Monday, May 24, 2010

Amnesty and the Social Security Paradox

Republican governor Charlie Crist, who is running for a Florida Senate seat as an independent after trailing badly in the primary to candidate Marco Rubio, has argued that Social Security and immigration reform go hand in hand, and that the support of immigration reform is a useful step in assuring the solvency of Social Security funding. He uses this argument to campaign for a much shorter path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

The broad idea behind this strategy is that while immigration reform is a heated conflict where two sides of an ideological debate clash, the preservation of Social Security is an endeavor that will likely find backing in the prized body of independent voters. He appears to believe that saving Social Security is a cause that a great number of Americans can rally behind.

There are two problems with this strategy.

First, Americans are sick of hearing that the answer to their prayers is comprehensive federal overhaul, and the legislation of amnesty for illegal aliens would be exactly that. Beyond this, there is a growing anxiety about the taxpayer liability represented by illegal aliens, as millions of them take advantage of healthcare, education, and welfare programs that they are not entitled to exploit as non-citizens.

Second, many Americans are not exactly enamored with Social Security in general. Particularly, younger Americans view it as a complex and obscure investment, and few of them believe that they will reap the benefits of their investment.

Crist’s is among latest suggestions to offer fast tracks to citizenship or amnesty to illegal aliens, which would require them to contribute more into Social Security and thereby help to rectify the universally recognized fiscal shortfall of the Social Security Trust Funds.

On the surface, this seems like a rational hypothesis. If more money goes into the Social Security piggybank, it would seem that there will be more money to spend on the benefits of the program. But this logic is tragically flawed. By legalizing these aliens we would be increasing the burden upon the system by drastically increasing the number of those receiving Social Security benefits. Providing unjustified payment to millions of new recipients that have paid a pittance into the system is not only logistically destructive, but it is also ethically unjust to those who spent their entire lives funding the system.

Beyond this, it is also obvious that the massive influx of low-income wage earners would drain Social Security rather than increase its solvency, because they will inevitably receive far more in benefits than they would contribute to the system.

Amnesty for illegal aliens will certainly not stabilize Social Security, despite the liberal agenda telling us that it will. They appear to be desperately seeking the means to protect Social Security funding, but paradoxically, it is the policymaking of the left that provides the greatest obstacle to the application of more useful solutions.

If immigration law were more tightly enforced, for example, employers would likely offer increased wages for unskilled American laborers. Higher wages and more American workers would yield increased contributions. As another example, if extended entitlement programs like welfare were limited rather than expanded, more Americans would be encouraged to join the workforce, thereby increasing American employment and increasing contributions.

The most significant boon for Social Security would be for Americans to increase fertility rates to assure replacement levels to sustain the system. But even that possibility is stifled by liberal sensibilities. For decades, a European-style agenda has caused a decline in fertility rates that has assured that Social Security cannot support itself, the result of incessant campaigns about detriment to the planet’s resources or carbon footprints. All the while, Democrats in America strive to provide unlimited contraception, and some even advocate federally funded abortions as means to keep our population from growing.

Honestly, it seems apparent that it is the liberal agenda that is both the creator and destroyer of Social Security.

Of course, none of this will be addressed once Congress finds the “appetite” to tackle immigration reform. But I can assure you that we will see the left spewing variations of Crist’s argument that amnesty could provide a boost to Social Security funding. They will suggest in broad tones that it makes sense fiscally, and supporters will be assured of this belief over and over by Barack Obama’s soothing tenor. And educated by nothing beyond the left’s propaganda, legions of zealots will argue the soundness of the idea, and chant their mundane mantra about opposition to amnesty being choreographed by racists.

The argument tying Social Security and immigration reform has taken definite shape, and I would wager it will become common rhetoric for Democrats in their march to legislate amnesty for illegal immigrants. After all, what better way to make a push for amnesty than to argue that we could save Social Security for all Americans by levying a mandatory tax upon the fifteen to twenty million illegal aliens that are working in this country? That way, a massive federal program like Social Security could appear sustainable and illegal aliens could be granted amnesty and a legitimate vote in future elections.

Talk about two birds for the Democratic Party.

William Sullivan

Friday, May 7, 2010

Republic in Reverse

When broken down into its most basic form, the United States’ system of government is a simple one. The founding fathers formed what is known as a federal constitutional republic. By definition this is a nation where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law which limits the government's power over citizens. The fact that the elected officials’ decisions are subject to judicial review makes this form of government a republic. The key principle here is that the elected officials are supposed to be representatives of the people. This is a corner stone that appears to have been ignored, not only by the Obama administration, but also by the Democratic members in both the House and the Senate.

Although poll numbers are not always completely reliable, and can sometimes have a tendency to be skewed due to how the questions are worded, when multiple polls tend to show similar results one can generally believe the information to be accurate. When polling of Americans show the majority are opposed or in favor of legislation, according to the United States system of representative government, logic would follow that the congressional voting on the issue would closely mirror these numbers. After all, a representative’s only job is to vote how the majority of their district or state would vote if every single eligible voter were to cast a ballot on any given issue. Unfortunately this has not been the case with the Obama administration or with the majority of Democrats in Congress, in fact just the opposite has occurred with no foreseeable change in tactics in sight.

The first glaring example of this disturbing trend was evident with the new health care laws. Although many different kinds of questions were thrown out by pollsters, the general consensus was that a majority of Americans disapproved of the actual bill that was passed. The fact that the Democrats had to use reconciliation to pass the bill, which had never been used on any major legislation before, speaks volumes about the laws popularity with citizens.

Now Arizona has passed an immigration enforcement law which closely resembles the existing federal immigration enforcement mandate. This new law is supported by the majority of not only Arizona citizens, but the majority of Americans as well, and yet many Democrats and Obama himself have come out and said that the Arizona state legislature‘s efforts are “misguided“. Misguided? Actually the Arizona legislature is a prime example of how the our government is supposed to work. Politicians are supposed to pass laws that the people want, not pass laws in which they are against. Its truly mind blowing how the overall simplicity of the process seems to escape the liberal powers that be.

With legislation on issues such as “cap and trade” and immigration reform forthcoming, it is imperative to not only recognize but also demand that our “representatives” be just that, representatives. George Washington urged against the forming of political parties. He simply saw no need for them. If every elected official was to vote in a manner consistent with the beliefs of their constituency on every issue, then the whole party system would, in turn, be unnecessary. In his farewell speech in 1789 he stated, “they (political parties) are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Sound familiar?

Calvin Parker