Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Obamacare
When observing the actions of political class Republicans it’s important to remember what makes them tick. It’s not that they are liberal or moderate; it’s that their ideology is power. When conservative policies will benefit them politically and assuage their donors and lobbyists, they will jump on board the constitutional bandwagon. But as soon as there is a schism between their puppet-masters on K Street on conservative policy, they are completely off the reservation. Nowhere is this more evident than with Obamacare.
While other issues such as corporate welfare, amnesty, and Common Core are blatantly embraced by the corporate interests, Obamacare is more complicated. On paper, big business opposes many parts of Obamacare. But that is the point. They oppose the parts of the bill that directly affect their bottom line (at least with the shortsighted focus on the near term), but have no problem with the rest of the bill that distorts the market and raises costs on individuals. Indeed, much of the insurance industry was in on Obamacare from day one.
Hence, that is why none of us are surprised that GOP leadership has quietly given up on Obamacare. This is not just about strategy, it’s about core beliefs. Look no further than the Chamber of Commerce’s official position that they desire to fix Obamacare.
Accordingly, this is why Republicans and even some Democrats have enthusiastically embraced repeal of the medical device tax. Undoubtedly, it is a pernicious job-killing tax, but it is unanimously opposed by the business community. Juxtapose that to repeal of the risk corridors (the insurance company bailout for those who participate in Obamacare but inevitably incur losses from the mandates), championed by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), and you won’t find too many followers.
Today, we will witness the latest example of leadership’s tendentious treatment of big business in the Obamacare debate. The House will quietly vote on a bill sponsored by Democrat Rep. John Carney (D-DE) and Republican Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) (H.R. 4414), which would exempt all expatriate health insurance plans from Obamacare. Expatriate plans are robust high-end forms of insurance for executives, primarily in big corporations, working overseas and in need of global access to healthcare. The bill is co-sponsored by a random mix of moderate Republicans and Democrats.
Carney and Nunes sent a letter to their colleagues noting that these plans are offered by Cigna, Metlife, Aetna, and United Health. This is not surprising because Cigna provides health insurance to large companies with many top executives working overseas. Perforce, all of the special interests groups who oppose full repeal or defunding of Obamacare have swooped in on this bill. The American Benefits Council and the Chamber of Commerce quickly circled the wagons around this bill, which had not undergone any committee hearings or markups and was randomly passed under suspension.
While there is some debate among conservatives about partial repeal bills, even those conservatives who support a partial repeal strategy should only support game-changing bills that both bring relief to the consumer and help disrupt the viability of the entire law. For example, in the case of the 1099 tax-reporting provision, it benefited all businesses and alleviated them from an onerous burden. The 1099 provision required companies to report all vendors from which they purchased $600 worth of goods or services within a year on their annual tax report. Moreover, instead of bailing out Democrats from the political wrath of a deleterious provision, we extracted concessions from them by limiting the individual subsidies for purchasing insurance.
The expatriate reform, on the other hand, is a parsimonious tweak (yet full repeal for one special interest) that serves no purpose but ameliorating the law, making some Democrats look good, and playing into the insidious and selfish strategy of big business and the insurance companies. Moreover, Republicans have not attached any other concession to this bill like they did with the 1099 repeal.
In the case of Cigna, they spent million promoting Obamacare; now they are looking for a bailout specifically for their corporate clients. There’s no reason we should help them out. It’s no surprise that Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), a conservative House member and lifelong physician, allegedly accused leadership of being in the pockets of big insurance companies.
The Wall Street Journal continues to lambast conservatives for opposing partial-repeal measures, but they are too shortsighted to see how these bills are geared towards bringing relief to Obamacare lobbyists, not consumers and taxpayers at large.
Those who think that the intra-party battle of 2014 is merely about strategy are not paying attention. Establishment Republicans have never stood for limited constitutional government and free markets except for when it overlaps with corporate interests. Don’t be fooled by the ubiquitous public opposition to Obamacare within the party. If conservatives fail to win this year’s primaries, a GOP majority will not be committed to repealing Obamacare.
Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 and is filed under Blog
We just released the following statement to the press applauding Senator Mike Lee’s endorsement of Dr. Chad Mathis, one of our first endorsements this election cycle.
“We are encouraged by the recent news that Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has endorsed Chad Mathis for Congress in Alabama. The Madison Project endorsed Mathis last year because we believe Chad is one of the strongest conservatives running this cycle. Everyone running in a solid Republican district during a primary claims to be a conservative, but Mathis was the only one willing to mount a serious challenge against the establishment in a non-open seat. It’s that type of fearless leadership that is needed in Washington.”
For the Madison’s full endorsement of Chad Mathis go here.
Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy
We often hear the political class bemoan Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) supposed recklessness for blowing up the status quo in Washington and not reaching across the aisle. These naysayers should pay attention to Cruz’s two recent foreign policy victories and learn from them.
As we reported several weeks ago, GOP leaders were planning to capitulate to Democrats on the IMF bailout by allowing them to slip the provision into the Ukraine aid package. On March 13, Senator Cruz sent a letter to Senator Harry Reid warning that he planned to block the bill if the IMF provision remained. While only a few Republicans joined him from the onset, and some like Senator John McCain even lambasted him, Cruz harnessed his megaphone to rally Americans all over the country and embarrass those who supported this provision to weaken our nation’s power on the world stage.
Ultimately, Republicans in the Senate and the House were forced into joining the fight, and Democrats were pressured to drop their demands.
Hence, this is the power and prerogative of one Senator to be a voice, not just a vote in the Senate.
Fast-forward a few weeks and Senator Cruz got wind of another issue that needed to be addressed – one which would have been ignored by senators in both parties. The government of Iran decided to appoint Hamid Aboutalebi as their ambassador to the United Nations. Aboutalebi was one of the leaders of the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, one of the deeds for which the current regime has never been held to account.
Following the rules of past senators, Cruz could have joined the chorus of merely denouncing the appointment. And indeed the Obama administration called the nomination of Aboutalebi “extremely troubling.” But Cruz was the one who took the initiative to actually send a definitive message to Iran by introducing legislation (S. 2195) to ban him and other known terrorists from being granted visas to enter the U.S., even for the purpose of serving at the United Nations headquarters in New York.
While this was an initiative publicly supported by many members across the aisle, it was only Ted Cruz’s high profile campaign to elevate the issue that embarrassed Democrats into considering the floor. Shortly thereafter, Chuck Schumer co-sponsored the bill. Yesterday, the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
The man who is regarded as the most combative conservative in the Senate managed to pass a bill through a Democrat-controlled Senate without a vote. That is true leadership. Working across the aisle doesn’t mean putting a Republican stamp on liberal policies, as the political class wishes to happen on a daily basis. It means harnessing our leverage and political megaphones to inspire, convince, and even shame the other side into supporting our causes.
Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Immigration, Obamacare
When listening to open borders agitators like former Florida governor Jeb Bush, one would come away with the impression that we owe it to the world to accept anyone who comes here illegally and pay for their living expenses. They speak of lofty ideals loosely connected to love and compassion, but they never consider the lack of love and compassion that our open borders policy imposes on the American consumer and taxpayer. There is no better example than the bankrupting of our hospitals at the hands of Jeb’s “lovely” invaders.
My wife and I were entreated to the chaos of emergency room care last night after our two-year-old son slipped while climbing onto a high kitchen counter and banged his head on the floor. He had a massive lump on his forehead and we were concerned about internal bleeding. When we drove to the closest hospital, the waiting room was full of illegals. Most of them were adults who, let’s just say, did not look like they were about to keel over. Opting not to wait all night simply for a decision whether to put our son through a CT scan, we drove for a half hour in the rain to a hospital that was less likely to be full of those who use ERs for regular care.
Thank God our son recovered and there was no internal bleeding, but in a different situation that extra time could have been critical. Also, if you ever wonder why you get hosed with outrageous bills simply for stepping foot in a hospital, look no farther than the “undocumented” costs of illegal aliens.
This is what the defenders of illegal immigration never comprehend or care to ponder. We can open our borders to any number of impoverished individuals from the world’s population of 7 billion. But that comes at a cost to American citizens and legal residents who are within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the country.
The problems with illegal immigrants and emergency hospital care also provide us with an opportunity to examine true free market healthcare reform. Any GOP healthcare proposal must be predicated not on “replacing” Obamacare, but on fixing even some of the anti-market federal policies that existed before passage of the monstrosity.
One of those policies is the mandate on hospitals to treat everyone who comes to an ER – including illegal immigrants – irrespective of whether they are suffering from a real emergency. In 1986, Congress passed The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), which was ostensibly the first act in universal healthcare mandates.
If we ever plan to curb skyrocketing hospital costs and improve access to emergency care, we must address this massive unfunded federal mandate of EMTALA. Among the provisions of Rep. Paul Broun’s Patient Option Act, which is one of the best healthcare reform proposals, are some good reforms of emergency and indigent care. Under Broun’s proposal, hospitals would be allowed to turn away people from ERs if they do not have an immediate need for emergency care. This would solve the problem of illegal immigrants using ERs for primary care.
Juxtaposed to this provision is a tax credit for physicians who provide indigent care as a form of charity. While conservatives usually advocate deductions over credits for the cost of healthcare, that is for individuals who purchase health insurance. But for healthcare providers, especially for most doctors who already pay a tremendous amount in taxes, they should be incentivized to treat those without the means to pay for the care with a credit.
Taken as a whole, these two provisions would transfer the cost of indigent care from a federally-mandated tax on physicians and consumers to a voluntary tax incentive for physicians and those who donate to free-service clinics.
If the politicians are concerned about being compassionate to Americans and clamping down on illegal immigration, they should start with free market healthcare reform.
Monday, April 7th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Immigration
The debate over illegal immigration is one of the most frustrating issues for those who approach public policy logically. Seldom do we have so much history to draw upon when crafting new policies like we do with illegal immigration, yet nobody in Washington is willing to learn the lessons of the past.
We have seen time and again how one amnesty begets another because liberalizing our immigration laws without a commensurate plan to prevent future flows of illegal immigration will only encourage more of the same. The solution is not an enigma. All we have to do is actually implement the border and interior enforcement mechanisms that both Republicans and Democrats claim to support and eliminate all welfare and birthright citizenship for future waves of illegal immigration. At that point, the question of what to do with those already here will be minimized and any legal status granted will be done from a position of strength – knowing that we will not encourage a new wave of illegal migration.
So if all sides supposedly agree on the need to prevent a new wave of immigration, and in light of the past failures of an ‘amnesty first’ approach, why aren’t the liberals willing to try our approach?
On Fox News Sunday, former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) provided us with a candid answer, revealing what we have always known about our opponents in this debate. The point of contention is not just about the status of those already here illegally. Rather, it’s about the essence of our existence as a sovereign nation with defined borders. Individuals like Bush support illegal immigration and open borders as an ends to itself – even an ideal. They actually extol the virtues of illegal immigrants over Americans. Here is what the former Florida governor had to say yesterday:
“I’m going to say this and it will be on tape, and so be it. The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their family’s dad who loves their children was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table, and they wanted to make sure their family was intact. And they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. it’s kind of — it’s a — it’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that’s a different kind of crime that should be, there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t be — it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families. And the idea that we’re not going to fix this but with comprehensive reform ends up trapping these people, when they could make a great contribution for their own their families but also for us.
Taking Jeb’s approach to its logical conclusion, it is clear that his side has no desire to prevent future waves of illegal migration, and in fact, they would oppose actions to do so. Indeed, their vocal efforts to delegitimize our laws, borders, and sovereignty have already engendered an increase in illegal border-crossings.
As for Jeb’s false sense of love, it is born out of the same dyslexic priorities of the left on fiscal policy in general. What liberals don’t understand is that public policy in this country cannot be geared towards accommodating every person living in poverty throughout the world. Constitutional governance must take into account the best policies that benefit the broadest number of Americans without redistributing wealth while still being within the confines of the Constitution.
Hence, on paper it would make sense to redistribute wealth from the richest among us and support those who live in poverty. After all, the wealthy do not need all the money they earn, and it can certainly go towards a better cause. However, conservatives intuitively understand that it is not the job of this country and this nation’s government to take the fruits of labor from some and redistribute to others. Moreover, it is counterintuitive, mitigates economic growth, and has a net effect of creating more poverty.
The immigration issue is no different. Undoubtedly, there are many impoverished people in this world of 7 billion individuals, particularly in Latin America. However, it is not the duty of our government to take care of the world. We already lack the resources to properly foster economic opportunities for those who are subject to the jurisdiction of this nation. And indeed we currently have the most generous immigration policy in the world. In recent decades, we have let in over a million new immigrants annually, many of whom are from penurious parts of the world.
The idea that we must support a welfare system for millions more throughout the world represents a false sense of morality – the same morality that fuels the pagan beliefs of the modern-day Baal worshipers who advocate redistributionist policies. In fact, those Republicans who advocate for open borders are even worse because they are extrapolating the traditional liberal ethos on a domestic level to a global level.
Ironically, open borders Republicans are promoting illegal immigration for the expressed purpose of lining the pockets of big business with cheap labor. It is precisely because they intend to pay them cheap wages that the average taxpayer will be caught holding the bag paying the massive tab for their welfare checks and healthcare bills. Their highbrow rhetoric about love and compassion is about as credible as a blue city mayor exalting the successes of socialism in creating economic opportunity.
Furthermore, the creation of an unnaturally large flow of people from impoverished countries will artificially depress wages and lower the standard of living for Americans, particularly recent legal immigrants.
Unlike our liberal counterparts, conservatives believe that solving every socio-economic problem – certainly those outside of our borders – on the backs of American taxpayers is beyond the scope, the ability, or the moral foundation of the government. The job of our nation is to protect liberty, economic freedom, and religious freedom so that the greatest number of people in this country can reap the blessings of God’s gifts. In turn, as individuals and practitioners of the world’s major religions, we care for all of humanity through prayer and charity.
But until the leaders of either party learn about the fundamentals of borders and sovereignty, our declining Republic and economic system will continue to inhibit us from serving as the beacon of light for the rest of the world.
Friday, April 4th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Debt, Obamacare
On the surface, it’s quite puzzling that Democrats would celebrate the fact they signed up 7.1 million people for Obamacare. They essentially took a number of people who were happy with their insurance and raised the cost to the point where they could no longer afford it themselves, engendering a need for a government subsidy. Like many Americans, my family will lose our insurance later this year and will have to pay more for subpar coverage.
As for those who had no previous insurance, most of them are being dumped into Medicaid and will be cemented in a permanent status of dependency with limited access to quality care.
Hence, celebrating 7 million people reliant on Obamacare is like rejoicing over an arsonist who burned down millions of homes but created a bungalow of dingy shelters for people to seek refuge. Would we measure the success of such an endeavor by the number of homes burned down and, in turn, by the number of people registered at the shelters?
Sadly, in the perverse world of liberalism, this is something to celebrate as a mission accomplished. The end-game for liberals with all government interventions in private enterprise is to make the private sector unaffordable and unsustainable, thereby forcing as many people as possible into government dependency and barring the path towards upward mobility. Given that healthcare is one of the most vital services and the largest sector of our economy, Obamacare is indeed the crowning achievement of this long-term goal and worthy of celebration among liberals.
This observation was lost on those who opposed the effort to defund Obamacare last year, arguing that the law would implode on its own. At the time, many of us argued that although from a policy standpoint the law would be a disaster, that is exactly the point of Obamacare. The law was designed to destroy the private insurance industry, and by extension the entire healthcare sector, and force people into a government-run program. The website and the incompetence was something they could overcome on some level. Consequently, Obamacare will not implode on its own – at least not before it implodes the private sector first.
Additionally, there were those who argued that we must wait until 2017 to fight Obamacare. But as we are seeing now, millions of people will be forced or enticed into joining Obamacare. Even though the level of access to care and the quality of delivery will gradually deteriorate, it won’t be so apparent during the first year or two, especially if that is the only insurance individuals have.
There is no doubt that the administration will successfully throw millions of more Americans onto Obamacare by 2017. Again, that is not a sign that Obamacare is working– as it surely is not – rather it is a measure of how successful the law’s deleterious effects on private insurance have impelled people to sign up as their only recourse of seeking coverage. Once there are tens of millions reliant on Obamacare there is no way we could repeal the law.
This is why conservatives must keep up the pressure. The media is trying to conflate Obamacare’s success at creating proverbial homeless shelters with real policy success so that Republicans stay away from the issue. But if we give up on any effort to disrupt implementation now, much of the law will be immutable.
Cross-posted from RedState
Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections
Let’s take a moment to pretend that the primaries don’t exist. We’ll assume that all of the current GOP incumbents are reelected and all of the establishment candidates win in open and Democrat seats. We work our tails off during the general election to get them elected and win a GOP majority in the Senate for the 2015 session. After all of that hard work, what would a GOP-controlled Senate look like?
The Hill’s Alex Bolton asked that same question and interviewed some key players in the Senate. Here is what to expect:
Majority Leader: Mitch McConnell
Finance Committee: Orrin Hatch
Armed Services: John McCain
Appropriations: Thad Cochran
Banking: Richard Shelby
Energy and Natural Resources: Lisa Murkowski
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: Lamar Alexander
Foreign Relations: Bob Corker
Wow – you must be really excited to knock on doors for this slate of leaders. These are people who literally work hand-in-glove with their Democrat counterparts on their respective committees. Lamar Alexander is one of the most anti-free-market senators and a big proponent of federally-run education. Yet, he would control a vital committee that oversees healthcare, education, and labor issues. Bob Corker is a clone of his Democrat counterpart on foreign relations, as witnessed by the recent IMF bill and his emphatic support for new START and other harmful treaties. Then you have Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, and Orrin Hatch.
And, of course, Thad Cochran as Appropriations chair! He is already promising to bring back earmarks. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.
Amnesty, earmarks, and corporate welfare – that is the establishment campaign message for 2014.
Fortunately, we have a choice this spring and summer – one that will enable us to campaign for Republicans in the fall with alacrity and with the confidence that a new majority would provide a bold contrast. We can support all of the challengers against some of these incumbents and knock out the pale-pastel crowd, which includes McConnell, Graham, Cochran, Roberts, and Alexander. We can support the better alternatives in the open seats and against Democrat incumbents.
Or, as Nancy Pelosi once suggested, we can embrace the suck.
Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Debt, Economy, Taxes
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his budget proposal for FY 2015 yesterday, and as expected, it is quite similar to the budget blueprints from previous years. Let me first say that this budget would be superior to the status quo a million times over. Medicaid and Food Stamps would be block granted to the states and Medicare would be subject to at least some optional free market reforms at the end of the budget frame. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be eliminated. And most importantly, it defunds the Obamacare programs.
If Republicans would only fight for this budget during the debt ceiling fisticuffs, many conservatives would be more than satisfied.
But that is the point. Given the fact that Republican have no intention to fight for even some major components of this budget when the deadline looms in September, why put out a half-baked proposal? If this is just designed to be a messaging document that is tossed in the trash at the end of the fiscal year, why not place our ideal proposal on paper?
Ultimately, Ryan accepts the entire fiscal cliff ($618 billion) and Obamacare tax increases (roughly $1 trillion), working off the [optimistic] CBO 10-year revenue projections of $40.6 trillion. Yet, even with the optimistic revenue projections and tax increases, the budget still runs deficits because not enough government programs are phased out or reformed, especially in the Department of Education and some of the other bloated bureaucracies.
As you can see, this year’s budget proposal is essentially the same as the FY 2014 document. It’s just that entitlement spending will grow every year, engendering a $1.2 trillion increase in this year’s budget. Even in the near term, this budget actually spends more, increasing spending in 2015 to $3.664 trillion ($166 billion more than what as projected in last year’s budget).
Outlays: $41.466 trillion
Revenues: $40.241 trillion
Hence, although the budget comes close to balancing in 10 years from now, much of that is achieved by accepting the current tax baseline. Republicans should be able to show how the budget balances within a conservative framework of the tax code. Granted that this budget would easily balance if we implement Medicare premium support before 2014, but that is the point. If we plan to leave traditional fee-for-service Medicare in place and make premium support optional, why not begin the free market option earlier?
Moreover, there is a difference between balancing a budget and limiting government. Balancing a budget is all about accounting. You can coalesce enough small cuts across many programs and come up with a big number, without ever eliminating many of the 2228 federal government assistance programs. I’m not sure how many of them would be abolished under this budget, although as mentioned earlier, solid reforms are imposed on Medicaid and Food Stamps.
Even as it relates to cutting raw dollars and cents, spending would increase, on average, 3.5 percent a year until 2024. In other words, the federal government will still grow faster than the private economy.
Overall, this would be a great start if Republicans planned to fight for this document throughout the appropriations season. They should announce upfront that they have no plans to pass a CR or omnibus bill this year and force Democrats to go to conference on each of the 12 appropriations bills through regular order. That way, we can fight Obamacare in the HHS bill without fear of the Democrats holding the rest of government hostage. Yet, that demand has not been made. And sadly, we know from past experience that Ryan will be the first one to ditch his own budget when the going gets tough in September.
One other important point: if Ryan gets his way on amnesty, all of the supposed savings from welfare reform will be rendered null and void.
Cross-posted at RedState.com
Tuesday, April 1st, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Debt, Economy, Obamacare
Here is exhibit A of why we don’t trust current Senate leadership to do the right thing if they were to win back the majority; they refuse to block new spending when in the minority.
Last week, House leadership decided to pass the “doc fix” bill (H.R. 4302) by voice vote. This bill reimburses healthcare providers for the scheduled 24 percent cut in payments for services rendered to Medicare patients. The bill extends the payments through next March. It also continues some new programs created under Obamacare.
They used a hodgepodge of tenuous offsets spread out mainly over the next 5-10 years to compensate for an immediate expense that will undoubtedly reoccur every year under the 10-year budget frame. Hence, once again, Republicans have agreed to increase spending without any structural reforms or concessions from Democrats on other policies (the original House bill paid for the extension by repealing the individual mandate).
Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid brought the bill to the Senate floor, but Senator Jeff Sessions raised a budget point of order. As Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Sessions has been a stalwart at challenging new spending bills for violating Senate PAYGO rules. This is one of the few tools at the disposal of the minority party used to block bad legislation since the majority party needs 60 votes to overrule the point of order.
In this case, the $15.8 billion cost would be incurred immediately and the offsets include some budget gimmicks to ensure that CBO would score it as deficit neutral by the year 2024. One would expect the party leadership to rally behind their point man on budget issues in order to stop the majority from increasing spending. Yet, Senators McConnell and Cornyn led 14 other Republicans in opposing Sessions, thereby giving Reid the 60 votes needed to send the bill to the President’s desk.
Senator Tom Coburn was right to call this a “cowardly” vote, suggesting that this is the reason he is leaving the Senate:
“If you vote for this bill that’s on the floor today, you’re part of the problem. You’re not part of the solution,” Coburn said. “It’s a sham, it’s a lie. The pay-fors aren’t true. It’s nothing but gimmicks. It’s corruptible. There’s no integrity in what we’re getting ready to vote on.”
Coburn said the “doc fix” is just the latest in a series of decisions Congress has made to avoid short-term pain. He and other fiscal conservatives railed against a fix this year to rising flood insurance rates — a law that’s celebrated by senators from coastal states.
“Just like we did on the flood insurance bill. It got a little hot in the kitchen, instead of actually cooking the omelet, we threw the eggs in the trash can and ran out of the room. And that’s exactly what’s going to happen here,” he said.
Once again, we must ask the salient question: will our predicament improve if we allow the same cowards to lead the GOP majority?
Monday, March 31st, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Immigration
What happens when Republicans fuel the fire of Obama’s open borders agenda? He takes the prerogative to release dangerous illegal aliens onto our streets with no threat of political reprisal.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials last year released 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions, undercutting Democratic claims that President Obama has strictly enforced immigration laws.
An internal Department of Homeland Security document compiling statistics on arrests and deportations in 2013 showed that ICE agents encountered 193,357 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions but issued charging documents for only 125,478. More than 67,800 were released.
The data came from an end-of-year “Weekly Departures and Detention Report.” [The Hill]
Liberals in both parties claim they want to fight against those illegals who are dangerous to society. Yet, this latest report lays waste to that claim.
The Center for Immigration Studies has tabulated the data and breaks down the releases by major city:
With this report in mind, it’s important to remember that the point of contention is not just about granting amnesty to those already here. The leaders of the political class believe in open borders as an ends to itself. All of their platitudes about securing the border are window dressing and vacuous gestures that they have no intention of actually implementing.
James Madison vested the House with control of the purse strings for a reason. If Obama is going to continue to use the Department of Homeland Security to erase our border and endanger our citizens, Republicans should refuse to fund DHS without passing the appropriate riders to defund Obama’s catch and release policy.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for any outrage from Republican leadership.