In September 2019, President Trump signed Executive Order 13888, allowing state and local governments to decide on their own whether they would accept refugees for resettlement into their municipalities.
On January 15, 2020, that order was temporarily blocked by a federal judge appointed by Clinton, Judge Peter J. Messitte of the Maryland District Court.
The purpose of the order, as stated by the President, is this:
“State and local governments are best positioned to know the resources and capacities they may or may not have available to devote to sustainable resettlement, which maximizes the likelihood refugees placed in the area will become self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance.”
Not so, says the judge.
“By giving States and Local Governments the power to veto where refugees may be resettled,” Judge Messitte said, “in the face of clear statutory text and structure, purpose, Congressional intent, executive practice, judicial holdings, and Constitutional doctrine to the contrary — Order 13888 does not appear to serve the overall public interest.
He continued:
“Granting the preliminary inductive relief Plaintiffs seek does. Refugee resettlement activity should go forward as it developed for the almost 40 years before Executive Order 13888 was announced.”
Never mind that thousands of our own citizens, including veterans of our military, are on the streets living in poverty like they’re in third world countries.
Never mind that some states simply can’t handle any more non-citizens.
Such as Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott wrote in a letter that his state “cannot consent to initial refugee resettlement” for fiscal year 2020.
Since 2010, the governor wrote:
“More refugees have been received in Texas than in any other state. In addition to accepting refugees all these years, Texas has been left by Congress to deal with disproportionate migration issues resulting from a broken federal immigration system.”
Judge Messitte sure fixed that.
The lawsuit against Order 13888 was filed by refugee groups HIAS, Church World Service and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, the president and CEO of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, spoke out against the Governor’s filing against refugee acceptance for this year.
She said his decision is “deeply disappointing,” and “not surprising given Texas’ previous but unsuccessful opposition to refugee resettlement a few years ago.”
Krish continued:
“This is precisely why we filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s unlawful executive order, and we are confident that justice will be served — allowing children and families who have been waiting in desperation for years to be reunited with their family in Texas.
Historically, Texas has served as a beacon of hope for refugees from across the globe, having resettled the highest number of any state.”
You’re kinda proving Governor Abbott’s point there, Krish.
President and CEO of HIAS, Mark Hetfield, released a statement following Judge Messitte’s ruling. In it, he said:
“An overwhelming majority of governors and municipalities have already expressed their desire to continue welcoming refugees. To those few who have not, we say not only is it unkind and un-American to ban refugees from your states and towns, but it is unlawful.”
Hetfield is referring to the 42 other governors who have consented to allowing more refugees into their states.
I know he’s attempting to support the judge’s decision, but, like Krish, he’s just helping prove the point against him. There are 42 states who are able to allow refugees this year. ONE so far has said that it can’t, and now the state will be forced to allow them in anyway.
Unkind or not, the Governor has a responsibility to his state, to his citizens, to assure that resources are available to the people currently in Texas. To include the refugees already there!
White House Spokesperson Stephanie Grisham said in a statement:
“Another lawless district court has asserted its own preferred immigration policy in place of the laws of the United States – and, in so doing, robbed millions of American citizens of their voice and their say in a vital issue directly affecting their communities.
President Trump rightly and justly recognized that your communities are unique, and while some cities have the resources to adequately support refugees and help them be successful, not all communities can sustain the substantial and costly burden.”
Grisham said the administration is “expeditiously reviewing all options to protect our communities and preserve the integrity of the refugee resettlement process.”
Well at least someone is.
In the meantime, you’ve got candidates running against President Trump who believe the secret to winning the White House is to promise “free stuff” to everyone – including illegal immigrants.
And as we reported Thursday, all of that “free stuff” would cost at least $60 trillion – at least in the plan offered by Bernie Sanders.
You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone that likes paying taxes, but most can understand how they work overall – government takes a dollar and can spend that dollar.
Clearly, presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders is among the population of people that doesn’t understand projected costs versus projected tax revenue.
When his whacky spending plans were scrutinized by economists, they revealed that Sanders’ agenda would double the size of government with a cost of a conservative estimate of $60 trillion over the next decade. Yet, his articulated tax models don’t come close to covering that $60 trillion cost.
Sanders has been gaining some traction in the national polls lately by pandering to clueless individuals who envision a utopia of socialism. With the candidate claiming he’ll cancel student loan debt, take on big corporations, and try to change the weather in the battle against climate change – he’s become the idol of the anti-capitalist population.
However, these socialist agendas cost more than the relinquishing of freedoms, they cost a lot of money.
Furthermore, Sanders hasn’t been too forthcoming on how he plans to pay for all this nonsense. Sure, he’s made flippant mentions of increasing taxes on the rich and portions of the middle class, but there’s been zero comprehensive breakdowns offered.
Even CNN couldn’t ignore addressing just how Sanders was going to pay for all these big-ticket programs. Senior political analyst for CNN, Ronald Brownstein, noted that all of Sander’s proposed programs combined would double the federal spending over the next decade.
Even former chief White House economic adviser Larry Summers, who served under Obama, said that the plans would significantly increase the size of the government. Summers described the projected spending of Sander’s agenda as “more radical” than that of any previous administration to date.
During the segment on CNN, Summers stated:
“The Sanders spending increase is roughly 2.5 times the size of the New Deal and the estimated fiscal impact of George McGovern’s campaign proposals. This is six times as large of a growth of government than any of the Ronald Reagan dismemberments. We are in a kind of new era of radical proposal.”
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, mentioned that Sanders’ agenda could basically double what the government’s spending:
“We are literally talking about increases in government spending that would double the size of government as a share of gross domestic product. It is remarkable how little attention such a huge change has gotten.”
Economists that have peered into some of the possible costs of Sander’s proposed programs have been instrumental in people wanting answers from the candidate. Conservative estimates of the Medicare for All plan cite a $32 trillion cost alone, but other estimates have run as high as $60 trillion just for that solitary program.
Then there’s the “Green New Deal”, which increases the spend on food stamp programs like SNAP, that could potentially cost $16 trillion. Wiping out all that pesky student load debt and handing out free college would also cost about $2.2 trillion as well.
Keep in mind, those are just three of the numerous programs Sanders suggested he’d make come to fruition if elected.
He’s also mentioned that he’d create universal child care, affordable housing solutions, raising the pay of teachers, and a guaranteed federal jobs program.
If Sander’s gets elected and has his way, taxes would effectively have to be doubled on mandatory spending to cover the low-end estimate of $60 trillion over a ten-year period.
To date, the U.S. doesn’t even spend $3 trillion a year on entitlements, under Sander’s programs it could be well over $6 trillion per year. Be warned folks, a vote for Sanders is a vote to shaving off a lot of your paycheck.
Now Sanders has tried to say that decreasing military spend would help cover the costs of his programs.
The annual spend on the military is $693 billion.
Even cutting that in half will hardly put a dent in the trillions needed per year.
Of course, Sanders’ backup plan to cover the cost is increasing taxes on Wall Street, the wealthy, and the middle class. Except, that might only cover a third of the needed revenue over the next decade. Economist Brian Riedl examined these proposed tax increases and estimated that maybe $23 trillion could be attained in the next ten years.
The poorly designed tax plans that have been articulated by Sander’s simply don’t measure up to gathering the needed money for the programs.
Not to mention, suggestions like the grossly intrusive inheritance tax could only raise maybe $315 billion over a decade, and that was according to Sanders’ own people. Also, even Sander’s “wealth tax” might fetch $1.6 trillion in a decade according to Vox.
Also, for those not privy to the “wealth tax”, it’s not some form of income tax or sales tax, it’s literally a tax on accumulated money that has already been taxed. Even jumping the income tax to a 52% rate on the country’s highest earners might gather an extra $2 trillion in a decade.
Why anyone would put this man in charge of the outcome of the economy is baffling. By the way, if you ever wanted to take a guess at how many people Sander’s lifted out of poverty and enriched their lives – the answer is only one, and it was him.
Recently we explored the question: what would the Democratic plan for a 42% national sales tax mean for law enforcement?
Here’s what we came up with.
We have been engulfed by a myriad of programs and platforms from the boatload of candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. Every single one of them is EXPENSIVE. While most of them are not about to explain how they think they will pay for such programs, common sense tells us that the only way to cover these costs are to significantly increase taxes.
What would these incredible tax hikes do to career fields that are already known for not paying well – namely, the emergency responder community?
For the record, the vast majority in that community do what they do because they have a heart to serve, not because they are looking to make a financial windfall. But what would happen to the current work force if everyone’s pay was cut in half? What would the impact be on recruiting efforts?
For the sake of this argument, we will use the national average annual salary for a cop in the US, $48,739.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has done voters a favor by spelling out what kinds of new taxes it would take to come up with that much money. The following calculations and percentages are all part of a breakdown on Democratic campaign promise costs done by the CRFB.
Using Medicare for All as the primary example, this huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone.
Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much revenue as the government currently generates. So, if paid for through new taxes, federal rates would have to theoretically double.
Warren justifies many of her programs by saying all it would take is “two cents” from the wealthy. That’s a reference to her 2% wealth tax on ultra-millionaires.
But Medicare for All would be so expensive that if you taxed top earners at 100%, yes, take every penny, of people earning more than $408,000 per year—you’d still fall far short. And everybody getting taxed at 100% would obviously stop working.
But that scenario would not only not be possible, it would also eliminate most law enforcement officers from the conversation.
Moving on to methods that have been discussed, the CRFB outlined a variety of options.
A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. It would also destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer.
And what would this number do to cops take home? Nothing at first – until the massive impact of inflation begins to trickle down.
Until then, that new truck you wanted with a sticker price of $62K, ($65,875 after taxes in Texas) is now $88,040 no matter where you live. That new pistol you wanted for $900 would cost you $1,278.
This would obviously drive spending down, thus leaving us in a situation where the government has promised millions healthcare that they cannot pay for.
Other options include a 32% payroll tax split between employers and workers or a 25% income surtax on everybody.
Looking at each of these, splitting the difference with your municipality would cost you an additional $4,142.82. The surtax would do exactly what you think it would do. Your annual take home would decrease from $41,428.15 to $32,898.83.
The government could cut 80% of spending on everything but health care, which would include highways, airports and the Pentagon. That would also cut the funding that departments across the country rely on to operate.
We could also just borrow the money and quadruple Washington’s annual deficits.
The CFRB said that the best idea might be charging every enrollee in the new program $7,500 per year, so they’d be paying directly for the coverage they’re getting. Some people pay more than that now for health care, by purchasing insurance outright or sacrificing pay raises in exchange for employer coverage. It would still be a nifty trick to propose that to voters.
What would any of these ideas do to the existing level of resources that departments across the country are dealing with? Many departments are understaffed. They are dealing with decreased recruiting pools, increased retirement, and a revolving door when it comes to retention.
Overtime and off-duty opportunities would be at a premium for many officers, deputies and agents to be able to make up the difference in lost wages.
In 2008, departments in west Texas lost numerous officers to the oil field boom that doubled and tripled many of their annual salaries. Many of those agencies have struggled to return to a fully staffed department.
Parts of our current societal climate is discouraging younger people from considering a career in law-enforcement. If you add a decrease in salary, longer working hours that create more difficult working environments, and constant scrutiny from certain sections of our country that want to see cops disarmed and departments completely disbanded.
God help us all if one of these money-grubbing Socialist candidates change their address to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
—
