As far as I'm concerned weekends are for doing nothing. Saturday and Sunday my job is to be as lazy as possible and no one can tell me otherwise. But as we all know the Senate is in session this weekend voting on their health care bill. As I'm watching C-SPAN 2 I saw Senator McConnell begrudgingly asked Reid when the votes were going to be held on Saturday and Sunday. He clearly, by the way he asked the question and the sound of his voice, did not want to be there this weekend.
Speaker Pelosi did the same thing. I went around the Capitol the weekend the House was voting on their health care bill and no one was there. Even watching the news cable broadcasts, I remember thinking there were only a few people actually on top of the situation. Speaking of which, Wolf Blitzer wasn't even on the air!
I know there is a lot of talk out there about whether or not the Democrats have the votes to pass their final legislation. But if I was a betting man I would I'd put my money on yes.
Senators are people too and they, just like everyone else, hate working on the weekends. On top of that, it's snowing here in DC. It's disgusting out, everyone wants to just stay inside in their sweats and watch football. But Senator Reid has all the Senators in their suits working. Their going to vote yes (even Senator Lieberman) just to get out of there.
Not to mention the fact President Obama is once again going to make one final push tomorrow and they wouldn't have him do that if they weren't confident it wouldn't have a positive effect.
I'm not saying the votes aren't going to be close, in fact when the House voted for health care the only thing that was truly bipartisan was the vote to adjourn. All sides agree this needs to get done and if any of them want a chance at reelection they'll vote for something that the majority of Americans are in favor of.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Put Up or Shut Up
This health care debate gets more and more exciting every day. Now it's the Senate's turn. Who needs Pacquiao vs. Cotto when you get to see Harry Reid whipping the rest of the Democrats to vote for his bill? The best part is that the vote is going to be on another Saturday night. Prime time! There's nothing else on Saturday anyway, and I guarantee you the networks are pissed they won't be able to charge for advertisements on C-SPAN when the vote is taking place.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $127 billion over ten years. That's also probably a conservative estimate based on how CBO actually calculates the figures. Taxes are also going to be raised by the insurance companies who charge more then $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, which will help key costs low.
I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed in the name. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That's boring. The bill should be called Put Up or Shut Up.
In 2006 Republicans lost control of Congress mainly because they didn't get anything done, they didn't get their act together. Some Democratic Senators (Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Nelson) are threatening to not even let the bill come to a vote. If that happens it won't just look bad for Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership, it sends the message to the American people Democrats don't have confidence in their own policies. And if they don't, why should the the American people?
The bill to be voted on Saturday has a public option which states can opt-out of. And a public option is the best way to control costs, the majority of the American people know this. The foundations are in both the Senate and House version for the Democrats to be confident in the bill.
When Vice President Biden was on The Daily Show the other night, he was asked, and I'm paraphrasing, "Why is it that the Republicans are able to stop legislation when they are in the minority, and the Democrats can't get anything passed when they have the majority?" Biden's reply: "That's a good point."
So Democrats, it's time to put up or shut up, because that's what this bill represents. You can either show the American people you are capable of running the country or you're not. The outcome of this bill will be the answer.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $127 billion over ten years. That's also probably a conservative estimate based on how CBO actually calculates the figures. Taxes are also going to be raised by the insurance companies who charge more then $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, which will help key costs low.
I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed in the name. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That's boring. The bill should be called Put Up or Shut Up.
In 2006 Republicans lost control of Congress mainly because they didn't get anything done, they didn't get their act together. Some Democratic Senators (Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Nelson) are threatening to not even let the bill come to a vote. If that happens it won't just look bad for Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership, it sends the message to the American people Democrats don't have confidence in their own policies. And if they don't, why should the the American people?
The bill to be voted on Saturday has a public option which states can opt-out of. And a public option is the best way to control costs, the majority of the American people know this. The foundations are in both the Senate and House version for the Democrats to be confident in the bill.
When Vice President Biden was on The Daily Show the other night, he was asked, and I'm paraphrasing, "Why is it that the Republicans are able to stop legislation when they are in the minority, and the Democrats can't get anything passed when they have the majority?" Biden's reply: "That's a good point."
So Democrats, it's time to put up or shut up, because that's what this bill represents. You can either show the American people you are capable of running the country or you're not. The outcome of this bill will be the answer.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Learning from Sesame Street
I love Sesame Street. Before going to pre-school I would watch it and while being fully entertained, I would also be learning from Big Bird and all his friends. It's the shows 40th anniversary this week, which should remind us how teaching is one of the most important parts of our society but unfortunately can sometimes be taken for granted.
When trying to hold teachers and schools accountable within their districts, politicians and policy makers always go for the simple answer, standardized tests. Their argument is that these tests can give them data for them to see which schools are doing well and which ones are not.
Now don't get me wrong, I love data. I would never think of any policy or even try to without looking at some statistics because that would be irresponsible. But what sometimes is forgotten is how one size does not always fit all, and there could be multiple reasons why students may or may not do well on standardized tests.
When students take these tests, they become anxious, nervous, and frustrated over what may happen if they don't do well. Even worse is that by teaching to the tests, it takes away from actual learning from the classroom.
These tests narrow the curriculum to what will be tested. Teachers have to do this because they feel the pressure to make sure their students do well because in the end it will be a reflection on them.
I went to The Beacon School in New York City. It is considered one of the best public schools in the city and it started as a place where students were exempt from taking the New York state regents exams. Now however, they have to take them. So while President George W. Bush was touting immigration reform in his last term in office, there used to be (1999-2000) only two questions on immigration on those regents exams.
The most well known of these standardized tests is the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). After World War 2, soldiers coming back were given tests to see where they should be placed in the job market.
The problem was that the Army Tests were ridiculously slanted, rewarding anyone with a knowledge of brand names, baseball trivia and cuts of beef.
But Carl Brigham (the man who invented the SAT and founded the College Board) convinced Princeton University that these tests should be mandatory for students entering college. The test have changed over the years, but the fact of the matter is there is no correlation on how a first year student does in college and the SAT.
Engaging students is hard, Sesame Street has found a great way to do so and should be celebrated for it. Holding teachers feet to the fire is not the best way for students to learn, or for that matter teachers to teach. My prediction is that next year Nancy Pelosi is going to want to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, but eight years after its signing 8.7% of students are still not graduating high school.
In sum, while having all students take a test may seem fair, in reality someone is still getting less. Another lesson that can be learned from Bert and Ernie.
When trying to hold teachers and schools accountable within their districts, politicians and policy makers always go for the simple answer, standardized tests. Their argument is that these tests can give them data for them to see which schools are doing well and which ones are not.
Now don't get me wrong, I love data. I would never think of any policy or even try to without looking at some statistics because that would be irresponsible. But what sometimes is forgotten is how one size does not always fit all, and there could be multiple reasons why students may or may not do well on standardized tests.
When students take these tests, they become anxious, nervous, and frustrated over what may happen if they don't do well. Even worse is that by teaching to the tests, it takes away from actual learning from the classroom.
These tests narrow the curriculum to what will be tested. Teachers have to do this because they feel the pressure to make sure their students do well because in the end it will be a reflection on them.
I went to The Beacon School in New York City. It is considered one of the best public schools in the city and it started as a place where students were exempt from taking the New York state regents exams. Now however, they have to take them. So while President George W. Bush was touting immigration reform in his last term in office, there used to be (1999-2000) only two questions on immigration on those regents exams.
The most well known of these standardized tests is the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). After World War 2, soldiers coming back were given tests to see where they should be placed in the job market.
The problem was that the Army Tests were ridiculously slanted, rewarding anyone with a knowledge of brand names, baseball trivia and cuts of beef.
But Carl Brigham (the man who invented the SAT and founded the College Board) convinced Princeton University that these tests should be mandatory for students entering college. The test have changed over the years, but the fact of the matter is there is no correlation on how a first year student does in college and the SAT.
Engaging students is hard, Sesame Street has found a great way to do so and should be celebrated for it. Holding teachers feet to the fire is not the best way for students to learn, or for that matter teachers to teach. My prediction is that next year Nancy Pelosi is going to want to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, but eight years after its signing 8.7% of students are still not graduating high school.
In sum, while having all students take a test may seem fair, in reality someone is still getting less. Another lesson that can be learned from Bert and Ernie.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Who Wouldn't Want To Show Off The White House?
If I were President, I know all my friends would be asking: "So when's the party?" You could just imagine a kegger on the Rose Garden right?
The White House released a list of some of the visitors that have come since President Obama has taken office? It didn't get a lot of attention with Afghanistan, the economy, and healthcare taking up most of the news time, but some of the people who visited kinda worry me.
The first one was Michael Jordan. Now I know the president likes basketball, played for the Chicago Bulls, and is the greatest that ever played. But did you see his speech when he was inducted into the hall of fame? It's hard to say that I actually ever liked Michael Jordan considering all the times he came into MSG and trounced the Knicks. But I was a fan and to see how much of a douchebag he really is, is really shocking.
Who the hell tells their kids he would hate to be them?
My concern is that his douchbaginess will infect the White House, and all of a sudden Obama will quit being President and try a career as a day time talk show host. I know he's capable of doing it because he's a great speaker, and when people ask him questions he always knows exactly what to say. Plus I'm sure his ratings will be high if no one has a job.
Another name that stood out to me was former Presidential candidate John Edwards. It's safe to say this guy is on everyone's a-hole list right now. But according to the list, he's been to the White House four times.
Is this the guy Obama really wants to listen to? Forget all the stuff about the affair. Edwards was saying there were two different America's when then candidate Obama was telling people there's one and brought everyone together. There was an article about how the strategy Obama used to get this far in the health care debate has worked. Why, all of a sudden, would he want to be taking advice from someone who had no leadership position and didn't pass a single piece of legislation when he was in the Senate?
I guess having a blowout with all my friends wouldn't really be a good idea. But if Stevie Wonder wants to perform at my house he's more then welcome. And in the end these people are just visitors, and who wouldn't want to show off the White House?
The White House released a list of some of the visitors that have come since President Obama has taken office? It didn't get a lot of attention with Afghanistan, the economy, and healthcare taking up most of the news time, but some of the people who visited kinda worry me.
The first one was Michael Jordan. Now I know the president likes basketball, played for the Chicago Bulls, and is the greatest that ever played. But did you see his speech when he was inducted into the hall of fame? It's hard to say that I actually ever liked Michael Jordan considering all the times he came into MSG and trounced the Knicks. But I was a fan and to see how much of a douchebag he really is, is really shocking.
Who the hell tells their kids he would hate to be them?
My concern is that his douchbaginess will infect the White House, and all of a sudden Obama will quit being President and try a career as a day time talk show host. I know he's capable of doing it because he's a great speaker, and when people ask him questions he always knows exactly what to say. Plus I'm sure his ratings will be high if no one has a job.
Another name that stood out to me was former Presidential candidate John Edwards. It's safe to say this guy is on everyone's a-hole list right now. But according to the list, he's been to the White House four times.
Is this the guy Obama really wants to listen to? Forget all the stuff about the affair. Edwards was saying there were two different America's when then candidate Obama was telling people there's one and brought everyone together. There was an article about how the strategy Obama used to get this far in the health care debate has worked. Why, all of a sudden, would he want to be taking advice from someone who had no leadership position and didn't pass a single piece of legislation when he was in the Senate?
I guess having a blowout with all my friends wouldn't really be a good idea. But if Stevie Wonder wants to perform at my house he's more then welcome. And in the end these people are just visitors, and who wouldn't want to show off the White House?
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Doing Business With The Enemy
I am a Giants fan. I have been really happy the way the teams been playing this year, and as I'm sure anyone who follows football knows there is a big game against the Saints tomorrow. Well here's my confession, my friends got me into fantasy football this season. I've never played in any fantasy league before and in all honestly didn't completely understand how it worked. But now, for better or worse, I am addicted.
I need to win every week. I know every Tuesday I am the first one looking to see which player I can get off waivers, who did well the past week, and figuring out if there are any trades I should propose. So this week a few of the players on my team have the week off, most notably Ronnie Brown so I needed a running back. So I'm looking to see who I can get, and guess who is projected to do well, Mike Bell on the New Orleans Saints.
Mind you, Brandon Jacobs and Steve Smith are both on my team. I do not want Mike Bell to have a good game against the Giants, not one bit. So now when he scores a touchdown I will not boo, but will not cheer either. I will sit on my couch stoic.
Now the point of the story is this: Sometimes, you have to do business with people we don't like. The New York Times had an article in today's paper about why the stock market reached 10,000 this week. It talked about all the bailouts (excuse me, TARP) and how using tax payer money to replenish the system, banks were given room to give out and invest in areas where they could possibly recoup their losses. The program also had to be initiated because if they did not, credit cards would have been useless and the entire economy would have crashed.
Then of course came the fallback. While some banks paid back the money the government gave them, most still have not, but did decide to pay their CEO's their multi-million dollar bonuses. Oh, and yeah, unemployment is probably going to reach 10% this year.
So there was another headline that read "Obama Drops Plan to Isolate Sudan Leaders." When campaigning, the President said he would try and use economic tools such as sanctions and divestment against Sudan's government to stop the violence in the region. Now, he has changed his mind and will instead:
make use of a mix of “incentives and pressure” to seek an end to the human rights abuses that have left millions of people dead or displaced while burning Darfur into the American conscience.
General Gration said the administration would set strict time lines for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan to fulfill the conditions of a 2005 peace agreement that his government signed with rebels in southern Sudan.
The fact of the matter though is that the situation in the Darfur region has changed. In May of 2006, the Sudanese government signed a peace accord with one of the rebel groups in the region. But there are two other groups still causing violence and millions of people are still displaced from their homes. Not to mention that President Omar al Bashir has been indicted on crimes against humanity.
So why do I think President Obama should engage talks with Mr. Bashir? Well Sudan's unemployment rate is 18.7% with 40% of the population under the poverty line. The country does have oil though, and has gained billions from it. Still, 80% of the countries economy relies on agriculture and the Darfur region in particular is known for droughts.
Imposing sanctions would not do any good to help the people in that country. President Bashir is in a weak position, and if that can be taken advantage of to get him to actually do something good for his country, I think it's worth a shot.
And for the moment I'm still able to use my credit card, and most economists are predicting a recovery starting next year. So yeah, we bailed out people who we didn't like, but it was necessary.
In the mean time I'm still projected to lose fantasy football this week by more then 40 points. But those projections have been wrong before. If Mike Bell has a good game and I win this week that would be good. If he has a good game and the Giants win that would be great. The only thing I know right now is that either way Bell helps me win. And if it means working with him, so be it.
I need to win every week. I know every Tuesday I am the first one looking to see which player I can get off waivers, who did well the past week, and figuring out if there are any trades I should propose. So this week a few of the players on my team have the week off, most notably Ronnie Brown so I needed a running back. So I'm looking to see who I can get, and guess who is projected to do well, Mike Bell on the New Orleans Saints.
Mind you, Brandon Jacobs and Steve Smith are both on my team. I do not want Mike Bell to have a good game against the Giants, not one bit. So now when he scores a touchdown I will not boo, but will not cheer either. I will sit on my couch stoic.
Now the point of the story is this: Sometimes, you have to do business with people we don't like. The New York Times had an article in today's paper about why the stock market reached 10,000 this week. It talked about all the bailouts (excuse me, TARP) and how using tax payer money to replenish the system, banks were given room to give out and invest in areas where they could possibly recoup their losses. The program also had to be initiated because if they did not, credit cards would have been useless and the entire economy would have crashed.
Then of course came the fallback. While some banks paid back the money the government gave them, most still have not, but did decide to pay their CEO's their multi-million dollar bonuses. Oh, and yeah, unemployment is probably going to reach 10% this year.
So there was another headline that read "Obama Drops Plan to Isolate Sudan Leaders." When campaigning, the President said he would try and use economic tools such as sanctions and divestment against Sudan's government to stop the violence in the region. Now, he has changed his mind and will instead:
make use of a mix of “incentives and pressure” to seek an end to the human rights abuses that have left millions of people dead or displaced while burning Darfur into the American conscience.
General Gration said the administration would set strict time lines for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan to fulfill the conditions of a 2005 peace agreement that his government signed with rebels in southern Sudan.
The fact of the matter though is that the situation in the Darfur region has changed. In May of 2006, the Sudanese government signed a peace accord with one of the rebel groups in the region. But there are two other groups still causing violence and millions of people are still displaced from their homes. Not to mention that President Omar al Bashir has been indicted on crimes against humanity.
So why do I think President Obama should engage talks with Mr. Bashir? Well Sudan's unemployment rate is 18.7% with 40% of the population under the poverty line. The country does have oil though, and has gained billions from it. Still, 80% of the countries economy relies on agriculture and the Darfur region in particular is known for droughts.
Imposing sanctions would not do any good to help the people in that country. President Bashir is in a weak position, and if that can be taken advantage of to get him to actually do something good for his country, I think it's worth a shot.
And for the moment I'm still able to use my credit card, and most economists are predicting a recovery starting next year. So yeah, we bailed out people who we didn't like, but it was necessary.
In the mean time I'm still projected to lose fantasy football this week by more then 40 points. But those projections have been wrong before. If Mike Bell has a good game and I win this week that would be good. If he has a good game and the Giants win that would be great. The only thing I know right now is that either way Bell helps me win. And if it means working with him, so be it.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Debt, Schmebt
So I'm watching CNN the other day, and all of a sudden I see this ad by an organization called Defeat the Debt. Pure shock value. I'm sure it hasn't gotten the attention as much as they would have liked though (except of course for this), since when I searched for it on YouTube I had to type in the full name of the video to find it. Plus it has less then 50,000 viewings.
After I saw this ad, I was surprised more people weren't talking about it. After the whole uproar about a school in New Jersey singing songs about President Obama, isn't just as ludicrous to have children discredit the pledge of allegiance? And get paid for it.
Not to mention the fact that the policies they are promoting are wrong. But before I get into that, let me premise it by saying Defeat the Debt is a front group for Employment Policies Institute (EPI) which is lead by Rick Berman. He is a lobbyist who has been hired by the resturaunt and tobbaco industries to promote libertarian (keep government out of my pocket) views. Now if you've ever had a conversation with a libertarian, you know there's never any winning because they will just tell you you're wrong and leave it as a fact.
Here's an example:
Liberal: Man, I really hope Congress passes a public option for health care.
Libertarian: No, let the market do it's thing. It always works itself out.
Liberal: No it dosen't, look what just happened to the stock market and what the federal government had to do. Plus prices are rising so fast no one will be able to afford health insurance in a open market soon.
Libertarian: You're wrong.
See, you just can't win with these guys!
So anyway, on the "Understanding The Danger" page, Defeat the Debt says:
All true. But this will only happen if China asks for their money back, which they won't. Why? Because it would freeze up the credit markets and no one would have any money to buy the exports China is sending into the country. There was just a huge shock to the system, if China does ask for their loans back it would only start another one.
At the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, emerging markets and developed countries decided that the only way the world economy would be fixed is if they worked together.
So yeah, it really dosen't feel good to owe so much money to other countries. But one of the reasons why China decided to take on our debt was because (as Defeat the Debt mentioned) they saw it as a good investment. America isn't going anywhere. If China really does want that money back, they'll enact policies to help America's economy so they can get thier money back in the future.
The worst thing about places like EPI is that they use scare/shock tactics only to get people excited over something they may or may not have a full understanding of (See: Death Panels).
Part of the reason we have debt now is because of the stimulous package (to create jobs) and the TARP program (or better known as bailouts) which most economists now agree helped calm the crisis. But anyone who's trying to look for a job right now can tell you the economy is still struggling. And the last thing those people need is something else to worry about.
After I saw this ad, I was surprised more people weren't talking about it. After the whole uproar about a school in New Jersey singing songs about President Obama, isn't just as ludicrous to have children discredit the pledge of allegiance? And get paid for it.
Not to mention the fact that the policies they are promoting are wrong. But before I get into that, let me premise it by saying Defeat the Debt is a front group for Employment Policies Institute (EPI) which is lead by Rick Berman. He is a lobbyist who has been hired by the resturaunt and tobbaco industries to promote libertarian (keep government out of my pocket) views. Now if you've ever had a conversation with a libertarian, you know there's never any winning because they will just tell you you're wrong and leave it as a fact.
Here's an example:
Liberal: Man, I really hope Congress passes a public option for health care.
Libertarian: No, let the market do it's thing. It always works itself out.
Liberal: No it dosen't, look what just happened to the stock market and what the federal government had to do. Plus prices are rising so fast no one will be able to afford health insurance in a open market soon.
Libertarian: You're wrong.
See, you just can't win with these guys!
So anyway, on the "Understanding The Danger" page, Defeat the Debt says:
Other countries buy our debt because it is a good investment — they trust us to pay them back, with interest. The most recent figures show we owe about $3.3 trillion to the governments of other countries, including nearly $800 billion to China alone.
All true. But this will only happen if China asks for their money back, which they won't. Why? Because it would freeze up the credit markets and no one would have any money to buy the exports China is sending into the country. There was just a huge shock to the system, if China does ask for their loans back it would only start another one.
At the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, emerging markets and developed countries decided that the only way the world economy would be fixed is if they worked together.
So yeah, it really dosen't feel good to owe so much money to other countries. But one of the reasons why China decided to take on our debt was because (as Defeat the Debt mentioned) they saw it as a good investment. America isn't going anywhere. If China really does want that money back, they'll enact policies to help America's economy so they can get thier money back in the future.
The worst thing about places like EPI is that they use scare/shock tactics only to get people excited over something they may or may not have a full understanding of (See: Death Panels).
Part of the reason we have debt now is because of the stimulous package (to create jobs) and the TARP program (or better known as bailouts) which most economists now agree helped calm the crisis. But anyone who's trying to look for a job right now can tell you the economy is still struggling. And the last thing those people need is something else to worry about.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Reform The System, Not The Principles
Immigrants have a soft spot in American politics. Our country was founded on people who were escaping religious persecution and wanted to start a new life for them and their families. Growing up in New York City I went to the Tenement Museum and saw the conditions people were willing to live in so they could achieve their dreams. You cannot teach American history without learning about these people and their courageous stories.
It was announced today that there are plans being made to make obtaining a legal status in the United States easier. Actual legislation is being put off though because health care reform is taking up so much time. This is a good first step in achieving real reform, and it is expected that a lot of illegal immigrants will be taking advantage of the new rules when they come into effect. I have worked in a few congressional offices and helping people get visas, green cards, etc., is always one of the top issues that is being dealt with. The current system we have now just is not efficient. Those who come to the country illegally are sending billions of dollars back to their home countries, and running up costs at hospitals by going to the emergency room.
But lest we forget, they are helping to keep wages low. Since they are doing the jobs most Americans do not want to do such as food manufacturing, farming, and construction. Some economists predicted a 1% decrease in GDP if there were no people to do these jobs.
By cutting the red tape for immigrants, it will be easier to keep track of how many there are in the country and where they are. And when you consider the current deficit, people coming into the country can be taxed on all levels of government so services won't have to be cut.
There's a tricky balance when it comes to immigration reform. No one wants to say people are not allowed to come to America, that's a total contradiction to what this country was founded on. But you also want to keep Americans safe. The best way to do that though would be to make it so people coming into this country are easier to track. It's how we caught Najibullah Zazi.
So reform the system, not the principles. We're lucky to be living in a place where people want to come to start a new life, and are a symbol and a place to do just that. History teaches us important lessons when it comes to immigration. So when President Obama does introduce legislation for immigration reform, I hope he focuses on the system itself and not make it crisis. Unfortunately people in the media try to make everything into a crisis, but after health care I think we can all use a break from one.
It was announced today that there are plans being made to make obtaining a legal status in the United States easier. Actual legislation is being put off though because health care reform is taking up so much time. This is a good first step in achieving real reform, and it is expected that a lot of illegal immigrants will be taking advantage of the new rules when they come into effect. I have worked in a few congressional offices and helping people get visas, green cards, etc., is always one of the top issues that is being dealt with. The current system we have now just is not efficient. Those who come to the country illegally are sending billions of dollars back to their home countries, and running up costs at hospitals by going to the emergency room.
But lest we forget, they are helping to keep wages low. Since they are doing the jobs most Americans do not want to do such as food manufacturing, farming, and construction. Some economists predicted a 1% decrease in GDP if there were no people to do these jobs.
By cutting the red tape for immigrants, it will be easier to keep track of how many there are in the country and where they are. And when you consider the current deficit, people coming into the country can be taxed on all levels of government so services won't have to be cut.
There's a tricky balance when it comes to immigration reform. No one wants to say people are not allowed to come to America, that's a total contradiction to what this country was founded on. But you also want to keep Americans safe. The best way to do that though would be to make it so people coming into this country are easier to track. It's how we caught Najibullah Zazi.
So reform the system, not the principles. We're lucky to be living in a place where people want to come to start a new life, and are a symbol and a place to do just that. History teaches us important lessons when it comes to immigration. So when President Obama does introduce legislation for immigration reform, I hope he focuses on the system itself and not make it crisis. Unfortunately people in the media try to make everything into a crisis, but after health care I think we can all use a break from one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)