released last year, found that almost 60 percent of the 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are from Mexico. Illegal immigration is mostly a Mexican problem.
The wave of Mexicans entering the U.S. either legally or illegally represents the largest influx of immigrants from one country in American history, reports Pew. About 30 percent of the 39.6 million immigrants living today in the U.S. were born in Mexico, estimates the researchers at Pew.
It is easy to understand why so many Mexicans are bidding their country adios. According to the United Nations, about half of Mexicans live below the poverty line. Thirteen million Mexicans are categorized as existing in "extreme poverty."
Instead of addressing ways to increase economic opportunity for its people, Mexico is content to stand idly by as millions of its citizens illegally enter the United States. With billions of dollars at stake, it is no surprise that the Mexican government vehemently opposes the building of the border fence.
That is why any immigration reform must start with tighter border security.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, a law designed to bolster border security in exchange for granting citizenship for undocumented workers in the U.S. Nearly three million illegal immigrants were granted amnesty under the legislation.
Forty five years after promises of tighter border control, there are 11.2 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., a nearly four-fold increase. The American people were duped. Washington politicians were never serious about stopping the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico.
This time Americans must insist on border security before amnesty. Safeguarding our nation is more important than protecting Mexico's economy.
The reason is that Mexico's economy would crater without the billions of dollars legal and illegal immigrants ship from the U.S. back to their home country.
The flow of money, once a lazy river, has turned into a flood of cash. In 2000, Mexican immigrants pumped $6.6 billion into the hands of relatives in their home country, according to the Bank of Mexico. In 11 years, the money train chugging south has nearly quadrupled.
Estimates are Mexicans dispatched $23 billion from this country to relatives in their native homeland in 2011. That figure represents an eight percent increase over the previous year. However, it is down from the peak in 2007 when immigrants funneled $26 billion south of the border.
Each American greenback yields about six pesos under traditional exchange rates. That increases the purchasing power of Mexican recipients. Without those dollars, Mexico's poverty rates would spike, the country's social development ministry has admitted.
Today immigrant dollars represent the second largest source of income for Mexico. Only Mexico's oil industry generates more income for the country.
That explains why the Mexican government has no interest in working with U.S. officials to stem the tide of its citizens slipping over the border. In fact, the government published a 32-page guide on migrating to the U.S., which included a chapter on how to live "unobtrusively" to avoid detection.
This laisser faire attitude has led to millions of Mexicans living and working illegally in our country. A Pew Research Center study, released last year, found that almost 60 percent of the 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are from Mexico. Illegal immigration is mostly a Mexican problem.
The wave of Mexicans entering the U.S. either legally or illegally represents the largest influx of immigrants from one country in American history, reports Pew. About 30 percent of the 39.6 million immigrants living today in the U.S. were born in Mexico, estimates the researchers at Pew.
It is easy to understand why so many Mexicans are bidding their country adios. According to the United Nations, about half of Mexicans live below the poverty line. Thirteen million Mexicans are categorized as existing in "extreme poverty."
Instead of addressing ways to increase economic opportunity for its people, Mexico is content to stand idly by as millions of its citizens illegally enter the United States. With billions of dollars at stake, it is no surprise that the Mexican government vehemently opposes the building of the border fence.
That is why any immigration reform must start with tighter border security.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, a law designed to bolster border security in exchange for granting citizenship for undocumented workers in the U.S. Nearly three million illegal immigrants were granted amnesty under the legislation.
Forty five years after promises of tighter border control, there are 11.2 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., a nearly four-fold increase. The American people were duped. Washington politicians were never serious about stopping the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico.
This time Americans must insist on border security before amnesty. Safeguarding our nation is more important than protecting Mexico's economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)