Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,457

    Overstating Border Reform's Price

    Overstating Border Reform's Price

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01417.html

    By Robert Greenstein and James Horney
    Friday, September 15, 2006

    Would offering undocumented immigrants a path to legalization bust the federal budget? Critics of the Senate immigration bill, which seeks to crack down on illegal immigration while giving many currently undocumented workers a chance to work legally in this country, tout a Congressional Budget Office study that they say shows the bill would cost a whopping $126 billion over 10 years. A fair reading of that study, however, suggests that the bill's actual impact on the deficit would be close to zero and that it could even be beneficial.

    Critics add up the bill's increased tax-credit and entitlement costs while ignoring the increased tax revenue it would produce. They also substantially inflate the increased discretionary government spending that would result and overlook the bill's expected positive effects on the economy.

    Let's start with revenue. The CBO found that the Senate bill would boost tax revenue by $44 billion over 10 years by increasing the size of the workforce and the number of immigrants working "above ground" and paying taxes. This would roughly offset the $48 billion in increased entitlement costs that the CBO projects under the bill. Indeed, it estimated that after the first few years, new tax collections actually would exceed new entitlement spending.

    The CBO also predicts that this increase in the size of the workforce would produce benefits for the economy. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget expect a slowdown in economic growth in coming decades as the population ages and growth in the supply of workers grinds nearly to a halt. The CBO estimates the Senate bill -- because it would expand the workforce -- would boost the economy, possibly by enough to produce an additional $100 billion or more in revenue over 10 years.

    This means that the Senate bill would probably reduce long-term deficits, not enlarge them. Similarly, the Social Security actuaries have found that the Senate bill would reduce the Social Security trust fund's long-term deficit and extend the program's solvency by two years.

    So how did critics of the Senate bill arrive at the sensational $126 billion figure, which appears nowhere in the CBO report? First, they counted all of the bill's spending increases while ignoring all of its increases in revenue. For example, they counted the increased costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits for those additional immigrants who would qualify for them, while ignoring the increased Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes the immigrants would pay to qualify for those benefits.

    They also incorrectly assumed that the Senate bill requires $78 billion in added discretionary spending. To be sure, the bill would authorize future appropriations of roughly that amount over 10 years. But none of these funds would actually be spent unless Congress provided them in future appropriations bills. The federal budget contains hundreds of programs that Congress funds below -- often far below -- the authorized amounts.

    In addition, each year Congress must fit appropriations within an overall appropriations limit, as set in the congressional budget resolution. Funding increases for one set of programs often must be offset by reductions in other programs. Consequently, any increase in discretionary spending arising from the Senate bill is likely to be offset, at least in part, by cuts in other areas. For each of the past four years Congress has made across-the-board cuts in discretionary programs to accommodate new priorities while remaining within the prescribed limits. The CBO itself did not include the $78 billion figure in its estimate of how much new spending the Senate bill actually provides.

    Finally, whatever portion of the $78 billion ultimately shows up in future appropriations will probably be provided whether Congress passes the Senate bill or not. That is because more than 90 percent of the authorized discretionary spending would go toward the kind of enforcement measures the bill's critics strongly support, such as expanded border security and stronger measures to identify immigrants illegally seeking employment. Republican congressional leaders have made clear their intention to increase funding for enforcement activities by billions of dollars in appropriation bills that they will consider this month. Indeed, Rep. Harold Rogers, a key Appropriations subcommittee chairman, declared this week that the leadership will provide "tons of money" for this.

    Because it is a subject that stirs strong emotions, debates over immigration policy demand fact and solid analysis. As Congress searches for agreement on immigration legislation, mistaken claims that the Senate bill would bust the budget only make this already difficult job harder.

    Robert Greenstein is executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. James Horney is a senior fellow at the center and former chief of the budget projections unit at the Congressional Budget Office.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,457
    These authors conveniently leave out the fact that these figures are based on an estimate of 12 million illegal aliens, which is likely to be a gross underestimate. Hence, the real costs in the first 10 years could be much greater. What is also left unsaid is that the costs in the subsequent years once people gain citizenship and can bring families here via chain migration will be far, far greater. These are just the costs that the federal government is able to calculate based on current programs.

    Not factored in are the local costs to hospitals that are never fully reimbursed, costs to citizens and permanent residents in things like higher auto insurance and health insurance premiums to compensate for those without insurance, higher local and state taxes to build schools and other infrastructure to accomodate the population boom, and the loss of earnings for citizens because of the wage suppression and displacement from jobs. Then there are the many quality of life aspects such as higher population density, more crowding, sprawl, traffic, competition for resources like water, loss of open spaces, forest and farm lands, etc, etc.

    There is no end to the ways in which Americans would be hurt by S. 2611.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,457
    If you go to these authors' reports in the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities web site-

    http://www.cbpp.org/

    - you will find the following, which would seem to be completely inconsistent with the rosier picture they are painting in the "border reform" article:


    - Federal Minimum Wage Remains Unchanged for Ninth Straight Year, Falls to Lowest Real Value Since 1955

    - Whose Recovery? Labor Day 2006 Finds Many Americans Not Sharing In The Growing Economy

    - Poverty Remains Higher, and Median Income for Non-Elderly Lower, Than When Recession Hit Bottom

    - Number of Uninsured Americans Is at All-Time High

    - In First Half of 2006, Wages and Salaries Captured Smallest Share of Income on Record: Share Going to Corporate Profits at Highest Level Since 1950

  4. #4
    Senior Member gofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,728
    With over 50% of Hispanics on some type of welfare and the fact a family of four can get over $4,000 in EIC credit, there will be essentially NO tax revenues, but a loss of revenue. It's totally misguided to think otherwise. You add health care, ESL classes, translators for all areas, incarceration costs and the fact there will be a huge bureaucratic costs to administer all this.........the costs become staggering.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    5,262
    Then there is the factor of depressed income for Americans and legal immigrants. If the illegals were not here then the income of the legal unskilled and less skilled would rise. Tax revenues would go up as those workers received more pay.
    I support enforcement and see its lack as bad for the 3rd World as well. Remittances are now mostly spent on consumption not production assets. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •