Apr 15, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Harold Pease, Ph. D
As a nation under the U.S. Constitution we are 230 years old. It may surprise readers to learn that for the first 124 of these years we had no federal income tax and handled our expenses quite well. Today the 55% who pay federal income taxes (77.5 million do not), pay nearly a fifth of their income to the federal government. Prior to 1913 one kept what is now taken from them.
How would you spend it if not taken? You would spend the extra fifth of your salary on thousands of items that are made by others as well as services you might like. This not only would enrich your life but it would provide jobs for others making those items or providing those services. Many middle class folks could purchase a new car every other year with what they are forced to give to the federal government.
Would you spend it more wisely than the federal government? Certainly! Most of the money taken from you by the federal government is spent on perpetual war, foreign aid, grants to privileged portions of our society, and endless unconstitutional subsidized programs; the last two categories of which basically take the money of those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not. Even some non-tax payers get income tax refunds—so corrupt is the system.
Of course, those receiving and benefiting from these programs will defend them. But the fact remains that tax monies provide largely government jobs, which are almost entirely consumption jobs (jobs that consume the production of society but produce little consumable). Such jobs cannot produce for public consumption a potato, a carton of milk, or even a can of hair spray. They bring another person to the table to eat, but not another to produce something to eat.
What largely brought about the give-away programs of the Twentieth Century was the now 106-year-old 16th Amendment—the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, and their respective parties, wanted this financial water faucet that they could turn on at will. With it they could purchase anything—even people.
Prior to 1913 the federal government remained mostly faithful to her grants of power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which left them with only four powers: to tax, pay the debts, provide for the general welfare, and provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to maximize their authority the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Outside these qualifiers the federal government had no power to tax or spend.
General welfare then meant everyone equally (general), as opposed to “specific welfare” or “privileged welfare” as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties, or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people, from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.
The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding things clearly not on it was that each time they did so the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. I ask my students what would happen if they took to kindergarten a lollypop and gave it to one child? What would the others say? Where is mine? Try taking away long provided benefits from a privileged group, as for example food stamps, and see how popular you are with that voting group in the next election.
So why does the government now need a fifth of everything you make and it is still not enough? Answer, because we went off the listed powers of the Constitution and every departure required more taxpayer funding. The solution to less tax is less government. A side benefit is more freedom. The productive classes would not be hurt. Seldom do they qualify for the federally subsidized programs anyway.
The fifth taken from the productive classes would be spent by them creating a haven of jobs for those who wished to work. The cycle of dependency would be drastically reduced. The federal government would no longer be an enabler to those not working. States would decide for themselves what assistance programs they could afford with some states offering more and others less as the Tenth Amendment mandates.
So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. We got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and thus we were able to spend on ourselves every cent of what the federal government now takes, which inadvertently stimulated the economy. No one should be able to argue that our exceeding $22 trillion national debt is fair, has really worked for any of us, and is a better plan. I personally like the idea of being able to purchase a new car every other year.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 26, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Our national debt just exceeded 22 trillion dollars. To pay this debt today each citizen owes $67,033. Since children pay no taxes, nor do about 45% of our adult population, each taxpayer actually owes $179,908. Our largest creditors in order are: Medicare/Medicaid $1,091,280,000,000, Social Security $1,005,651,000,000, Defense/War 676,814,000,000, Income Security (welfare) $293,531,000,000, Net Interest on Debt $350,206,000,000, and Federal Pensions $272,980,000,000 (USDebtClock.org).
Even with the present robust Trump economy (the best in several decades) this cannot continue to escalate. We are on a collision course with Armageddon which, at this late date, may not be avoidable. Any hope depends on three things (1) our ability to make significant cuts in the top six expenditures noted above, (2) our not electing a big spending congress or president in the next decade, (3) our not entering into any new big funding events such as war, infrastructure overhaul, or open borders allowing new groups to “eat out our substance” without having already paid their way.
Of this enslaving debt, four trillion comes from eight years of George W. Bush and ten trillion from eight years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. History. Obama alone accumulated more debt than all previous presidents put together. Donald Trump is responsible for over two trillion dollars in two years.
So what is a trillion dollars? To begin with a trillion is the number one followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion, one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $10 trillion, would have reached the moon and back and to the moon again. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $22 trillion in debt would take you to the moon and back three times and to the moon a fourth time and a third of the way home again.
I ask students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” “Go without!!!?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their share of the debt is $67,034 and up to $179,908, depending on how many of their fellow non taxpayers they can get to pay their fair share (see USDebtClock.org), due immediately, they are angry. Someone should have told them that government handouts are not free.
The 13th Amendment ending slavery has been rescinded, they are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while still in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children in order to have them.
The latest new theory to avoid fiscal responsibility and continue unlimited spending, used by Bush in late 2009 and Obama thereafter, is referred to as Quantitative Easing. Crudely it means printing more money out of thin air to cover our debt, but it is far more sophisticated than that. For Bush the money supply was greatly expanded by having the Federal Reserve purchase $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities (Harding, Robin. 3 November 2010, Quantitative Easing Explained. Financial Times). Obama purchased $600 billion of Treasury securities over a six month period of time beginning in November 2010 in what has been called Quantitative Easing or QE2 to distinguish it from QE1, the Bush expansion of the money supply (Cesky, Annalyn,3 Nov.2010, “QE2: Fed Pulls the Trigger” CNNmoney.com. Retrieved 10 Aug. 2011).
The biggest problem with expanding the money supply is that it reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. My Camaro, purchased in 1968, cost $2,700, purchased today at least ten times as much. In this instance money has lost 90% of its value since 1968. Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as if a thief had lifted their wallet or purse. They cannot return to their employer for a raise to compensate for the loss caused by their own government.
Still, with all the sophisticated “doublespeak,” as for example quantitative easement, it means that we will print whatever money we need to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we are imposing upon our children and grandchildren.
Democrats propose “free” college and a salary for everyone, whether they work or not, under their proposed Green New Deal. Donald Trump’s proposed trillion-dollar infrastructure program, also does not suggest a change. Who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked upon one another can go to the moon and back almost four times so long as the government fills our stomachs and, in the case of Obama, purchases our cell phones
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 18, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
(Presidents’ Day, Article)
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Perhaps America’s most beloved and respected president was Abraham Lincoln, who now shares a national holiday—Presidents Day—with George Washington. Today most Democrats would oppose him, as they once did in 1860. He opposed slavery and socialism. He saw nothing in the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, worthy of emulation.
On the ownership of property Abraham Lincoln’s feelings were especially strong, he said, “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprises” (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, pp. 259-260). Lincoln might have added “which produces jobs for those not rich.”
To him there was no need to take by force the wealth of those who produce and give it to those less productive, as has always been the prescription of socialism. The “share the wealth” philosophy of socialism brought on by “envy politics,” so articulated by the Democratic Party today, was a foreign ideology to the Civil War president, who had read and rejected Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
The answer to ending poverty is not class envy, first identified by Aristotle some 2,500 years ago as being the natural inclination of those with less, a philosophy implemented by Lenin in Russia when the communists identified those holding property as enemies of the state and liquidated some four to eight million farmers, the “Kulaks” (“The Russian Kulaks,” InDepthInfo.com). Then, they wondered why the country had such a horrific famine in 1921-1922 when millions starved.
No money was set aside for, or provided to, any class or special interest group in our Constitution. The power distributed benefited all equally and at the same time. The federal role was as referee only. Our Constitution does not redistribute wealth; it leaves the individual to do that for himself by his work ethic. It remains the fairest way.
Will income inequality be the outcome? Yes! Free men are not equal and equal men are not free. But all will have more under capitalism than had we instead forced income equality by taking from those who produce and giving it to those who do not. We remain anxious to share our wealth producing philosophy with our less prosperous neighbors and the world so that all can have more, but individuals stealing it from us, or using the government to do it for them, known as legalized plunder, is just wrong and disincentivizes those who produce.
Lincoln’s answer to the poor, from which he sprang himself, “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence….” Unfortunately, many in our society have forgotten the “labor diligently” part of his phrase and have come to expect the government to provide, from the industry of others, their every need. On that score Lincoln said sarcastically. “You toil and work and earn bread, and I will eat it.” He viewed this principle as a form of tyranny/slavery on those who work. Today approximately 47% of the adult population pay no federal income tax; many actually receive benefits for which they have paid nothing.
Watching others acquire wealth was, in fact, a sign of a healthy economy for Lincoln. “I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.” Nor would he have supported the hundreds of laws that we have today that disincentivizes a man trying to acquire wealth.
His view sounds similar to those expressed by President Trump in his 2019 State of the Union Address. “Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination and control. We are BORN FREE, and we will STAY FREE. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country.”
The new calls for socialism in our country referenced above were recently dropped by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s long-awaited Green New Deal endorsed by recently announced Democratic presidential candidates, Senators: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand seemingly each attempting to “out socialize” opponents.
Paying the estimated $7 trillion price tag required would result in a 90% tax take which, ironically, is the definition of slavery—the very thing Lincoln is credited as having ended. It would end air travel and radically effect every other aspect of life. It would also redistribute vast new sums of less valued printed paper money making all equally poor.
Socialists may hate the “Walmarts” or the “McDonalds” all they want, but these provide the poor tens of thousands of jobs. Do not bite the hand that feeds you, then wonder where the jobs and prosperity went, as did the early Russian socialists. The “share the wealth” philosophy, which Lincoln opposed, and endorsed now by the Democratic Party, has never brought long term general prosperity for any people, any place, or any time.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 4, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
By now Beto O’Rourke’s unflattering comment referencing the Constitution, “Does this still work?,” is old news. He was suggesting that government is now too complicated for it to deal with 21st Century problems. What isn’t old news is that there was no backlash from the Democratic presses or Party regarding this ill-informed comment, nor pressure on O’Rourke to end his intended run for president because of it. Such would have ended the run of any contender twenty years ago. Do Democrats now oppose the Constitution?
Neither major political party has followed the Constitution, as first consideration, in more than 50 years. Of the two, Democrats rarely cite the document and seem almost contemptuous of it. In fact, most of what they propose is easily argued to be outside the Constitution. They once defended parts of the Bill of Rights but I no longer see much of this. Republicans sometimes carry the document on their person but do not hold to it and thus much of what they propose is also outside the Constitution.
Constitutional ignorance is so prevalent. Have we reached a day when a major political party is openly against it ? President Barack Obama came close when he told the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014, referencing the U.S. Constitution. “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century.”
The obvious dig shows a definite lack of respect for the Constitution that he swore by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” (Article 11, Section 1), but Democrats did not wish to rebuke or confine their president. Still, Obama’s phrase was a mockery of the Constitution and should have been unacceptable to every American, whether said by a Republican or a Democrat. Ironically the Constitution is designed to harness presidents just like him, just like his predecessor George W. Bush, and his successor Donald Trump, but it will never work if the party in power runs interference for their own constitutional abuser as also has happened for over 50 years.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution (whether ignorantly or intentionally), which is based upon time-tested human nature and natural law which do not change from century to century. Man and governments are still beset by the same sins as expressed in all ages. There will always be those who wish to rule over others. Government will always attempt to grow its power at the expense of the people. There will always need to be a list of the things governments can do and they will always need to be harnessed to that list. There will always need to be division of power and checks on each branch of government and presidents will always, as James Madison said, “have a propensity for war” and wish to use military power without consent. And there will always be those who wish to use the force of government to redistribute the wealth so that they can, in effect, purchase elections by “gifting” voters.
The magic of the Constitution is that it, as designed, does not distribute benefits or preferences to anyone. These are the reasons that it is said to be outdated by those who wish to take from us our liberties. Lawmakers having problems with the Constitution are those that do not wish to be restricted in their governance of us and thus they belittle it and seek to convince us to give them more power in another one. Thus the ignorant comments regarding it by O’Rourke.
One of my favorite college courses to instruct was Contemporary Political Topics. Students were given a copy of the Constitution and required to problem solve with it and natural law rather than political party or philosophical persuasion. This base is justified because every politician has sworn to “protect, preserve and defend” this document. It is the instrument by which everything should be judged. The students loved it. Amazingly, from food stamps to climate change, we never found an issue that the Constitution did not address. Century, language or culture were irrelevant because human nature remains the same.
The “rule book written in a different century” is still as reliable as before. What we need today are presidents legislators and judges that know its limitations, love and interpret it as written. In this quest we are embarrassingly in short supply. Why?
Constitutional principles were once taught at every level of education and stories of the sacrifice of our Founders frequently recited with admiration. Today few schools teach these principles in grade school and fewer still in high school. In college the Constitution is tucked in the back of textbooks as an appendix in U.S. History and Political Science courses, hence very few actually read it. The history of the Constitution’s origin is housed in a chapter but constitutional principles seemingly have only informational value.
Constitutional illiteracy is almost universal to the point that those qualified to defend the Constitution as designed are becoming extinct. Students are not likely to defend it if they have never experienced it being defended. A real danger exists that if too few know or value its principles we will lose it—perhaps we already have. Some, like O’Rourke, say it is no longer relevant for our times. They couldn’t be more ill-informed.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org..
Jan 23, 2019 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Mid December 2018, Judge Reed O’Connor, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last year ending the individual mandate’s penalty, which is the heart of Affordable Care Act, also made Obamacare unconstitutional without it. Nineteen other state attorneys general joined in the lawsuit Texas v. Azar. Likely this is headed to the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court essentially resolved this question June 2012 with the same five to four composition of the Court that now exists, when Justice John Roberts changed sides ruling that the individual mandate was a tax, not a fine, therefore making it constitutional, a position denied by Democrats previously. But it saved Obamacare. Justice Roberts could be again the deciding vote. If he betrays original intent of the Constitution, as before, he may again do heavy damage to the Constitution.
Prior to Roberts unanticipated vote, Anthony M. Kennedy had been the unpredictable swing vote on the Court. Justice Kennedy, not happy with the Roberts’ switch saving Obamacare, said: “The court majority regards its statutory interpretation as modest. It is not.” Then, not hiding his distain for it added. “It amounts to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.” He called it “judicial legislation” and accused Chief Justice John Roberts of trying to “force on the nation a new act.”
Judicial activism is when a law of Congress is interpreted by the Supreme Court in such a way as to give it new meaning, which is what Justice Roberts did. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address of the inclination of government to do so. “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Usurpation, in his day meant twisting things around to extract meaning that was initially not there.
So what did Justice Roberts twist, or legislate, that changed the National Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) as passed by Congress? At the top of the list, his rewrite called it a tax when Congress never passed it as a tax and the political party passing it, and their President, Barack Obama, emphatically resisted any description of it as such.
Rich Lowry, a political commentator, said it best. “Obamacare as passed by Congress had a mandate to buy health insurance and a penalty for failing to comply. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court has an optional tax for those without health insurance. Obamacare as passed by Congress required states to participate in a massive expansion of Medicaid, or lose all their federal Medicaid funds. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court makes state participation in the Medicaid expansion optional.” In short, “Obamacare as passed by Congress didn’t pass constitutional muster. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court didn’t pass Congress” (The Umpire Blinks, by Rich Lowry, The Corner, National Review Online, June 29, 2012).
Judicial Legislation or Activism is not new. The desire for the Court to “legislate” through decisions expressed itself more fully the last sixty years as it attempted to “right” perceived wrongs instead of sending the faulted legislation back to the legislative branch for correction by the peoples’ representatives. By altering legislative law it has moved into state prerogatives such as education, state residency requirements, and imposed federal standards of procedure on local police to name but a few. In broadening its power base, far beyond constitutional restraints, it has almost destroyed the idea of two co-equal governments, one federal the other state, known as federalism.
In the National Affordable Healthcare Act the Supreme Court has effectively restrained further encroachment (mutilation) of the Commerce Clause, formerly used to increase its power, but opened wide the interpretive door that the federal government can control anything it taxes. So, does this mean that if the federal government wishes to control free speech, press, assembly, religion, guns, or any other activity, it first simply levies a tax on that activity? Apparently judicial legislation creates a “need” for additional judicial legislation. God help us!!
We must return to our foundation, the U.S. Constitution as written, without all the judicial or executive alterations that go beyond this document. According to Article I Section I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is no authority for either of the two other branches of government to make law—any law— and law made by Congress is specifically listed in Article I, Section 8 where 18 clauses identify the very limited powers of the federal government. So, even Congress cannot make any law they like.
The issue of health is not listed and is therefore, as per Amendment 10, entirely a state issue. The Supreme Court majority ruling ignored this long-term clarity and instead chose to violate the document they are charged with upholding.
Judge Reed O’Connor’s ruling rendering Obamacare unconstitutional may give the Supreme Court a chance to return to the Constitution as written. Unfortunately the deciding vote remains again with Roberts who can’t be trusted constitutionally and so Obamacare could still stand.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jan 1, 2019 | Constitution
Harold Pease, Ph. D
The federal government desperately needs to diet. Much of our spending is constitutionally dubious and it is immoral to pass our national debt, now exceeding $21 trillion, to our yet unborn children. We need to return to constitutional limits to govern the distribution of our taxes.
The one exception to the diet argument is national security. Without a physical barrier that works we cannot remain a country. History has demonstrated our souther border to be too porous and that only a physical barrier will work. “Kicking the can down the road” on border national security, as both major political parties have done for decades, only exacerbates the problem. Our national security now demands a wall.
We’ve had 20 government “shutdowns” since 1977, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most Americans never knew when we were in one. In fact, “shutdowns” may be a good thing if they reduce the national debt, make expenditures more constitutionally based, or strengthen national security.
Democratic opposition to a southern border wall (they advocate for open borders) has been the principle reason for the last two “shutdowns.” Open borders is the “real” reason for their opposition but they know this will not sell with most Americans. The other two reasons are that a wall won’t work and it costs too much.
But walls do work. Look at any penitentiary. Many of those pushing the ineffective argument, hypocritically, live in gated communities. If walls (gates) did not work they would not live there. China’s Great Wall successfully kept “barbarians” out for centuries and they built it with human labor—no earthmoving equipment—and over impossible terrain.
Today’s 143 mile steel border fence in southern Israel has stemmed the flow of illegal immigration by 99%, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (The Jerusalem Report, Herb Keinon, January 2, 2013). It “stopped the flood of African migrants into the country,” ending “Sinai terror.” At one time 2,300 people crossed each month but after the fence it dropped to 18, a 99% cut. Israel will be building other walls. The wall began in November 2010 finishing December 2012, changed everything.
Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted, “President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea.”
Democrats argue that the wall costs to much but in the requested 2018 budget of $4.094 trillion, certainly five billion is but a drop in the bucket. Spending beyond our means has never been a deterrent for Democrats. In the 10-year Farm Bill of 2014, they gave $3.3 billion alone for a cotton income protection plan. Other gift giving in that nearly trillion dollar bill, considered pork by critics, included: “$2 million for sheep production and marketing, $10 million for Christmas tree promotion, $170 for catfish oversight, $119 million for peanut crop insurance, $100 million for organic food research, $150 million to promote farmers markets, $12 million for a ‘wool research and promotion’ program, and $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry.” Ironically the 949-page bill spends about $1 billion dollars per page ($956 Billion Farm Bill Loaded with Pork, Your World Cavuto).
We could easily fund the wall by ending the funding (ice cream cones) we presently give to the illegals after they illegally cross our borders, but the Democrats would never agree to this because they are presently purchasing future party affiliates. The non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies recently found that “63% of non-citizen households access welfare programs compared to 35% of native households,” costing taxpayers an average of $73,000 per immigrant over his lifetime. In addition they found, “compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).” Plus illegals get cash. “Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native household.” If these funds were instead used to finance a wall, such would be easily funded.
As far as the cost of the wall is concerned, a study released in September 2017 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) revealed that, “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” This, the report says, is a nearly $3 billion increase in the cost since 2013. It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall—five and a half times more, and every year.” Consequently, “each illegal alien cost nearly $70,000 during their lifetime.
Both studies show that funds presently given those who cross our border illegally could easily pay the $25 billion total cost of building the wall or five billion per year for five years for the same. This without raising a single penny from any new tax monies from our citizens.
Looks like we need the wall for both national and domestic security. To get this apparently we have to have the Democratically imposed partial government shutdown. Let us keep the partial shutdown in place until we get a commitment from both parties for the whole $25 billion needed; or legislation to redirect the funding of illegals to the wall.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
