Wednesday, August 23, 2006

A small price to pay for crime

(Yes, videos are up, scroll down past this post. More this afternoon)

Cost of Senate Immigration Bill Put at $126 Billion
The Senate's embattled immigration bill would raise government spending by as much as $126 billion over the next decade, as the government begins paying out federal benefits to millions of new legal workers and cracks down on the border, a new Congressional Budget Office analysis concludes.

Newly legalized immigrants would claim nearly $50 billion in federal benefits such as the earned income and child tax credits, Medicaid, and Social Security.

You have to look at the sidebar on this article that breaks down the cost estimates. The enforcement measures carry a reasonable cost, the Employment Eligibility Verification System will cost $1.6 billion, while the "let's give them amnesty measures" will break the bank. The Earned income and child tax credits will cost us $24.5 billion.

Detention facilities for 20,000 people: $2.6 billion

Medicaid: $11.7 bilion

Republicans acting like they are fiscal conservatives when they are selling out this country: Priceless.


Scottiebill said...

This kind of spending on the illegal alien appeasement and amnesty is ridiculous. If those people doing all the whining and hollering about the cost of the Iraq war were to look at these numbers, maybe they would change their tunes.

Or probably not.

Anonymous said...

No...they'll never admit they're wrong.

Anonymous said...

war on all fronts, it's tough to win these wars when the enemy is us

Anonymous said...

Saxton changed his tune on anchor that change...tick tock tick tock...

No name the other changes made to Saxtons promises..

el razonador said...

How much would HR4437 cost? Anyone have any figures?

$126 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to Iraq.

Anonymous said...


Great argument...logical. I mean if we spend money on one thing lets just keep right on going until the dollar means nothing.

el razonador said...

Anon - I wasn't really making an argument, but rather asking a simple question (re: a budget for HR4437) and making a simple observation that the $126 billion price tag pales in comparison to the fiscal costs of the war.

That I was met with immediate hostility and utter failure to address my post seriously, presumably because I have tended in the past to be a voice of dissent, is precisely why I spend increasingly less time reading, much less posting here.

Civil discussion over policy matters seems not to be the objective on this blog. If it is, then it is rarely acheived.

Good day.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, let's not stop any terrorists. Let them be in Iraq. Let them be here. For cryin' out loud, why don't we just hand them over the world? Freaking liberals.

BEAR said...

Welcome back, eric (aka el raz), your nonsense makes us all feel normal. Your weasely dnc talking points and quibbling never change. If the gov't. estimates of the cost of illegals runs true to form, the true cost will be TEN TIMES as much! Rock on, el gordo smith, you wimpy, wyden licking, rino.....sheesh.

R Huse said...

>$126 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to Iraq.

That's actually true. However that doesn't mean $126B is nothing,

Divide $126B by the population of the US, it comes out to roughly $420 out of every persons pocket to pay for yet more benefits for yet another group of people.

Second, it is quite possible this country will benefit from the Iraq war in that it is possible we might beat back terrorism a little bit, and establish another democracy in the middle east. We are already reaping one of those benefits now, no terrorist attacks on our home soil of late.

Despite the uncertainty in Iraq, one thing is certain about the senate bill. The American people will reap nothing from paying yet more welfare money ( EITC etc. ) to more people.

The Iraq war is a higher cost for a tangible benefit, the Senate bill is a lower cost, with no benefit. That is the crux of the argument and that is where it falls apart. Most people would rather spend more, with the possibility of some benefit rather than pay less, with zero possibility of benefit.