Joe Legal And José Illegal

This is why illegal immigration is costing us so much money. Rewarding people for criminal activity is NOT the solution:

*******************************************************


You have two families: "Joe Legal" and

"Jose Illegal". Both families consist of two

parents, two children, and live in California



Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security

Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.



Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social

Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash " under the table".



Ready? Now pay attention.



Joe Legal:$25..00 Per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week,

or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe

Legal now has $31,231.00.



Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600..00 per

week, or $31, 200.00 per year.



Jose illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has

$31,200.00.



Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited

coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year.

Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.



Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through

the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year.Jose Illegal

still has $31,200.00.



Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food

stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or

$6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.



Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for

food stamps and welfare.

Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.



Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400..00

per year.. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.



Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent

subsidy. Jose Illegal pays $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per

year. Jose Illegal still has $25,200.00.



Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for

insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.



Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin'

insurance!" and still has $25,200.00.



Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay

utilities, gasoline, etc.



Jose Illegal has to make his $25,200.00 stretch to pay

utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of

the country every month.



Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part

time job after work.



Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.



Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.



Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose

Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.



Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL

program. Joe Legal's children go home.



Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and

fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.



Do you get it, now?

Should Congress Get A Pay Raise Next Year? I Say: No!!!

Congress should not get a pay raise until we, the people, say it should be so. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, it is an ethical issue.

Right now, the economy is such that workers are not getting very big raises and the cost-of-living has gone up for all of us. As such, Congress, should show some solidarity with the American people and not only refuse a pay raise but should also give up many of the costly perks they take for themselves (taxpayer funded health care, taxpayer funded retirement plan, taxpayer funded travel, etc.) while leaving Joe and Jane Average American to fend for themselves.

The following is a letter penned by Kristina Rasmussen of the National Taxpayer's Union. Please feel free to copy it and send it to everyone you know.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 362,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I urge you to cosponsor bipartisan legislation (H.R. 5087 or H.R. 6417) that would prevent an automatic pay increase for Members of Congress in 2009. Rank-and-file Members of Congress currently make an annual salary of $169,300 (more than double the median household income of $78,978 for the Washington, D.C. metro area, including wealthy suburbs). This sum doesn't include taxpayer funds used for lavish pensions, health plans, and generous allowances for travel, staff, and office expenses. In light of mixed economic indicators, Congress should reject an automatic pay hike that would pad a sizeable Congressional compensation package. How did this auto-pilot pay raise system come about? As explained by Pete Sepp in the NTU Foundation Policy Paper "Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers," it didn’t start out this way: According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, compensation paid to Members of Congress "shall be ascertained by law." The Founding Fathers intended Congress to set its own pay through the appropriations process, on the supposition that Members would be guided by their own sense of honor. In fact, lawmakers lived without a yearly salary up until 1854, having contented themselves prior to that time with a per-diem system that paid a flat rate for each day Congress was in session. But thanks to a series of post-war measures, culminating in a 1989 "ethics" law, Members of Congress have sought to avoid accountability for salary hikes. Annual pay raises are now tied to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index: COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments] now take effect once the TTHUD bill becomes law, although taxpayers would never be able to identify any language in the bill that appears to authorize these pay grabs. Members of Congress would need to specifically vote on, or insert, language blocking the raise if they do not want the increase to occur. Taxpayers are thus condemned to fight a bizarre annual battle over a COLA whose existence is only recognized when Congress opts to block it. Even though Members of Congress received automatic pay increases each year between 2000 and 2006, taxpayers were enthused to see the House reject a pay hike for 2007. Our members strongly believe this action should be repeated in 2008. We're counting on you to make a stand against automatic Congressional pay increases by cosponsoring H.R. 5087 (or H.R. 6417) and directing the resulting savings toward reducing the deficit. Sincerely, Kristina Rasmussen Director of Government Affairs

I know that Congress is going to accept the pay raise even though they don't deserve it. But we need to be aware that they are doing it and that they are screwing us in the process. We need to put pressure on them to act responsibly.

How can they criticize corporate executives for have golden parachutes when Congress has platinum parachutes?

To read more about H.R. 6417, click the following link:

To Prevent Members Of Congress From Receiving The Automatic Pay Adjustment Scheduled To Take Effect In 2009
Washington Watch

The last activity on this bill is that it was referred to committee, most likely to let it die.

You can access the original letter on-line here:

Stop Congress's Automatic Pay Hike
National Taxpayers Union
February 01, 2008

'Grave' Drug Wars On The Border, Impotent U.N. Still Going And Joe Kennedy Still Hawking For A Brutal Dictator

They say that Nero fiddled while rome burned. Actually, he was plucking a harp and spouting some very bad poetry. So what is President Bush and the Democrat controlled Congress doing while our border remains unsecure with our citizens getting attacked by illegal aliens and our border patrol agents getting murdered by drug-smugglers?

I can tell you for certain that our government is not doing anything worthwhile. At least Nero was out and visible during the fire.

Case in point. The current situation along the U.S.-Mexico border has become intolerable and soon, the citizens (that is, the legitimate citizens) of the United States will boil over their anger as a result. What do we hear from the President or Congressional leaders about it? Nothing. It is without a doubt the worst case of mass dereliction of duty in the history of the U.S. Government.

Twenty years ago, we heard about the Columbian Medellin Drug Cartel and how badly their drug-smuggling efforts were affecting the United States. And Columbia doesn't even border the U.S. Today, the threat has landed closer to home. In fact, for some, it has come home.

A story in yesterday's Washington Times illustrates exactly how bad our government has allowed the situation to get:

"What we face is more of a challenge than law enforcement can be expected to cope with," said Kent Lundgren, chairman of the 800-member National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO). "The best solution is for the U.S. military to assume armed positions along the border ... and use whatever force is necessary to control the border zone." On Jan. 12, Mexican Brig. Gen. Rigoberto Garcia Cortez said the Mexican military and other personnel had surrounded five border cities in the lower Rio Grande Valley — Matamoros, Reynosa, Rio Bravo, Miguel Aleman and Nuevo Laredo — in response to gunfights between Mexican police, military forces and heavily armed drug smugglers.

That's right, the Mexicans brought their military in to bear on the situation. Now, here in the U.S., that may not be an option since such use of the military may not pass the test of posse comitatus but we may be beyond that threshold entirely.

More:

"Unfortunately, border violence south of our nation's border is not new," Border Patrol spokesman Michael Friel said, adding that it not only has increased in Mexico but also has directly affected U.S. authorities. The number of assaults against Border Patrol agents on the border rose from 384 in 2005 to 987 in 2007, he said. ... Violence has been the key to long-standing efforts by the Gulf Cartel to control drug smuggling on the U.S.-Mexico border. Mr. Lundgren said NAFBPO, whose membership includes eight former chiefs of the Border Patrol and 14 former INS district directors, thinks the next step for the Mexican military will be to begin closing the "noose on the gangs," but the targeted cities "abut the Rio Grande River, the international boundary and Mexican forces must stop there." "The predictable consequence is that those bandits will retreat across the Rio Grande into the United States — they will not surrender to Mexican authorities," he said. "We need not expect Mexican authorities to inhibit their departures.

Posse comitatus anyone?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

U.S. Faces 'Grave Threat' In Drug Fight
Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
January 22, 2008

---

We all know that Kofi Annan has been one of the worst disasters in history as U.N. Secretary-General and we also hoped that Ban Ki-moon would be an improvement. Well, Ban is certainly an improvement over Kofi, but the rest of the U.N. is just as it was. Incompetent, impotent and scandal-ridden.

From Front Page Magazine:

Especially disappointing is the situation in Darfur, where there was a glimmer of hope last year that a combined UN-African Union peacekeeping force could be put in place which would be large enough to stop the mass killings there. Ban admitted at his first press conference for 2008 that he has only 9000 out of the estimated 26,000 soldiers needed. “That is why we are very much concerned about this ongoing deteriorating situation in Darfur”, he said. Things have not worked out as Ban had hoped because the Sudanese government has thrown up all manner of obstacles and China is still running interference for its ally and major oil supplier. Seventy percent of Sudan's Chinese oil revenues, which now top $1 billion per year, have been reportedly used by the Sudanese government to attack the non-Arab population in the Darfur region. Another Rwanda is unfolding before our eyes. The UN remains impotent to stop the genocide. All it seems that Ban Ki-moon can do right now is to continue begging the Sudanese leader to cooperate, and to make symbolic gestures such as he did last week in designating actor George Clooney as a UN "messenger of peace".

And this:

The UN’s human rights apparatus is still in the clutches of the worst human rights abusers on the planet, who pat each other on the back for their faux commitment to human rights. Meanwhile, millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money are being squandered by these hypocrites on non-stop investigations and condemnations of Israel. To his credit, Ban Ki-moon has spoken out against this gross one-sidedness. ... Then there are all those alarmist reports that keep streaming from the UN bureaucracy on everything from AIDS to climate change. The UN regularly puts out reports that are full of exaggerated statistics and worst-case assumptions designed to gather political and financial support for more UN personnel, studies and conferences. In November 2007, for example, UNAIDS, the United Nations coordinating organization to combat AIDS, conceded that it had overestimated the size of the world-wide HIV-AIDS epidemic and said that it would have to drastically slash the reported number of people suffering from the disease. Serious flaws have also been discovered in papers used and cited by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) in its own reports. Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC, criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC. Unfortunately, playing on the fears that these exaggerated claims engendered, Ban Ki-moon has added his voice to the hysteria surrounding global warming, which he has called the defining issue of our time. He even went so far as to blame the slaughter in Darfur on climate change!

Can anyone give one single, good reason as to why we still send money to such a fouled-up, incompentent, anti-Democratic and anti-American organization?

I can't come up with one either.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Rearranging The Deck Chairs At The UN
Joseph Klein
FrontPageMag.com
January 23, 2008

---

And finally, we have Joe Kennnedy back in the news hawking his schpiel for Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez. You can view my last blog entry on the topic here:

Joe Kennedy: Bad Politics And Even Worse Judgement
84rules
January 5, 2008

Well, Newsbusters takes a look at him now:

Kennedy is now using the most recent Citgo commercial as a launchpad to blast the U.S. government and "Big Oil" as you can see in this video. After an introduction similar to the previous commercial showing poor people suffering from the cold, Kennedy goes on the attack: ...Yet our own government cut fuel assistance. And the Big Oil companies with oil and money to burn all said "no" when we asked for help. All but one. Citgo. Owned by the Venezuelan people, is donating millions of gallons to non-profit Citizens Action... Actually Citgo is owned by the Chavez run Venezuelan government, not the "people." As for the Venezuelan people themselves, it turns out their plight is getting even worse under the corruption ridden Chavez government.

Joe's politics are certainly bad. How bad? Bad enough that the left-leaning New Republic has taken him to task for his pro-Chavez stance:

This widespread corruption has even been recognized in the the latest issue of the liberal New Republic. Alvaro Vargas Llosa has this to say about life under Chavez in Slum Lord: After an extensive visit to the slums of this capital, I am convinced that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lost the recent referendum that would have extended the time he could remain in office not because his countrymen value democracy so much, but because his social programs are crumbling. In the barrios of Petare, Catia, Baruta and other places, the nationalist/populist model is collapsing. Through a network of "missions," the government has been using oil revenue to provide food, housing, cars, education and health care for millions of Venezuelans. In theory, Venezuelans are enjoying the "social justice" denied to them during decades of rule by the country's elites. In real life, the missions are plagued with corruption and inefficiency, and are severely hampered by the insecurity and the shortages that have become the hallmark of Venezuelan society. ...Corruption has eroded the prestige of the Habitat mission through which the government supposedly dishes out checks to poor Venezuelans so they can buy a house. It is not unusual for an aspiring homeowner to find out that a mystery person has cashed the check using his or her name. "The same people who hand out the checks cash them for the benefit of their relatives," explains Eladio, who told me a nephew recently suffered such an experience. ..."The government led Venezuelans to believe that they could become a consumer society without producing anything," says Luis Ugalde, the president of Andres Bello University, "and the results are now speaking for themselves." When I asked Beatriz, a social worker who spends her time in Catia, to talk to me about Chavez's missions, she responded, "One cannot speak about that which doesn't exist." That strikes me as an appropriate way to sum up Venezuela's nationalist/populist. model

Newsbusters goes on to suggest that Kennedy should actually visit Venezuela and see the people that Chavez is crushing right now.

Personally, I don't see that happening. Despite the courage shown by John F. Kennedy both as a Naval Officer and President of the United States, the Kennedy's are not noted for having that much integrity.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Joe Kennedy Uses Latest Citgo Commercial To Slam U.S. Government And 'Big Oil'
P.J. Gladnick
Newsbusters.org
January 23, 2008

Joe Kennedy: Bad Politics And Even Worse Judgement

Have you seen the TV commercials where Joe Kennedy is touting "free" heating oil from the "people" of Venezuela? I have, and they are an insult to the intelligence of anyone who knows the first thing about Latin American politics. In the middle of the ad, Kennedy says, "Some people would call this bad politics." Well, Joe, I am one of those who calls it bad politics and I will go one step further and call it even worse judgement on his part.

And I am not alone in my assessment. Writing for TownHall.com, Mona Charen has the following to say:

So let's see, the poor should accept charity from a would-be dictator who has formed an alliance with Iran and Cuba, who has denounced the United States as the greatest threat to peace and security in the world and called the U.S. president "the devil" and "a genocidal murderer." They should permit themselves to be used by a man who attempted to subvert his country's constitution, proclaimed his goal as "socialism or death," and launched the most comprehensive assault on freedom of the press in Latin America this side of Castro? "Our good [friend] in Venezuela" just last month suffered a key rebuke from his own people when he attempted to amend the constitution. Chavez's proposed "reforms" would have permitted him to serve for life, ended the autonomy of the central bank, permitted the president to rule by decree, and given him broad powers to suspend civil liberties and seize private property under indefinite states of emergency. A broad spectrum of Venezuelan society united to oppose this "constitutional coup" and narrowly defeated the measure. With his characteristic good grace, Chavez called it a "s---t victory."

And that's not even the worst part. Read this:

How can Mr. Kennedy reconcile the fact that Chavez has in the past pushed OPEC to reduce output to increase prices which affects all Americans, but the poor most of all -- with his pose as Mr. Bountiful? Gosh, is that the act of someone who truly cares about the world's poor?

That's right. Chavez pushed to market price of oil upward so that the poor could afford it even less, and then turns around and offers free oil to those same poor? I remember reading something like that in 1984 by George Orwell where the chocolate ration was reduced by several ounces but the Party put out a story that it had actually been increased. Only the most weak-minded fools believed the story. Here in the real world, what would that make Joe Kennedy?

That I why I call his judgement worse than his politics.

Mona goes on the highlight some other "achievements" of Mr. Chavez that Joe is turning a blind eye to:

It isn't as if Chavez has improved life so much in Venezuela that he can now look abroad for charitable opportunities. According to the Associated Press, Venezuela's inflation rate has now topped 22 percent, Latin America's highest. The government has imposed price controls in a bid to control inflation, which has led to shortages of basic items like milk, eggs and sugar. Consumers are also having trouble finding chickens, cooking oil and black beans in supermarkets. One can understand Mr. Kennedy's desire to help the poor heat their homes in the winter. But to shill for a figure like Chavez? There are other options, including federal programs. Doesn't Kennedy cringe when he reads accounts like this from CNN last May? "Venezuela's most-watched television station -- and outlet for the political opposition -- went off the air after the government refused to renew its broadcast license . . . Police on Sunday used water cannons and what appeared to be tear gas to break up thousands of demonstrators protesting the government's decision to close the country's most-watched television station . . . Inside the studios of Radio Caracas Television, employees cried and chanted 'Freedom!' on camera."

And this:

Does it not cause Kennedy to question his association when he reads accounts like this mid-2007 report from the State Department and the Organization of American States? ... "The OAS report on Venezuela said it was concerned about the administration of justice in that country, the problem of sicariato (paid killings) and the 'impunity that surrounds reports of extrajudicial executions at the hands of agents' of the Venezuelan government. "Extrajudicial killings are a particular concern in Venezuela. More than 6,370 people were victims of homicides committed between 2000 and 2005 by the 'agents' of Venezuelan state security forces . . ."

Joe Kennedy's politics are most definitely in the "bad" zone. But his sense of good judgement is totally MIA.

You can access the complete colum on-line here:

Joe Kennedy, Hugo Chavez And That Free Heating Oil
Mona Charen
TownHall.com
January 4, 2008