Congress: Middle class incomes drop as immigration surges

By Paul Bedard | April 23, 2015 | 2:48 pm

Wages of America's middle class have dropped below 1970s levels as immigration has surged 325 percent, according to a new congressional report that questions claims that native Americans are economically helped by greater immigration.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report studied immigration and middle class income from 1945-2013 and found that as immigration slowed between 1945 and 1970, American incomes increased.

But when immigration expanded, the incomes of the bottom 90 percent of Americans went flat and then dropped beginning in 2000.

In the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the CRS reported that the foreign-born population of the United States surged 324.5 percent, from 9,740,000 to 41,348,066, from 1970 to 2013.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.wash...ducers/crs.jpg

And as that happened, incomes of the bottom 90 percent dropped 7.9 percent in 2013 dollars, from an average of $33,621 to $30,980.

The report could throw cold water on congressional efforts to expand immigration for tech and other jobs. One bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch and backed by presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio would boost guest worker levels and remove any cap on green cards for certain foreign graduates of American colleges and universities.

While the CRS did not offer any opinion on immigration and wages, the report's questions and answer section provided details on the link between higher immigration and lower middle class wages.

1. From 1945-1970, what was the net change in the foreign-born population, expressed both as a percentage and numerically?

Answer - The foreign-born population in the United States diminished from 10,971,146 in 1945 to 9,740,000 in 1970, a decline of 1,231,146 persons, representing a percentage decline of 11.2% over this 25 year period.

2. From 1945-1970, how did overall wages change for the bottom 90% of earners?

Answer - The reported income of the bottom 90% of tax filers in the United States increased from an average of $18,418 in 1945 to $33,621 in 1970 for an aggregate change of $15,202 or a percent increase of 82.5% over this 25 year period.

3. From 1945-1970, what was the net change in the share of income held by the bottom 90% of the U.S. income distribution?

Answer - The share of income held by the bottom 90% of the U.S. income distribution increased from 67.4% in 1945 to 68.5% in 1970, an absolute increase of 1.1 percentage points over this 25 year period.

4. From 1970-present, what was the net change in the foreign-born population, expressed both as a percentage and numerically?

Answer - Between 1970 and 2013, the estimated foreign-born population in the United States increased from 9,740,000 to 41,348,066, respectively, an increase of 31,608,066 persons, representing a percentage increase of 324.5% over this 43 year period.

5. From 1970-present, how did overall wages change for the bottom 90% of earners?

Answer - The reported income of the bottom 90% of tax filers in the United States decreased from an average of $33,621 in 1970 to $30,980 in 2013 for an aggregate decline of $2,641 or a percent decline of 7.9% over this 43 year period.

6. From 1970-present, what was the net change in the share of income held by the bottom 90% of the U.S. income distribution?

Answer - The share of income held by the bottom 90% of the U.S. income distribution declined from 68.5% in 1970 to 53.0% in 2013, an absolute decline of 15.5 percentage points over this 43 year period.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/co...rticle/2563515

Thank you again, Jean, for an outstanding article. You are doing such a fantastic job finding these wonderful articles that show a great many people are digging in to learn and report the truth about illegal immigration and legal immigration. For Americans to suffer economically like this at the hands of an inept crooked government is a travesty that's beyond the pale, it's incomprehensible that our government would do such a thing to its own citizens, but it has, and it will continue to do so, until we stop it, because our government is insane, it has no mind or soul, it's a run-away government on the take with the cartels and other criminal interests behind this disaster.

I can see Paul Ryan huddled in a corner with his calculator now, figuring to dispute this bi-partisan report. Boehner and Ryan will explain what the CRS missed to skew their calculation by mid-week next week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

I can see Paul Ryan huddled in a corner with his calculator now, figuring to dispute this bi-partisan report. Boehner and Ryan will explain what the CRS missed to skew their calculation by mid-week next week.

---

Exactly. But, "there's nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide" for these traitors, because the truth is the truth, Americans know it first-hand from their own pocketbooks and wallets. We have the common sense to count our own money and see it's what it used to be, and the intelligence to know that when illegal aliens and new immigrants get all the new jobs in an economy that the rest of US are being screwed, stabbed in the back by our own governments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Exactly. But, "there's nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide" for these traitors, because the truth is the truth, Americans know it first-hand from their own pocketbooks and wallets. We have the common sense to count our own money and see it's what it used to be, and the intelligence to know that when illegal aliens and new immigrants get all the new jobs in an economy that the rest of US are being screwed, stabbed in the back by our own governments.

---

I wish I could put any faith in what you say. They do not need anywhere to run or anywhere to hide. (They hide in plain sight, Washington D.C.) How many of them have acted as representatives for decades, McConnell, Schumer, Reid, McCain, and others, re-elected over and over and over.


America is sinking and going down quickly. Always voters tell me next election, next election. Judy, I hate to say it, but truth is the voters lie to me, too. The truth is what it is, reality is that what voters have delivered and is not what America needs. In that light, more voters have broken promises to me than politicians.

After three decades of talking and making cautionary remarks to people, with no improvement, matter of fact, after each election it got worse, where do I find encouragement.

I think I have to admit that America does NOT want to be saved from itself. By repeating past mistakes we just keep complicating and exacerbating our problems and America is dreadfully addicted to their party system that now is the parties system, no longer the American people's system.

Turn out the lights, the party's over.......unless we redesign our elections and/or some parts thereof so that we really establish honest representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

I wish I could put any faith in what you say. They do not need anywhere to run or anywhere to hide. (They hide in plain sight, Washington D.C.) How many of them have acted as representatives for decades, McConnell, Schumer, Reid, McCain, and others, re-elected over and over and over.


America is sinking and going down quickly. Always voters tell me next election, next election. Judy, I hate to say it, but truth is the voters lie to me, too. The truth is what it is, reality is that what voters have delivered and is not what America needs. In that light, more voters have broken promises to me than politicians.

After three decades of talking and making cautionary remarks to people, with no improvement, matter of fact, after each election it got worse, where do I find encouragement.

I think I have to admit that America does NOT want to be saved from itself. By repeating past mistakes we just keep complicating and exacerbating our problems and America is dreadfully addicted to their party system that now is the parties system, no longer the American people's system.

Turn out the lights, the party's over.......unless we redesign our elections and/or some parts thereof so that we really establish honest representation.

---

No, we must not try to redesign our elections. I don't even support term limits because I truly believe that if a district wants to re-elect someone for 40 years, as Americans, they should be free to do so. I don't support limits on campaign spending either, for the same reason. I know a lot of people are upset over the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision, but for as long as we have income tax, these companies and corporate contributors have every right to their taxes with representation. One of the reasons I so favor the FairTax is that as soon as we eliminate the corporate income tax which the FairTax does, then we can easily abandon all corporate contributions to political campaigns. They can still run their ads on whatever issue that concerns them, but they can't contribute a dime of corporate money to any political campaign and would have no argument to the contrary, because the rights they've claimed have all been based on the theory of no mandatory taxation without representation which entitles them to representation if they are taxed.

I believe in our system of elections and representation, but even great systems can go wrong, and ours has gone wrong, not because of the system, but because of corruption, dishonesty, lies over truth, and tricks over representation, and this is the human element, the people we have elected, because we weren't vigilant enough in getting our messages out and making known in a clear and concise manner, what the will of the people of the United States actually is based on the truth.

The truth is coming out now and look how fast things are happening. Sessions, Abbott, Vitter, King, Goodlatte, Gowdy, Brooks, and so many more are working their butts off to help us solve this problem, and hopefully a few other problems as well. Look at how fast Walker turned with just a couple of meetings with Sessions and Abbott, and there will be more, because no one can run on a platform different than what Walker is now on and expect to win in 2016. With what's happening on the Presidential level, what Senator or Representative could possibly hope to win running on a different platform? What politician can win an election running against the best interests of Americans and American Workers when someone else on the ticket is running for US?

This will be an historic election where the Power of 2, (Abbott and Sessions) produced the Power of 1 (Scott Walker), that became the restoration of the power of the people of the United States. What idiot would donate to someone with an opposing platform?

You know the Koch Brothers get a lot of bad press, primarily instigated by Democrats. They get blamed for wanting more immigration, yet I can't find any statement so far where they support such a thing. They may, but I can't verify it. They started an Hispanic Outreach Program through one of their foundations, but I believe that's like the Ford Foundation that Henry Ford resigned from because the Board had turned it into something he didn't believe in. Unfortunately, he couldn't undo the money he'd given them, so it continues to disgrace the Ford family and marches on to this day doing bad things to America.

That's another reason I support the FairTax because it puts an end to the temptation of wealthy people who want to "give back" and "do good" from having their donations which they make primarily to avoid income tax from being confiscated by socialists and communists doing things that are completely contrary to the core values and beliefs of our country through these phony 501 C 3 orgies, for which no tax benefit should be allowed because there is no "charity" involved, and are in effect tax fraud "charities".

Judy wrote:

Quote:

---

I don't even support term limits because I truly believe that if a district wants to re-elect someone for 40 years, as Americans, they should be free to do so. I don't support limits on campaign spending either, for the same reason.

---

Two points that I strongly disagree with. I support both, term limits and limits on campaign spending.

Here is an excellent argument for term limits:

Quote:

---

Arguments for and against term limits

May 30, 2014 Bob Weeks Leave a comment
From RestartCongress.org.
Arguments for term limits

• With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They will have to live under the laws they have created while in office.
• Members of Congress will have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby undermining the threat of lobbyists being a primary influence on legislation.
• Since the time of the Founding Fathers, a general consensus states that people, when given power, will eventually be corrupted by it. If Congress has term limits in place, their power will also be limited. Candidates will be more likely to run for the purpose of serving the people, and they would have to leave office before corruption dominates their decisions.
• Congress is heavily entrenched in partisan politics, resulting in gridlock when trying to pass any legislation. If term limits were enacted, toeing the party line would be less important, as the need for re-election and holding onto party seats would no longer be the driving force behind most legislative decisions. Congress would have an easier time passing the legislation that would make a positive difference for the nation.
• Money is a major factor in who will win an election. Incumbents have the benefit of the profits they made while in power — plus the backing of their party, contributing organizations and special interests — to get re-elected. However, these wealthy incumbents are often not the best person for the job, as they are so far-removed from the daily realities of the American people. A middle class person who better understands the problems facing the average citizen is highly unlikely to get elected over a wealthy incumbent. Term limits will help to eliminate the shady, profitable relationships between members of Congress and special interest groups, and therefore reduce the wealth gap between candidates. In turn, more qualified people will have a real opportunity to win elections.
• Within Congress, most legislation is written by a committee that handles a specific duty or topic. Committee appointments can be very prized positions for the power, influence and financial backing that can be attained. These positions are often assigned based on political favors and a willingness to support causes or projects. Therefore, career politicians who have formed the most self-serving relationships can often be given the most power in Congress. Term limits would work to stop this cycle of political reward and power abuse. Committee assignments would be determined by merit and expertise, resulting in fair and informed decisions.

The arguments against term limits

Career politicians should be valued for their experience. If we regularly fill a Congressional office with a newcomer, we will lose the valuable experience on-the-job that person can offer in government.

• On occasion, there may be a member of Congress that has fought for his constituents and resisted the corrupt system of power abuse that is considered normal on Capitol Hill. The Founding Fathers discussed the need for a “rotation of office.” When one’s terms are up in one office, that politician can run for another office (such as a member of the House running for Senator, Governor, etc.) and put their experience to use in other helpful ways.
• The notion that only one person — the incumbent — can do the job well is absurd. Problematically, we continue to elect the incumbent because of name recognition and party affiliation rather than a proven track record. Realistically, there is usually someone just as qualified to take over the incumbent’s office.

Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else.

• While this would happen in an ideal world, historically the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time. The playing field is simply not level between incumbents and challenging candidates because of the ability to raise money. In 2010, the average incumbent in the House raised around $1.4 million, while the challengers averaged $166,000. In the same year, Senate incumbents averaged $9.4 million for each campaign, while challengers raised $519,000. With that incredible discrepancy, it is no surprise that the incumbent usually prevails. If a member of Congress is limited to one or two terms, the party itself and other major donors would not invest nearly as much in an incumbent, giving challengers a better chance of winning the race.

Term limits would give more power to bureaucrats and lobbyists.

• This argument is based in the notion that incoming legislators will be entirely unqualified for their jobs and will be easily led astray by staff, bureaucrats, special interests, etc. The way the system works today suggests that the real problem is in longevity of office and the complacency that can come along with it. For instance, lobbyists invest heavily in long-term relationships with sitting legislators. Congress members currently shirk many responsibilities by delegating them to bureaucratic agencies.
• Term limits have the potential to greatly reduce these problems. When more Congressional races are won by challengers from outside the Beltway, this change is likely to bring new staffers with new ideas into Washington, rather than recycling the same old corrupt insiders.

Term limits are unconstitutional.

• Clearly this is not the case, as the President of the United States is limited to two terms because of a Constitutional Amendment. A 28th Amendment would be necessary to impose term limits for Congress, and that is precisely what we are seeking. Since Congress will not willingly do so on their own, it is imperative that Americans make their voice heard on this issue.

---

http://wichitaliberty.org/politics/a...s-term-limits/

As for unlimited campaign spending, it just breeds corruption by making elected politicians indebted to their heavy special interest and corporate donors.

Term limits and limits on campaign spending are supported by the majority of the voting public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



Two points that I strongly disagree with. I support both, term limits and limits on campaign spending.

Here is an excellent argument for term limits:



http://wichitaliberty.org/politics/a...s-term-limits/

As for unlimited campaign spending, it just breeds corruption by making elected politicians indebted to their heavy special interest and corporate donors.

Term limits and limits on campaign spending are supported by the majority of the voting public.

---

Well, I disagree, obviously. It strikes me as bizarre that you want someone's income taxes based on their ability to pay yet you feel you have the right to restrict what they contribute to a political campaign. As for your source on term limits, I can't support a "liberty" organization that wants to restrict the people's right to elect a candidate as many times as they want to.

Restricting liberty and freedom is not how you fix the United States. If we'd had Presidential term limits during WWII, it's highly likely there would have been a far different outcome because we would have had a different President. People touting "term limits" need to think about that. And, frankly, I can't see that our country is any better off with Presidential term limits. It seems to me we're in quite a mess and have been for quite awhile because of it, because our country ends up with that lame duck term where the President can't even try to run for another term and this turns them into scoundels for the most part with nothing to lose.

As to Congressional term limits, our beloved Jeff Sessions has served since 1997 in the US Senate. If limited to 2 terms, he wouldn't even be in the US Senate, let alone Chairman of the all-important House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration doing his fine work. If limited to 3 terms, his third term would have ended last year. You need to think hard about these things before you take a position.

People who want to restrict the liberty of US citizens or limit our choices, are not finding the real solutions to our actual problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Well, I disagree, obviously. It strikes me as bizarre that you want someone's income taxes based on their ability to pay yet you feel you have the right to restrict what they contribute to a political campaign. As for your source on term limits, I can't support a "liberty" organization that wants to restrict the people's right to elect a candidate as many times as they want to.

Restricting liberty and freedom is not how you fix the United States. If we'd had Presidential term limits during WWII, it's highly likely there would have been a far different outcome because we would have had a different President. People touting "term limits" need to think about that. And, frankly, I can't see that our country is any better off with Presidential term limits. It seems to me we're in quite a mess and have been for quite awhile because of it, because our country ends up with that lame duck term where the President can't even try to run for another term and this turns them into scoundels for the most part with nothing to lose.

As to Congressional term limits, our beloved Jeff Sessions has served since 1997 in the US Senate. If limited to 2 terms, he wouldn't even be in the US Senate, let alone Chairman of the all-important House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration doing his fine work. If limited to 3 terms, his third term would have ended last year. You need to think hard about these things before you take a position.

People who want to restrict the liberty of US citizens or limit our choices, are not finding the real solutions to our actual problems.

---

You're certainly entitled to your minority opinion. ;)

Yep, term limits would have removed Sessions but McCain, Graham, Schumar, Pelosi, Reid, etc., etc., would have also been long gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

You're certainly entitled to your minority opinion. ;)

Yep, term limits would have removed Sessions but McCain, Graham, Schumar, Pelosi, Reid, etc., etc., would have also been long gone.

---

And they would have been replaced with people like Luis Guiterrez and Barack Obama. It's not the people, it's their positions. We have to convince American Voters of what's right on these issues and offer solutions that actually solve the problems, then we have a chance to change the composition of the US Congress in a manner that actually serves our country and citizens.

I understand why people think term limits are the answer, (less of bad is better), I just know they aren't, because you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. And if people stop and think about it, they'll realize that restricting voter liberty and choices is not the answer in a free country of free citizens, the answer is making sure our citizens are educated enough on the issues to elect people on their positions and reject people with positions that hurt our citizens and country.

Another example of how term limits would have hurt our country is Senator Everett Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois, who served in the US Congress from 1933 until his death in 1969, 1933 to 1949 in the US House of Representatives and 1951 until 1969 when he died at the age of 73 in his fourth term as a US Senator. Dirksen wrote the US Civil Rights Acts that passed in a Democrat-gutted version in 1957, a comprise version to end a Democratic filibuster in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He had devoted his entire Congressional career to civil rights. On the negative, he was also one of the strongest advocates in the Senate for the War in Vietnam. It was Dirksen as Minority Leader who overcame the Democratic filibuster in 1964 of the US Civil Rights Act with a compromise version of his original bill. But it was also Dirksen who convinced Lyndon Johnson to escalate the War in Vietnam.

The recent GOP is largely responsible for many of the anomalies in our Congress with the GOP Platform on personal issues that alienate and offend social liberals and women voters. Ironically, these are the same personal issues that prevent solvency and sustainability that correlate directly with fiscal and economic instability, so the GOPers who on the one hand believe they are fiscal conservatives, really aren't, because their views on the personal issues make them fiscal liberals funding increased poverty, increased poverty spending, and increased federal taxes and/or public debt to support it. It's something the social conservatives in the GOP need to reflect upon.

People forget that we are not actually a Democracy, we are a Free Republic, and there is a difference, a very important difference, and thank God for that. Otherwise, we would already be a Socialist/Communist nation wearing uniforms with numbers tattooed on our foreheads living under the Tyranny of the Majority. Instead we are a Free Republic with majority rule couched with the needed protections of the minority, where ironically, the true values of liberty and freedom often reside, probably because a great many people can't understand or lack the vicarious empathy needed to understand the pain of authoritarianism that they've never experienced themselves.

Our Declaration of Independence was very clear on inalienable rights, and these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The latter is such an odd phrase when thinking of government, but under our national definition of independence, our founders were wise enough to include this simple, elementary, fundamental belief that our citizens are to be not only alive and free, but happy, and that it is our government's responsibility to protect those rights. How far we strayed from that with massive immigration, income taxes, free trade treason, the War on Drugs, and so much more, and how much work we have to do to restore the secured blessings of liberty and the domestic tranquility of our nation for all our citizens, as promised by the Constitution of the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

And they would have been replaced with people like Luis Guiterrez and Barack Obama. It's not the people, it's their positions. We have to convince American Voters of what's right on these issues and offer solutions that actually solve the problems, then we have a chance to change the composition of the US Congress in a manner that actually serves our country and citizens.

I understand why people think term limits are the answer, (less of bad is better), I just know they aren't, because you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. And if people stop and think about it, they'll realize that restricting voter liberty and choices is not the answer in a free country of free citizens, the answer is making sure our citizens are educated enough on the issues to elect people on their positions and reject people with positions that hurt our citizens and country.

Another example of how term limits would have hurt our country is Senator Everett Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois, who served in the US Congress from 1933 until his death in 1969, 1933 to 1949 in the US House of Representatives and 1951 until 1969 when he died at the age of 73 in his fourth term as a US Senator. Dirksen wrote the US Civil Rights Acts that passed in a Democrat-gutted version in 1957, a comprise version to end a Democratic filibuster in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He had devoted his entire Congressional career to civil rights. On the negative, he was also one of the strongest advocates in the Senate for the War in Vietnam. It was Dirksen as Minority Leader who overcame the Democratic filibuster in 1964 of the US Civil Rights Act with a compromise version of his original bill. But it was also Dirksen who convinced Lyndon Johnson to escalate the War in Vietnam.

The recent GOP is largely responsible for many of the anomalies in our Congress with the GOP Platform on personal issues that alienate and offend social liberals and women voters. Ironically, these are the same personal issues that prevent solvency and sustainability that correlate directly with fiscal and economic instability, so the GOPers who on the one hand believe they are fiscal conservatives, really aren't, because their views on the personal issues make them fiscal liberals funding increased poverty, increased poverty spending, and increased federal taxes and/or public debt to support it. It's something the social conservatives in the GOP need to reflect upon.

People forget that we are not actually a Democracy, we are a Free Republic, and there is a difference, a very important difference, and thank God for that. Otherwise, we would already be a Socialist/Communist nation wearing uniforms with numbers tattooed on our foreheads living under the Tyranny of the Majority. Instead we are a Free Republic with majority rule couched with the needed protections of the minority, where ironically, the true values of liberty and freedom often reside, probably because a great many people can't understand or lack the vicarious empathy needed to understand the pain of authoritarianism that they've never experienced themselves.

Our Declaration of Independence was very clear on inalienable rights, and these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The latter is such an odd phrase when thinking of government, but under our national definition of independence, our founders were wise enough to include this simple, elementary, fundamental belief that our citizens are to be not only alive and free, but happy, and that it is our government's responsibility to protect those rights. How far we strayed from that with massive immigration, income taxes, free trade treason, the War on Drugs, and so much more, and how much work we have to do to restore the secured blessings of liberty and the domestic tranquility of our nation for all our citizens, as promised by the Constitution of the United States.

---

For every example you give of why term limits are not a good thing, I could probably give you two examples of why term limits would be a good thing. So, I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat argument with you on the issue. Just saying .....

Oh sure, that's fine, MW, and I'm sure you could. I'm just saying I stand with the liberty and choices of American voters to elect who they want without term restriction. I've seen no good at all come from term restrictions on the President and see none that would come from placing term restrictions on members of Congress. I would support a decrease in their salaries. Serving in Congress was supposed to be a public service, not a career that pays better than 90% of the people they're elected to serve. The irony of people earning over $174,000 a year plus their benefits and enormous expense accounts opposing equal pay for women and increasing the minimum wage is way beyond enough to make me want to puke. But we don't hear much about that inequity or incongruity. Maybe we will soon. After all, that is an American Aristocracy we created ourselves by supporting these pay increases.

No wonder they never want to leave and go back home and work at Walmart on the night shift, which is all most of them are truly qualified to do, and even then, they'd probably run customers out of the store, so even then .... they might not make the cut. It also makes me want to laugh to listen to a bunch of politicians who have spent their whole lives living off the public politician dole babble about a free enterprise system they clearly know absolutely nothing about, one way or the other, and couldn't see the smoke from the mirrors if they're lives depended on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I don't even support term limits because I truly believe that if a district wants to re-elect someone for 40 years, as Americans, they should be free to do so.

---

One problem with term limits is that it takes a while for elected representatives to develop expertise in specialized fields. In the absence of governmental expertise, the door is wide open for lobbyists to, in effect, write legislation.

I remain worried about unlimited spending, because IMO current regulations prevent transparency. Between weak requirements re identifying the source of funds and weak requirement re timely disclosure, it can be easy for special interests to mislead people.
**********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Thank you again, Jean, for an outstanding article. You are doing such a fantastic job finding these wonderful articles that show a great many people are digging in to learn and report the truth about illegal immigration and legal immigration.

---

+1
**********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Boehner and Ryan will explain what the CRS missed to skew their calculation by mid-week next week.

---

I'd love to agree with this, but can't because I can't see the mainstream press pursuing it. More likely, IMO, is that Boehner and Ryan will ignore it or say something like, We'll look into it. Either way, it's end of story.
**************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

Americanj jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vistalad

One problem with term limits is that it takes a while for elected representatives to develop expertise in specialized fields. In the absence of governmental expertise, the door is wide open for lobbyists to, in effect, write legislation.

I remain worried about unlimited spending, because IMO current regulations prevent transparency. Between weak requirements re identifying the source of funds and weak requirement re timely disclosure, it can be easy for special interests to mislead people.
**********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

---

I have concerns with corporate spending, which is why I want the FairTax so we can prohibit corporate contributions to election campaigns. Corporations can't vote and should have no rights to contribute to political campaigns directly or indirectly. They're free to lobby in the sense of expressing their views, free to run advertisements to make known their views and positions, free to inform, influence and persuade on issues pertinent to their company and business interests, but there should be no money flowing from corporations to politicians for election purposes. None. No Chamber of Commerce, no American Bar Association, no American Medical Association, no Association of business or incorporated entities, Inc, LLC, PLC, GP or otherwise should be able to contribute to political campaigns, neither should Unions, Churches or Charities.

The only organizations that should be able to contribute to political campaigns are organizations comprised of resident individuals like the 501 C 4 lobbying organizations and these organizations should be able to cross donate to each other, but the donors must be individuals, not corporations or any type of entity that shields the owners from liability or any type of business sole proprietorship. There should also be no foreign money invested in our political campaigns, none, zero, zip.

These incorporated entities and associations would of course be free to speak out, endorse candidates, write letters to the editors, advertise and so forth, but they can not contribute to a political campaign. What is happening is bribery, plain and simple, in a cartel type manner, but because we tax them, they're entitled to "representation", and until we stop taxing them, we're stuck with the mess we have.

The FairTax solves that, legally, financially, and clears the way to actually solve the problem, does so in a correct and proper uniform manner, and puts the power of our country back with the people it belongs to, so we are truly the nation of the people, by the people and for the people, we were formed to be.

Main issues I see with no term limits is after so many years they always get sucked up into the big money game and lose focus of why many ran into politics in the first place wanting to do some good. But IF we could get rid of big money, lobbyists, and the way campaigns are currently done maybe having term limits wouldn't be so needed. But as it stands once you join that big political big money machine your in and its hard as hell for anyone to run against and dislodge them because a regular joe or jane with the support of the average people just can't get the money needed to get their message out there for people to notice. Those controling what messages can be seen and can't be seen are the ones pulling the money and the strings with the long term politicians.

Still I think term limits to some extent are a good thing especially on the courts. A judge hack who's appointed by a politician liar shouldn't be able to sit on the bench for life unless they commit murder. So many judges out there have no business on the bench and don't side with the law but instead come up with nonsense *new interpretations* to get their political side's views across. At this point a judge on the SCOTUS is more powerful then any Senator, House Rep, or even President on most matters. They have no real way to be gotten rid of other then death.

Excerpt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Main issues I see with no term limits is after so many years they always get sucked up into the big money game and lose focus of why many ran into politics in the first place wanting to do some good. But IF we could get rid of big money, lobbyists, and the way campaigns are currently done maybe having term limits wouldn't be so needed. But as it stands once you join that big political big money machine your in and its hard as hell for anyone to run against and dislodge them because a regular joe or jane with the support of the average people just can't get the money needed to get their message out there for people to notice. Those controling what messages can be seen and can't be seen are the ones pulling the money and the strings with the long term politicians.

---

Well said, ReformUSA2012!

Judy wrote:

Quote:

---

And they would have been replaced with people like Luis Guiterrez and Barack Obama.

---

You can't possibly know that, not unless you have a wart, wear a pointy hat, and have a crystal ball. :o

Judy Wrote:

Quote:

---

It strikes me as bizarre that you want someone's income taxes based on their ability to pay

---

When did you hear me say that? Just because I don't support your so-called Fair Tax plan doesn't mean I don't think everyone shouldn't pay their fair share in taxes. The so-called Fair Tax plan you keep pushing has too many pitfalls to actually be considered a viable alternative to our current system. I'm all for tax reform, just not the plan your constantly pushing on us. Just saying .........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



You can't possibly know that, not unless you have a wart, wear a pointy hat, and have a crystal ball. :o

Judy Wrote:



When did you hear me say that? Just because I don't support your so-called Fair Tax plan doesn't mean I don't think everyone shouldn't pay their fair share in taxes. The so-called Fair Tax plan you keep pushing has too many pitfalls to actually be considered a viable alternative to our current system. I'm all for tax reform, just not the plan your constantly pushing on us. Just saying .........

---

Well, who do you think they would be replaced with? You think it's someone we would want? If that's the case, then we'd already have a Congress full of them, but we don't, so the only way to build a good Congress is to keep the good ones and remove and replace the bad ones.

Fair share has nothing to do with either the income tax or the FairTax. In fact, there is no such thing and there can't be such a thing. When the FairTax talks about Fair, it's not talking about "fair share", it's talking about fair rules, where everyone is treated the same, which may be "fair share" or not, that depends on the specifics of the situation. Maybe that's why you're confused about the FairTax legislation.

And yes, I will continue to constantly push the FairTax, because it re-establishes protected trade and helps us stop illegal immigration. Illegal aliens will no longer receive tax credit welfare, they don't receive the FairTax Rebate, yet they have to pay the FairTaxes on their purchases of new goods and services. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage when trying to undercut American Workers who receive the Rebate. In addition, the FairTax for all practical purposes gets rid of all these phony 501 C 3 "charity" income tax frauds who use their organizations to support immigration. There will still be 501 C 3 entities, but under the FairTax, they're treated the same as any other business.

There's no reason on God's Green Earth that every person who wants to stop illegal immigration, bring an end to free trade treason, and put Americans back to work with better wages and more net disposable income to live on would not support the FairTax.

So, the FairTax is my litmus test for politicians and other people as well who are actually serious about fixing our country.