Immigration Reform Enhancements

Should the "Immigration Compromise” reach the House, the House Immigration Reform Caucus should insist on some or all of the following "clarifications" to add "specificity" to the bill. Each recommendation addresses a legitimate concern of American workers, taxpayers, or both.

Jobs Americans won't do at slave wages:

Before allowing guest workers to enter the country, Congress must ensure that citizens and legal residents have work. Equally important, Congress must ensure that neither guest workers nor newly legal residents impose an economic burden. To that end, the rules for advertising a job should satisfy all of the following conditions:

1. The wage advertised for job must have been at least the higher of:

a. Twice the minimum wage

b. The prevailing wage for that position multiplied by 125% of:

i. The average regional wage for that position

ii. The average national wage for that position

iii. The 65^th percentile of the national wage paid for that position

iv. The 65^th percentile of the regional wage paid for that position

2. Employers wishing to hire guest workers must guarantee they do not become a burden on:

a. The taxpayers

b. The healthcare system

c. Any other service provider subject to current or future mandates by:

i. The Federal Government, including the courts, pseudo courts, and independent agencies

ii. State and local governments, including the courts, pseudo courts and independent agencies

iii. Treaties, international agreements, or Supra-governmental bodies such as, but not limited to, the United Nations, the EC, GATT, WTO, NAFTA, or NGOs

d. Guarantees could take the form of requiring employers to:

i. Provide health insurance

ii. Provide housing

iii. Post bonds

3. Of note: African American unemployment is roughly twice the national average; when adjusted for differing “labor participation rates” the number grows by about 50%--to over 14% earlier this year.

Homeland Security Must Certify the Border Security

The Government Accountability Office should certify accomplishment of all prerequisite controls before the liberalization provisions of the law take effect. The law should not allow any person who serves “at the pleasure of the President” to certify any amnesty trigger. Let us assume the President signed the Bill at noon on June 4, 2007. The Secretary would probably need until at least noon on June 6, 2007, and no longer than June 7, 2007, to “discover” that the Border was secure. Of course, he might speed the process by beginning work on his certification before the Signing Ceremony. Either way, we would learn that the Border was sealed more tightly than the Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Lab! While some might characterize this example as “a tad cynical,” you will doubtless recognize that “hyperbole” describes it more accurately.

Funding and Timing

Congress must pass funding for all capital and personnel provisions of the bill. Since Congress can only pass a funding bill over a period of two years, the bill must specify that the Corps of Engineers will complete and/or manage the completion of all Border barriers within two years.

Illegals will have to pay a fine

The fines paid by aliens make no sense. First, aliens only have to pay a fine if they want to become citizens. Secondly, the fines amount to less than the fee typically charged by “coyotes” to bring illegals across the border. The fines should equal at least twice the going rate for new illegals.

Illegals will have to pay their back taxes

Americans should receive the same benefits as illegals under this provision of the Bill. As I recall, last year’s bill said that illegals had to pay their taxes due for three of the previous five years. For the sale of equity, Americans should receive an income tax refund equal for any two of the previous five years. To limit this benefit to “hard working Americans,” Congress could limit the refunds to the taxes paid on the first $50 thousand of taxable income. OK! This recommendation might not have much chance of passing. Still, it would give equal protection to American citizens; and, could easily constitute the “ultimate poison pill.”

How to End Congressional Earmarks

This post began in January 2007, just after the Senate had defeated an effort by Harry Reid to protect the hollowed practice of Congressional earmarks. By this and other maneuvers, Congress passed a “non-reform reform” and deftly deflected the “Earmark Controversy”. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will doubtless trumpet her so-called reform loudly during the 2008 Election. Sadly, Congress seems to have overlooked a simple--and genuine--reform of the earmark process.

Although, typically special interest pork and often paybacks to big campaign contributors, their method of passage gives earmarks, as discussed here, their most noteworthy feature. To understand earmarks, contrast them with the normal provisions of any bill that gets through Congress. Sections, subsections, paragraphs, line items, and supporting documents make up any spending bill. A bill’s most important provisions undergo tedious and time-consuming scrutiny and debate during myriad hearings in subcommittees and full committees. These bodies then vote on each provision or on sets of provisions. Each house of Congress votes on the bills passed by its various full committees.

Earmarks take a slightly more direct route to enactment than the normal provisions of a bill. Because the Senate and House virtually always pass slightly different versions of a bill, each such bill goes to a “conference committee” that “conforms” both bills. Conforming means that one bill with exactly the same wording goes “from conference” to each house of Congress. Each house then votes on, and generally passes, the conformed bill. During the conference process, influential lawmakers can, and routinely do, "slip" earmarks into “the bill", often quite literally during the “dead of the night". Few Representatives or Senators beyond the author and a few influential leaders ever see the details of an earmark before it becomes law.

The most ballyhooed part of the new “Earmark reform” requires Senators and Representatives to put their names on some of the earmarks they insert into bills. Somehow, adding the names of sponsors to each earmark seems unlikely to blunt the zeal for earmarks of any representative or senator. This seems especially true in the meticulously gerrymandered House.

Imagine the voter response to a hypothetical “attack ad” about earmarks. Such an ad might boil down to:

"Senator Reid got $80 billion of pork for Nevada over the last six years; vote for me and I won’t do that.”

With opponents launching “attacks” like this, incumbents would not have to spend their own money running for re-election. More practically, few voters would hold the sin of “bringing home the bacon” against any senator or representative. The fact that some fat cat got the cash would be lost on most voters; and, many would not care if they knew.

Given the controversy and the “hammer and tongs” fight whirling around Earmarks in January, one could conclude that a solution was simply not possible. Perhaps a workable answer would prove too complex, too difficult to craft, or simply impractical. In fact, one very workable solution does exist; and, it is not at all complex. In simple terms, the proposal would require that “Nothing comes out of Conference that did not go into Conference.” This would limit the latitude of conference committees to the following:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->Add a provision to a bill that neither house had passed

<!--[if !supportLists]-->

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->Set spending amounts to a total between the amounts passed by each house; that is:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a) <!--[endif]-->Greater than or equal to the lower amount; and,

<!--[if !supportLists]-->b) <!--[endif]-->Less than or equal to the higher amount

<!--[if !supportLists]-->c) <!--[endif]-->One might instead grant conference committees the ability to reduce an amount below the lower value passed by either house; but, that would seem to create more problems than the value it might add

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4) <!--[endif]-->The proposed reform would apply to the various supporting documents that make up a bill, not just the law itself

The foregoing provisions would end the practice of inserting spending into bills when neither house had seen them; it would not end the practice of inserting sweetheart spending into bills upon which their house actually votes before conference. Of course, neither did the “reform” actually passed. In addition, this reform assigns accountability to every member of Congress who votes for an appropriation; more importantly, the proposal makes all spending go thorough at least one pre-conference vote.

The beneficiaries of earmarks would probably challenge the proposal here as a barrier to vital legislation. Without earmarks, they might argue, some powerful legislators could stop critically needed legislation. This argument holds no water! One should question the "vital necessity" of any bill that can only pass with the help of a secret payoffs. In addition, powerful members have other means to channel funds to pet projects; albeit, sometimes inconveniently visible means. Most importantly, every part of every bill should go through the full process of Congressional examination; and, should stand or fall on a full vote of either the House or the Senate.

While the proposed reform only addresses those “dead of the night” and other measures added in conference, it certainly does so better than the meaningless “reform” that Congress passed.

Take Heart; Peace Possible in Darfur

Take heart! A statistic cited in a recent email from RGCl should encourage everyone, especially those concerned about Darfur. Specifically:

83% of the people killed by firearms in the world are killed in the USA, where most TV shows and movies either begin or climax with a woman being raped and/or murdered.

Most distressing.

Distressing as the cited figure may seem, it means that we, and the people of Darfur, can all rest more easily tonight! The U.S. Navy can almost effortlessly end the slaughter of innocents there by simply enforcing a no fly zone. Until the email arrived from RGCl, I had believed, mistakenly it seems, that Muslim militias generally made the venerable AK-47 their “weapon of choice.” That must not be true of the Janjaweed militias in Sudan.

Over roughly 20 years, the Sudanese Government (see ERRATA below) killed two million Christians and animists, an average of 100,000 each year. Only when the Janjaweed turned their weapons on fellow Muslims (with the aid of the Sudanese Government most sources agree) did the world suddenly realize that a moral crisis existed that demanded action. Even Hollywood got into the act, with many prominent celebs demanding that President Bush act immediately; but that is the topic of another post, isn’t it.

Let us return to the good news for Darfur. Since fewer than 6,000 people outside of the United States die by firearms each year (see table below), the Janjaweed militias must be using other weapons: bombs, spears, swords, clubs, knives—perhaps rocks. Actually, I think one safely can rule out knives, spears, clubs, and rocks. The people of Darfur could easily obtain or make any of those. Swords would not seem to provide enough of an advantage to enable a numerically inferior force to kill 100,000 people each year; thus, the Janjaweed must be using air power to kill so many people. Assuming that is correct, the U.S. Navy should have little difficulty suppressing the Janjaweed from the air. Deprived of their bombs, the Janjaweed will have to fall back on their swords, spears, clubs, knives, and rocks. The numerically superior population of Darfur should have little difficulty defending themselves against raiders armed only with such primitive weapons.

Here are some statistics (Sources in Red):

Incidents Involving Firearms

Incidents involving firearms resulted in 29,000 deaths or 1.2% of the total [deaths in the United States]

Source: http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/actual_death.htm

______________________________________________________________________

In 1993, a firearm was involved in the deaths of 39,395 people

Source: http://www.delta.edu/mkhiatt/gun_deaths_us.html

______________________________________________________________________

According to a new report from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, injuries were the fifth leading cause of death in 2001, accounting for 157,078

The five leading causes of fatal injuries accounted for 78 percent of all injury deaths . . . firearms (19 percent)

Suicides accounted for 57 percent of all firearms deaths and homicides represented 38 percent. Unintentional firearms injury accounted for 802 deaths or 2.7 percent of the total.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/data/timely0604injuries.pdf

Doing the math on the CDC statistics:

	Total Injury Deaths	157,078
	Firearms (19 percent)	29845
	Homicides (38 percent of firearms—includes those lawfully killed by police and in self defense—dj)	11341
	Suicides (57 percent of firearms)	17012
	Subtotal	29155
	Rounding et al	690
		29845
	Doing the math on the statistic quoted by RGCl:
	Estimated firearms deaths world wide (29155/.85)			35112
Firearms deaths outside the USA			5267

Q.E.D.

Please note, if any of the statistics cited by RGCl, fail to hold up, the people of Darfur remain in “a heap 'o trouble”; trouble for the Arab League to deal with – not the West.

DJ

ERRATA:

Earlier, I had attributed the two million deaths over 20 years to the Janjaweed. Per Slate, "(This conflict is entirely separate from the 22-year-old civil war that has pitted the Muslim government against Christian and animist rebels in the country's southern region. The Janjaweed, who inhabit western Sudan, have nothing to do with that war.)"

Although, the Sudanese government denies helping the Janjaweed, I do not consider lumping them and the Janjaweed together a major error; it is, nonetheless, an error.

See: http://www.slate.com/id/2104210/

Time for a Profile in Courage?

Harry Reid sponsored a "retreat resolution" during the week of March 15, 2007. Although the resolution failed, it certainly gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, whose leader had said that America would run if challenged. Reid's measure gave enormous credence to Usama's claim. Still, always the optimist, I fired off the following via fax.

____________________________________________________________________

March 15, 2007

FROM: Somewhere in California

Senator Joseph Lieberman,
706 Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Lieberman:

Few presidents, much less Senators, hold the fate of the Nation, and possibly the world, in their hands as you do at this moment in history. Today’s vote on Senator Reid’s Iraq resolution will doubtless cost the lives of many American service personnel, Iraqis, and possibly others beyond Iraq. Worse, Senator Reid has promised to reintroduce the measure, perhaps several times. You more than most understand that each vote of this sort strengthens Al Qaeda.

History will judge you, and this generation, on your actions over the next few months. Last year, Republicans, independents, and a minority of Democrats elected you to the Senate as an Independent. Moreover, you support the President’s policies on this, the Third World War. Thus, you alone have the power to change the balance in the Senate. As a result, History will assign you more responsibility for events in this era than any other member of Congress; and perhaps, more than any other American.

I implore you then, to act and to do so soon. While you need not join the Republicans immediately, you can write to Senator Reid. You can tell him that his actions jeopardize any possibly victory in Iraq; and, that, if those actions continue, you will in fact join the Republicans. If a letter does not change the actions of Senator Reid and his cohorts, then you would do best to go forward and “organize with the Republicans.”

I understand how much easier it is for me to write this than it is for you to take such drastic action. Still, you stand on the edge of history; you alone have the power to shorten or to extend this global war. You alone must decide whether to stand with Chamberlain or with Churchill. When history looks back on this era, how will it judge Joe Lieberman? Will history list you with the generation of the 1940s or with the generation of the 1930s? Will history count you among those who stood up to aggressors, or among those who whetted the appetites of aggressors and brought on a catastrophic war?

I wish you well at this difficult time and thank you for your many years of service to our Country.

Sincerely,

DJ