Israeli/Palestinian Peace Talks

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz (Texas): 

 

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, is up and running on his new job. He is trying to make a name for himself and has succeeded in getting the Arabs and Israelis to sit down and talk with each other.
    The Jewish/Arab conflict has existed for a few thousand years. With this deep ingrained history of resentment, I sincerely doubt that there can be any significant resolution of differences by sit-down talks.
    I suspect that John Kerry has been able to get them to sit down by paying them US taxpayer funds. Both sides will receive money. They will sit and glare at each other, and that will be the end of that.
    I ask Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz to find out how much the sitting and glaring is costing the US taxpayer.

Amnesty Cost

    The Washington Times has some comments from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) , which yesterday released an analysis of the recently Senate passed Immigration Bill.
    The CBO says the $35 billion to be spent on 20,000 new border patrol agents and fencing would stop between a third and a half a half of future illegal immigrants.

Border Control Agents and Fencing    The southern border of the US is 1954 miles long and Wikipedia says 350,000 illegals cross this border each year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border. It Is apparent that 20,000 new border patrol agents and 350 miles of new fencing would only serve as an additional deterrent to new border crossing. I will not significantly dispute the CBO estimate of a 33 to 50% reduction in illegal border crossings, but that may be on the high side.
    Assuming a 50% reduction in effective illegal entries at the southern border, the question is whether we want to spend $200,000 to eliminate one effective illegal border crossing in a year. ($3.5 billion / 175,000 illegals). We could amortize this over 10 years to give an unrealistic estimate of $2000 per illegal, but it actually would be higher than that because of salary increases for the 20,000 additional border control agents plus maintenance of fencing.

$1 Trillion in New Tax Revenue    However, the larger objection I find with the CBO report concerns the statement that adding the additional workers,who are made legal by the amnesty provisions of the Bill, will boost the economy and lead to nearly $1 trillion in new tax revenue over the next 20 years.
    I don't see how adding additional workers made legal by the amnesty provisions boosts the economy. I can see a consideration of income tax revenues from new taxpayers formed by the declaration of amnesty.
    There are an estimated 12 million illegals in the US (http://www.cis.org/amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants-and-the-employment-picture-for-less-educated-americans,). Eight million illegals are already estimated to be employed. The 4 million illegals unemployed do not now pay income tax. The 8 million already employed likewise do not pay income tax, because their illegality does not make it possible for them to do so.
    With the creation of amnesty, the 8 million employed and perhaps half of the 4 million unemployed will be added to the federal income tax role for a total of 10 million people

    Illegal immigrants are generally unskilled, which means they are likely to draw a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Employers also also reduce medical expenses and other benefits for each employee by reducing worked hours below 40 for week. If the average work week is 32 hours for a new amnesty employee, yearly income will be $12,064 ($7.25 x 32 hours x 52 weeks).
    One reference says that a family of 4 will pay 5.3 % of its 2103 income in federal income taxes. A family of 4 likely contains 2 children, which means that for 2 new taxpayers in the family, the family tax bill will be $1278 ($12064 x 2 x 5.3%). For the 10 million new taxpayers, the annual increased tax revenue would be $6.4 billion or $128 billion over 20 years. This is somewhat less than 10% of the $1 trillion claimed by CBO.

        Another reference involves the IRS withholding tax calculator. For the "family of four", I assumed that each of the two adults would be considered a head of family with one child as a dependent. Filling in all the boxes with some reasonable deductions for medical expense and childcare, the calculator reported, "Based on the information you previously entered, your anticipated income tax for 2013 is $0. If you do not change your withholding arrangement, your withholding for 2013 will equal your tax and you will have nothing withheld. Your balance due will equal zero and you will not receive a refund". In other words zero increased tax revenue per year from 10 million new amnesty taxpayers.

        The IRS also has an Unearned Income Tax Credit. The IRS says, "The EITC Earned Income Tax Credit is a benefit for working people who have low to moderate income. A tax credit means more money in your pocket. It reduces the amount of the tax you owe and may also give you a refund".
    To determine the Unearned Income Tax Credit for new amnesty taxpayers with one child, I used the EITC Assistant Tool ( http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit-(EITC)-%E2%80%93--Use-the-EITC-Assistant-to-Find-Out-if-You-Should-Claim-it.). It reported, that the earned income tax credit is $3160. This is an IRS refund to taxpayers, who already pay no tax. Assume that half of the 10 million new amnesty tax payers apply for this credit. This calculates as a drain of $31.6 billion on tax revenue income to the federal government. Since the CBO likes 20 years, that's a negative $632 billion; a far cry from the positive $1 trillion claimed by CBO.
    I will grant that I've used some assumptions in challenging the CBO claim of an increased $1 trillion in tax revenue over the next 20 years, but these assumptions seem reasonable to me. Contrarily, I've not seen any calculations or basis of estimates for the CBO claimed $1 trillion.

Student Loan Interest Rates

Open email to Rep. Messer (Indiana) and Republicans in general:

Dear Rep. Messer,
    I just listened twice to your video, entitled, "Weekly Republican Address", but which actually concentrated on student loans.
    You bemoaned the fact that student loans are scheduled to rise from an interest rate of 3.4% to 6.8% on July 1. Apparently the House has already passed a bill which will stop that increase, and you are now appealing to the Senate and Pres. Obama to follow suit. However so far, the Senate has failed to show any signs of cooperation and Pres. Obama has indicated objection.
    I am normally on the side which opposes almost everything Pres. Obama and the Democrats are for, but it in this case, I believe they are showing correct judgment.
    The federal government has been pushing higher education for many years and has been effective in convincing almost everybody of the need for a college education. Unfortunately, that is a misguidance. A college energy education generally prepares people for a more intellectual approach to viewing problems and applying appropriate judgments. In that respect, a college education helps to generate leaders, not workers in the traditional sense. In fact, as college trained people are employed and are unable to assume significant leadership capacities because of limited opportunities, they tend to fall into bureaucratic slots, most of which is a make-work environment. An example of that is the already bloated federal government, which is filled with these college trained bureaucrats causing more difficulty than they resolve.
    With that basic statement, we can go on to consider some proofs.
    The federal government is already burdened with many billions of dollars of student loans and there is considerable concern as to how much of these loans will actually be repaid. This comes about also in spite of the fact that billions of dollars of federal tax money are given routinely to municipal and state colleges and universities as grants, some of which support ridiculous research projects or projects intended to support government ideology. Pell grants are also another form of direct assistance to college students.
    You mentioned that there is a 16% unemployment among young people with the implication that if we approve a student interest rate decrease to help them through college, the young people unemployment problem will be solved. Nothing could be father from the truth. I suspect the 16% unemployment rate includes many college-educated young people unable to find work, because college has not prepared them for the work needs of industry. Industry needs a balance of managers and workers, neither all managers nor all workers. We already have an excess of potential managers, and that access will do nothing to make jobs. Jobs will be made by industry and the rate at which these jobs are created will depend strongly on government attitude to industry and not on the basis of availability of employees.
    You said that one can obtain a used car loan at a lower interest rate than a student loan. This is an indication of market forces at work. Apparently lenders feel there is a greater likelihood of loan repayment among borrowers for used cars then there is for student loans. Another indication that there is already an excess of college trained people.
    I am a personal believer in the value of education, but as is characteristic of most things done by government, it has reached an excessive stage. We do not need low student loan rates to entice people to go to college when many of them don't really have the intellectual capability or interest to go through the required educational program for a degree. In fact, excessive low student rates will suck in candidates who don't really have the aptitude for managerial success and and create for them a heavy financial burden. For those who are qualified intellectually, and show early leadership capability, there are ample opportunities in the private sector. Educational money is available from families and from various organizations, as either athletic or academic scholarships and through work programs such as you aptly described from your personal experience in the video.
    You said you want to stop the rate increase from 3.4% to 6.5% and then have Washington get out of the student loan business. Great idea with limitation! Forget holding the line on rate increase and let market forces determine what interest rate is appropriate for student loans. Additionally, carry through with your suggestion of having Washington out of the student loan business, but go further and have Washington out of the educational business. Eliminate the Department of Education, Pell grants and all forms of subsidies for colleges and universities. Those institutions got along well and led to the development of this country over the years without government meddling. They can do so again.

Quit Nationbuilding with US Taxpayer Funds

    In an open letter to Congress, I recently called on Congress to fund an increase in scientific capability within the State Department, in order to improve the negotiation capability of State Department officials with other countries. I simultaneously suggested that no funding should be allowed for use of such scientific capability in nation building and also requested the elimination of special funding for scientific programs already in existence with several foreign countries.
    I now have additional information from an article by Rovner and Tremblay in the May 13 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
    The Department of State's Building Opportunity Out of Science & Technology program has granted the American Chemical Society $198,000 for science advancement in foreign countries. In addition, the department has funded four other "boost" projects that are being spearheaded by US universities. All of the projects are based in Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Tunisia, or Turkey.
    While the $198,000 grant does not sound like much money, we don't know how much the other projects are or what will be added in the future. In either case, this is what I have been objecting to. Spending money, which we don't have in order to promote science in foreign countries is a nation building operation under the guise of education. While we may think that is a good humanitarian effort, we have no right to directly affect the culture of a foreign country. It is not only invasive but is also expensive with respect to a justification as to whether it really makes the world better. Let us remember that essentially all foreigners perpetrating terrorist activities on the US do so as retaliation against US interference in their culture.

Beware of Costly Nationbuilding

Open email to Congress:

     Andrea Whitner, of Chemical and Engineering News May 13, 2013, has a four-page article on the "The State of Science Diplomacy".
     Basically, the pitch to increase scientific knowledge within the State Department is obviously not an area of controversy, when one considers that State Department officials have responsibility to negotiate with foreign countries concerning various scientific matters, such as rockets, nuclear weapons, raw material boundaries etc..
     While this is an admirable program, it has an obvious deficiency. Increasing science capability within the State Department cannot only improve scientific negotiations with other countries, but it can also be used for nationbuilding, which should not be one of the objectives of the State Department. For example, it has been said that the State Department has already developed a number of programs to work with 140-150 countries on ways to raise their level of scientific capability and scientific expertise. This sounds more like nationbuilding than preparation for US State Department officials to be able to properly negotiate on scientific matters.
     It is also said that a few countries, such as Egypt, India, Israel, and Mexico, have specific funds set up by Congress to promote cooperative science projects with the US. This again sounds like nationbuilding to me.
     We have considerable experience with nationbuilding; for example the failed wars with Korea and Vietnam, and more recently the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, with subsequent military intervention in Egypt's and Libya's revolutions. Those were military efforts at nationbuilding. The present proposal is an educational effort at nationbuilding. However, we have no right to determine how a foreign country develops its culture, and we have no justification in these times of US spending excesses to attempt doing so.
     I call on Congress to fund any State Department requirements to improve scientific capability for purposes of improved US international negotiation, but to disallow any funding for use of science programs to build scientific capability either within a foreign government or with a foreign public.
In addition,
     I further call on Congress to eliminate funding for any cooperative science projects, with any foreign country, such as said to presently exist with Egypt, India, Israel, and Mexico. Elimination of those cooperative science projects would likely cover the cost of developing any new scientific capability within State for international negotiation purposes.

No Progress on Federal Expenditure Cuts

    House Speaker Boehner says that after three years under Republican leadership, the House of Representatives is on track to save taxpayers more than $400 million in House operations by the end of the fiscal year, keeping the GOP pledge to “make Congress do more with less by significantly reducing its budget".

    Congratulations to the House Republicans on an efficient procedural operation!
    However, the cost of operating the House Is only a flea on the back of an elephant.

    We should first be trying to cut current federal expenditures with an intention of a balanced budget leading eventually to reduction in federal debt. So far, we are making no progress. We continue to give away money in foreign aid. We are making no effort to reduce entitlements. We are actually increasing expenditures in certain government operations, such as research and development. And, the latest conversation is on supplying costly arms to Syria and significantly increased expenditures for immigration reform.
    It seems silly to hear about the flea, when the elephant continues to rumble on.

Reducing Government Spending

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your alternate form letter concerning the federal budget and sequestration, and in which you also again mentioned your balanced budget amendment.
    In your discussing the sequestration, you seem to have the impression that it was not properly done. In fact, it well accomplished its purpose, which was to obtain consternation among spendthrift congressional members and particularly in the Administration. In fact, I regarded it as a very successful endeavor, except for the fact that it financially did not accomplish much. The cuts were too small to be significant. As you know, it did not come anywhere near balancing expenditures with federal income, and we continue to assume more debt.
    The most important point of our society now is its financial integrity. Terrorist problems are peanuts by comparison.
    I continue to encourage you to convince your congressional associates that all forms of federal spending must be cut to the bone. Once we have made that basic accommodation, we can then start to properly allocate the remaining funds to those areas which are most significant to the health and welfare of the Union.