skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Washington Times reports that the IRS will supply illegal immigrants with Social Security numbers and grant Earned Income Tax Credit if they have previously filed income tax returns.
The Washington Times says illegal immigrants can now potentially claim billions of dollars in additional payments they were ineligible for before the amnesty.
I doubt that there were very many illegal immigrants that filed income tax returns, but I suppose it's possible if they worked for companies requiring that the employee submit a W-4 form, which allows withholding for federal taxes. The company then later supplies the employee with a W-2 form indicating wages paid and a copy of this goes to the IRS.
Whether there are billions of dollars paid out to illegals in additional earned income tax credits or not, it's obviously a step in the wrong direction. Let's remember that an Earned Income Tax Credit is really a welfare payment. The misnomer has been applied by the federal government to deceive the general public into thinking that the taxpayer receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit is using a credit against his income tax, but is still paying taxes. That's wrong. People receiving earned income tax credits normally do not qualify for income taxes, and therefore receive a cash payment.
So with Pres. Obama's dictatorial amnesty program, we now have more illegal immigrants on welfare.
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama submitted to Congress a federal budget on Monday. The President's budget has two outstanding items for consideration. He proposes to increase the size of the federal government by increasing the employment of civilian employees by 100,000 over the next two years. The addition of civilian employees to the federal workforce would be a cost increase for salaries and various support items, such as office space, benefits, etc.
More directly on the monetary side, the President proposes to spend $500-$600 billion each year over what he expects will be collected in revenues. This will raise the national debt from $11 trillion in $2014 to $17 trillion in 2025.
Let's take a look at what all this means. First, it is apparent that spending more than one receives in income is a recipe for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means you eventually don't have enough money to pay your bills and those persons who have extended you credit lose faith in your integrity and will no longer extend you credit. The federal government is not exempt from this basic monetary rule. While it has the power to coin more money, the money which he coins is obviously of less value and creditors are not deceived by this action.
We should also note that the President's budget is only a suggestion to Congress, particularly the House of Representatives from which all money bills originate. Spending of money is controlled by law and the president's proposed budget has no significance, unless it is supported by congressional law and then signed by the President.
The President's budget message, presented with the budget itself, did not threaten Congress, but according to the Washington Times, the President has separately told Congress that he will not accept a balanced budget, meaning to not spend more than the government takes in from taxes and various other minor revenues.
The spending law, which would supply the funds to make the President' s spending program real, must originate in the Congress. If the Congress prepares a separate balanced and submits it to the President for signing into law, Congress can override a veto by standard procedure which is a two thirds vote override in the House, followed by a two thirds vote override in the Senate. If either the House or the Senate cannot obtain the two thirds vote override, the bill is stymied. There is then no money allocated for any government operations and in effect, the government shuts down. We've seen this executed several times before to a minor degree. Previous operations have been partial shutdowns, where nobody seems to be hurt. However, for some unfathomable reason the Republicans have previously taken the blame for the shutdown when the blame could have just as easily been placed on the Democrats who voted separately not to override the veto.
We will have to see how this plays out, but I expect it will be as before. The Republican-controlled House and Senate will likely back down and give Pres. Obama another blank check to grease the road for the government's eventual bankruptcy. The rationalization will be that the various members will be out of office or dead by that time. Only our grandchildren and their grandchildren will need to wrestle with a financially bankrupt government.
According to the Washington Times,. Chris Van Hollen is calling for wealth redistribution in the US. He wants tax increases on the wealthy, with that increased tax revenue going directly to tax reductions for the poor.The government would dole out $1,000 tax credits for most workers and increase a slew of other tax credits for poor and middle-class families. He makes no reference to "earned income tax credits", which are already in place and pay cash to low income taxpayers, as disguised welfare.
Representative Chris Van Hollen is a Democrat from Maryland. He is also a ranking member of the House Budget Committee, having achieved that position in 2010 when Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats had control of the House. In this case, "ranking member" means that he is the most senior member of the Democratic Party on the committee. With the Democrats out of control in the House, the ranking member has little or no power. The chairman of the committee is Paul Ryan, who now runs things.
We don't know what motivates Rep. Van Vollen to his ideology of wealth redistribution, but we can make a few guesses. The first is that he may be a human misfit prone to abusive compassion. In this case, his compassion may be to the poor, and he wants to eliminate them. Like all abuses of compassion for the poor, he neglects a more than 2000-year-old statement by a well-known individual, which was "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." The context in which that statement was made involved a definition of "poor" part, which meant that individual lack of food and clothing. Does Rep.Van Hollen feel that he can eliminate the poor in one fell swoop when we have had them for more than 2000 years? Not likely.
A more reasonable hypothesis for Chris Van Hollen's suggestion of wealth redistribution is that he is attempting to obtain a resurgence of power for the Democratic Party. Pres. Obama and the previous Democratic Congress have done everything in their power to bring into the country immigrants of low economic means, who when able to vote will favor the Democratic platform of wealth redistribution.
However, this country was founded on a completely different basis. The fundamental concept of the founding fathers in developing the Constitution was to protect the people against an enormous, out-of-control federal government. Unfortunately, the people have allowed this concept to be adulterated, even to the extent that now most Americans believe we have a democracy, rather than the republic on which it was founded.
However, before the rush to democratization, America was considered the land of opportunity. This meant that if one worked hard and smart, one could achieve significantly higher economic status. Under that concept, America developed industrially and economically at an enormous rate.. Benefits came to the people in the form of cheap construction steel, electric lights, telephone communication, heating with fossil fuels, rapid air transportation and a number of other benefits.
No redistribution of wealth can serve to develop a better economic status for all people than individual opportunities to develop products and systems for the benefit of the developers, which automatically involves benefits to the public.
