OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.[/quote]

Not necessarily true. In many cases, you can have politicians who are very adversarial WRT unions. Like I’ve said many times before, unions have been making concessions for YEARS now. What’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about concessions; it’s about collective bargaining and eliminating unions.

These local government representatives are in their positions because VOTERS put them there, not unions. Are unions a special interest group? Sure, just like all the private enterprises who seek taxpayer money, too. At least, with public unions, we are getting something for our money. They provide the physical, social, and legal infrastructure which all people and employers rely on in order to make our economy work. Without them, there would be no middle class, no democratic laws, no emergency services (good luck calling 911!), no free/low-cost public libraries, far fewer literate people, etc.

With private entities in control of our public resources, the money that gets funnelled to the very top (which will be most of the wealth) can go anywhere it wants — overseas, or in commodities which push prices up for poor people around the world, etc. — whereas a public employee’s salary tends to recirculate back through the local economy…the economy that benefits all those taxpayers who pay for their services.

Like it or not we need a balance of power. Right now, the financial elite/corporatists have FAR too much power. The only entities with the size and power to counter them are the unions. For as long as that’s the case, we need to support unions, or else risk total privatization of all public assets and services; and I guarantee you that won’t end up being either cheaper or better. Joe Sixpack will NOT benefit from that arrangement.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?[/quote]

Brian,

When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.

If “capitalism” means we’re all deep in debt, and will have to dedicate the majority of the fruits of our labor to the most wealthy people in this country (who all own private jets, multiple mansions, yachts, and can go on exotic vacations every month while J6 struggles to feed his family); sitting in the middle of a pile of cheap, toxic, plastic crap from China; losing good jobs in favor of minimum-wage-paying retail jobs; being unable to provide for ourselves in an emergency because we’ve emptied our factories and rendered our working people useless…give me socialism any day.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?[/quote]

Brian,

When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.

If “capitalism” means we’re all deep in debt, and will have to dedicate the majority of the fruits of our labor to the most wealthy people in this country (who all own private jets, multiple mansions, yachts, and can go on exotic vacations every month while J6 struggles to feed his family); sitting in the middle of a pile of cheap, toxic, plastic crap from China; losing good jobs in favor of minimum-wage-paying retail jobs; being unable to provide for ourselves in an emergency because we’ve emptied our factories and rendered our working people useless…give me socialism any day.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?[/quote]

Brian,

When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.

If “capitalism” means we’re all deep in debt, and will have to dedicate the majority of the fruits of our labor to the most wealthy people in this country (who all own private jets, multiple mansions, yachts, and can go on exotic vacations every month while J6 struggles to feed his family); sitting in the middle of a pile of cheap, toxic, plastic crap from China; losing good jobs in favor of minimum-wage-paying retail jobs; being unable to provide for ourselves in an emergency because we’ve emptied our factories and rendered our working people useless…give me socialism any day.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?[/quote]

Brian,

When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.

If “capitalism” means we’re all deep in debt, and will have to dedicate the majority of the fruits of our labor to the most wealthy people in this country (who all own private jets, multiple mansions, yachts, and can go on exotic vacations every month while J6 struggles to feed his family); sitting in the middle of a pile of cheap, toxic, plastic crap from China; losing good jobs in favor of minimum-wage-paying retail jobs; being unable to provide for ourselves in an emergency because we’ve emptied our factories and rendered our working people useless…give me socialism any day.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?[/quote]

Brian,

When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.

If “capitalism” means we’re all deep in debt, and will have to dedicate the majority of the fruits of our labor to the most wealthy people in this country (who all own private jets, multiple mansions, yachts, and can go on exotic vacations every month while J6 struggles to feed his family); sitting in the middle of a pile of cheap, toxic, plastic crap from China; losing good jobs in favor of minimum-wage-paying retail jobs; being unable to provide for ourselves in an emergency because we’ve emptied our factories and rendered our working people useless…give me socialism any day.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.[/quote]

All solutions will take time to implement. If the “emergency” is dire enough to void contracts with employees, then it’s dire enough to immediately make the changes I’ve recommended above.

[quote=briansd1]Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?[/quote]

I’d be happy to visit each state and see what I can do. 😉

Actually, I think it only requires minor tweaking in many cases. In Wisconsin, it’s my understanding that the entire “deficit” is due to recent tax cuts. Reverse those, and the “budget crisis” is fixed.

[quote=briansd1]BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.[/quote]

Prop 13 was sold as a way to “keep granny from being taxed out of her home.” I’m all for it as far as a SINGLE, PRIMARY RESIDENCE goes, and I even favor it for a single commercial building (possibly, some size exemptions, but not sure about that).

Prop 13 would never have passed if it was sold as a way to increase investors’/landlords’ profit margins, nor if it were proposed as a way to keep property taxes down for people who have “vacation homes” in California (displacing local workers and residents). Not a chance.

Also, there is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize corporations/LLCs who don’t want to pay taxes on the value at which they bought the property.

It’s not a tax increase as much as it’s the removal of a tax subsidy that should never have been there in the first place.

As for enforcing the rule requiring employers to pay for their “illegal” labor force, we have E-Verify, already:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

If an applicant isn’t here legally, they have to list their dependents, and a set fee (paid monthly by the employer) will be required in order to pay for these dependents. The dependents get a number that enables them to attend public schools, use hospitals, etc. All public institutions would be required to demand proof of citizenship, legal residency, or “dependent status” (via the number/I.D. — can use fingerprint or iris scan for verification) of one of these workers.

We wouldn’t be enforcing federal law, as we’re not deporting anyone or dealing with border issues. We’d just be making sure that the responsible parties are the ones paying for it. All costs associated with this program would be factored into this “fee” the employers would have to pay for dependents.

[quote=briansd1]And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.[/quote]

The “American Way” does not include rewarding criminal behavior. Rewarding criminal behavior begets more criminal behavior, so it needs to stop.

My mother was an immigrant, so it’s not about “immigrant-bashing.” It’s about making sure we don’t take on more than we can handle, and ensuring the well-being of our citizens before taking on the burdens of others. I know you have a more “global” approach, and that’s fine. We just disagree.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.[/quote]

All solutions will take time to implement. If the “emergency” is dire enough to void contracts with employees, then it’s dire enough to immediately make the changes I’ve recommended above.

[quote=briansd1]Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?[/quote]

I’d be happy to visit each state and see what I can do. 😉

Actually, I think it only requires minor tweaking in many cases. In Wisconsin, it’s my understanding that the entire “deficit” is due to recent tax cuts. Reverse those, and the “budget crisis” is fixed.

[quote=briansd1]BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.[/quote]

Prop 13 was sold as a way to “keep granny from being taxed out of her home.” I’m all for it as far as a SINGLE, PRIMARY RESIDENCE goes, and I even favor it for a single commercial building (possibly, some size exemptions, but not sure about that).

Prop 13 would never have passed if it was sold as a way to increase investors’/landlords’ profit margins, nor if it were proposed as a way to keep property taxes down for people who have “vacation homes” in California (displacing local workers and residents). Not a chance.

Also, there is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize corporations/LLCs who don’t want to pay taxes on the value at which they bought the property.

It’s not a tax increase as much as it’s the removal of a tax subsidy that should never have been there in the first place.

As for enforcing the rule requiring employers to pay for their “illegal” labor force, we have E-Verify, already:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

If an applicant isn’t here legally, they have to list their dependents, and a set fee (paid monthly by the employer) will be required in order to pay for these dependents. The dependents get a number that enables them to attend public schools, use hospitals, etc. All public institutions would be required to demand proof of citizenship, legal residency, or “dependent status” (via the number/I.D. — can use fingerprint or iris scan for verification) of one of these workers.

We wouldn’t be enforcing federal law, as we’re not deporting anyone or dealing with border issues. We’d just be making sure that the responsible parties are the ones paying for it. All costs associated with this program would be factored into this “fee” the employers would have to pay for dependents.

[quote=briansd1]And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.[/quote]

The “American Way” does not include rewarding criminal behavior. Rewarding criminal behavior begets more criminal behavior, so it needs to stop.

My mother was an immigrant, so it’s not about “immigrant-bashing.” It’s about making sure we don’t take on more than we can handle, and ensuring the well-being of our citizens before taking on the burdens of others. I know you have a more “global” approach, and that’s fine. We just disagree.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.[/quote]

All solutions will take time to implement. If the “emergency” is dire enough to void contracts with employees, then it’s dire enough to immediately make the changes I’ve recommended above.

[quote=briansd1]Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?[/quote]

I’d be happy to visit each state and see what I can do. 😉

Actually, I think it only requires minor tweaking in many cases. In Wisconsin, it’s my understanding that the entire “deficit” is due to recent tax cuts. Reverse those, and the “budget crisis” is fixed.

[quote=briansd1]BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.[/quote]

Prop 13 was sold as a way to “keep granny from being taxed out of her home.” I’m all for it as far as a SINGLE, PRIMARY RESIDENCE goes, and I even favor it for a single commercial building (possibly, some size exemptions, but not sure about that).

Prop 13 would never have passed if it was sold as a way to increase investors’/landlords’ profit margins, nor if it were proposed as a way to keep property taxes down for people who have “vacation homes” in California (displacing local workers and residents). Not a chance.

Also, there is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize corporations/LLCs who don’t want to pay taxes on the value at which they bought the property.

It’s not a tax increase as much as it’s the removal of a tax subsidy that should never have been there in the first place.

As for enforcing the rule requiring employers to pay for their “illegal” labor force, we have E-Verify, already:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

If an applicant isn’t here legally, they have to list their dependents, and a set fee (paid monthly by the employer) will be required in order to pay for these dependents. The dependents get a number that enables them to attend public schools, use hospitals, etc. All public institutions would be required to demand proof of citizenship, legal residency, or “dependent status” (via the number/I.D. — can use fingerprint or iris scan for verification) of one of these workers.

We wouldn’t be enforcing federal law, as we’re not deporting anyone or dealing with border issues. We’d just be making sure that the responsible parties are the ones paying for it. All costs associated with this program would be factored into this “fee” the employers would have to pay for dependents.

[quote=briansd1]And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.[/quote]

The “American Way” does not include rewarding criminal behavior. Rewarding criminal behavior begets more criminal behavior, so it needs to stop.

My mother was an immigrant, so it’s not about “immigrant-bashing.” It’s about making sure we don’t take on more than we can handle, and ensuring the well-being of our citizens before taking on the burdens of others. I know you have a more “global” approach, and that’s fine. We just disagree.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.[/quote]

All solutions will take time to implement. If the “emergency” is dire enough to void contracts with employees, then it’s dire enough to immediately make the changes I’ve recommended above.

[quote=briansd1]Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?[/quote]

I’d be happy to visit each state and see what I can do. 😉

Actually, I think it only requires minor tweaking in many cases. In Wisconsin, it’s my understanding that the entire “deficit” is due to recent tax cuts. Reverse those, and the “budget crisis” is fixed.

[quote=briansd1]BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.[/quote]

Prop 13 was sold as a way to “keep granny from being taxed out of her home.” I’m all for it as far as a SINGLE, PRIMARY RESIDENCE goes, and I even favor it for a single commercial building (possibly, some size exemptions, but not sure about that).

Prop 13 would never have passed if it was sold as a way to increase investors’/landlords’ profit margins, nor if it were proposed as a way to keep property taxes down for people who have “vacation homes” in California (displacing local workers and residents). Not a chance.

Also, there is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize corporations/LLCs who don’t want to pay taxes on the value at which they bought the property.

It’s not a tax increase as much as it’s the removal of a tax subsidy that should never have been there in the first place.

As for enforcing the rule requiring employers to pay for their “illegal” labor force, we have E-Verify, already:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

If an applicant isn’t here legally, they have to list their dependents, and a set fee (paid monthly by the employer) will be required in order to pay for these dependents. The dependents get a number that enables them to attend public schools, use hospitals, etc. All public institutions would be required to demand proof of citizenship, legal residency, or “dependent status” (via the number/I.D. — can use fingerprint or iris scan for verification) of one of these workers.

We wouldn’t be enforcing federal law, as we’re not deporting anyone or dealing with border issues. We’d just be making sure that the responsible parties are the ones paying for it. All costs associated with this program would be factored into this “fee” the employers would have to pay for dependents.

[quote=briansd1]And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.[/quote]

The “American Way” does not include rewarding criminal behavior. Rewarding criminal behavior begets more criminal behavior, so it needs to stop.

My mother was an immigrant, so it’s not about “immigrant-bashing.” It’s about making sure we don’t take on more than we can handle, and ensuring the well-being of our citizens before taking on the burdens of others. I know you have a more “global” approach, and that’s fine. We just disagree.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.[/quote]

All solutions will take time to implement. If the “emergency” is dire enough to void contracts with employees, then it’s dire enough to immediately make the changes I’ve recommended above.

[quote=briansd1]Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?[/quote]

I’d be happy to visit each state and see what I can do. 😉

Actually, I think it only requires minor tweaking in many cases. In Wisconsin, it’s my understanding that the entire “deficit” is due to recent tax cuts. Reverse those, and the “budget crisis” is fixed.

[quote=briansd1]BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.[/quote]

Prop 13 was sold as a way to “keep granny from being taxed out of her home.” I’m all for it as far as a SINGLE, PRIMARY RESIDENCE goes, and I even favor it for a single commercial building (possibly, some size exemptions, but not sure about that).

Prop 13 would never have passed if it was sold as a way to increase investors’/landlords’ profit margins, nor if it were proposed as a way to keep property taxes down for people who have “vacation homes” in California (displacing local workers and residents). Not a chance.

Also, there is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize corporations/LLCs who don’t want to pay taxes on the value at which they bought the property.

It’s not a tax increase as much as it’s the removal of a tax subsidy that should never have been there in the first place.

As for enforcing the rule requiring employers to pay for their “illegal” labor force, we have E-Verify, already:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e7f29589cdb76210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

If an applicant isn’t here legally, they have to list their dependents, and a set fee (paid monthly by the employer) will be required in order to pay for these dependents. The dependents get a number that enables them to attend public schools, use hospitals, etc. All public institutions would be required to demand proof of citizenship, legal residency, or “dependent status” (via the number/I.D. — can use fingerprint or iris scan for verification) of one of these workers.

We wouldn’t be enforcing federal law, as we’re not deporting anyone or dealing with border issues. We’d just be making sure that the responsible parties are the ones paying for it. All costs associated with this program would be factored into this “fee” the employers would have to pay for dependents.

[quote=briansd1]And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.[/quote]

The “American Way” does not include rewarding criminal behavior. Rewarding criminal behavior begets more criminal behavior, so it needs to stop.

My mother was an immigrant, so it’s not about “immigrant-bashing.” It’s about making sure we don’t take on more than we can handle, and ensuring the well-being of our citizens before taking on the burdens of others. I know you have a more “global” approach, and that’s fine. We just disagree.

[jpinpb]

CAR – when are you running? You have my vote. At a minimum, maybe you can make a trip to Sacramento and offer your input free of charge. I think Jerry might listen.

[jpinpb]

CAR – when are you running? You have my vote. At a minimum, maybe you can make a trip to Sacramento and offer your input free of charge. I think Jerry might listen.

[jpinpb]

CAR – when are you running? You have my vote. At a minimum, maybe you can make a trip to Sacramento and offer your input free of charge. I think Jerry might listen.

[jpinpb]

CAR – when are you running? You have my vote. At a minimum, maybe you can make a trip to Sacramento and offer your input free of charge. I think Jerry might listen.

[Author]

Posts