Sunday, July 11, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Obama and the Unions
I'd like to start by giving you a little background. My grandfather, an Englishman, came to this country came to the USA in 1902. His father died when he was just 13. Since he was the oldest male in the family, he became the head of the family. In 1911, the only people hiring his ilk were coal mines in western PA. That's where he went to work. In the 30's and 40's he was an avid unionist, so much so that he joined with John L. Lewis in the effort to organize the miners into the UAW. When I say he fought for the union, I don't mean he stood up and argued, no, he fought. He showed me the scars to prove it.
My dad followed in his steps as a union guy, he became a shop steward in chemical processing plant. I loved them both very much but disagreed with them on unionism .
I thought that the only people who needed unions were those who couldn't sell their own value to those that paid them. The difference is 55 years. I entered the workforce in 1961. By the time I entered the workforce companies were looking for talented, producing personnel regardless of union affiliation, or maybe non-union was better. I worked for both but never joined the union. In 1966, I graduated from college and my union sympathies were, forever, lost.
Why? Because I was educated. I thought that I would now embark on a career path that would be based solely on my skills, talent and intelligence. Nothing has changed since. What's more a vast number of my fellow Americans have made similar choices resulting in a relatively large reduction in union membership.
Approximately 12.3% of the US workforce is unionized, a decrease from 20.1% in 1983. Even more enlightening is the fact that more than one-half of all union members are employed in the public sector despite the fact that private sector workers outnumber public sector workers by a ratio more than five to one.
Today's Unions
The unions, today, a far afield from those of my ancestors. They don't seek fairness or economic power for their they seek political power for their leaders. Their campaign for political power cannot really be won by recruiting coal miners and steel workers since those workers , along with their employers, must compete in the world markets and are required to control costs and maintain productivity. All you have to do is look at General Motors, who was unable to maintain cost controls and productivity under union demands for non-affordable wages and benefits. The result, over time, was a massive bail-out by the taxpayers to maintain an industry while reducing the number of workers employed and thereby further reducing union membership. One must note than when there are concessions by the unions they are always applied to newer, younger workers. This maintains the union leaders power on the back of the younger workers. GM, plus Ford and Chrysler, now has a two tier wage plan that compensates older worker at an higher unsustainable rate and newer workers at lower rate which allows the company to remain competitive. It would appear that unions do not support equal pay for equal work.
Since the private sector union worker must also compete in the world markets, their number have shrunk dramatically cannot be leveraged for power. The result is that unions have turned to public sector for members. As noted above, they have been very successful organizing the public sector.
This campaign for political power often cost their members, the youngest with less seniority, their jobs. Take for example the teachers union in Milwaukee, the citizens of Milwaukee, knowing of reduced revenues and reduced enrollment declined to raise taxes to support the retention of the 428 teachers. The union could have avoided layoff of up to 480 teachers by agreeing to some co-pays in the healthcare plan covering all members. Without consulting with their membership, the union leaders opted for the layoff. So, 428 teachers get laid off, not the worst teachers, just those with the least seniority.
It was believed that the union leadership assumed that the Obama administration would bail them out with a stimulus package. That may still happen, if the Democrats have their way. But, all taxpayers should take note that the Milwaukee problem could have been solved locally with relatively little pain and suffering by the entire teacher corps. Instead, the union leadership, while collecting dues from members, use those dues to buy political favor from the likes of Obama and the Democrats. Actually, the last time I heard of a union supporting a Republican was back when the Teamsters supported Nixon to insure the release of Hoffa. Those political contributions give the union leadership the political power they seek.
The working man has become a means to an end but most workers haven't received the message because of my age and the fact I haven't lived or worked near union territory for years, I know only elderly union members or retirees. They are only concerned about pensions and healthcare, not how the union operates.
Obama more than any presidential candidate has learned this very well. I think this what Ted Kennedy meant when he said Obama was an "inspiration" as he endorsed him.
I'd like to start by giving you a little background. My grandfather, an Englishman, came to this country came to the USA in 1902. His father died when he was just 13. Since he was the oldest male in the family, he became the head of the family. In 1911, the only people hiring his ilk were coal mines in western PA. That's where he went to work. In the 30's and 40's he was an avid unionist, so much so that he joined with John L. Lewis in the effort to organize the miners into the UAW. When I say he fought for the union, I don't mean he stood up and argued, no, he fought. He showed me the scars to prove it.
My dad followed in his steps as a union guy, he became a shop steward in chemical processing plant. I loved them both very much but disagreed with them on unionism .
I thought that the only people who needed unions were those who couldn't sell their own value to those that paid them. The difference is 55 years. I entered the workforce in 1961. By the time I entered the workforce companies were looking for talented, producing personnel regardless of union affiliation, or maybe non-union was better. I worked for both but never joined the union. In 1966, I graduated from college and my union sympathies were, forever, lost.
Why? Because I was educated. I thought that I would now embark on a career path that would be based solely on my skills, talent and intelligence. Nothing has changed since. What's more a vast number of my fellow Americans have made similar choices resulting in a relatively large reduction in union membership.
Approximately 12.3% of the US workforce is unionized, a decrease from 20.1% in 1983. Even more enlightening is the fact that more than one-half of all union members are employed in the public sector despite the fact that private sector workers outnumber public sector workers by a ratio more than five to one.
Today's Unions
The unions, today, a far afield from those of my ancestors. They don't seek fairness or economic power for their they seek political power for their leaders. Their campaign for political power cannot really be won by recruiting coal miners and steel workers since those workers , along with their employers, must compete in the world markets and are required to control costs and maintain productivity. All you have to do is look at General Motors, who was unable to maintain cost controls and productivity under union demands for non-affordable wages and benefits. The result, over time, was a massive bail-out by the taxpayers to maintain an industry while reducing the number of workers employed and thereby further reducing union membership. One must note than when there are concessions by the unions they are always applied to newer, younger workers. This maintains the union leaders power on the back of the younger workers. GM, plus Ford and Chrysler, now has a two tier wage plan that compensates older worker at an higher unsustainable rate and newer workers at lower rate which allows the company to remain competitive. It would appear that unions do not support equal pay for equal work.
Since the private sector union worker must also compete in the world markets, their number have shrunk dramatically cannot be leveraged for power. The result is that unions have turned to public sector for members. As noted above, they have been very successful organizing the public sector.
This campaign for political power often cost their members, the youngest with less seniority, their jobs. Take for example the teachers union in Milwaukee, the citizens of Milwaukee, knowing of reduced revenues and reduced enrollment declined to raise taxes to support the retention of the 428 teachers. The union could have avoided layoff of up to 480 teachers by agreeing to some co-pays in the healthcare plan covering all members. Without consulting with their membership, the union leaders opted for the layoff. So, 428 teachers get laid off, not the worst teachers, just those with the least seniority.
It was believed that the union leadership assumed that the Obama administration would bail them out with a stimulus package. That may still happen, if the Democrats have their way. But, all taxpayers should take note that the Milwaukee problem could have been solved locally with relatively little pain and suffering by the entire teacher corps. Instead, the union leadership, while collecting dues from members, use those dues to buy political favor from the likes of Obama and the Democrats. Actually, the last time I heard of a union supporting a Republican was back when the Teamsters supported Nixon to insure the release of Hoffa. Those political contributions give the union leadership the political power they seek.
The working man has become a means to an end but most workers haven't received the message because of my age and the fact I haven't lived or worked near union territory for years, I know only elderly union members or retirees. They are only concerned about pensions and healthcare, not how the union operates.
Obama more than any presidential candidate has learned this very well. I think this what Ted Kennedy meant when he said Obama was an "inspiration" as he endorsed him.
Lame Duck Session High Jinks
It would be just like the Democrats to attempt to put through all forms of radical spending and/or tax increases during a lame duck session between the election and the seating of the new congress in 2011. I got to thinking, with some degree of assuredness, that the Republicans in the Senate could block any such legislation.
Eureka! All of a sudden I realized that we have a great risk that this despicable thing could very easily happen. While it is expected that Republican will gain Senate seats, none of the newly elected will take office until 2011. That means we would have to be concerned about the losers. We can be sure that Democratic losers will be fully supportive of any form of radical legislation because they will have absolutely nothing to lose. Those people would have been in the majority, anyway. What we have to really worry about is a Republican senators who lost or loses in a primary or general election between now and then. A good example would Bennett of Utah. He is already out of a job for 2011 because the Utah Republicans put new blood in the mix earlier this year. Bennett who holds the seat until 12/31/2010 could trade his vote for any little goody offered up by a special interest group or by the Obama administration.
We also have to worry about retiring Republicans who will losing their seat and may opt for some sort of trade-off to augment their retirement status. They are:
LeMieux Florida
Brownback Kansas
Bunning Kentucky
Bond Missouri
Gregg New Hampshire
Voinovich Ohio
Also of concern, though to a lesser degree, are those running for reelection and could lose. They are:
Shelby Alabama
Murkowski Alaska
McCain Arizona
Isakson Georgia
Crapo Idaho
Grassley Iowa
Vitter Louisiana
Burr North Carolina
Coburn Oklahoma
DeMint South Carolina
Thune South Dakota
Remember ladies and gentlemen, it is never too early to be vigilant!
It would be just like the Democrats to attempt to put through all forms of radical spending and/or tax increases during a lame duck session between the election and the seating of the new congress in 2011. I got to thinking, with some degree of assuredness, that the Republicans in the Senate could block any such legislation.
Eureka! All of a sudden I realized that we have a great risk that this despicable thing could very easily happen. While it is expected that Republican will gain Senate seats, none of the newly elected will take office until 2011. That means we would have to be concerned about the losers. We can be sure that Democratic losers will be fully supportive of any form of radical legislation because they will have absolutely nothing to lose. Those people would have been in the majority, anyway. What we have to really worry about is a Republican senators who lost or loses in a primary or general election between now and then. A good example would Bennett of Utah. He is already out of a job for 2011 because the Utah Republicans put new blood in the mix earlier this year. Bennett who holds the seat until 12/31/2010 could trade his vote for any little goody offered up by a special interest group or by the Obama administration.
We also have to worry about retiring Republicans who will losing their seat and may opt for some sort of trade-off to augment their retirement status. They are:
LeMieux Florida
Brownback Kansas
Bunning Kentucky
Bond Missouri
Gregg New Hampshire
Voinovich Ohio
Also of concern, though to a lesser degree, are those running for reelection and could lose. They are:
Shelby Alabama
Murkowski Alaska
McCain Arizona
Isakson Georgia
Crapo Idaho
Grassley Iowa
Vitter Louisiana
Burr North Carolina
Coburn Oklahoma
DeMint South Carolina
Thune South Dakota
Remember ladies and gentlemen, it is never too early to be vigilant!
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Cap and Trade (Change we will not love)
Another one to fight against when it hits the Senate !!
Just.... 'Remember in November'.....
Homeowners - Better Read This one
Don't want to be bothered with "Political stuff?" You'd better read this one. It will come as a huge shock to you if you aren't informed as to what Obama is up to, and it has already passed one hurdle. It will take very little now to put it into actual law!! YOU'D BETTER WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!
So you think you live in a free country.
Boy have you got a surprise coming.
A License Required for your HOUSE?
If you own your home you really need to check this out. At the end of this email is the Google link to verify. If the country thinks the housing market is depressed now, wait until everyone sees this. No one will be buying homes in the future.
We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and are being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington! This Congress and their "experts" are truly out to destroy the middle class of the U.S.A.
A License will be required for your house...no longer just for cars and mobile homes....Thinking about selling your house? Take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade bill). This is unbelievable! Home owners take note and tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
Beginning one year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this "Cap & Trade" bill, passed by the House of Representatives. If it is also passed by the Senate, it will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure that these voters will get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. And Mrs. Middle Class have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else..
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won't be able to sell your house without some bureaucrat's OK. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat (there always is a caveat) is that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be required to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act, to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell.
And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress. Then the Administrator can set new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 - Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .
Beginning one year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with its energy and water efficiency standards. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (expen$ive) to meet in a few years.
The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (that includes YOU?) and prevent you from qualifying for the grants.
Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in." Sect. 204 - Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help the EPA. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year...
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year.
But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California ? It would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate.
Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 - Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that one year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
CHECK OUT a few of the sites;
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home
http://www.nachi. org/forum/ f14/cap-and- trade-license- required- your-home- 44750/
HR2454 American Clean Energy & Security Act:
http://www.govtrack ..us/congress/ bill.xpd? bill=h111- 2454
Cap & Trade A license required for your home:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cap-and-trade-a-license-required-for-your-home.html
Cap and trade is a license to cheat and steal:
http://www.sfexamin er.com/opinion/ columns/oped_ contributors/ Cap-and-trade- is-a-license- to-cheat- and-steal- 45371937. html
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2393940/posts
Thinking about selling you House? Look at HR 2454:
http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/10/01/thinking-about-selling-your-house-a-look-at-h-r-2454-cap-and-trade-bill/
Just.... 'Remember in November'.....
Homeowners - Better Read This one
Don't want to be bothered with "Political stuff?" You'd better read this one. It will come as a huge shock to you if you aren't informed as to what Obama is up to, and it has already passed one hurdle. It will take very little now to put it into actual law!! YOU'D BETTER WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!
So you think you live in a free country.
Boy have you got a surprise coming.
A License Required for your HOUSE?
If you own your home you really need to check this out. At the end of this email is the Google link to verify. If the country thinks the housing market is depressed now, wait until everyone sees this. No one will be buying homes in the future.
We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and are being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington! This Congress and their "experts" are truly out to destroy the middle class of the U.S.A.
A License will be required for your house...no longer just for cars and mobile homes....Thinking about selling your house? Take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade bill). This is unbelievable! Home owners take note and tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
Beginning one year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this "Cap & Trade" bill, passed by the House of Representatives. If it is also passed by the Senate, it will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure that these voters will get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. And Mrs. Middle Class have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else..
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won't be able to sell your house without some bureaucrat's OK. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat (there always is a caveat) is that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be required to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act, to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell.
And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress. Then the Administrator can set new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 - Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .
Beginning one year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with its energy and water efficiency standards. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (expen$ive) to meet in a few years.
The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (that includes YOU?) and prevent you from qualifying for the grants.
Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in." Sect. 204 - Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help the EPA. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year...
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year.
But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California ? It would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate.
Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 - Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that one year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
CHECK OUT a few of the sites;
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home
http://www.nachi. org/forum/ f14/cap-and- trade-license- required- your-home- 44750/
HR2454 American Clean Energy & Security Act:
http://www.govtrack ..us/congress/ bill.xpd? bill=h111- 2454
Cap & Trade A license required for your home:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cap-and-trade-a-license-required-for-your-home.html
Cap and trade is a license to cheat and steal:
http://www.sfexamin er.com/opinion/ columns/oped_ contributors/ Cap-and-trade- is-a-license- to-cheat- and-steal- 45371937. html
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2393940/posts
Thinking about selling you House? Look at HR 2454:
http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/10/01/thinking-about-selling-your-house-a-look-at-h-r-2454-cap-and-trade-bill/
Just One Hospital
Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:
1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Oswald, died there a few years later.
On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day)!
A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas !!!
According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.
The average patient in Parkland in maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay.
OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital , they do. " Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE!!!
The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico.
This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)
"How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?
Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right; she's technically a US citizen.)
These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.
Most of these things are available to American citizens as well, but only for low-income applicants, and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.
Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income.
An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.
Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job.. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)
There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegal's get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?
As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish.
This was apparently a great injustice to her.
In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish.. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.
(Sorry for the length, but this needs wide circulation particularly to our "employees" in Congress.)
Remember that this is about only ONE hospital in Dallas, Texas. There are many more hospitals across our country that must also deal with this.
PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY U.S. CITIZEN YOU KNOW.
Give us your people, we'll take care of them here in the U.S. FOR FREE!!!, what a great deal!!!
--------------------------------------------------------
We love America, but we can't take care of the whole world on our own. We all have enough problems these days supporting ourselves legally without people coming here illegally & getting a free ride & we have to pay for them.
--------------------------------------------------------
Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:
1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Oswald, died there a few years later.
On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day)!
A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas !!!
According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.
The average patient in Parkland in maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay.
OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital , they do. " Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE!!!
The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico.
This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)
"How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?
Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right; she's technically a US citizen.)
These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.
Most of these things are available to American citizens as well, but only for low-income applicants, and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.
Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income.
An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.
Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job.. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)
There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegal's get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?
As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish.
This was apparently a great injustice to her.
In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish.. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.
(Sorry for the length, but this needs wide circulation particularly to our "employees" in Congress.)
Remember that this is about only ONE hospital in Dallas, Texas. There are many more hospitals across our country that must also deal with this.
PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY U.S. CITIZEN YOU KNOW.
Give us your people, we'll take care of them here in the U.S. FOR FREE!!!, what a great deal!!!
--------------------------------------------------------
We love America, but we can't take care of the whole world on our own. We all have enough problems these days supporting ourselves legally without people coming here illegally & getting a free ride & we have to pay for them.
--------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
IMMIGRATION REFORM
IMMIGRATION REFORM
How to solve the immigration problem. The first thing is the determine what the real problem is. I think real problem is that the American citizenry feels betrayed by the amnesty program created in the 1980's. The 80's reform was supposed to solve illegal immigration instead the citizens feel it accelerated it. By rewarding illegal activity it simply encouraged a new generation of immigrants to make the attempt. From all reports the latest generation has been even more successful than the first. Simply put the citizens of the USA do not trust something called immigration reformed unless the borders are secured first. This distrust is the problem because politicians can not overcome the distrust with rhetoric. The citizens want proof that the 1980's reform will not be repeated. Below is an attempt to outline how immigration reform can be implemented.
The politicians need make a law that can be trusted. The only way that can be done is to establish checks and balances.
This outline will require a bipartisan group of leaders to endorse the proposed steps including the sequence of implementation.
Securing the borders must come first, but with the federal government controlled by Democrats (or Republicans) we must be able to trust whoever implements border security must receive verification that the borders are secure. The new immigration law would only be implemented when, as and if, the majority of the states certify that in their opinion the borders are "substantially secure" The certifying states must include all of those states that are "deemed" by the legislation as border states. At a minimum it would include all states that have a land border with a foreign country namely Mexico and Canada (There are 15 in total so these 15 together with 11 others must certify that the borders are "substantially secure".) This would require the legislature of the states to enact a law enabling the certification and such law would be signed into law by the governor. This methodology would virtually require local bi-partisan support nationwide to enact and implement Immigration reform. The date of Certification shall become the Program Implementation Date (PID) for the implementation of the reform portion of the legislation.
Once a secure border has been has been certified then comes the implementation of reform. The first part of the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any truly accurate estimates of the number of illegal aliens presently in the country. I've heard estimates varying between 11 million and 20 million. To effectively deal with the problem we would have to get our arms around the numbers. To locate, enumerate and evaluate the illegal population I would propose that we create a special social security card for illegal aliens. The cards would be issued with a photo id in a manner similar to the photo id credit cards issued by banks. The creation of a social security account would enable the commencement of the efforts to implement the enumeration and evaluation of the problem. Registration with SSA, would shield the applicant from prosecution and/or deportation until Homeland security processed the case for disposition. However, registration would begin the process as well as prioritize who gets processed (first come, first served)each registrant would be requested to indicate which one of the three options list below he wished to pursue:
1. Permanent residency with citizenship
2. Permanent residency without citizenship
3. Guest worker status
The Social security card would be encoded to indicate the requested status and such status would determine the holder's eligibility to receive governmental services status 1 and 2 would make such person eligible for all benefits and programs generally available to permanent residents. Status 3 would not make such person eligible for any such programs. Individuals states would determine how and when educational and health care services would be provided, except that any such laws may not be discriminatory.
Every undocumented person, including minor children, in the US would be required to register within 180 days of the PID. Failure to do so would subject any such person to prosecution and deportation under the immigration laws. Each registrant would be required to provide the Social Security number to his employer and upon doing so he would be protected by all of the labor laws and regulations of the country and/or the state of residency. Simultaneously, employers would be required to verify and authenticate the SS numbers of all employees whether temporary or permanent. Any one, found to have an invalid SS number would have to be laid off until a valid SS# is supplied. Employers would be required to collect and pay all taxes imposed by the local, state and federal government. Any employer failing to do so within 90 days of the PID would be subject to fines and penalties as set forth in the reform act.
Processing a registrant:
Each registrant must provide name, address ( both in the US and country of origin) as well as define an economic familial unit. i.e. Single, family (naming each member and each member will be issued SS#, as set forth above. Photo id's and fingerprints will be taken at the time of registration and encoded into the SS Card.
The registrant then opts for his status as described above. The familial unit will be required to select the same status except for a so-called "anchor baby" circumstance which will be dealt with separately.
The SS card will serve the same function as a "green card" currently does but any and all employers must verify and authenticate the card upon employment.
All wages payments will be accumulated in the Social Security system as is presently done. These wage records will be used in determining a person's or familial units continuing eligibility to pursue permanent residency or citizenship.
Each person or familial unit must maintain financial capabilities sufficient to support their continuing presence in the US. For example, a familial unit must maintain income at least equal to 135% of the federal poverty level or show other financial resources that demonstrate the ability for self-support at least equal to 135% of the federal poverty level. Only wages reported under the SS system and only other income reported on 1099's would count. Financial resources sited outside the country must be verified by bona-fide financial institutions domiciled outside the country. Each person or familial unit must maintain sufficient funds to sustain themselves while in USA and/or a proven steady income. Proof of funds and/or income is usually requested by means of bank account statements, proof of investment income, credit cards, or a combination of these. Income reported on a person's or familial unit US tax return may be counted. Failure to maintain adequate financial capabilities shall subject the person or familial units to deportation and/or denial of permanent status.
In the event that such person or familial unit is unable to prove adequate financial capabilities, a deportation or denial order shall be issued. Within 90 days thereafter, the person or familial unit may appeal such order by providing such proof as may be required to prove financial capabilities or must leave the country. Failure to provide proof would require such entity's SS card to be invalidated. Notice of invalidation shall be sent to any employer that report income or wages to the SS system.
Failure to leave the country will constitute a felony violation of the USA's immigration laws.
Other disqualifications for status of presence in the US:
Any person who has received eligibility status as described above shall become disqualified and ineligible if:
1. He is convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor which may be punishable by a fine of $1,000 or more or a jail term of nine months or more
2. He declares his intent not to seek a status set forth above
3. Establishes a permanent residence in another country
4. Fails to maintain adequate financial capabilities as set forth above.
Exception for "Anchor babies"
Any person who is a natural born citizen of the US shall not be subject to the provisions of the immigration reform laws even if such person is a member of a familial unit. The legal parents or guardians of any such minor person who become ineligible for continuing presence in the US may:
1. remove such citizen from the US upon their departure from the US in accordance with the immigration laws
2. Appoint a guardian for such person, who shall be a person eligible for residency in the US or an agency of the state, local or federal government of the US
If such minor person is abandoned in the US, the parents or legal guardian of such minor shall be permanently barred from entry to the US.
Any person removed by a parent or legal guardian may return to the US upon attainment of majority or is no longer subject to control of the parents or guardians.
Guest Worker Program
A person who has requested guest worker status must identify any familial unit of which he is a member. All members of the familial unit must have SS cards. A guest worker, together with any members of a familial unit, shall be permitted to remain in the US at all times so long as the total income of such person or the total income of the familial unit would be equal to 135% of the federal poverty level. If the guest worker and/or the familial unit were employed at least 25 hours per week and at such a rate of pay that would provide income equal to 135% of the federal poverty level.
Upon termination of employment, for any reason, at the proscribed level, such guest worker and/or familial unit are required to leave the US within 30 days of termination. A person reemployed, at the proscribed level during such 30 day period, may remain in the US and the 30 days cycle would restart. The SS card would be invalidated, if, for a period of 30 days, no income is reported to the SS system.
Enforcement
Any person in the US without a valid SS card would considered to be in the country illegally and would be subject to prosecution and deportation subject to their right for a hearing. Any proof which would indicate that their presence in the US would be considered. Failure to produce adequate proof and compliance with the requirements of permanent residency or guest worker would be cause for criminal penalties and/or deportation, as determined by the court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)