Why Is Cost of Illegal Immigration Ignored In Debt Ceiling Debate?

While the debt ceiling debate rages and Congress is busy haggling over who should be taxed and what programs should be slashed, they’ve promised to consider all options except…one.

Lawmakers have chosen to forget that immigration is a discretionary social policy that by definition is designed to be adjusted to serve the nation’s broad national interest, particularly during difficult economic times. This discretionary policy is a powerful economic tool, but only if it is brought out and used.

Reforming immigration would tighten the labor market, open up jobs for legal U.S. residents, and reduce the overall fiscal strain that immigration imposes on health care, education and other social services.

Doing so is an urgent mandate and a legitimate, justified use of policy. 

If not now, then when? 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/18/why-is-cost-illegal-immigration-ignored-in-debt-ceiling-debate/#ixzz1SXd7vFg3

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/18/why-is-cost-illegal-immigration-ignored-in-debt-ceiling-debate/#ixzz1SXcw8Vln

What the Debt Limit Battle Is All About

It's hard to keep up with all the arguments and proposals in the debt limit struggle. But what's at stake is fundamental.

The bedrock issue is whether we should have a larger and more expensive federal government. Over many years, federal spending has averaged about 20 percent of gross domestic product.

The Obama Democrats have raised that to 24 or 25 percent. And the president's budget projects that that percentage will stay the same or increase far into the future.

In the process, the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product has increased from a manageable 40 percent in 2008 to 62 percent this year and an estimated 72 percent in 2012. And it's headed to the 90 percent level that economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have identified as the danger point, when governments face fiscal collapse.http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2011/07/18/what_the_debt_limit_battle_is_all_about

Obama Plans Pricey Birthday Bash on Default Day

As America’s poorest wait for Social Security checks that may never come on Aug. 3, President Barack Obama will be out celebrating a milestone birthday at a party where tickets cost up to $35,800 each.
http://www.newsmax.com/

GOP Should Call Obama's Bluff on Debt Deal

Ordinarily, I'd have difficulty grasping the magnitude of arrogance driving President Barack Obama in budget negotiations that could determine the survival of our nation, but after several painful years of observation, I've come to expect it from him.

Obama's personality type does not well handle opposition, so when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor refused to budge on Obama's unreasonable demand that the GOP agree to raise taxes during these economic hard times, which would not raise revenues, Obama blew up and "stormed out of the room."

Cantor suggested that the parties opt for a short-term deal to avert the debt ceiling deadline, but Obama adamantly refused. "Enough is enough," said Obama. "I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."

Why is it acceptable for Obama to be overtly uncompromising but express outrage that his GOP opposition is unyielding? It's as if he's saying, "How dare you be as intransigent as I'm being."

Obama also warned Cantor, "Don't call my bluff." Notice all the I's and my's in Obama's threatening language. Did anyone ever tell this narcissistic man "no" before he became president?

He acts as though the United States is his personal chattel to do with as he pleases, and no one (including members of the co-equal legislative branch) and nothing (including the Constitution) dare get in his way. He masquerades as a mere bystander in all this instead of the primary mover in accelerating this financial catastrophe and the primary obstructer of the reforms necessary to avert it.

Read more on Newsmax.com: GOP Should Call Obama's Bluff on Debt Deal
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

NBC Apologizes to Lawmakers for Omitting 'Under God' in Pledge

NBC has issued a formal apology to members of Congress for opening its broadcast of the U.S. Open championship with a montage that included children reciting the pledge without the words "under God" and "indivisible."

In a letter to 108 U.S. lawmakers, Kyle McSlarrow, president of Comcast and NBC Universal, said that the channel's effort to produce a patriotic piece was undermined by "a serious error in judgment" by a "small group of people" who have been "reprimanded."

"To be absolutely clear, this was not an ideological decision by the company and it was not discussed with or approved by any senior NBCUniversial official," McSlarrow wrote.

"We have made quite clear -- internally and externally -- that the employees who made this decision were wrong," he said. "Not only were countless citizens justifiable upset, but also the actions of this small group cast a negative light on NBCUniversal, NBC, and NBC Sports, as well as our partners at the United States Golf Association.

"It was an inexcusable mistake in judgment and it will not be repeated."

The letter sent last week came in response to a missive from Reps. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and Mike McIntyre D-N.C., co-chairmen of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sent to NBC Chief Executive Officer Stephen Burke last month after NBC issued an on-air apology for the altered pledge.

That note was signed by 108 members of Congress.

"Although we are aware that NBC has apologized for the omissions, we are concerned that the video was allowed to air with the altered Pledge of Allegiance in the first place," they wrote. "We live in a society where there are increasing efforts to remove all mention of religion from public life, and we remain dedicated to defending against such attempts."

Bailey Comment: I'm curious about what religion if any this this small group of people belong to? Surely there is no Muslims among them?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/13/nbc-apologizes-to-congress-for-omitting-under-god-in-pledge/#ixzz1S4Kg3ICl

House Turns Out the Lights on Bulb Ban

The House of Representatives voted to preserve a scheduled phase out of incandescent light bulbs Monday evening.

The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, would have rescinded efficiency standards for incandescent bulbs included in a 2007 energy bill.

233 members voted yes and 193 cast nay votes. But the House required a supermajority to approve this particular package. In this case, it would have needed 285 yea votes to pass.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) voted present.

The measure gained support after the 2010 elections, as tea party Republicans seized on the prohibition as an example of government overreach.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, says that the increased efficiency standards have the government picking winners and losers in the lighting market.

"To take off the market something that's cheap, effective, and average use costs two or three cents a week to use seems to me to be overkill by the federal government," Barton said of the move away from incandescent bulbs. Supporters of the bill also claim that the compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs designed to replace incandescent bulbs are too expensive and don't work as well as their 19th century competitor."Here's the bottom line, those of us at a certain age, under a compact florescent bulb, we don't look as good as an incandescent bulb," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, "The American people should be able to choose what type of light bulb they use in their home. They should not be constrained to all the romance of a Soviet stairwell when they go home in the evening."

Democrats were quick to point out that the bulb ban wasn't their idea. "Our current (Energy and Commerce) Chairman Mr. (Fred) Upton (R-Mich.) introduced the bill to set the standards. our former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) supported it along with many other republicans, and finally President George W. Bush signed these standards into law," noted Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Penn.

The energy efficiency law Doyle cites passed the House with more than 300 votes in the House and over 80 in the Senate.

Upton co-wrote the light bulb language in that energy bill with former Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Action on the BULB Act was seen by some as a concession to the loser of the Energy and Commerce Chairmanship, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who highlighted Upton's light legislation during their leadership contest last year. Barton has since thanked Upton for taking action on the proposal.

The Obama administration issued a statement announcing its opposition to the repeal, saying it would "result in negative economic consequences for U.S. consumers and the economy."

The statement of administration policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget cited Department of Energy figures that say the law "could collectively save U.S. households nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone." That's because even though CFL bulbs cost more off the shelf, they last longer and use less energy than incandescent bulbs, and could ultimately save the consumer money over the light's lifetime.

The legislation, considered under an expedited rules procedure, required a two-thirds majority for passage.

Despite its failure in the House, a way forward in the Democratically-controlled Senate is uncertain. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., supports the current efficiency standards and is unlikely to support action on a similar measure in committee.

Fox News Producer John Brandt contributed to this report

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/12/house-turns-out-lights-bulb-ban#ixzz1RyVQ908S