If you are interested in reprinting this article please contact me.
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.
A few 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 bill 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 the 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 another government handout - 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 the 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.
But which of these men can actually win the presidential election? On Super Tuesday, Ron Paul demonstrated a lack of national appeal, winning only 4% or less of the vote. Mike Huckabee showed strength only in the south and only among evangelical Christians, winning his home state of Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia. That surely would be a fatal flaw in November.
Romney, a former Republican governor of the liberal Democrat state of Massachusetts, showed there that he could reach across the political divide and attract Democrats. A man of sound moral values with broad and successful experience in the business world, unlike Clinton and Obama, he is not a socialist, but a solid conservative who appeals to mainstream Republicans and might well have been able to unite social and fiscal conservatives behind him.
However, in the days leading up to Super Tuesday, he was unable to unite his own Party behind him. Watching Huckabee take evangelical Christian votes from him, he apparently decided that he could not win the nomination without them, so he suspended his campaign on Thursday, February 7, 2008.
So, if you want change in Washington, and you want to see the Republicans back in power 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. Abrasive, labeled a “maverick” by many, his past stance on illegal immigration has been less than encouraging, and questions about him abound.
Does he have the energy and necessary leadership skills to defeat Clinton or Obama? Will the Republican Party unite behind him? Will he be able to reach out to evangelical Christians and other Conservatives, whom he has spurned at times in the past?
We didn’t have long to wait for at least some answers. On Thursday, February 7, in his speech before 6,000 members of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C. we saw and heard a very different John McCain. Sounding very presidential, he reached out to both fiscal and social Conservatives, claiming that he was pro-life, that he’d refuse to sign any Congressional bill containing earmarks, that he’d appoint to the Supreme Court “judges like Roberts and Alito,” that he’d make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and that he intended “to win the war on terror.” His remarks were interrupted with frequent, sustained applause. These sketches of his positions are in marked contrast to both Obama and Clinton, and could present the Nation with a clear choice as the campaign unfolds.
Those in attendance at the Conference apparently feel he has what it takes to win the Presidency in November 2008. I hope they’re right. And if he does, I hope he will hold steady to the base Conservative principals: lower taxes, less government, and a strong national defense.
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 of Maryland 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 blog at AnthonyjSaccosr.townhall.com.