Archive

Archive for the ‘contract’ Category

Obama Administration Aids and Abets Illegal Immigrants

February 3, 2010 Leave a comment

Further evidence that the US is not a serious nation.  This is utterly breathtaking (and infuriating).  From Judicial Watch:

Keeping with the Obama Administration’s mission to conduct the most diverse outreach campaign in history, the director of the U.S. Census Bureau is touring Mexican border towns with high illegal immigrant populations to personally assure that those who fill out questionnaires this spring will not be deported. 

“This is a safe thing for everyone to do regardless of your immigration status,” the president’s handpicked census director (Robert Groves) told residents of a renowned illegal alien “colonia” in south Texas this week. He visited several dilapidated makeshift homes off of a dirt road in a Laredo neighborhood called San Carlos to stress that census data will be kept confidential and not turned over to immigration authorities.

Even if the president of the United States asks him for their census forms, Groves told the Spanish-speaking crowd, he can refuse because the law says the forms must be kept private. If he violates that sacred law, Groves further informed the attentive illegal immigrants, he can go to prison. Besides, citizenship status is not even asked on the census questionnaire, assured the Texas congressman (Chicano rights activist Henry Cuellar) who accompanied Groves on this particular jaunt.

The census director is also giving illegal immigrants across the country a lesson in basic civics by explaining that hundreds of billions of federal dollars are allocated to state and local governments based on population. Being included in the decennial count will in turn allow them to receive more public benefits; “We want to count you and your family can benefit from the services,” Groves is telling illegal aliens.

This marks the latest of many administration efforts to cater to illegal immigrants. A few weeks ago the government launched an unprecedented $133 million advertising campaign—in dozens of languages—to promote the census with the Spanish ads assuring the decennial count is confidential and cannot divulge respondents’ immigration status.

The never-before-seen promotional blitz includes television commercials, print and outdoor ads as well as online advertising. Hundreds of ads have been drafted in 28 languages, including two Chinese dialects, Russian, Arabic and Tagolog. The Spanish advertisements, distributed on national television and print media, are of particular interest because they guarantee the safety of illegal aliens who fill out the census forms.

A few months ago the government announced that, in an effort to reach out to illegal aliens, it is spending $26 million to send Spanish-language questionnaires directly to homes for the first time in history. In past years, participants could request special forms in several languages—including Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese—but the effort marks the first time that the government sends to entire regions census questionnaires in a language other than English.

First off, in my view this is all part of an organized effort to develop a permanent block of voters for the Democrats.  We can debate the immigration issue all day long, but I think all would agree that having such a large part of our populace as illegal is untenable.  I would argue that were we to trash the welfare state, this would solve a lot of our immigration problems as we wouldn’t attract people seeking the social benefits of our nation.  Democrats would rather get another group of people addicted to the state for political dominance. 

But regardless of how one feels on the issue, that the director of our Census Bureau is actually going to illegals assuring them that he won’t deport them is absolutely ludicrous.  What if there are terrorists living in these shantytowns?  In addition, is not the government actively aiding and abetting those breaking the law?

On the sanctity of the census forms, if these people are illegally in the country, are they supposed to be granted the type of privacy ensured to legal citizens?  Not to mention the fact that of course the Constitution never mentions an explicit right to privacy.

That the director is encouraging illegals to fill out the census to blatantly expand the size of the welfare state is absolutely outrageous.  That millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on this cause is sickening.  We are paying money for the government to bilk us through the costs both direct and indirect of subsidizing people illegally living on US soil.  How can anyone take this country and specifically this President seriously?

Disclaimer: For the PC police – I am well aware that Big Papi is not an illegal immigrant.

Foreclosure Relief

December 20, 2008 Leave a comment

Barney Frank and friends are finishing the touches on “foreclosure relief” in the form of $350 billion in TARP funds. The favored logic of the Washington crowd is that since housing is at the heart of the crisis, it is most important to “stabilize” the housing market, and that foreclosure relief is the best means to do so. The funds will be released to the Treasury with conditions that President Obama and Secretary Paulson will agree to programs that cut interest rates and “forgive” a portion of principal on mortgages. There are two elements to this that are inherently flawed. One is the economic aspect and the other is the moral aspect.

From an economic perspective, in terms of creating stability in the housing market this plan does anything but that. I would define stability as a situation in which supply and demand meet, so that there is a fair market value established for real estate. Given that this price is set by a constant stream of transactions between buyers and sellers, as with all markets the housing market is unstable until it clears.  Just as in trying to flatten out market cycles however, the truth that stabilization is generated by chaos is lost on Washington.  

By artificially reducing interest rates and thus prolonging the time before foreclosure for those who cannot afford their houses, the market value of these houses will remain artificially high. This is because the government will reduce the supply of houses that otherwise would have been foreclosed and liquidated, thus keeping imprudent people (at least temporarily) in their homes and people with the cash to purchase the homes out.  Since house prices will remain artificially high, it will take even longer for mortgage-backed assets to reach their true market value as well.  In addition, the banks providing the mortgages will receive less money than they otherwise would have were the market for houses free, both in terms of lower interest rate payments and the government-imposed “forgiveness” on a certain percentage of mortgage principal.  To recap, the government steps in and alters a private contract so as to relieve the debtor at the expense of the creditor.  This seems like a great incentive for banks to continue to lend in the future.  

The other aspect of this is the moral one. First, what kind of precedent does the government set if when a homeowner can’t afford a home, the government can arbitrarily abrogate a contract made by two private consenting individuals in favor of one side — and the side of the debtor no less? This creates a major moral hazard, because now people will see that if they go into serious debt to buy a home, the government will bail them out by offering more favorable terms if they fail to fulfill their obligations.  Of course I suppose this precedent has already been set in people’s minds given the government’s increasing socialization of risk in the private sector.  

There is a second major moral problem with this as well. The law of the land here is favoring debtors over creditors. The conception that one should “forgive” a portion of principal on a mortgage is absolutely ludicrous. The person who saves their money does the debtor a favor by lending them money, and so the fact that just because market conditions change, the creditor than has to sacrifice his or her rights to the person who borrowed in the first place is egregious. To be sure, a saver takes a risk by lending, but they also have a contractual right to certain claims if the debtor cannot fulfill his or her obligations, so for the government to be able to intervene and “relieve” the debtor to me seems unjust.  If contracts can be violated by government fiat then the glue of society must come undone.