In 1976 residents voted for casino gambling in Atlantic City. In doing so the idea was to revitalize a depressed city with substandard housing and double-digit unemployment. Even though current casino profits are down, in 2009 11 casinos brought in over $3.9 billion in revenue.
Double digit unemployment continues, and dilapidated housing is still second-rate for many citizens. The majority of residents and businesses have not seen any change in their communities. Urban decay surrounding the casinos has not improved, and many residents who thought in 1976 they would see neighborhood improvements aren't happy. Taxes are not lower, the streets are not any cleaner, and neighborhood security has not improved much. Many local businesses have closed or been boarded up as casino stores compete against them.
Senate President Sweeney said, “We have to recognize that Atlantic City’s gaming and tourism attractions have a bigger impact than inside the city borders, if we’re serious about turning Atlantic City’s casinos into a resort destination, we have to separate the problems plaguing the casino district from the problems facing the entire city.
So in essence, the revenue of the state comes above the needs of the people, even though very little casino revenue went towards improving the surrounding communities?
In 35 years, many of them pre-recession years, the benefits of that revenue still hasn’t filtered down to the surrounding communities as promised.
In gambling with a bailout of the gaming industry, will those residents be cheated once again with the threat of Eminent Domain under the guise of revitalization that will take away the remainder of little they have left?
~ Joe Sinagra
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
NJEA should take hit for grant loss
New Jersey lost the Race to the Top education grant
by 4.8 points.
Gov. Christie took shots at the President and the
federal government, with the Democrat fangs waiting
in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw
blood.
Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied
figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question
specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009.
This was the reason that supposedly cost the state
of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.
The New Jersey Education Association partied in the
streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.
The rationale of why he was fired is another matter.
The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being
held accountable.
A major prerequisite of the program required the
endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of
the unions — and only four out of 591 districts
signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a
chance to review the application over the holiday
weekend and wouldn't sign on to the program
unless it was submitted as they had previously
agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement
clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor
those of the Christie administration, and New Jersey
failed miserably in the first phase of the
competition.
However, four districts of the NJEA had affixed their
signatures to the Christie version of the application,
along with 289 of the 591 school districts.
The application has a section on the endorsement of
parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school
districts, and the state Department of Education.
Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the
reviewers clearly state that only 1 percent of the
unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers
took off 15-20 points.
Then there is another section on implementation
and how they will make it work. Since the union
would not agree to the application, the reviewers
say that this would hinder the implementation of the
plan, deducting an additional 15-20 points.
"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong,
one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one
reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's
LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a
significant number and ... New Jersey will find it
difficult to implement even successful elements of
its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."
The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the
state 14 points on the scale.
The reviewers of the application state on the reviews
that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on
the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat
on a hot tin roof over a missed five-point question.
The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost
the grant, not the less than five points lost by the
incorrect information supplied by Schundler.
NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people
of New Jersey an explanation for why this
application failed, not Christie.
~ Joe Sinagra
by 4.8 points.
Gov. Christie took shots at the President and the
federal government, with the Democrat fangs waiting
in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw
blood.
Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied
figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question
specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009.
This was the reason that supposedly cost the state
of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.
The New Jersey Education Association partied in the
streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.
The rationale of why he was fired is another matter.
The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being
held accountable.
A major prerequisite of the program required the
endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of
the unions — and only four out of 591 districts
signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a
chance to review the application over the holiday
weekend and wouldn't sign on to the program
unless it was submitted as they had previously
agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement
clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor
those of the Christie administration, and New Jersey
failed miserably in the first phase of the
competition.
However, four districts of the NJEA had affixed their
signatures to the Christie version of the application,
along with 289 of the 591 school districts.
The application has a section on the endorsement of
parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school
districts, and the state Department of Education.
Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the
reviewers clearly state that only 1 percent of the
unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers
took off 15-20 points.
Then there is another section on implementation
and how they will make it work. Since the union
would not agree to the application, the reviewers
say that this would hinder the implementation of the
plan, deducting an additional 15-20 points.
"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong,
one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one
reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's
LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a
significant number and ... New Jersey will find it
difficult to implement even successful elements of
its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."
The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the
state 14 points on the scale.
The reviewers of the application state on the reviews
that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on
the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat
on a hot tin roof over a missed five-point question.
The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost
the grant, not the less than five points lost by the
incorrect information supplied by Schundler.
NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people
of New Jersey an explanation for why this
application failed, not Christie.
~ Joe Sinagra
Monday, August 30, 2010
NJEA . . . The Race to the Bottom
By clicking on the above headline you can view the New Jersey Application #3550NJ-4
NJEA . . . The Race to the Bottom
by Joe Sinagra on Monday, August 30, 2010
New Jersey lost the Race to the Top education grant by 4.8 points.
Governor Christie took shots at the President and the Federal Government, with the Democrat fangs waiting in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw blood.
Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009. This was the reason that supposedly cost the state of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.
The New Jersey Education Association partied in the streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.
The rationale of why he was fired is another matter. The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being held accountable.
A major perquisite of the program required the endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of the unions, out of which only 4 out of 591 districts, signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a chance to review the application over the holiday weekend and wouldn’t sign on to the program, unless it was submitted as they had previously agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor those of the Christie administration, and NJ failed miserably in the first phase of the competition. However, 4 districts of the NJEA had affixed their signatures to the Christie version of the application, along with 289 of the 591 school districts.
The application has a section on the endorsement of parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school districts, and the NJDOE. Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the reviewers clearly state that only 1% of the unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers took off 15-20 points.
Then there is another section on implementation and how they will make it work. Since the union would not agree to the application, the reviewers say that this would hinder the implementation of the plan, deducting further additional 15-20 points.
The reviewers of the application state on the reviews, that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof over a missed 5-point question.
The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost the grant, not the less than 5 points lost by the incorrect information supplied by Schundler.
"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong, one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a significant number and ... New Jersey will find it difficult to implement even successful elements of its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."
The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the state 14 points on the scale.
NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people of New Jersey an explanation for why this application failed, not Christie.
View Application: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/comments/new-jersey.pdf
NJEA . . . The Race to the Bottom
by Joe Sinagra on Monday, August 30, 2010
New Jersey lost the Race to the Top education grant by 4.8 points.
Governor Christie took shots at the President and the Federal Government, with the Democrat fangs waiting in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw blood.
Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009. This was the reason that supposedly cost the state of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.
The New Jersey Education Association partied in the streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.
The rationale of why he was fired is another matter. The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being held accountable.
A major perquisite of the program required the endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of the unions, out of which only 4 out of 591 districts, signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a chance to review the application over the holiday weekend and wouldn’t sign on to the program, unless it was submitted as they had previously agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor those of the Christie administration, and NJ failed miserably in the first phase of the competition. However, 4 districts of the NJEA had affixed their signatures to the Christie version of the application, along with 289 of the 591 school districts.
The application has a section on the endorsement of parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school districts, and the NJDOE. Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the reviewers clearly state that only 1% of the unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers took off 15-20 points.
Then there is another section on implementation and how they will make it work. Since the union would not agree to the application, the reviewers say that this would hinder the implementation of the plan, deducting further additional 15-20 points.
The reviewers of the application state on the reviews, that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof over a missed 5-point question.
The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost the grant, not the less than 5 points lost by the incorrect information supplied by Schundler.
"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong, one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a significant number and ... New Jersey will find it difficult to implement even successful elements of its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."
The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the state 14 points on the scale.
NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people of New Jersey an explanation for why this application failed, not Christie.
View Application: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/comments/new-jersey.pdf
Monday, August 16, 2010
Unemployment rates show no sign of decrease
There are many who criticize the unemployed for not trying to find work and accuse them of living off the system. Not since the 1930’s has the US has seen a recession this great.
I consider myself fortunate enough to work for a great company, but there are many who are not so lucky.
Those who make comments such as,”they aren’t looking hard enough”, or “if they really wanted work they would have found something by now”, are either still employed or living in a vacuum. Ask anyone out of work if they enjoy collecting their “earned” benefits.
Jobs lost in the past few years will be not be coming back. Many U.S. jobs have, or will continue to move overseas or be replaced by technology. Those jobs that do come back are not going to be hiring at previous salaries as the jobs of the next decade do not look rewarding. As an example, the number of home health aides is expected to expand by 461,000. But their median earnings come to just $20,460 — well below the median U.S. wage of $32,390. Also, future benefit packages that were expected from employers will not be as lucrative and top paying jobs of the future will be minimal. Bio-medical engineers, as an example, will account for just 12,000 of the more than 15 million new jobs expected to emerge through 2018.
The job market is grim, and the economy does not look like it will explode anytime soon. Many have lost their benefits, still looking, or just gave up. Anyone previously making $40,000 a year or more certainly does not want to live off the system, especially those with families, mortgages and car payments.
They will hold on to what little they have, they cannot afford to save, and they won’t have anything extra to spend. Consumer spending, which fuels economic and job growth, is likely to remain weak for a long time to come.
The US lost an additional 131,000 jobs in July as the unemployment rate were predicted to go to 9.6%, and held firm at 9.5 %, as 652,000 people abandoned their job searches.. The Bureau for Labor Statistics revised its figures for June downwards, reporting that 221,000 jobs had been lost compared to its original estimate of 125,000.
Even though the U.S. economy added an average of less than 100,000 jobs a month in the first seven months of 2010, it still wasn’t enough to bring unemployment down.
New Jersey lost 245,400 private-sector jobs, a 7.1 percent decline, according to the NJ Department of Labor, between February 2008, at the start of this employment recession, and January of this year, an average monthly loss of 10,225 jobs over the 24-month period. At that rate it could take a decade for the state to reclaim the nearly 250,000 private-sector jobs it has lost over the past two years.
If New Jersey adds about 30,000 jobs per year starting in 2012, it would take until 2019, to reclaim all of the private-sector jobs lost to date and to regain the last private-sector employment peak of 3.44 million jobs, set in January 2008.
Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston said, “If we don’t see significant job growth by the end of the year, the US economy could be in serious trouble.”
Until Americans know that they will not lose their job because their company is in trouble and start feeling a sense of security, there is no way that their outlook on the economy will turn around, regardless of what economists may say.
Even if the job market held at a steady pace, without consumer confidence the market will stay stagnant.
~ Joe Sinagra
I consider myself fortunate enough to work for a great company, but there are many who are not so lucky.
Those who make comments such as,”they aren’t looking hard enough”, or “if they really wanted work they would have found something by now”, are either still employed or living in a vacuum. Ask anyone out of work if they enjoy collecting their “earned” benefits.
Jobs lost in the past few years will be not be coming back. Many U.S. jobs have, or will continue to move overseas or be replaced by technology. Those jobs that do come back are not going to be hiring at previous salaries as the jobs of the next decade do not look rewarding. As an example, the number of home health aides is expected to expand by 461,000. But their median earnings come to just $20,460 — well below the median U.S. wage of $32,390. Also, future benefit packages that were expected from employers will not be as lucrative and top paying jobs of the future will be minimal. Bio-medical engineers, as an example, will account for just 12,000 of the more than 15 million new jobs expected to emerge through 2018.
The job market is grim, and the economy does not look like it will explode anytime soon. Many have lost their benefits, still looking, or just gave up. Anyone previously making $40,000 a year or more certainly does not want to live off the system, especially those with families, mortgages and car payments.
They will hold on to what little they have, they cannot afford to save, and they won’t have anything extra to spend. Consumer spending, which fuels economic and job growth, is likely to remain weak for a long time to come.
The US lost an additional 131,000 jobs in July as the unemployment rate were predicted to go to 9.6%, and held firm at 9.5 %, as 652,000 people abandoned their job searches.. The Bureau for Labor Statistics revised its figures for June downwards, reporting that 221,000 jobs had been lost compared to its original estimate of 125,000.
Even though the U.S. economy added an average of less than 100,000 jobs a month in the first seven months of 2010, it still wasn’t enough to bring unemployment down.
New Jersey lost 245,400 private-sector jobs, a 7.1 percent decline, according to the NJ Department of Labor, between February 2008, at the start of this employment recession, and January of this year, an average monthly loss of 10,225 jobs over the 24-month period. At that rate it could take a decade for the state to reclaim the nearly 250,000 private-sector jobs it has lost over the past two years.
If New Jersey adds about 30,000 jobs per year starting in 2012, it would take until 2019, to reclaim all of the private-sector jobs lost to date and to regain the last private-sector employment peak of 3.44 million jobs, set in January 2008.
Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston said, “If we don’t see significant job growth by the end of the year, the US economy could be in serious trouble.”
Until Americans know that they will not lose their job because their company is in trouble and start feeling a sense of security, there is no way that their outlook on the economy will turn around, regardless of what economists may say.
Even if the job market held at a steady pace, without consumer confidence the market will stay stagnant.
~ Joe Sinagra
Saturday, July 31, 2010
What is a jobless recovery?
A jobless recovery is when companies still maintain or gain large profits with less people.
In 2009, Fortune 500 companies tripled their profits by $391 billion, and reduced their payrolls by eliminating over 800,000 jobs. The company is doing great, to the people that were laid off it is another story. New Jersey, as of June had 17,100 fewer people in the labor force, and last month we lost another 1,900 jobs.
Another factor stagnating job growth is high taxes. A study by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy suggests that states that target the rich for tax hikes may pay a stiff price. New Jersey alone suffered a $70 billion loss in wealth from 2004 through 2008, as many businesses left for greener pastures. The dilemma we face is not only that the wealthy are leaving; the bigger problem is that we can’t get anyone to move here. There have been a larger percentage of wealthy households leaving, than those entering the state.
State tax hikes would hit the wealthy exceptionally hard if President Barack Obama gets his way. For 20011, the Obama administration proposes to allow the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 to expire and reducing the value of deductions (including for state and local taxes) for those earning $250,000 plus. Also, some of the upper-middle- class will lose all the advantages of state and local income tax deductions to the alternative minimum tax.
With the private sector generating little tax revenue and with a newly enacted 2 percent cap on property tax increases, the public sector will encounter more pain.
Until we have substantial job growth, incentives to entice companies back into the state, or innovative ways to keep companies from leaving, without an economic recovery, the state will continue to have a budget deficit.
As long as the state has a deficit it will raise taxes eventually on those who no longer have the means to pay.
You may have a jobless recovery, but not an economic one.
~ Joe Sinagra
In 2009, Fortune 500 companies tripled their profits by $391 billion, and reduced their payrolls by eliminating over 800,000 jobs. The company is doing great, to the people that were laid off it is another story. New Jersey, as of June had 17,100 fewer people in the labor force, and last month we lost another 1,900 jobs.
Another factor stagnating job growth is high taxes. A study by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy suggests that states that target the rich for tax hikes may pay a stiff price. New Jersey alone suffered a $70 billion loss in wealth from 2004 through 2008, as many businesses left for greener pastures. The dilemma we face is not only that the wealthy are leaving; the bigger problem is that we can’t get anyone to move here. There have been a larger percentage of wealthy households leaving, than those entering the state.
State tax hikes would hit the wealthy exceptionally hard if President Barack Obama gets his way. For 20011, the Obama administration proposes to allow the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 to expire and reducing the value of deductions (including for state and local taxes) for those earning $250,000 plus. Also, some of the upper-middle- class will lose all the advantages of state and local income tax deductions to the alternative minimum tax.
With the private sector generating little tax revenue and with a newly enacted 2 percent cap on property tax increases, the public sector will encounter more pain.
Until we have substantial job growth, incentives to entice companies back into the state, or innovative ways to keep companies from leaving, without an economic recovery, the state will continue to have a budget deficit.
As long as the state has a deficit it will raise taxes eventually on those who no longer have the means to pay.
You may have a jobless recovery, but not an economic one.
~ Joe Sinagra
Saturday, July 10, 2010
America Loves Crackers!
Crackers come in many shapes and sizes.
The life of the cracker came in 1801 when Massachusetts baker, Josiah Bent, burnt a batch of biscuits in his brick oven. The crackling noise given off from the charred biscuits inspired the name – crackers.
There is the prize in Cracker Jacks; the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, the combination of ‘LSD’ Talwin and Ritalin is known as crackers, cracker jacks is a reference to Crack smokers.
There are burnt crackers, (Hindus celebrate Lord Rama during Diwiali with burnt crackers), animal crackers, fire crackers, graham crackers, the Cork and Cracker in Indianapolis,The Florida Cracker Trail, The Florida Cracker Horse, The Milwaukee Braves were once known as the “Atlanta Crackers”, The “Atlanta Black Crackers” was a professional baseball team which played in the Atlanta Negro League, Brooke is the name of the female goldfish for Goldfish Crackers, in Scandinavia there is cracker bread, Kentucky is the Corn-Cracker state, the Red-Cracker butterfly, Jumping Cracker Beans Llc in San Jose California, Cracker Neck Virginia, graham cracker bananas, and Mary's Gone Crackers, Inc. in Gridley, Ca. . . Phew!
The weakened economy continues to affect the baking industry, although in the case of crackers, it's had a surprisingly positive effect.
Michael Morrissey, brand public relations manager, Kellogg's, Battle Creek, Mich., sees crackers appealing to consumers in several different ways. “Crackers are tied to a few big consumer trends — the desire for healthier eating, more entertaining at home and the need for on-the-move food,” he notes. “We are seeing consistent growth across our entire snack business, with crackers being particularly strong.”
Shipments in the commercial bakeries industry are over $11.09 billion.
What can I say . . . . America loves Crackers!
The life of the cracker came in 1801 when Massachusetts baker, Josiah Bent, burnt a batch of biscuits in his brick oven. The crackling noise given off from the charred biscuits inspired the name – crackers.
There is the prize in Cracker Jacks; the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, the combination of ‘LSD’ Talwin and Ritalin is known as crackers, cracker jacks is a reference to Crack smokers.
There are burnt crackers, (Hindus celebrate Lord Rama during Diwiali with burnt crackers), animal crackers, fire crackers, graham crackers, the Cork and Cracker in Indianapolis,The Florida Cracker Trail, The Florida Cracker Horse, The Milwaukee Braves were once known as the “Atlanta Crackers”, The “Atlanta Black Crackers” was a professional baseball team which played in the Atlanta Negro League, Brooke is the name of the female goldfish for Goldfish Crackers, in Scandinavia there is cracker bread, Kentucky is the Corn-Cracker state, the Red-Cracker butterfly, Jumping Cracker Beans Llc in San Jose California, Cracker Neck Virginia, graham cracker bananas, and Mary's Gone Crackers, Inc. in Gridley, Ca. . . Phew!
The weakened economy continues to affect the baking industry, although in the case of crackers, it's had a surprisingly positive effect.
Michael Morrissey, brand public relations manager, Kellogg's, Battle Creek, Mich., sees crackers appealing to consumers in several different ways. “Crackers are tied to a few big consumer trends — the desire for healthier eating, more entertaining at home and the need for on-the-move food,” he notes. “We are seeing consistent growth across our entire snack business, with crackers being particularly strong.”
Shipments in the commercial bakeries industry are over $11.09 billion.
What can I say . . . . America loves Crackers!
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
que sera sera . . Whatever will be, will be
If Congress awards amnesty and residency to twenty million criminal trespassers called illegal’s, and they vote . . . we can say farewell to the existence of the USA as we know it, in fewer than five years.
If the turnout in November is as pathetic as it was in the primaries, just turn off the lights as you leave the voting booth. By the following election, you won't be pressing 1 for English.
For those who feel that as a nation we must speak English, we have never had a national language bill passed. Just about 87% say English should be the official language of the United States. Eighteen percent of households in the US do not speak English in their own homes, over 17 million of these households do not speak English very well. Nearly seven million speak little or no English, 20 percent, about 52 million people, speak other languages.
Most of these families -- 32 million of the 50 million people -- are Spanish-speakers. 152,000 Americans speak Lao at home, 174,000 Hmong; 312,000 speak Greek, 203,000 speak Armenian, 173,000 speak Navajo, 276,000 speak Gujurati, 812,000 speak Russian, 802,000 speak Italian, 2.3 million speak Chinese, 1.4 million speak French. In these homes about 5 million children, principally new immigrants, arrive at schools with very little English competency.
The vast majority of non-English speakers (75%) live in just seven states, Arizona, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas and Illinois. Will the 112th Congress pass national language legislation? Who knows . . . "que sera sera..."
If the turnout in November is as pathetic as it was in the primaries, just turn off the lights as you leave the voting booth. By the following election, you won't be pressing 1 for English.
For those who feel that as a nation we must speak English, we have never had a national language bill passed. Just about 87% say English should be the official language of the United States. Eighteen percent of households in the US do not speak English in their own homes, over 17 million of these households do not speak English very well. Nearly seven million speak little or no English, 20 percent, about 52 million people, speak other languages.
Most of these families -- 32 million of the 50 million people -- are Spanish-speakers. 152,000 Americans speak Lao at home, 174,000 Hmong; 312,000 speak Greek, 203,000 speak Armenian, 173,000 speak Navajo, 276,000 speak Gujurati, 812,000 speak Russian, 802,000 speak Italian, 2.3 million speak Chinese, 1.4 million speak French. In these homes about 5 million children, principally new immigrants, arrive at schools with very little English competency.
The vast majority of non-English speakers (75%) live in just seven states, Arizona, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas and Illinois. Will the 112th Congress pass national language legislation? Who knows . . . "que sera sera..."
Thursday, June 3, 2010
. . . of the people, by the people, and for the people . .
Either we beef up the borders with the military, or up the Border Guard staff. Trillions are spent in thirty three foreign countries for American troops to protect them, but not one dollar is spent on them to protect American borders.
The Constitution states in Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
The US Army exists to defend the US from foreign invasion, which is expressly authorized by the US Constitution. Guarding US borders from foreign invasion is not "law enforcement." Guarding the Mexican border was the Army's primary peacetime mission until 1940, and no one ever declared this was in violation of this 1878 act. The US Border Patrol was formed in 1924 and currently has 9700 agents covering 8,000 miles of US borders. That is 1.2 Border Guards for each 1000.
Much of the border is not patrolled simply because it is too dangerous. In 2002, six Mexican Army Hummers were two miles inside US territory when Mexican soldiers fired over 150 rounds from vehicle-mounted machine guns, and a dozen MK-19 40mm grenade rounds, at two US Border Patrol agents investigating narcotics trafficking. In 2002, a US Park Ranger was killed when drug smugglers sprayed him with bullets from an AK-47, which struck him just below his bulletproof vest.
We have a fence that covers about 30% of the 2000 mile fence along the Mexican border, half of it covering Arizona. A government audit released last year reported thousands of fence breaches at a cost of $1,300 for each repair. On top of the price tag for building the fence, it will cost another $6.5 billion over the next 20 years to maintain it and related equipment. The Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year. The Border Guard estimates that 700,000 unknown persons slipped past them last year.
A multibillion-dollar “virtual fence” (dubbed SBInet) along the southwestern border promised for completion in 2009 to protect the U.S. from terrorists, violent drug smugglers and a flood of illegal immigrants is a long way from becoming a reality, and may never be completed. At one time, the government proposed lining the entire southwestern border with cameras, sensors and wired command centers that could detect illegal border crossers. But after spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 million, the defense contractor hired to build SBInet, Boeing Co., will complete only about 50 miles for certain.
Since February 2007, according to a review of federal records by The Washington Times, GAO has been telling Congress and Homeland Security that its high-tech border protection system needed better oversight and accountability, and it lacked realistic measures of cost, timing and benefits. In building the fence, one obstacle from the start was the government never came up with detailed requirements for the system and they never talked to the Border Patrol.
With the virtual fence already on an unstable foundation, the Obama administration has announced significant budget cuts for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs. Programs that depend on costly manpower, fencing, infrastructure and technology. President Obama's proposed 2011 budget would reduce the number of Border Patrol agents along the Southwest border by 180 agents, and cut the funding by $226 million for the "virtual fence."
Immigration reform was an issue Obama promised Latino groups that he would take up in his first year in office. However Obama now says, “I don’t want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem.” To deal with it now could cost his administration votes this November. If the issue of immigration lies dormant for the rest of this year, Democrats will blame it on the Republican opposition, in actuality many Democrats probably don’t want to deal with an immigration bill this year either.
If the current administration is not serious about enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, in not wanting to deal with it, how can anyone criticize Arizona or any other state for setting their own immigration policies?
Is it about political strategy so as not to lose votes, or is it about a government that is supposed to represent the legal citizens of this country? A government that was supposedly elected by the people, for the people to represent the people.
~ Joe Sinagra
The Constitution states in Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
The US Army exists to defend the US from foreign invasion, which is expressly authorized by the US Constitution. Guarding US borders from foreign invasion is not "law enforcement." Guarding the Mexican border was the Army's primary peacetime mission until 1940, and no one ever declared this was in violation of this 1878 act. The US Border Patrol was formed in 1924 and currently has 9700 agents covering 8,000 miles of US borders. That is 1.2 Border Guards for each 1000.
Much of the border is not patrolled simply because it is too dangerous. In 2002, six Mexican Army Hummers were two miles inside US territory when Mexican soldiers fired over 150 rounds from vehicle-mounted machine guns, and a dozen MK-19 40mm grenade rounds, at two US Border Patrol agents investigating narcotics trafficking. In 2002, a US Park Ranger was killed when drug smugglers sprayed him with bullets from an AK-47, which struck him just below his bulletproof vest.
We have a fence that covers about 30% of the 2000 mile fence along the Mexican border, half of it covering Arizona. A government audit released last year reported thousands of fence breaches at a cost of $1,300 for each repair. On top of the price tag for building the fence, it will cost another $6.5 billion over the next 20 years to maintain it and related equipment. The Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year. The Border Guard estimates that 700,000 unknown persons slipped past them last year.
A multibillion-dollar “virtual fence” (dubbed SBInet) along the southwestern border promised for completion in 2009 to protect the U.S. from terrorists, violent drug smugglers and a flood of illegal immigrants is a long way from becoming a reality, and may never be completed. At one time, the government proposed lining the entire southwestern border with cameras, sensors and wired command centers that could detect illegal border crossers. But after spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 million, the defense contractor hired to build SBInet, Boeing Co., will complete only about 50 miles for certain.
Since February 2007, according to a review of federal records by The Washington Times, GAO has been telling Congress and Homeland Security that its high-tech border protection system needed better oversight and accountability, and it lacked realistic measures of cost, timing and benefits. In building the fence, one obstacle from the start was the government never came up with detailed requirements for the system and they never talked to the Border Patrol.
With the virtual fence already on an unstable foundation, the Obama administration has announced significant budget cuts for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs. Programs that depend on costly manpower, fencing, infrastructure and technology. President Obama's proposed 2011 budget would reduce the number of Border Patrol agents along the Southwest border by 180 agents, and cut the funding by $226 million for the "virtual fence."
Immigration reform was an issue Obama promised Latino groups that he would take up in his first year in office. However Obama now says, “I don’t want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem.” To deal with it now could cost his administration votes this November. If the issue of immigration lies dormant for the rest of this year, Democrats will blame it on the Republican opposition, in actuality many Democrats probably don’t want to deal with an immigration bill this year either.
If the current administration is not serious about enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, in not wanting to deal with it, how can anyone criticize Arizona or any other state for setting their own immigration policies?
Is it about political strategy so as not to lose votes, or is it about a government that is supposed to represent the legal citizens of this country? A government that was supposedly elected by the people, for the people to represent the people.
~ Joe Sinagra
Friday, May 14, 2010
Amnesty will not Stop Illegal Immigration
In 1997, the illegal alien population was 54 percent Mexican. The illegal alien population is currently 70 percent Mexican, adding another 30 percent coming from other countries. Latin America, including Mexico, is the source of 90 percent of illegal aliens entering into the United States.
Not all illegal aliens are from Mexico.
A Fox News article stated that "it is not just Mexicans who are flooding into our border states anymore. Along with Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, and Chileans, agents of the Border Patrol now encounter Chinese, Pakistanis, and Indians.
Intentionally low statistics, and misleading official government estimates claim that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens reside in the United States and 700,000 new illegal’s enter and stay every year. Closer to the truth is more than 25 million illegal aliens presently reside in the United States, with roughly 16,000 additional illegal aliens entering every day, or as many media outlets like to label it . . . "undocumented".
Many illegal immigrants obtain their "illegal" status by entering the country illegally. Once in the foreign country, illegal immigrants tend to become employed in what is known as "low skilled jobs." These jobs are often labor intensive and tend not to attract many employees or draw attention to them. It is common for illegal immigrants to have family or friends in a foreign country, in areas with high immigrant populations, where closed societies are formed which often offer support to illegals.
Our government has failed to control illegal immigration on all levels. Legislators are now addressing the problem at the local level, with bills to manage it incrementally, piece-by-piece, rather than trying to fix this national calamity at once—enforcement now becoming a near impossible task.
The majorities of Americans are demanding we secure the borders, enforce existing laws with no sanctuary status, and punish employers who violate employment laws, remove incentives by curbing social services and demand that Latin American leaders discourage illegal entry into our country.
By removing the social services and job inducement that attract them into our country, significant self-deportation will occur. This is now the case with many returning to Mexico as there isn’t any work in our current economy.
We have immigration laws that must be enforced, using our military to help police our borders could possibly be an asset in protecting homeland security.
We proclaim that we are a nation of laws, but yet have been lax in enforcing those laws and our immigration policies.
Since 1929, illegal entry into the United States has been a federal crime. Those of us who live here legally are citizens not residents. Many immigrants came from other countries to Ellis Island studying to gain citizenship, all taking the time to learn our history, language, laws, to become part of this great nation. Not only so they could take advantage of the opportunities America had to offer, but to contribute to our society as well. They did not expect a government that bestowed them with entitlements.
The great majorities of Americans respect our laws and raise their children to do the same, yet they're painfully aware of the millions who enter our country who not only violate our immigration laws, but virtually every law that exists.
The opportunity to live and work in America must remain an invited and controlled privilege, not to be gained by backdoor amnesty tactics or by paying a small fine.
Over $28 billion is sent back across the border every year. Not all of it is to support the poor families over the border, much of it is used to pay for off the human smugglers and drug cartels back home.
Illegal’s also pay a price for unreported crimes against them, for fear of deportation. Many will not assimilate into our society due to the fact that they do not need to, or for that matter have to.
Preserving your culture is one thing, but to push your heritage while in another country illegally is quite rude and insulting.
Thousands upon thousands of Americans, lose their jobs and homes due to illegal hiring, the undercutting of prevailing wages, jobs lost to NAFTA and offshore business. The cry of Illegal’s that do the work that Americans won’t do is nothing but a self-serving myth. Citizens and legal immigrants would proudly fill those jobs, but at prevailing wage.
It is also ironic, the very same people here illegally who cry their rights are being violated, while mocking our laws, our principles and demanding that legal citizens pay their way because of the plight they are in, is offensive. But yet, in returning to their own country as prospects dry up in the United States, they object to their current situation that they are being forced to return to their old way of life. Their own government complains that they now have the added stress that will be placed on their economy of providing for returning illegal’s. It would now overtax the burden that would be placed on their schools, housing, and hospitals of their society, they don't have the funds to provide for those services.
Many legislators "talk tough" about border security while at the same time they provide billions of dollars in government services for those in the country illegally, it is somewhat paradoxical.
Border Guards are expected to enforce border control, and arrest or detain anyone who enters the US without going through the proper channels. But yet if that same illegal were to get through and get lost into any town across the country amongst their groups, they are now offended if their legal status is questioned, and the illegal groups rally that they are being harassed.
In order to recognize the seriousness of the crisis and urgency for a return to the rule of law and secured borders that the United States Constitution demands, it is important to recognize the magnitude of the facts and principles that have been established for our protection. Until the Federal Government reacts to what has been ignored for years, it cannot fault states that make their own laws to control an out of control situation.
Legislators regardless of what party they belong to would be remiss in ignoring the situation at hand, only because it is dependent on whether or not they would secure their re-election.
The American people, the citizens of this country would like to have our existing laws enforced, not to re-write history. It is hard to achieve the American dream, whatever those dreams may be, when you are not an American.
It needs to be addressed before it gets worse, and now may be the time with so many illegal’s going back home.
Writer William Weiss had this to say,
Amnesty is not viable because it neither reduces nor eliminates illegal immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and who had been continuous residents. An estimated two to three million people gained citizenship as a result of this bi-partisan bill sponsored by a Republican president and a Democratic Congressional majority. Both sides of the aisle were part of this “solution.” More than 20 years later, we still have the same problem -- only it is five to 10 times worse.
Amnesty is not the cure all, and by allowing the crossing of our borders on a daily basis to continue without re-enforcement is not the answer either. An amnesty bill in itself will not curtail illegals from entering the United States, and in fact would only exacerbate an all ready out of control situation.
It must be an equitable solution by all, a solution that will remedy our current state of affairs, and correct future immigration policies so we are never in this situation again.
It would be unjust to set in motion and push forth a measure on a national level merely for the sake of getting it done and the mentality "we did it first", the legal citizens of America must not let that happen.
~ Joe Sinagra
Not all illegal aliens are from Mexico.
A Fox News article stated that "it is not just Mexicans who are flooding into our border states anymore. Along with Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, and Chileans, agents of the Border Patrol now encounter Chinese, Pakistanis, and Indians.
Intentionally low statistics, and misleading official government estimates claim that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens reside in the United States and 700,000 new illegal’s enter and stay every year. Closer to the truth is more than 25 million illegal aliens presently reside in the United States, with roughly 16,000 additional illegal aliens entering every day, or as many media outlets like to label it . . . "undocumented".
Many illegal immigrants obtain their "illegal" status by entering the country illegally. Once in the foreign country, illegal immigrants tend to become employed in what is known as "low skilled jobs." These jobs are often labor intensive and tend not to attract many employees or draw attention to them. It is common for illegal immigrants to have family or friends in a foreign country, in areas with high immigrant populations, where closed societies are formed which often offer support to illegals.
Our government has failed to control illegal immigration on all levels. Legislators are now addressing the problem at the local level, with bills to manage it incrementally, piece-by-piece, rather than trying to fix this national calamity at once—enforcement now becoming a near impossible task.
The majorities of Americans are demanding we secure the borders, enforce existing laws with no sanctuary status, and punish employers who violate employment laws, remove incentives by curbing social services and demand that Latin American leaders discourage illegal entry into our country.
By removing the social services and job inducement that attract them into our country, significant self-deportation will occur. This is now the case with many returning to Mexico as there isn’t any work in our current economy.
We have immigration laws that must be enforced, using our military to help police our borders could possibly be an asset in protecting homeland security.
We proclaim that we are a nation of laws, but yet have been lax in enforcing those laws and our immigration policies.
Since 1929, illegal entry into the United States has been a federal crime. Those of us who live here legally are citizens not residents. Many immigrants came from other countries to Ellis Island studying to gain citizenship, all taking the time to learn our history, language, laws, to become part of this great nation. Not only so they could take advantage of the opportunities America had to offer, but to contribute to our society as well. They did not expect a government that bestowed them with entitlements.
The great majorities of Americans respect our laws and raise their children to do the same, yet they're painfully aware of the millions who enter our country who not only violate our immigration laws, but virtually every law that exists.
The opportunity to live and work in America must remain an invited and controlled privilege, not to be gained by backdoor amnesty tactics or by paying a small fine.
Over $28 billion is sent back across the border every year. Not all of it is to support the poor families over the border, much of it is used to pay for off the human smugglers and drug cartels back home.
Illegal’s also pay a price for unreported crimes against them, for fear of deportation. Many will not assimilate into our society due to the fact that they do not need to, or for that matter have to.
Preserving your culture is one thing, but to push your heritage while in another country illegally is quite rude and insulting.
Thousands upon thousands of Americans, lose their jobs and homes due to illegal hiring, the undercutting of prevailing wages, jobs lost to NAFTA and offshore business. The cry of Illegal’s that do the work that Americans won’t do is nothing but a self-serving myth. Citizens and legal immigrants would proudly fill those jobs, but at prevailing wage.
It is also ironic, the very same people here illegally who cry their rights are being violated, while mocking our laws, our principles and demanding that legal citizens pay their way because of the plight they are in, is offensive. But yet, in returning to their own country as prospects dry up in the United States, they object to their current situation that they are being forced to return to their old way of life. Their own government complains that they now have the added stress that will be placed on their economy of providing for returning illegal’s. It would now overtax the burden that would be placed on their schools, housing, and hospitals of their society, they don't have the funds to provide for those services.
Many legislators "talk tough" about border security while at the same time they provide billions of dollars in government services for those in the country illegally, it is somewhat paradoxical.
Border Guards are expected to enforce border control, and arrest or detain anyone who enters the US without going through the proper channels. But yet if that same illegal were to get through and get lost into any town across the country amongst their groups, they are now offended if their legal status is questioned, and the illegal groups rally that they are being harassed.
In order to recognize the seriousness of the crisis and urgency for a return to the rule of law and secured borders that the United States Constitution demands, it is important to recognize the magnitude of the facts and principles that have been established for our protection. Until the Federal Government reacts to what has been ignored for years, it cannot fault states that make their own laws to control an out of control situation.
Legislators regardless of what party they belong to would be remiss in ignoring the situation at hand, only because it is dependent on whether or not they would secure their re-election.
The American people, the citizens of this country would like to have our existing laws enforced, not to re-write history. It is hard to achieve the American dream, whatever those dreams may be, when you are not an American.
It needs to be addressed before it gets worse, and now may be the time with so many illegal’s going back home.
Writer William Weiss had this to say,
Amnesty is not viable because it neither reduces nor eliminates illegal immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and who had been continuous residents. An estimated two to three million people gained citizenship as a result of this bi-partisan bill sponsored by a Republican president and a Democratic Congressional majority. Both sides of the aisle were part of this “solution.” More than 20 years later, we still have the same problem -- only it is five to 10 times worse.
Amnesty is not the cure all, and by allowing the crossing of our borders on a daily basis to continue without re-enforcement is not the answer either. An amnesty bill in itself will not curtail illegals from entering the United States, and in fact would only exacerbate an all ready out of control situation.
It must be an equitable solution by all, a solution that will remedy our current state of affairs, and correct future immigration policies so we are never in this situation again.
It would be unjust to set in motion and push forth a measure on a national level merely for the sake of getting it done and the mentality "we did it first", the legal citizens of America must not let that happen.
~ Joe Sinagra
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Immigration Reform . . . A Sleeping Giant
As a nation of immigrants, we should have sense enough to distinguish between immigrants who have come seeking freedom, and wary of those who might take it away.
It could mean lost votes for the party against immigration reform, building a stronger alliance amongst illegal’s for the party in favor of reform. The controlling party in favor of amnesty will gain support amongst those who have been here illegally, but will still need the cooperation of the American Public to remain in power if they are to pursue amnesty to garner those votes. But in trying to gain the support of the illegal groups, that party may lose credibility with the American public, and be the end for the party that proposes amnesty for many years to come.
The mathematical calculations are simple. Legalizing and enfranchising millions of voters who will favor liberal Democrats by 60 to 75 percent will inflict enormous political, economic, and social damage on the nation that could last for generations. Hope for lower taxes, reduced government spending and regulation, strengthened constitutional government, and a society that honors the moral and religious traditions of its founders will be down the drain along with all the other values that make for a strong and free nation. It would assimilate into our society those who know little of our history, our constitutional principles, and our moral foundations, and who might by demagoguery and ignorance unwittingly be the instruments of our destruction.
Should amnesty be placed on the table again, it could make a mockery of our laws. Illegals will continue to come, hoping and knowing they could expect a subsequent amnesty.
Un-employment for African-Americans is in excess of 15% and higher for those 45 and over. Would any American at this point want to open the door and add 12 million more people in terms of all legal rights and benefits when we can’t even provide healthcare and benefits for the people who are citizens, or jobs? $28 billion a year leaves this country in terms of income to undocumented families.
Does just being here qualify one to become a citizen? Those who worked hard to become part of our society verses someone who contributed nothing. What will be the gauge to judge the path to citizenship?
Amnesty hastens even more illegal immigration, as amnestied individuals will come to join relatives or believe that if they can just elude the Border Patrol and stay underground for a few years, they will eventually get amnesty themselves.
Amnesty is unfair to the millions of aliens who are waiting outside the country for their turn to come legally to the United States.
Amnesty will punish the legal immigrants by greatly increasing the time it takes to obtain visas. Because of the 1986 amnesty, permanent residents now have to wait 4 to 6 years to obtain visas for their wives and husbands. Once illegal immigrants are given amnesty and lawful permanent residence, they can petition for visas for their family members - increasing the backlog of petitions by years.
Immigration reform will be discussed and shuffled around, but nothing will be done prior to November. Once again it will become a political football as in 1986, distracting and dividing the public from the other issues at hand. It will not be pushed through like the Health Care bill, as it will become political suicide for many legislators if that were to happen.
Immigration reform cannot be pushed through just for the sake of party power. If reform is to take place it must be a bipartisan effort, not one party or the other trying to grandstand. Reform that will not reward illegal’s at the expense of those who earned their right to become citizens, reform that is fair and not create divisiveness amongst the voters of this country.
Immigration reform is the sleeping giant that will change the landscape of America as we know it, forever. Without thoughtful deliberation, once in motion the consequences cannot be reversed.
The issue of immigration reform cannot be pushed thru. Nor, should we as voters allow it to be.
~ Joe Sinagra
It could mean lost votes for the party against immigration reform, building a stronger alliance amongst illegal’s for the party in favor of reform. The controlling party in favor of amnesty will gain support amongst those who have been here illegally, but will still need the cooperation of the American Public to remain in power if they are to pursue amnesty to garner those votes. But in trying to gain the support of the illegal groups, that party may lose credibility with the American public, and be the end for the party that proposes amnesty for many years to come.
The mathematical calculations are simple. Legalizing and enfranchising millions of voters who will favor liberal Democrats by 60 to 75 percent will inflict enormous political, economic, and social damage on the nation that could last for generations. Hope for lower taxes, reduced government spending and regulation, strengthened constitutional government, and a society that honors the moral and religious traditions of its founders will be down the drain along with all the other values that make for a strong and free nation. It would assimilate into our society those who know little of our history, our constitutional principles, and our moral foundations, and who might by demagoguery and ignorance unwittingly be the instruments of our destruction.
Should amnesty be placed on the table again, it could make a mockery of our laws. Illegals will continue to come, hoping and knowing they could expect a subsequent amnesty.
Un-employment for African-Americans is in excess of 15% and higher for those 45 and over. Would any American at this point want to open the door and add 12 million more people in terms of all legal rights and benefits when we can’t even provide healthcare and benefits for the people who are citizens, or jobs? $28 billion a year leaves this country in terms of income to undocumented families.
Does just being here qualify one to become a citizen? Those who worked hard to become part of our society verses someone who contributed nothing. What will be the gauge to judge the path to citizenship?
Amnesty hastens even more illegal immigration, as amnestied individuals will come to join relatives or believe that if they can just elude the Border Patrol and stay underground for a few years, they will eventually get amnesty themselves.
Amnesty is unfair to the millions of aliens who are waiting outside the country for their turn to come legally to the United States.
Amnesty will punish the legal immigrants by greatly increasing the time it takes to obtain visas. Because of the 1986 amnesty, permanent residents now have to wait 4 to 6 years to obtain visas for their wives and husbands. Once illegal immigrants are given amnesty and lawful permanent residence, they can petition for visas for their family members - increasing the backlog of petitions by years.
Immigration reform will be discussed and shuffled around, but nothing will be done prior to November. Once again it will become a political football as in 1986, distracting and dividing the public from the other issues at hand. It will not be pushed through like the Health Care bill, as it will become political suicide for many legislators if that were to happen.
Immigration reform cannot be pushed through just for the sake of party power. If reform is to take place it must be a bipartisan effort, not one party or the other trying to grandstand. Reform that will not reward illegal’s at the expense of those who earned their right to become citizens, reform that is fair and not create divisiveness amongst the voters of this country.
Immigration reform is the sleeping giant that will change the landscape of America as we know it, forever. Without thoughtful deliberation, once in motion the consequences cannot be reversed.
The issue of immigration reform cannot be pushed thru. Nor, should we as voters allow it to be.
~ Joe Sinagra
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Cost of Paying for Better Healthcare
A small business with fewer than 50 employees is not required to carry health insurance. Many of those businesses owners will drop their coverage for employees. Other small businesses that have just over the required amount of employees will lay off workers and use temps or farm out to subs. Two part-time workers will be considered as one full-time employee. Companies with over 50 employees will now be considered larger employers.
Many companies will cut hours so employees will fall under part time status (390 hours). This is why 16000 new IRS agents are needed to oversee and enforce the new rules. Employers with 50 or fewer full time employees will be exempt from penalties and it will affect future hiring, leaving workers legally obligated to either buy the government mandated high-premium comprehensive insurance out of their own pockets using after-tax dollars, or pay the new penalty for remaining uninsured.
Employers with more than 200 workers are required to automatically enroll new full-time employees in health-care coverage. Giving large employers as well, more than enough financial motivation to discontinue health coverage as the $2,000 penalty per employee is well below what they are currently paying.
This tax will add significantly to small business expenditures, regardless of whether they choose to offer health benefits to their employees or not. The bill creates a strong deterrent for a business to expand compensation or even acquire new workers. As a business nears a higher payroll bracket, it also risks spending a much higher percentage of its earnings to pay the penalty tax. Any small business owner is going to reconsider before offering bonuses or wage increases to its workers.
Moderate-income self-employed people who can’t afford the high-priced comprehensive health plans and aren’t eligible for subsidies would not only lose their insurance, but would pay a penalty for remaining uninsured.
Employers of non-elderly people working part-time will be exempt from providing them insurance, but the people themselves will not be exempt from the requirement to obtain the government-specific comprehensive insurance on their own. Persons in these categories will be required to either buy the government specified high-premium comprehensive insurance out of their own pockets using after-tax dollars, or pay the penalty for remaining uninsured.
For older working age adults and early retirees aged 45-64, they will be hit with new taxes despite the promise not to raise taxes on households earning less than $250,000 per year. Households headed by individuals aged 45-64 who deduct medical expenses on their 1040 tax form, who ought to be helped by a health care reform bill, would see a tax increase of about $200 on average. The higher the medical expenses faced by these families the higher the tax increase they would face. Kind of like auto insurance, the higher the claim the more you pay.
Low-income families are in danger as bill creates incentives for employers to avoid hiring members of low-income families. The employer mandate would require employers with 50 or more employees to offer insurance to all employees or pay a penalty of $750 per worker. If the employer does offer insurance, they would still pay a fine – but only if they hire workers from low-income families! If the employee’s portion of the cost exceeds 9.8 percent of the employee’s family income, and that employee is eligible to receive a premium subsidy (“affordability credit”), the employer would be slapped with a $3,000 penalty. This is based on family income, so employers would be better off hiring workers with few dependents or with other sources of income, rather than those with a single source of income and several dependents. Employers would be punished for hiring the members of society who need jobs the most.
Businesses that are affected by this tax will react to its outcome, especially during a period of economic downturn. Those who could not afford to offer health benefits or pay the higher tax would look for other ways to outfox the government, effectively by containing or reducing wages, and not hiring additional workforce.
Last month, another 190,000 jobs were lost. With unemployment rate hovering at 10%, this is the opposite course Congress should be sending small business. The Federal job base continues to grow as jobs in the private sector shrink.
Research shows that healthcare would not decrease costs for American families and small businesses. How can it when $729.5 billion of new taxes are imposed on the same small businesses and individuals who are already struggling to afford health coverage?
Hospitals are slated to lose $155 billion in federal funding over the next decade; the bill calls for $132 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, the private health plans that cover one in five seniors; new taxes on the industry total $70 billion over 10 years, beginning in 2014; nursing homes would see their Medicare reimbursements cut by about $15 billion over the next decade. While Medicare comprises only about 13 percent of nursing home revenue, the industry relies on the money to offset low Medicaid reimbursement.
Citizens and legal residents must have health insurance or pay a penalty. There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.
The American people are being forced to sign on the dotted line and pay for a product they have not yet seen.
Many companies will cut hours so employees will fall under part time status (390 hours). This is why 16000 new IRS agents are needed to oversee and enforce the new rules. Employers with 50 or fewer full time employees will be exempt from penalties and it will affect future hiring, leaving workers legally obligated to either buy the government mandated high-premium comprehensive insurance out of their own pockets using after-tax dollars, or pay the new penalty for remaining uninsured.
Employers with more than 200 workers are required to automatically enroll new full-time employees in health-care coverage. Giving large employers as well, more than enough financial motivation to discontinue health coverage as the $2,000 penalty per employee is well below what they are currently paying.
This tax will add significantly to small business expenditures, regardless of whether they choose to offer health benefits to their employees or not. The bill creates a strong deterrent for a business to expand compensation or even acquire new workers. As a business nears a higher payroll bracket, it also risks spending a much higher percentage of its earnings to pay the penalty tax. Any small business owner is going to reconsider before offering bonuses or wage increases to its workers.
Moderate-income self-employed people who can’t afford the high-priced comprehensive health plans and aren’t eligible for subsidies would not only lose their insurance, but would pay a penalty for remaining uninsured.
Employers of non-elderly people working part-time will be exempt from providing them insurance, but the people themselves will not be exempt from the requirement to obtain the government-specific comprehensive insurance on their own. Persons in these categories will be required to either buy the government specified high-premium comprehensive insurance out of their own pockets using after-tax dollars, or pay the penalty for remaining uninsured.
For older working age adults and early retirees aged 45-64, they will be hit with new taxes despite the promise not to raise taxes on households earning less than $250,000 per year. Households headed by individuals aged 45-64 who deduct medical expenses on their 1040 tax form, who ought to be helped by a health care reform bill, would see a tax increase of about $200 on average. The higher the medical expenses faced by these families the higher the tax increase they would face. Kind of like auto insurance, the higher the claim the more you pay.
Low-income families are in danger as bill creates incentives for employers to avoid hiring members of low-income families. The employer mandate would require employers with 50 or more employees to offer insurance to all employees or pay a penalty of $750 per worker. If the employer does offer insurance, they would still pay a fine – but only if they hire workers from low-income families! If the employee’s portion of the cost exceeds 9.8 percent of the employee’s family income, and that employee is eligible to receive a premium subsidy (“affordability credit”), the employer would be slapped with a $3,000 penalty. This is based on family income, so employers would be better off hiring workers with few dependents or with other sources of income, rather than those with a single source of income and several dependents. Employers would be punished for hiring the members of society who need jobs the most.
Businesses that are affected by this tax will react to its outcome, especially during a period of economic downturn. Those who could not afford to offer health benefits or pay the higher tax would look for other ways to outfox the government, effectively by containing or reducing wages, and not hiring additional workforce.
Last month, another 190,000 jobs were lost. With unemployment rate hovering at 10%, this is the opposite course Congress should be sending small business. The Federal job base continues to grow as jobs in the private sector shrink.
Research shows that healthcare would not decrease costs for American families and small businesses. How can it when $729.5 billion of new taxes are imposed on the same small businesses and individuals who are already struggling to afford health coverage?
Hospitals are slated to lose $155 billion in federal funding over the next decade; the bill calls for $132 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, the private health plans that cover one in five seniors; new taxes on the industry total $70 billion over 10 years, beginning in 2014; nursing homes would see their Medicare reimbursements cut by about $15 billion over the next decade. While Medicare comprises only about 13 percent of nursing home revenue, the industry relies on the money to offset low Medicaid reimbursement.
Citizens and legal residents must have health insurance or pay a penalty. There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.
The American people are being forced to sign on the dotted line and pay for a product they have not yet seen.
Friday, March 26, 2010
The Liberal Tsunami and the Voter Aftershock
Millions of Americans are going to be required to purchase insurance, and they will face a fine if they refuse. More than likely if the fines are not paid the IRS will punish those who don’t by adding interest on top of those penalties, just like any other time when you owe the government money. Of course Obama and those next to him don’t fall under the same rules that apply to the rest of the population.
In an interview on whether illegal immigrants should be covered under the new health care plan, President Obama responded, "no." But said there may need to be an exception to that policy for children. "First of all, I'd like to create a situation where we're dealing with illegal immigration, so that we don't have illegal immigrants, and we've got legal residents or citizens who are eligible for the plan. And I want a comprehensive immigration plan that creates a pathway to achieve that."
Amnesty will be next under the guise of health coverage for the children. I assume the American public will be funding the illegal children through the mandatory coverage portion of the bill. The American population will be forced to pay for this coverage.
Children, here illegally in our playgrounds and schools that are potentially passing on illnesses and communicable diseases should not be in our schools to start with. There are many adult illegal’s are working in the food industry, who have the same diseases.
It will start with the children and extend itself from there.
In a Democracy there will always be those at the bottom, in the middle, and at the top. In his inaugural address Obama left out the word “created” and stated, “the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
Those who don’t have anything will always want something paid for by those who have earned the right to what they have, no matter what it is. Those who have the ability and means will be regulated by law to pay for those who don’t.
Brace yourselves for the next wave. The liberal tsunami has started; they will let you know what is good for you . . . even if you don’t want it.
I believe the aftershock will be coming in November.
In an interview on whether illegal immigrants should be covered under the new health care plan, President Obama responded, "no." But said there may need to be an exception to that policy for children. "First of all, I'd like to create a situation where we're dealing with illegal immigration, so that we don't have illegal immigrants, and we've got legal residents or citizens who are eligible for the plan. And I want a comprehensive immigration plan that creates a pathway to achieve that."
Amnesty will be next under the guise of health coverage for the children. I assume the American public will be funding the illegal children through the mandatory coverage portion of the bill. The American population will be forced to pay for this coverage.
Children, here illegally in our playgrounds and schools that are potentially passing on illnesses and communicable diseases should not be in our schools to start with. There are many adult illegal’s are working in the food industry, who have the same diseases.
It will start with the children and extend itself from there.
In a Democracy there will always be those at the bottom, in the middle, and at the top. In his inaugural address Obama left out the word “created” and stated, “the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
Those who don’t have anything will always want something paid for by those who have earned the right to what they have, no matter what it is. Those who have the ability and means will be regulated by law to pay for those who don’t.
Brace yourselves for the next wave. The liberal tsunami has started; they will let you know what is good for you . . . even if you don’t want it.
I believe the aftershock will be coming in November.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The issue of illegal aliens’ must be addressed
Americans pay nearly $22 billion yearly supplying illegal immigrants with welfare benefits that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program, also known as WIC, for low-income women and their children. Tens of billions more are spent on other social services, medical care, public education and legal costs such as incarceration and public defenders.
With approximately 400,000 aliens currently residing illegally in the state, the largest fiscal liability is public education representing a cost at $1.85 billion annually.
Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to an estimated $200 million a year.
The uncompensated cost of incarcerating deportable illegal aliens in New Jersey’s state and local prisons amounts to about $50 million a year.
The illegal alien population residing in New Jersey cost the taxpayers of this state nearly $2.1 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. For every New Jersey household headed by a native-born resident, that adds an additional $800 to their yearly costs.
The price tag of illegal immigration would be significantly higher if other cost areas were calculated, such as preventive health programs, special English instruction, and interpretation services in courts and hospitals, welfare programs used by U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, and welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers.
If the prospect of amnesty were passed in any form, family members of the current illegal alien population would be sponsored to come to the United States reuniting with families, which would increase the size of the poverty and near-poverty population likely to use public services.
Citizens are losing their savings, homes, and jobs, and to add insult to injury should The Healthcare Plan pass we would be mandated to pay for health coverage or pay a fine. We will still pay for those taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays.
New Jersey cannot continue to overlook the immense burden placed on the state budget and expect its own citizens to pay when they cannot support themselves.
If we are to accomplish any future tax relief the issue of illegal aliens’ must be addressed.
With approximately 400,000 aliens currently residing illegally in the state, the largest fiscal liability is public education representing a cost at $1.85 billion annually.
Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to an estimated $200 million a year.
The uncompensated cost of incarcerating deportable illegal aliens in New Jersey’s state and local prisons amounts to about $50 million a year.
The illegal alien population residing in New Jersey cost the taxpayers of this state nearly $2.1 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. For every New Jersey household headed by a native-born resident, that adds an additional $800 to their yearly costs.
The price tag of illegal immigration would be significantly higher if other cost areas were calculated, such as preventive health programs, special English instruction, and interpretation services in courts and hospitals, welfare programs used by U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, and welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers.
If the prospect of amnesty were passed in any form, family members of the current illegal alien population would be sponsored to come to the United States reuniting with families, which would increase the size of the poverty and near-poverty population likely to use public services.
Citizens are losing their savings, homes, and jobs, and to add insult to injury should The Healthcare Plan pass we would be mandated to pay for health coverage or pay a fine. We will still pay for those taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays.
New Jersey cannot continue to overlook the immense burden placed on the state budget and expect its own citizens to pay when they cannot support themselves.
If we are to accomplish any future tax relief the issue of illegal aliens’ must be addressed.
~ Joe Sinagra
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Can we ignore the predictable consequences that nothing is free?
Health care has been a driving force for much conversation over the past several months for many citizens. Although it may be number four or five on most people’s list, as taxes and jobs may be their top priorities. It is Obama and the Democrats who are making this an important topic as they are the ones who want to take over the health care industry, in essence this has become the epic-center of attention.
A concept that has not been considered and may very well fuel higher costs coupled with the new health care plan if it is not addressed relatively quickly. Whether you have private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, the majority of us do not care about shopping for the costs affiliated with health care. We just produce a provider card and accept the charge. Those without coverage and use the emergency room as a doctor’s office, accept the cost despite the expense.
If I were to pay or take out insurance to cover your groceries, would you buy the chop meat or go for the filet mignon as cost would not be a factor since someone else was paying for it?
The motivation behind keeping costs down is free market competition. Using the electronics industry as an example they are priced high as new products become available. As the product becomes popular or a competitive brand becomes available, pricing is driven down as consumers will shop to find the lowest price possible.
Obama's health plan doesn’t permit price competition or free market measures to offset and force prices down. With a government option and a mandate that all Americans are required to have government approved health care, the lack of price competitiveness will be eliminated given that no one will shop for pricing, as everyone will have some form of health care paid for by government programs or private insurance until they are eliminated as they will not be able to compete with the government provision.
If most individuals were told to buy a car with money provided by someone else and there was no need to price shop since the money was being provided, would the buyer purchase a new KIA, used car or head straight for the Jaguar dealer?
Health care will have the same problem. Those who are already on the government payroll do not seek the lowest cost physician but just go to the doctor for anything. They do not search for the lowest priced pharmacy but head to the pharmacy and hand the pharmacist their health care card.
Those who have private insurance do exactly the same thing because the natural attitude is that insurance whether government or private is paying for it so why should I shop price? Also private insurance pricing has little competition because of the fact that one cannot purchase insurance outside of the state in which one lives eliminates national competitiveness for insurance companies and keeps the cost high since no one company has enough insured individuals to reduce cost by volume.
Lasik eye surgery is not covered under current health care plans. Those who used a Lasik procedure price shopped and in the last three years the cost of Lasik surgery has decreased by 30%. Yet every health care plan that is being proposed by Obama and his clique seeks to eliminate the one element of health care which does cause a certain amount of price shopping and that is the co-pay. The higher the co-pay on a plan the more the insured individual is sensitive to the price and as such will research before getting certain treatments and will not seek unnecessary treatment for simple problems. Especially when that co-pay is based on a percentage, not just a fixed price.
The illusion that Obama and Democrats are creating that forced health care and government provided health care is going to iron out all the systems problems and reduce cost is the singular most blatant deception with their argument. Forced health care coverage paid for by government funds, (taxpayers), will eliminate price concerns or price shopping thus competition for services. Also as price competition decreases services will follow since consumers will not be concerned about cost or who provides service because it will all be "taken care of” by taxpayer dollars.
When Medicare Costs payments are cut by 25% as to what doctors can receive as payments, many doctors will opt out of accepting the plan. More and more doctors already are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. Medicaid is worse; many doctors do not take Medicaid patients.
Promises by the Obama administration is that universal health insurance will avoid all these problems. How is that possible when you consider that the medical turnstiles will be the same as they are now, only they will be clogged with more and more patients? The remaining doctors in this expanded system will be even more overwhelmed than they are now.
Two trends are converging: there is a shortage of internists nationally — the American College of Physicians, the organization for internists, estimates that by 2025 there will be 35,000 to 45,000 fewer than the population needs — and internists are increasingly unwilling to accept new Medicare patients.
Services and the quality of service will deteriorate as doctors will be forced to accept a government controlled pricing schedule. Research will decrease as standard services will be all that is provided because of lack of competitiveness for special and normal doctors services, therefore new and more innovative procedures will no longer be sought after, medical research and discovery will dry up.
When someone else pays for all aspects of health care, it creates a lazy dependency by consumers, eliminates free market enterprise like price and service shopping which as a result raises cost rather than lowering. Government will step in to dictate who, what, when, and where with references to doctors services, and the quality of that service will suffer as a result. We will not have to look far at what will happen when our free market system is bypassed for any given product or service and the resulting higher price and poorer quality to see how destructive and dangerous Obamacare will be for America.
As a people we will have lost our freedom to choose and our right to compete.
As we rush towards the utopian ideal of “free care”, will we ignore the predictable consequences that nothing is free?
~ Joe Sinagra
A concept that has not been considered and may very well fuel higher costs coupled with the new health care plan if it is not addressed relatively quickly. Whether you have private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, the majority of us do not care about shopping for the costs affiliated with health care. We just produce a provider card and accept the charge. Those without coverage and use the emergency room as a doctor’s office, accept the cost despite the expense.
If I were to pay or take out insurance to cover your groceries, would you buy the chop meat or go for the filet mignon as cost would not be a factor since someone else was paying for it?
The motivation behind keeping costs down is free market competition. Using the electronics industry as an example they are priced high as new products become available. As the product becomes popular or a competitive brand becomes available, pricing is driven down as consumers will shop to find the lowest price possible.
Obama's health plan doesn’t permit price competition or free market measures to offset and force prices down. With a government option and a mandate that all Americans are required to have government approved health care, the lack of price competitiveness will be eliminated given that no one will shop for pricing, as everyone will have some form of health care paid for by government programs or private insurance until they are eliminated as they will not be able to compete with the government provision.
If most individuals were told to buy a car with money provided by someone else and there was no need to price shop since the money was being provided, would the buyer purchase a new KIA, used car or head straight for the Jaguar dealer?
Health care will have the same problem. Those who are already on the government payroll do not seek the lowest cost physician but just go to the doctor for anything. They do not search for the lowest priced pharmacy but head to the pharmacy and hand the pharmacist their health care card.
Those who have private insurance do exactly the same thing because the natural attitude is that insurance whether government or private is paying for it so why should I shop price? Also private insurance pricing has little competition because of the fact that one cannot purchase insurance outside of the state in which one lives eliminates national competitiveness for insurance companies and keeps the cost high since no one company has enough insured individuals to reduce cost by volume.
Lasik eye surgery is not covered under current health care plans. Those who used a Lasik procedure price shopped and in the last three years the cost of Lasik surgery has decreased by 30%. Yet every health care plan that is being proposed by Obama and his clique seeks to eliminate the one element of health care which does cause a certain amount of price shopping and that is the co-pay. The higher the co-pay on a plan the more the insured individual is sensitive to the price and as such will research before getting certain treatments and will not seek unnecessary treatment for simple problems. Especially when that co-pay is based on a percentage, not just a fixed price.
The illusion that Obama and Democrats are creating that forced health care and government provided health care is going to iron out all the systems problems and reduce cost is the singular most blatant deception with their argument. Forced health care coverage paid for by government funds, (taxpayers), will eliminate price concerns or price shopping thus competition for services. Also as price competition decreases services will follow since consumers will not be concerned about cost or who provides service because it will all be "taken care of” by taxpayer dollars.
When Medicare Costs payments are cut by 25% as to what doctors can receive as payments, many doctors will opt out of accepting the plan. More and more doctors already are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. Medicaid is worse; many doctors do not take Medicaid patients.
Promises by the Obama administration is that universal health insurance will avoid all these problems. How is that possible when you consider that the medical turnstiles will be the same as they are now, only they will be clogged with more and more patients? The remaining doctors in this expanded system will be even more overwhelmed than they are now.
Two trends are converging: there is a shortage of internists nationally — the American College of Physicians, the organization for internists, estimates that by 2025 there will be 35,000 to 45,000 fewer than the population needs — and internists are increasingly unwilling to accept new Medicare patients.
Services and the quality of service will deteriorate as doctors will be forced to accept a government controlled pricing schedule. Research will decrease as standard services will be all that is provided because of lack of competitiveness for special and normal doctors services, therefore new and more innovative procedures will no longer be sought after, medical research and discovery will dry up.
When someone else pays for all aspects of health care, it creates a lazy dependency by consumers, eliminates free market enterprise like price and service shopping which as a result raises cost rather than lowering. Government will step in to dictate who, what, when, and where with references to doctors services, and the quality of that service will suffer as a result. We will not have to look far at what will happen when our free market system is bypassed for any given product or service and the resulting higher price and poorer quality to see how destructive and dangerous Obamacare will be for America.
As a people we will have lost our freedom to choose and our right to compete.
As we rush towards the utopian ideal of “free care”, will we ignore the predictable consequences that nothing is free?
~ Joe Sinagra
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)