PINE BLUFFS - Responding to cries from liberals in the media and government that our economy is going in the tank, Congress is presently considering a so-called stimulus package.
As initially proposed, the stimulus plan would have provided taxpayers a rebate check of up to $800 per individual and up to $1,600 per married couple. But then Republican Congressional leaders decided they had to compromise with liberals who wanted to morph it into a huge government give-away.
It wasn't enough to simply provide a rebate check to taxpayers - folks who actually paid taxes. The House compromise would send checks to anyone who earned an income of over $3,000. The Associated Press estimates that $28 billion dollars would go to people who never paid a nickel of income tax.
That's neither economic stimulus, nor tax relief. It's a welfare entitlement!
But that was not the worst of it, because it quickly became evident that some of the money would end up in the hands of illegal aliens. Word of this soon leaked out. Congressman John Shadegg, one of the few Republicans in the House of Representatives with the courage to vote against this stimulus package, explained it this way:
"The reason that illegal aliens will receive rebate checks is that under the terms of the bill, checks are to be automatically sent to all people who filed a tax return and earned the requisite $3000. Because tax returns do not disclose a taxpayer's legal status, rebate checks will automatically be sent to all illegal aliens who filed a tax return."
"It's a little like going out on Halloween and telling your babysitter that she should only give out candy to kids from your neighborhood. But, she has no way of knowing which kids are from your neighborhood and which are from somewhere else, so she just gives it to all the kids who come to your house.
"Simply put, the IRS has no way to know whether the individual who filed the tax return is an illegal alien or not. As a result, it will issue checks to all illegal aliens who filed a return."
Shadegg's comment came regarding the bill as it originally passed the House, which made even those who filed tax returns using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) eligible for refunds.
Days later Senator John Ensign, who also heads up the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (NRSCC), advanced "a quick fix" for this loophole by amending the proposal so that only those with valid Social Security numbers - and not ITINs - would be eligible for checks.
But that won't stop illegal aliens from receiving checks! CBS News explains further:
"Every year, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants use individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) to file income tax returns with the IRS. These ID numbers are used instead of Social Security numbers. There are no exact statistics for how many illegal immigrants file tax returns but [a New York Times report] from last year details the significant increase in use of ITINs."
Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, explains it this way:
"there is a lack of coordination between the IRS and immigration enforcement agencies.... If the IRS was cooperating with Social Security or DHS... they would know who the illegal immigrants are who file tax returns."
According to government estimates, the buying and selling of fraudulent Social Security numbers is a $50 billion dollar a year business. That's a huge problem.
In an interview on FOX News, Colorado Republican and former presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, one of the most vocal anti-illegal immigration voices in Washington, didn't like the Senate's proposed fix either, but for different reasons:
"'Whether the total amount of checks cut to illegal aliens from the U.S. Treasury amounts to $600 or $6 billion, I do not believe the American public supports a stimulus package that reinforces the idea that there is really no difference between illegal aliens and American citizens. Worse, given the well documented tendency of illegal aliens to send large portions of their earnings back to relatives in their home country, it is quite possible that the lion's share of any payments sent to illegal aliens will simply be sent abroad -- stimulating a foreign economy rather than our own.
"The Senate's proposed fix also doesn't address a much greater problem. The fact that we know Social Security numbers are compromised, the fact that thousands of people, maybe millions of people, we don't know for sure how many people, filed an income tax form with a fake Social Security number. We also know that there's absolutely no communication between the IRS and Social Security Administration."
I can't understand it. Politicians in Washington, D.C., after all this time, still don't get it. Many illegals already exploit and overtax our nation's welfare systems and other social services, and citizens like us foot the bill. Yet our government continues to turn a blind eye to this problem, thereby encouraging more illegal border crossings. Now our elected leaders in Washington want to entice even more people to cross our nation's borders illegally by promising more government handouts - this time, tax rebate checks for illegal aliens.
Tired of this nonsense? If the issue of illegal immigration is one of your primary concerns, then you'll want to vote for the presidential candidate who has promised to actually fix the problem. And that's neither Democrat Party presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Barack Hussein Obama.
Who then? In the presidential debates, the immigration issue has been a major point of contention among Republican candidates. Not so among Democrat candidates who seem to agree: amnesty for all, followed by increases in immigration quotas to permit a major influx of immigrants into this country, thereby changing the demographics of the United States drastically over the next 20-30 years.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul have all pledged to secure our borders, eliminate so-called sanctuary cities in America, cut off welfare and other benefits for illegals, and, through policies of attrition or outright arrest and deportation, reduce the presence of illegals here. John McCain, once aptly-named "Amnesty John," has been a Johnny-come-lately to the issue, (pun intended) who has belatedly promised to secure the borders and deport illegals who commit criminal acts here.
But which of these guys can actually win the presidential election? On Super Tuesday, Ron Paul demontrated a lack of national appeal, garnering 4% or less of the vote. Mike Huckabee showed strength only among evangelical Christians and only in the south, with wins in his home state of Arkansa, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Romney, a man of sound moral values and a solid Conservative, is a former Republican governor of the liberal Democrat state of Massachusetts. During his tenure there he showed his ability to reach across the political divide and attract Democrats. He has broad experience in the business world, some appeal to mainstram Republicans, and might have been able to unite social and fiscal conservatives behind him. On Super Tuesday, he showed a glimmer of national popularity with wins in Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesotta, Alaska, North Dakota, Montana, and Colorado. But when the chips were down, he could not unite his own Party. Watching results as Huckabee took evangelical Christian votes from him, he apparently realized that he could not win the nomination without them, so he withdrew from the race the following day.
So, if you want change in Washington, but want to see Republicans back in office after the deplorable showing by Congressional Democrats and others, you're left with John McCain, 71, who's been part of the "inside the beltway" crowd for 25 years. Can he unite the Republican Party, go on to win the nomination, and the election in November? Will he be able to reach out to Conservatives, whom he has marginalized in the past? What about evangelicals? Can he secure their trust?
We didn't have long to wait. On Thursday, February 7, 2008, McCain addressed 6,000 members of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. and attempted to do all of the above. He stated that he would NOT sign any Congressional bill which contained earmarks, that he was pro-life, that he would appoint to the Supreme Court judges like Roberts and Alito, that he would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, AND that he would fight the war on terror to win. He received long, sustained applause.
These solidly conservative positions place him in stark contrast to both Clinton and Obama on the Democrat side, and promise the American people a clear choice in November.
_________
Anthony J. Sacco, a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit his website at www.saccoservices.com. To read an exerpt from his latest book, Echoes in the Wind, go to http://www.saccoservices.com/echoesinthewind.php.