Immigration has never made the forefront of American politics, and I'm glad, finally, that Arizona has taken step 1 in a resolution to address an issue that has been their "pink elephant in the room" for decades. Is it me, or can there be a fear of foreigners to strike without warning or detection, and, I'm not talking [just] Mexicans here, I'm talking every foreigner out there, residing in the United States, illegally, or, better yet, on expired school and work visas. Only a few months ago, immigration was a back-burner issue and I'm glad to see this issue being addressed.
Now, thank gawd, we have the restrictive Arizona law giving police broad power to detain illegal immigrants. Senate Bill 1070 has put illegal immigration on the agenda in the California and Texas elections and prompted showdowns in statehouses on immigration bills from Massachusetts to Idaho. The Arizona bill does have its public support, but is opposed by a majority of Latinos. My hand raises in support, and I'm a *ahem* latino. Is there anything wrong with federal reform, essentially pushing President Barack Obama to step up to the plate? Dem. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid placed immigration reform on the Senate agenda. Reid, who opposes the Arizona bill, is trailing in his bid for re-election and seeking Latino support. Go figure. Most of us are offspring of immigrants. With the exception of the pure-blooded Indians, we are all immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, including even those who came over on the Mayflower. Right??!!
There is a persistent dualism in American attitudes toward immigration. On the one hand we celebrate diversity and recognize that the nation owes its shape and concentrations of population "less to the logic of geography than to the movements of great streams of newcomers who together created the country." On the other, we worry that the United States will attract more foreigners than it can comfortably absorb, or should I say, AFFORD.
Immigrants had less to do with their legality than with the race, ethnicity or religion of the newcomers. Are we, as Americans, that concerned about a threat to American culture and values? I welcome diversity and the melting pot of Irish, Italian, Polish, Chinese and Japanese (and others not mentioned in my vast list) immigrants that make up our free world.
Growing up in southern California, part of our curriculum was none other than California History. In California, there was a huge upset and agitation against Chinese workers who had been brought in to complete the transcontinental railroad but were perceived as taking jobs from whites. Congress passed a Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Later, California farmers were similarly alarmed by competition from Japanese immigrants. So, get this, a restrictive 1924 federal bill contained a clause that virtually excluded Japanese immigrants. Japan was incensed; the exclusionary clause signaled a long downturn in U.S. - Japan relations that eventually culminated in war. War not being a "direct result" of this clause, but, an issue nonetheless.
But every outburst of anti-immigrant fervor also produced a political backlash, even on occasion, most notably the once-powerful Ku Klux Klan, fear of foreigners and Catholics combined with virulent hatred of blacks.
Will there be a broader political backlash? Could go either way.
But, and this is a big BUT, the White House wants no part of an immigration fight in a midterm election year. It's hard to fault the president for ducking this divisive battle. And, isn't this typical for his stance on most issues?
SB 1070 may be unconstitutional. In any case, the measure is such a mess that the Arizona Legislature changed it after it was signed into law, replacing the requirement that police could inquire into immigration status during any "lawful contact" to a more precise standard that police could do so only if they are stopping or arresting someone for other reasons. Still, it's understandable that Arizona felt the need to act. ARIZONA NEEDED TO ACT FOLKS! Illegal immigration is down nationally, but has increased in Arizona, in part because a federal crackdown at border crossings in Texas and California funneled the flow of illegal immigrants into other states. No one realizes that kidnapping and gang violence are on the rise in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and it is not surprising that there is public support for restrictive legislation.
The Arizona bill, however, does nothing to address the most pressing issues of illegal immigration: securing the border and finding a just solution for immigrants who have lived here for many years and are contributing to American society. I get that, I stand for that. Indeed, these solutions are beyond the reach of any state.
If SB 1070 forces the president and Congress to consider genuine immigration reform, it will have done us all a big favor.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Why The Reluctance To State The Obvious Truth?
If you want to watch someone squirm, take a look at the two-minute videotape of Attorney General Eric Holder dodging Republican Rep. Lamar Smith's question of whether "radical Islam" motivated the Times Square bomber. It's pretty darn funny!
AG Eric Holder, who last year called America "a nation of cowards" for refusing to talk frankly about race, didn't want to say what is plain to everyone else, that Faisal Shahzad, back from five months in Waziristan, launched his terror attack because of his Islamist beliefs. And, this is TRUE, Shahzad's Islamic beliefs has motivated his terrorism against America.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, questioned about the bomber's motives, said he might have been acting out of opposition to the health care bill. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein said he might have become unhinged by the foreclosure of his Connecticut home. We just don't know the real reason Shahzad hates America, but, if you ask me, I can lend my theory and opinion on this matter: Radical Islamic Beliefs.
Okay, okay, you may disagree with me, fine. Then, what's your thoughts? Why the reluctance to state the obvious truth, that we are under attack from terrorists motivated by a radical form of Islam?
My theory is that these well-intentioned folk see the American people as a Howling Mob. They think that if Americans find out that Islamists are attacking us, they will go out and slaughter innocent Muslims. They think that Americans are incapable of understanding the simple truth that while most terrorists are Islamists, the large majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Of course, the evidence is that Americans are quite capable of holding these two ideas in their heads. Even after Sept. 11, there were only a miniscule number of attacks on Muslims, and many more Americans went over to their Muslim neighbors and offered to help if they had any trouble - - because THAT is how we Americans are. They didn't even need to hear the almost instant assurances from Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush that all Muslims were not terrorists to bake a cake and bring it over.
It should go without saying that it's ridiculous to believe, as many liberals do, that just about everyone west of Manhattan and east of Hollywood likes to go around wearing white sheets. On a novel issue like gays in the military, many Americans have been moving away from Clinton's 1990s position and toward Kagan's, even while they move away from her views on other issues like abortion.
As it became obvious that the Democrats' health care bills and the Obama big government programs were opposed by most Americans, some liberals resorted to a variant of the Howling Mob theory: Americans were against these programs because they didn't like having a black president. REALLY? This, despite the fact that Obama was elected by the largest percentage margin in the last 20 years.
When you see a smart man like Eric Holder saying stupid things, you know something else is going on. You're seeing a high official who regards most of us as cowards, who believes the truth could make us a Howling Mob. Does Barack Obama feel the same way?
Probably. . . . . .
AG Eric Holder, who last year called America "a nation of cowards" for refusing to talk frankly about race, didn't want to say what is plain to everyone else, that Faisal Shahzad, back from five months in Waziristan, launched his terror attack because of his Islamist beliefs. And, this is TRUE, Shahzad's Islamic beliefs has motivated his terrorism against America.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, questioned about the bomber's motives, said he might have been acting out of opposition to the health care bill. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein said he might have become unhinged by the foreclosure of his Connecticut home. We just don't know the real reason Shahzad hates America, but, if you ask me, I can lend my theory and opinion on this matter: Radical Islamic Beliefs.
Okay, okay, you may disagree with me, fine. Then, what's your thoughts? Why the reluctance to state the obvious truth, that we are under attack from terrorists motivated by a radical form of Islam?
My theory is that these well-intentioned folk see the American people as a Howling Mob. They think that if Americans find out that Islamists are attacking us, they will go out and slaughter innocent Muslims. They think that Americans are incapable of understanding the simple truth that while most terrorists are Islamists, the large majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Of course, the evidence is that Americans are quite capable of holding these two ideas in their heads. Even after Sept. 11, there were only a miniscule number of attacks on Muslims, and many more Americans went over to their Muslim neighbors and offered to help if they had any trouble - - because THAT is how we Americans are. They didn't even need to hear the almost instant assurances from Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush that all Muslims were not terrorists to bake a cake and bring it over.
It should go without saying that it's ridiculous to believe, as many liberals do, that just about everyone west of Manhattan and east of Hollywood likes to go around wearing white sheets. On a novel issue like gays in the military, many Americans have been moving away from Clinton's 1990s position and toward Kagan's, even while they move away from her views on other issues like abortion.
As it became obvious that the Democrats' health care bills and the Obama big government programs were opposed by most Americans, some liberals resorted to a variant of the Howling Mob theory: Americans were against these programs because they didn't like having a black president. REALLY? This, despite the fact that Obama was elected by the largest percentage margin in the last 20 years.
When you see a smart man like Eric Holder saying stupid things, you know something else is going on. You're seeing a high official who regards most of us as cowards, who believes the truth could make us a Howling Mob. Does Barack Obama feel the same way?
Probably. . . . . .
Thursday, May 6, 2010
SB 1070 Senate Fact Sheet
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session
FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1070
Immigration; Law Enforcement; Safe Neighborhoods.
Purpose
Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys subpoena power in certain investigations of employers. Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.
Background
Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the primary authority for enforcing immigration laws. ICE was created in March 2003 as an investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE was the result of combining the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service.
Current statute defines criminal trespass in the first degree as a person knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in areas related to residential structures, residential yards, real property subject to a valid mineral claim or lease under certain circumstances, property if the person defaces religious symbols or religious property, or critical public service facilities. Depending on the circumstances, criminal trespass in the first degree provides penalties ranging from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony (A.R.S. § 13-1504).
In 2007, Arizona enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), prohibiting an employer from knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized alien and establishing penalties for employers in violation. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office administers the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. The SAVE Program, together with the Social Security Administration (SSA), administers E-Verify, which allows employers to electronically confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired employees. LAWA requires all Arizona employers to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of new hires. Proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through E-Verify creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.
The fiscal impact is unknown; however, there may be additional costs associated with criminal prosecution and detention of persons who are accused and convicted of the crimes established in this legislation. Additionally, the addition of new fines associated with this measure may also have an impact.
Provisions
Enforcement
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.
2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.
3. Requires an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. who is convicted of a violation of state or local law to be transferred immediately to the custody of ICE or Customs and Border Protection, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed.
4. Allows a law enforcement agency to securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is in the agency’s custody to:
a) A federal facility in this state or
b) Any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.
5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.
6. Prohibits officials or agencies of the state and political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining an individual’s immigration status information or exchanging that information with any other governmental entity for the following official purposes:
a) Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state;
b) Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if that verification is required under state law or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in the state;
c) Confirming a detainee’s identity; and
d) If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with federal alien registration laws.
7. Disallows officials or agencies of the state or political subdivisions from adopting or implementing policies that limit immigration enforcement to less than the full extent permitted by federal law, and allows a person to bring an action in superior court to challenge an official or agency that does so.
8.Requires the court, if there is a judicial finding that an entity has committed a violation, to order any of the following:
a) That the plaintiff recover court costs and attorney fees;
b) That the defendant pay a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of the action.
9. Requires the court to collect and remit the civil penalty to the Department of Public Safety (DPS), which must establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) appropriation.
10. Specifies that law enforcement officers are indemnified by their agencies against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this statute to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.
Trespassing by Illegal Aliens
11. Specifies that, in addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is:
a) Present on any public or private land in the state and
b) Is not carrying his or her alien registration card or has willfully failed to register.
12. Requires, in the enforcement of this statute, the final determination of an alien’s immigration status to be determined by:
a) A law enforcement officer who is authorized to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status or
b) A law enforcement officer or agency communicating with ICE or the U.S. Border Protection.
13. Stipulates that a person is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.
14. Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses.
15. Requires the court to collect and remit the assessments to DPS for the special GIITEM subaccount.
16. Specifies that the trespassing statute does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the U.S.
17. Classifies the violation as follows:
a) A class 2 felony if the person commits the violation while in possession of a dangerous drug, precursor chemicals used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or property that is used for committing an act of terrorism;
b) A class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense or if the person, within 60 months before the violation, accepted a voluntary removal from the U.S. or has been deported;
c) A class 1 misdemeanor in all other cases.
Unlawful Stopping and Solicitation of Work
18. Specifies that it is unlawful, if a motor vehicle is stopped on a street, roadway or highway and blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic:
a) For a motor vehicle occupant to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location;
b) For a person to enter the motor vehicle in order to be hired by a motor vehicle occupant and to be transported to work at a different location.
19. Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona.
20. Classifies these offenses as class 1 misdemeanors.
21. Defines solicit and unauthorized alien.
Unlawful Transporting
22. Specifies that it is unlawful for a person to do or attempt to do the following if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the U.S. in violation of law:
a) Transport or move an alien in Arizona in a means of transportation;
b) Conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in Arizona, including any building or means of transportation.
23. Stipulates it is unlawful to encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in Arizona if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law.
24. Subjects a means of transportation used in the commission of a violation to mandatory vehicle immobilization or impoundment.
25. Classifies these offenses as class 1 misdemeanors and subjects offenders to fines of at least $1,000, except that a violation that involves 10 or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony with a fine of at least $1,000 for each alien who is involved.
Investigations of Employers
26. Allows the county attorney, in investigations of employers who are alleged to have knowingly or intentionally hired unauthorized aliens, to take evidence, administer oaths or affirmations, issue subpoenas requiring attendance and testimony of witnesses and cause depositions to be taken.
27. Exempts proceedings held during the course of a confidential investigation from open meeting laws.
28. Stipulates that an employer is not entrapped in an investigation if the employer was predisposed to knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien and law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to do so.
29. States that it is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identities.
30. Directs employers to keep verification records of their employees’ work eligibility through E-Verify.
31. Establishes a class 3 felony for failing to:
a) Verify employment eligibility through E-Verify or
b) Keep records of verifications.
Miscellaneous
32. Specifies that monies in the special GIITEM subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to immigration.
33. Stipulates that the terms of the act regarding immigration have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.
34. Requires the act to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.
35. Contains intent and severability clauses.
36. Titles the legislation the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”
37. Makes conforming changes.
38. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Prepared by Senate Research
January 15, 2010
Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session
FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1070
Immigration; Law Enforcement; Safe Neighborhoods.
Purpose
Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys subpoena power in certain investigations of employers. Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.
Background
Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325).
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the primary authority for enforcing immigration laws. ICE was created in March 2003 as an investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE was the result of combining the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service.
Current statute defines criminal trespass in the first degree as a person knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in areas related to residential structures, residential yards, real property subject to a valid mineral claim or lease under certain circumstances, property if the person defaces religious symbols or religious property, or critical public service facilities. Depending on the circumstances, criminal trespass in the first degree provides penalties ranging from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony (A.R.S. § 13-1504).
In 2007, Arizona enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), prohibiting an employer from knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized alien and establishing penalties for employers in violation. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office administers the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. The SAVE Program, together with the Social Security Administration (SSA), administers E-Verify, which allows employers to electronically confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired employees. LAWA requires all Arizona employers to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of new hires. Proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through E-Verify creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.
The fiscal impact is unknown; however, there may be additional costs associated with criminal prosecution and detention of persons who are accused and convicted of the crimes established in this legislation. Additionally, the addition of new fines associated with this measure may also have an impact.
Provisions
Enforcement
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.
2. Requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.
3. Requires an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. who is convicted of a violation of state or local law to be transferred immediately to the custody of ICE or Customs and Border Protection, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed.
4. Allows a law enforcement agency to securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is in the agency’s custody to:
a) A federal facility in this state or
b) Any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.
5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.
6. Prohibits officials or agencies of the state and political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining an individual’s immigration status information or exchanging that information with any other governmental entity for the following official purposes:
a) Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state;
b) Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if that verification is required under state law or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in the state;
c) Confirming a detainee’s identity; and
d) If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with federal alien registration laws.
7. Disallows officials or agencies of the state or political subdivisions from adopting or implementing policies that limit immigration enforcement to less than the full extent permitted by federal law, and allows a person to bring an action in superior court to challenge an official or agency that does so.
8.Requires the court, if there is a judicial finding that an entity has committed a violation, to order any of the following:
a) That the plaintiff recover court costs and attorney fees;
b) That the defendant pay a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of the action.
9. Requires the court to collect and remit the civil penalty to the Department of Public Safety (DPS), which must establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) appropriation.
10. Specifies that law enforcement officers are indemnified by their agencies against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this statute to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.
Trespassing by Illegal Aliens
11. Specifies that, in addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is:
a) Present on any public or private land in the state and
b) Is not carrying his or her alien registration card or has willfully failed to register.
12. Requires, in the enforcement of this statute, the final determination of an alien’s immigration status to be determined by:
a) A law enforcement officer who is authorized to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status or
b) A law enforcement officer or agency communicating with ICE or the U.S. Border Protection.
13. Stipulates that a person is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.
14. Directs the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of at least $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for subsequent offenses.
15. Requires the court to collect and remit the assessments to DPS for the special GIITEM subaccount.
16. Specifies that the trespassing statute does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the U.S.
17. Classifies the violation as follows:
a) A class 2 felony if the person commits the violation while in possession of a dangerous drug, precursor chemicals used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or property that is used for committing an act of terrorism;
b) A class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense or if the person, within 60 months before the violation, accepted a voluntary removal from the U.S. or has been deported;
c) A class 1 misdemeanor in all other cases.
Unlawful Stopping and Solicitation of Work
18. Specifies that it is unlawful, if a motor vehicle is stopped on a street, roadway or highway and blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic:
a) For a motor vehicle occupant to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location;
b) For a person to enter the motor vehicle in order to be hired by a motor vehicle occupant and to be transported to work at a different location.
19. Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the U.S. and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona.
20. Classifies these offenses as class 1 misdemeanors.
21. Defines solicit and unauthorized alien.
Unlawful Transporting
22. Specifies that it is unlawful for a person to do or attempt to do the following if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the U.S. in violation of law:
a) Transport or move an alien in Arizona in a means of transportation;
b) Conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in Arizona, including any building or means of transportation.
23. Stipulates it is unlawful to encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in Arizona if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law.
24. Subjects a means of transportation used in the commission of a violation to mandatory vehicle immobilization or impoundment.
25. Classifies these offenses as class 1 misdemeanors and subjects offenders to fines of at least $1,000, except that a violation that involves 10 or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony with a fine of at least $1,000 for each alien who is involved.
Investigations of Employers
26. Allows the county attorney, in investigations of employers who are alleged to have knowingly or intentionally hired unauthorized aliens, to take evidence, administer oaths or affirmations, issue subpoenas requiring attendance and testimony of witnesses and cause depositions to be taken.
27. Exempts proceedings held during the course of a confidential investigation from open meeting laws.
28. Stipulates that an employer is not entrapped in an investigation if the employer was predisposed to knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien and law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to do so.
29. States that it is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identities.
30. Directs employers to keep verification records of their employees’ work eligibility through E-Verify.
31. Establishes a class 3 felony for failing to:
a) Verify employment eligibility through E-Verify or
b) Keep records of verifications.
Miscellaneous
32. Specifies that monies in the special GIITEM subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to immigration.
33. Stipulates that the terms of the act regarding immigration have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.
34. Requires the act to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.
35. Contains intent and severability clauses.
36. Titles the legislation the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”
37. Makes conforming changes.
38. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Prepared by Senate Research
January 15, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Obama Spends. So, What The Hell, Keep Spending.
During his campaign for President, Barack Obama argued that earmarks account for a mere "0.5% of the total federal budget," so eliminating earmarks would not solve the problem.
What an attitude, I say.
Enter the fiscal watchdog group, "Citizens Against Government Waste's" and thier latest annual "Pig Book." Okay, I know what you're gonna say, "Pig Book? How friggin' childish." And, I agree, but, I can't change that now. Get this, though: CAGW found $16.5 billion, yes BILLION in congressional earmarks that was approved in the 2010 fiscal year. Wuh-wuh WHAT??
Believe it or not, that's good news. How, you ask? Last week Congress has approved $700 billion for the bank bailout, $862 billion for the stimulus, a $3.6 trillion budget and a $1.4 trillion deficit. And, here's the GOOD NEWS: Earmarks are reduced from fiscal year 2009. Ahh, good news indeed!
So, the House Republican Conference countered by pledging not to request earmarks for one year, and, well, the Democrats considered this request. Then rejected it.
Still, the Senate has no restrictions on earmarks. The Senate, you may recall, appropriated more than $200 million for Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."
During the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged to reduce earmarks to less than $7.8 billion, despite budgeting a whopping $3.6 trillion in federal spending this year.
Am I wrong to think that Obama is just plain wrong that $16.5 billion is such a paltry sum that it does not make a difference?
In my humble opinion, the problem is that if Washington cannot cut pet projects, then Washington cannot cut anything. If Washington cannot tell the paper industry to pay for its own "wood utilization research," then Washington cannot say no to any special interest group. And, if Obama's cronies can appropriate 35 anonymous projects worth $6 billion in the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act despite new rules that are supposed to deliver complete transparency, then the rules mean nothing. Where is my transparency, Mr. Obama? You promised me this!
To me, earmarks are unworthy projects that deserve no money, no appropriation, no attention because they bypass the competitive process. But even if there is such a thing as a good earmark, the price invariably is all the other earmarks that are not good.
Unfortunately, that's a price Congress has been all too willing to pay -- because, well, Congress doesn't have to pay it.
Ahh, there's the rub!
What an attitude, I say.
Enter the fiscal watchdog group, "Citizens Against Government Waste's" and thier latest annual "Pig Book." Okay, I know what you're gonna say, "Pig Book? How friggin' childish." And, I agree, but, I can't change that now. Get this, though: CAGW found $16.5 billion, yes BILLION in congressional earmarks that was approved in the 2010 fiscal year. Wuh-wuh WHAT??
Believe it or not, that's good news. How, you ask? Last week Congress has approved $700 billion for the bank bailout, $862 billion for the stimulus, a $3.6 trillion budget and a $1.4 trillion deficit. And, here's the GOOD NEWS: Earmarks are reduced from fiscal year 2009. Ahh, good news indeed!
So, the House Republican Conference countered by pledging not to request earmarks for one year, and, well, the Democrats considered this request. Then rejected it.
Still, the Senate has no restrictions on earmarks. The Senate, you may recall, appropriated more than $200 million for Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."
During the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged to reduce earmarks to less than $7.8 billion, despite budgeting a whopping $3.6 trillion in federal spending this year.
Am I wrong to think that Obama is just plain wrong that $16.5 billion is such a paltry sum that it does not make a difference?
In my humble opinion, the problem is that if Washington cannot cut pet projects, then Washington cannot cut anything. If Washington cannot tell the paper industry to pay for its own "wood utilization research," then Washington cannot say no to any special interest group. And, if Obama's cronies can appropriate 35 anonymous projects worth $6 billion in the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act despite new rules that are supposed to deliver complete transparency, then the rules mean nothing. Where is my transparency, Mr. Obama? You promised me this!
To me, earmarks are unworthy projects that deserve no money, no appropriation, no attention because they bypass the competitive process. But even if there is such a thing as a good earmark, the price invariably is all the other earmarks that are not good.
Unfortunately, that's a price Congress has been all too willing to pay -- because, well, Congress doesn't have to pay it.
Ahh, there's the rub!
Friday, March 12, 2010
Nancy Pelosi Is Our Worst Nightmare!
I want to remind you of the scariest words in Washington - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If that name still causes you to squirm, get angry and grind your teeth, then I hear ya!
Like you, I'm tired of waking up every day to see Nancy Pelosi and her cronies work to fulfill the agenda of Barack Obama without regard for how it chips away at our national sovereignty, undermines our national economy and mortgages our children's future. I'm worried about how their actions will future generations of Americans.
My concerns for our nation's welfare are not strictly based on my conservative views, but as a patriotic American. I'm concerned that we continue to lose our rights and liberties daily as Washington politicians, led by Speaker Pelosi, want to force us to submit to socialism.
I'm a proud American who wants our nation to succeed in the vision of our Founding Fathers and refuses to see it continue down this wayward course, this death spiral.
Like you, I'm tired of waking up every day to see Nancy Pelosi and her cronies work to fulfill the agenda of Barack Obama without regard for how it chips away at our national sovereignty, undermines our national economy and mortgages our children's future. I'm worried about how their actions will future generations of Americans.
My concerns for our nation's welfare are not strictly based on my conservative views, but as a patriotic American. I'm concerned that we continue to lose our rights and liberties daily as Washington politicians, led by Speaker Pelosi, want to force us to submit to socialism.
I'm a proud American who wants our nation to succeed in the vision of our Founding Fathers and refuses to see it continue down this wayward course, this death spiral.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Healthcare Summit Fraud
If the president had actually meant for the summit to lead to compromise and accommodation he would have said so up front. He knew that every Republican in Washington (not to mention an overwhelming majority of Americans) wants to toss out those two disasters that the House and Senate approved under extreme pressure.
But instead of agreeing to kill those bills and, as the Republicans have insisted, “start with a clean sheet of paper,” the president has made it clear it’s “my way or the highway.”
It was apparent to me long before the summit started that the Democratic leadership had absolutely no intention of achieving a “compromise” with the Republicans. The White House had been dropping hints for days that the president was going to set aside the velvet glove and instead take out his heaviest hammer. In this case, that means endorsing an odd legislative practice called “reconciliation” to get his health-care bill passed by both branches of Congress.
I’ve written about reconciliation before. Basically, it means rigging the rules so that legislation already approved in the Senate by 60 votes can be ratified; when it comes back from a House-Senate conference committee—by a simple majority.
Normally, neither side would attempt this when major changes have been made in a bill. But apparently the Democratics have decided that this is the only way they’re going to get Obamacare passed this year. So the heck with precedent, the public, or the outraged cries of the opposition. It’s full speed ahead.”
An Obamacare approved would be an unprecedented, dangerous and historic mistake.
I can’t imagine anything the Obamacrats could do that would stir up the opposition more than to cram this idiotic piece of legislation down our throats. You think the Tea Parties, town hall meetings and other gatherings have shown some spirited opposition? You ain’t seen nothin’ compared to what will happen if/when this happens. It’s going to take a lot more than a few hundred million in kickbacks to bully this bill through Congress. It’s going to take a few dozen acts of political suicide.
We’ve already seen the first sign that the deal is breaking down. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are insisting that the other one be the first to bring the bill up for a vote. Watching them toss this hot potato back and forth would be amusing, if the situation weren’t so serious. (Actually, it’s pretty amusing even so.)
I say we require all members of Congress and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. See how they boils over! I can’t think of anything that would get these pompous planners to switch sides faster. Let’s level the playing field and see how they like it.
And, let’s take away their fancy pensions and force them to join Social Security and Medicare. That will teach them to fuss with healthcare.
But instead of agreeing to kill those bills and, as the Republicans have insisted, “start with a clean sheet of paper,” the president has made it clear it’s “my way or the highway.”
It was apparent to me long before the summit started that the Democratic leadership had absolutely no intention of achieving a “compromise” with the Republicans. The White House had been dropping hints for days that the president was going to set aside the velvet glove and instead take out his heaviest hammer. In this case, that means endorsing an odd legislative practice called “reconciliation” to get his health-care bill passed by both branches of Congress.
I’ve written about reconciliation before. Basically, it means rigging the rules so that legislation already approved in the Senate by 60 votes can be ratified; when it comes back from a House-Senate conference committee—by a simple majority.
Normally, neither side would attempt this when major changes have been made in a bill. But apparently the Democratics have decided that this is the only way they’re going to get Obamacare passed this year. So the heck with precedent, the public, or the outraged cries of the opposition. It’s full speed ahead.”
An Obamacare approved would be an unprecedented, dangerous and historic mistake.
I can’t imagine anything the Obamacrats could do that would stir up the opposition more than to cram this idiotic piece of legislation down our throats. You think the Tea Parties, town hall meetings and other gatherings have shown some spirited opposition? You ain’t seen nothin’ compared to what will happen if/when this happens. It’s going to take a lot more than a few hundred million in kickbacks to bully this bill through Congress. It’s going to take a few dozen acts of political suicide.
We’ve already seen the first sign that the deal is breaking down. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are insisting that the other one be the first to bring the bill up for a vote. Watching them toss this hot potato back and forth would be amusing, if the situation weren’t so serious. (Actually, it’s pretty amusing even so.)
I say we require all members of Congress and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. See how they boils over! I can’t think of anything that would get these pompous planners to switch sides faster. Let’s level the playing field and see how they like it.
And, let’s take away their fancy pensions and force them to join Social Security and Medicare. That will teach them to fuss with healthcare.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
As the boy president occupied the White House on January 20, 2009 it was predictable that his presidency would last a year, at most, because the things he promised and the things he stood for were so uniquely un-American.
Looking back over his year in office, any reasonably precocious fourth grader could make a cogent argument in opposition to nearly everything he’s done. In fact, his policies have been so extreme and so far outside the mainstream that he was destined to achieve the most spectacular fall from grace of any American president in history. It was easy to see him serving out the final three years of his term as a virtual exile in the White House… afraid to venture out among any but the most rabid partisans.
Seeing his most ambitious initiative, healthcare reform, die in the flames of the Massachusetts Massacre, Obama made a hastily-planned “sortie” to Ohio for yet another Bush-bashing, self-aggrandizing stump speech on job creation. It was vintage Obama… full of left wing hyperbole and planted questions from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the hand-picked audience.
But, there were just two things wrong with it: 1) Almost everything he said was either wrong or an outright lie, and 2) He is so overexposed that no one in the television audience really wanted to see him.
Looking back over his year in office, any reasonably precocious fourth grader could make a cogent argument in opposition to nearly everything he’s done. In fact, his policies have been so extreme and so far outside the mainstream that he was destined to achieve the most spectacular fall from grace of any American president in history. It was easy to see him serving out the final three years of his term as a virtual exile in the White House… afraid to venture out among any but the most rabid partisans.
Seeing his most ambitious initiative, healthcare reform, die in the flames of the Massachusetts Massacre, Obama made a hastily-planned “sortie” to Ohio for yet another Bush-bashing, self-aggrandizing stump speech on job creation. It was vintage Obama… full of left wing hyperbole and planted questions from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the hand-picked audience.
But, there were just two things wrong with it: 1) Almost everything he said was either wrong or an outright lie, and 2) He is so overexposed that no one in the television audience really wanted to see him.
Friday, February 12, 2010
This Is How Obama's Presidency Fails
This is how a presidency fails. It doesn't happen all at once even if future historians may single out this particular defeat or that particular calamity as an administration comes apart. The defeats and disappointments, like milestones on a steep incline, seem to come closer and closer together as momentum increases and the downward rush accelerates. Only in retrospect does the failure come to seem inevitable.
At the time, it seems the dismal trend could be reversed with just one lucky break, one signal accomplishment. Nothing is fated. And yet day by day, month after month, as the time to arrest the fall grows a little shorter every day, the administration just goes through the same motions with the same lack of effect, asking the same questions over and over again:
How turn things around?
Things happen fast in administrations, sometimes even before the politicians realize they're happening. Denial is the first stage in the process of failure, and the longer it lasts, the more probable the failure. "All that's happened," the president assured his party as the aftershocks of its defeat in Massachusetts continued to reverberate, "is that we've gone from the largest Senate majority in a generation to the second-largest Senate majority in a generation." Big deal. Pay it no mind.
It must be a mighty scary one for the president to sound so unconcerned. Yes, it was just one Senate seat lost. But it was in Massachusetts — Massachusetts! The bluest of blue states, where Ted Kennedy's seat had had a RESERVED sign on it for 46 friggin' years. Can the president be oblivious to such a portent of elections to come? What country is he living in? Were his party's impressive losses in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races just minor details, too? Incidental little skirmishes to be brushed aside? Like failing to occupy Little Roundtop on the first day of Gettysburg?
Please. There's a difference between trying to keep up party morale and a leader's doing it so unconvincingly that he only adds to the sense of an impending rout. Where can the magic have gone?
The more this president talks, the less convincing he sounds. Addressing the remaining Democrats in the Senate, still mighty in numbers but no longer in spirit, he spoke of taking a "non-ideological" course. This from a president who's long talked like an ideologue when he needed to, specifically of the populist variety. He'd just denounced "fat-cat bankers" with their "massive profits and obscene bonuses." Now, he's discovered, "We can't be demonizing every bank out there."
Having just proposed a broad array of new taxes on businesses large and small, the president told his fellow Democrats, "We've got to be the party of business, small business and large business." Which is it going to be — another crusade against malefactors of great wealth or a pro-business stance this time around?
Both, apparently, depending on the time and place and the country's mood at the moment. The contradictions in his speeches pile up. The only thing sure about Barack Obama now is his dwindling credibility. It sounds like what he really needs to do is Stop. Sit down somewhere quiet, close the door and just think. Instead, he keeps parroting campaign slogans, even if they don't quite fit together.
A president so personally popular still has a lot of room for error. Even some of his harshest critics, those who dote on his every stumble, cannot be hoping he will fail, not if they think about it, for his failure would to a great extent be the country's. Yet it becomes harder and harder to deny that he is flailing if not failing, as if he were trying to get some traction, find some purchase, but can't. Despite all he says, out of both sides of his mouth, the natives grow restless.
It happened to Jimmy Carter in a single term. There is a tide in the affairs of man. There is a momentum to failure, and unless it is stopped, decisively, and the whole cascade of defeats reversed, defeat builds on defeat. If nothing succeeds like success in this country, nothing fails like failure.
In the meantime, the smoother the president's presentations, the emptier his policies seem. The economic recovery is still fighting to regain its wind. The president's foreign policy doesn't seem like a policy at all but a series of disconnected gestures. And the greater the gaps between his words and actions, the more his political standard twists slowly in the wind. Here was last week's rationale for the historic deficits he's building into the government's budget for years to come:
"Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children's future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century."
So which is it going to be? Save or spend? Both, of course. The president used to be able to make indecision sound practical, reasoned, above ideology, even eloquent. Now it just sounds false. How long before it sounds increasingly desperate?
What's the president to do? Make a clear choice. The way Franklin Roosevelt let the American people know that Dr. New Deal had been replaced by Dr. Win-the-War. The way George W. Bush, at the lowest ebb of American fortunes in Iraq, took hold of his own administration and shook it hard, exchanging one secretary of defense for another, switching commanding generals and strategies, and ordering a Surge instead of continuing the same old failed policies.
Mr. President, make some hard choices and let the American people know what they are. If they turn out to be the wrong ones, no doubt you'll pay the political price. But if you continue to waver, you'll pay the price anyway. At least you will have stood for something clear, the way Harry Truman did even as his popularity plummeted. Mr. Truman knew history would extend past the next election, and trusted it to vindicate him. Show that you do, too, by marking out a clear course.
Mr. President, if you're going to shift into reverse, do it openly. If you're determined to stay the course, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, then do that. But, please, don't pretend you can do both at the same time. Indecisiveness is a kind of guaranteed defeat itself. Act. And make it clear you're acting. And in which direction you're heading.
This president hasn't heeded such counsel before, and why should he? He's the great politician. Didn't he just win a presidential election less than two years ago, though now it seems the distant past? Why should he do anything different from what he's been doing? Because, like the rest of the country, despite all his protestations and empty cheer, he's got to feel his hold on the American people slipping, along with his power to shape events. It's time for the captain of our good ship to master the river's current, not just drift with it. The great rushing sound from just around the bend is that of a crashing waterfall.
At the time, it seems the dismal trend could be reversed with just one lucky break, one signal accomplishment. Nothing is fated. And yet day by day, month after month, as the time to arrest the fall grows a little shorter every day, the administration just goes through the same motions with the same lack of effect, asking the same questions over and over again:
How turn things around?
Things happen fast in administrations, sometimes even before the politicians realize they're happening. Denial is the first stage in the process of failure, and the longer it lasts, the more probable the failure. "All that's happened," the president assured his party as the aftershocks of its defeat in Massachusetts continued to reverberate, "is that we've gone from the largest Senate majority in a generation to the second-largest Senate majority in a generation." Big deal. Pay it no mind.
It must be a mighty scary one for the president to sound so unconcerned. Yes, it was just one Senate seat lost. But it was in Massachusetts — Massachusetts! The bluest of blue states, where Ted Kennedy's seat had had a RESERVED sign on it for 46 friggin' years. Can the president be oblivious to such a portent of elections to come? What country is he living in? Were his party's impressive losses in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races just minor details, too? Incidental little skirmishes to be brushed aside? Like failing to occupy Little Roundtop on the first day of Gettysburg?
Please. There's a difference between trying to keep up party morale and a leader's doing it so unconvincingly that he only adds to the sense of an impending rout. Where can the magic have gone?
The more this president talks, the less convincing he sounds. Addressing the remaining Democrats in the Senate, still mighty in numbers but no longer in spirit, he spoke of taking a "non-ideological" course. This from a president who's long talked like an ideologue when he needed to, specifically of the populist variety. He'd just denounced "fat-cat bankers" with their "massive profits and obscene bonuses." Now, he's discovered, "We can't be demonizing every bank out there."
Having just proposed a broad array of new taxes on businesses large and small, the president told his fellow Democrats, "We've got to be the party of business, small business and large business." Which is it going to be — another crusade against malefactors of great wealth or a pro-business stance this time around?
Both, apparently, depending on the time and place and the country's mood at the moment. The contradictions in his speeches pile up. The only thing sure about Barack Obama now is his dwindling credibility. It sounds like what he really needs to do is Stop. Sit down somewhere quiet, close the door and just think. Instead, he keeps parroting campaign slogans, even if they don't quite fit together.
A president so personally popular still has a lot of room for error. Even some of his harshest critics, those who dote on his every stumble, cannot be hoping he will fail, not if they think about it, for his failure would to a great extent be the country's. Yet it becomes harder and harder to deny that he is flailing if not failing, as if he were trying to get some traction, find some purchase, but can't. Despite all he says, out of both sides of his mouth, the natives grow restless.
It happened to Jimmy Carter in a single term. There is a tide in the affairs of man. There is a momentum to failure, and unless it is stopped, decisively, and the whole cascade of defeats reversed, defeat builds on defeat. If nothing succeeds like success in this country, nothing fails like failure.
In the meantime, the smoother the president's presentations, the emptier his policies seem. The economic recovery is still fighting to regain its wind. The president's foreign policy doesn't seem like a policy at all but a series of disconnected gestures. And the greater the gaps between his words and actions, the more his political standard twists slowly in the wind. Here was last week's rationale for the historic deficits he's building into the government's budget for years to come:
"Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children's future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century."
So which is it going to be? Save or spend? Both, of course. The president used to be able to make indecision sound practical, reasoned, above ideology, even eloquent. Now it just sounds false. How long before it sounds increasingly desperate?
What's the president to do? Make a clear choice. The way Franklin Roosevelt let the American people know that Dr. New Deal had been replaced by Dr. Win-the-War. The way George W. Bush, at the lowest ebb of American fortunes in Iraq, took hold of his own administration and shook it hard, exchanging one secretary of defense for another, switching commanding generals and strategies, and ordering a Surge instead of continuing the same old failed policies.
Mr. President, make some hard choices and let the American people know what they are. If they turn out to be the wrong ones, no doubt you'll pay the political price. But if you continue to waver, you'll pay the price anyway. At least you will have stood for something clear, the way Harry Truman did even as his popularity plummeted. Mr. Truman knew history would extend past the next election, and trusted it to vindicate him. Show that you do, too, by marking out a clear course.
Mr. President, if you're going to shift into reverse, do it openly. If you're determined to stay the course, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, then do that. But, please, don't pretend you can do both at the same time. Indecisiveness is a kind of guaranteed defeat itself. Act. And make it clear you're acting. And in which direction you're heading.
This president hasn't heeded such counsel before, and why should he? He's the great politician. Didn't he just win a presidential election less than two years ago, though now it seems the distant past? Why should he do anything different from what he's been doing? Because, like the rest of the country, despite all his protestations and empty cheer, he's got to feel his hold on the American people slipping, along with his power to shape events. It's time for the captain of our good ship to master the river's current, not just drift with it. The great rushing sound from just around the bend is that of a crashing waterfall.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Obama Is Playing Poker With This Healthcare Summit!
During a surprise visit to the White House briefing room on Tuesday afternoon, President Obama noted that "the public has soured on the process" that has produced separate-but-close Senate and House versions of health care reform legislation. And this souring, he said, "actually contaminates how Americans view the substance of the bills." Consequently, the president added, the bipartisan health care reform summit the White House is convening on Feb. 25 will move things along by showing the folks back home "that there is complete transparency and all of these issues have been adequately vetted and adequately debated." REALLY?
Is that really what people want? More gabbing about health care -- and more squawking about which side is truly trying to be bipartisan? It's hard to see how another confab about health care reform is going to improve the approval ratings of "the process." There certainly won't be a grand bipartisan deal struck at this session. In fact, as Obama was talking to White House reporters, the office of Rep. Eric Cantor, the Republican House whip, was firing off a press release deriding the summit as "a dog and pony show to trumpet failed bills that, in fact, the Democrats can't even pass." (Technical point, Mr. Whip: The bills did pass. But they have yet to be reconciled. That's the rub.) Amazing, if you ask me.
Still, Cantor said the GOPers would show up at the summit -- in order to express their opposition to the Obama-backed bills. And the Republican Party has attacked the event as "political theater" designed to push Obama's "government takeover of health care."
Obama and the White House obviously realize that this get-together will not un-sour the process. So why do it? WHY DO IT? The obvious answer, to me, is this: The president is playing poker.
During his days as a 22-month state senator in Illinois, Obama participated in a regular game with Democratic and Republican legislators and even some lobbyists. He was known as a cautious and focused player. He'd often fold if his hand was weak. But that meant that he often succeeded the rare times he bluffed.
Now he's bluffing.
Obama and his crew can't expect any real legislative gains to emanate from this summit. And they show no signs of looking to seriously recast the Democratic bills on the basis of the GOP input the president is courteously requesting. Obama and his aides must be hoping to win the sideshow battle over that ever-pressing question, who's really bipartisan? After all, he is inviting the opposition to present their ideas -- which will make him look accommodating. But he will note, as he did on Tuesday, that the existing Democratic bills did incorporate a few Republican proposals and that the GOPers have tried to put up a concrete wall regarding the legislation he favors. The goal: to use a bipartisan gathering to highlight GOP obstructionism.
Such gamesmanship, whether it works or not, won't cause Americans to lose their distaste of the process. But the White House probably calculates this is Obama's last shot to act like a gentlemen before he and the Democrats nail the Republicans by using a legislative procedure known as reconciliation (which only requires a majority vote, by the way!) in order to pass revisions to the health care reform measures already approved that will allow the legislation to land on the president's desk for his signature.
This bluff is also filling time for Obama. Right now, parliamentarian experts for the House and Senate Democrats are attempting to figure out how this reconciliation strategy could work. (Trust me, it's complicated.) So not much else is happening -- especially with Snowpocalypse I and II hitting Washington the week before a week-long congressional recess.
As the Obama White House has observed in the past, when there's a lull in that sour legislative process, the foes of the president's health care overhaul get a good opportunity to fire away at it.
So the summit is a two-fer for the White House: a forum in which Obama can attempt to WIN the bipartisan sweepstakes and a useful distraction.
The key phrase is "going forward." At some point, Obama will probably have to jettison the process PR and nudge -- or force -- action in Congress. The health care summit can buy him some time, while House and Senate Dems craft their endgame. Yet he could soon run out of bluff.
Then he'll just have to play the cards he has.
Is that really what people want? More gabbing about health care -- and more squawking about which side is truly trying to be bipartisan? It's hard to see how another confab about health care reform is going to improve the approval ratings of "the process." There certainly won't be a grand bipartisan deal struck at this session. In fact, as Obama was talking to White House reporters, the office of Rep. Eric Cantor, the Republican House whip, was firing off a press release deriding the summit as "a dog and pony show to trumpet failed bills that, in fact, the Democrats can't even pass." (Technical point, Mr. Whip: The bills did pass. But they have yet to be reconciled. That's the rub.) Amazing, if you ask me.
Still, Cantor said the GOPers would show up at the summit -- in order to express their opposition to the Obama-backed bills. And the Republican Party has attacked the event as "political theater" designed to push Obama's "government takeover of health care."
Obama and the White House obviously realize that this get-together will not un-sour the process. So why do it? WHY DO IT? The obvious answer, to me, is this: The president is playing poker.
During his days as a 22-month state senator in Illinois, Obama participated in a regular game with Democratic and Republican legislators and even some lobbyists. He was known as a cautious and focused player. He'd often fold if his hand was weak. But that meant that he often succeeded the rare times he bluffed.
Now he's bluffing.
Obama and his crew can't expect any real legislative gains to emanate from this summit. And they show no signs of looking to seriously recast the Democratic bills on the basis of the GOP input the president is courteously requesting. Obama and his aides must be hoping to win the sideshow battle over that ever-pressing question, who's really bipartisan? After all, he is inviting the opposition to present their ideas -- which will make him look accommodating. But he will note, as he did on Tuesday, that the existing Democratic bills did incorporate a few Republican proposals and that the GOPers have tried to put up a concrete wall regarding the legislation he favors. The goal: to use a bipartisan gathering to highlight GOP obstructionism.
Such gamesmanship, whether it works or not, won't cause Americans to lose their distaste of the process. But the White House probably calculates this is Obama's last shot to act like a gentlemen before he and the Democrats nail the Republicans by using a legislative procedure known as reconciliation (which only requires a majority vote, by the way!) in order to pass revisions to the health care reform measures already approved that will allow the legislation to land on the president's desk for his signature.
This bluff is also filling time for Obama. Right now, parliamentarian experts for the House and Senate Democrats are attempting to figure out how this reconciliation strategy could work. (Trust me, it's complicated.) So not much else is happening -- especially with Snowpocalypse I and II hitting Washington the week before a week-long congressional recess.
As the Obama White House has observed in the past, when there's a lull in that sour legislative process, the foes of the president's health care overhaul get a good opportunity to fire away at it.
So the summit is a two-fer for the White House: a forum in which Obama can attempt to WIN the bipartisan sweepstakes and a useful distraction.
The key phrase is "going forward." At some point, Obama will probably have to jettison the process PR and nudge -- or force -- action in Congress. The health care summit can buy him some time, while House and Senate Dems craft their endgame. Yet he could soon run out of bluff.
Then he'll just have to play the cards he has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
