Would a Wall be Too Expensive

In response to the last post the question of the cost and efficacy of a border wall has come up and I want to address that. 

Protection of our national borders is a truly fundamental legitimate function of our federal government, an activity which could not reasonably be left to the individual states. It is far more legitimate for example than federal involvement in the education of our children or our medical care which should be primarily state, local and of course individual matters. So for border protection the federal government should provide the funds to carry out the job and tax us accordingly. To be sure we are provided with a border patrol and other measures, but it is obvious that our federal representatives and officials for decades have failed miserably to properly carry out this fundamental business. Mr. Trump, despite his personal idiosyncrasies and lack of political experience, was elected to some considerable extent because he spoke up about the fact that the emperor has no clothes. He called out the Washington politicians for their obvious failure in this important area and proposed his own solution and this resonated with a large portion of our citizenry. These comfortable politicians, from both parties, mostly dislike Mr. Trump but have no one to blame for the disruption to their lives that he's causing but themselves. 

So Mr. Trump, as he should, is now forcing the matter. In fact he had to force the members of congress from his own party to address it. So if the time has come to truly face the issue, and I and many others are hoping that the President can hold fast in his demand, the question remains of how to carry out the task. Since we must do it, it should be done in the most efficient, effective and economical way possible. The federal government does not have a good track record in this regard. 

Mr. Trump has proposed a physical barrier which on the surface at least seems sensible. Although the cost would be substantial it would be a one time expense and the amount pales in comparison with the amounts collected and spent by the federal government on its other projects. Under his leadership it's likely to be done properly. Whatever your opinion of Mr. Trump otherwise it must be admitted that he has great expertise in constructing high quality products, brought in on time and under budget. As far as its effectiveness is concerned such barriers are working in other countries, and it's hard to see where it wouldn't help to greatly reinforce the efforts of the border patrol. 

The Democrat leaders resist the concept of a physical barrier. In that they have previously acceded to one, it seems clear that a large part of their opposition is reluctance to give the President a victory. But lets take them at their word that their real concern is about cost and effectiveness and that technology and increased personnel could do the job better. Where are the concrete studies and plans that indicate what specific technology is needed, how it would be deployed, how effective it is predicted to be and what it would cost? And if more border personnel are needed what would be the ongoing cost of that? 

Here's the point! The Washington politicians from both parties have let this problem fester and grow for decades and have done nothing but make promises. It could be that, thanks to the efforts of Mr. Trump, the time has come for them to actually do what they're elected to do. No more Lucy pulling the football out from Charlie Brown as was done during the Reagan administration. Mr. Trump has put his idea on the table and is anxious to get moving on it. If the Democrats in congress feel they have something better other than vague ideas, the time is short but they must get it out there. Let them get busy and pass a law specifying exactly the actions that are to be taken to prevent illegal entry over the southern border, and if it is believable it's likely they'll get public support. Otherwise we're tired of false promises. Personally I don't think they're sincere and that they actually favor the status quo. Until I see something better I say bring on the wall. 

The Battle of the Wall

Well, the great battle of the wall is on. Instead of posting someone else's article, as usual I'm going to say what I think about it.

The fundamental problem is that we have a long southern border past which annually tens of thousands of people come illegally, whose identity, destination and purpose we do not know. Everybody know this, so why point it out. It's because the politicians seem not to appreciate the problem. They say they do, in that for example there are numerous videos on the internet depicting them in the past decrying the negative effects of illegal immigration. It is hard not to doubt their sincerity in that this is a situation that has gone on for many decades without resolution.

Without getting into the arguments pro and con about the illegal entrants per se, as well as the other routes of illegal entry into the country, I think one of the major problems with simply ignoring our porous southern border is that it is a fundamental barrier to our developing a rational immigration policy. This failure of our government is detrimental both to our own citizens and the immigrants themselves.

Mrs.. Pelosi and Senator Schumer both claim to desire border security but are dead set against a wall. I just listened to a talk by Mr. Schumer who claimed the President is simply catering to his far right wing base. This is of course nonsense. Mr. Trump's promise to at long last address this problem by building a wall was a major element of his winning the election. Millions of ordinary citizens sensed that, unlike the usual political claptrap, Mr.Trump would fulfill his promise. Despite his other accomplishments, failure in this area would be a major blow to his support. In fact, if the truth be known, I believe a substantial majority of our citizens understand the negative implications of an uncontrolled southern border, would like the problem addressed, and except for the fact that Mr. Trump wants it, most Democrats would not oppose a physical barrier at least on the vulnerable parts of our border.

So the Democrat leaders are in favor of border security but against a wall. Mrs. Pelosi says it would be immoral. Others say it's too expensive or would be ineffective. These arguments don't stand the test of common sense. But taking them at their word that they really believe what they're saying my response is, what's your plan? Let's hear it. Nebulous talk of high tech sensors, drones, and increased personnel sounds doesn't cut it. Let's have a specific concrete proposal. That's what our elected congress is supposed to do. And if you can't pass a law that specific, then pass a law instructing and giving funds to the President to use whatever means other than a wall he deems necessary to stop people from crossing the southern border illegally. Short of that sort of action it's just the same old political baloney.

You see it's not really a wall that the millions of ordinary Americans are interested in, it's stopping once and for all illegal entry over our southern border. Mr. Trump proposed a wall as an efficacious means to this end and that seems sensible. If there is some equally efficient way that really and truly does the job that's fine with me, but it seems that the President is saying that the time for the political song and dance is over. Sounds good to me.

Solution to the Immigration Problem.

Addressing the illegal immigration problem seems to be pretty straightforward to me. Here's what I think it would involve:

 

1. Prevent people of unknown identity or purpose from sneaking into the country. This should be done in the most efficient and cost effective way. It seems to me that a physical barrier, such as is working well in Israel, is in that category rather than staffing the whole border with razor wire, guard stations and robots, but, hey, whatever works. I would put this as the key item, without which anything else you do falls apart.
2. Have a good guest worker program with regulations that would protect the interests of present American citizens as well as the workers themselves. Any employers found skirting the system would be subject to a very substantial penalty fine.
3. Intensify our visa reporting system. Visa holders should be accounted for. Anyone given a visa would be obliged to report his or her whereabouts periodically and those continuing to stay beyond its limits would be sent home with severe restrictions on any consideration of return. In the digital age there is no excuse for our present laxity.
4. Have a complete review of the criteria for legal entry to the country outside of the guest worker program. We need to have decisions on who and how many immigrants are desirable. I think generosity would be advantageous but there are limits. We already take in a million legal immigrants a year who now make up 1/10 of our population. Except in unusual circumstances it makes no sense to take in those who would immediately be dependent on our public support systems or would simply undercut the welfare of our present citizens. It goes without saying that our regulations regarding political and religious asylum need revision. Asylum is being used as a substitute for economically motivated immigration and everyone knows it.
5. The hard part after this is deciding on the status of those here illegally. Allowing individuals simply to remain here in a limbo status seems to be an absurdity, neither good for the country or for the individuals involved; although I suppose that if all the above criteria were carried out those here illegally would eventually leave or die out, eliminating the issue. The "dreamer" group would be an easy one, but then for the others there should be a mechanism for declaring oneself after rules on how one's case would be handled are clearly spelled out. I think that if illegal entry were actually stopped the American people would prove very generous in this regard, to the chagrin of those who have patiently been waiting in line.
6. For those who claim the solution is to help the Latin American countries become more stable and prosperous I absolutely concur. Just tell us how to do it.

 

I welcome any discussion on these ideas, preferably not that I am stupid, or hard hearted or don't have the right "values". As logical as it seems to me, I'm afraid our dysfunctional congress is going to prefer the kabuki dance over whether we should authorize $5 billion for the wall or shut down the government.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Government Follies

 

Interesting story in the paper this morning about some spinoffs from the Mueller investigation. Mueller hasn't come up with anything against Trump as far as we know but now they're finding, in addition to Paul Manafort, a bunch of other Washington insiders, from both parties, making big money from secret lobbying deals with various foreign countries.

 

No surprise folks. The place is a money and power magnet, not really a good place in which to put our confidence. It's why our founders were so skittish about the idea of a strong central government, devising a balance of powers, three separate and equal branches, each with designated oversight over the other two. They balanced the States off against the feds, giving each one two senators and setting up the electoral college. And then they topped it off with the Bill of Rights, just to make double sure they got the point of who was boss. They tried their best but, with all that money and influence funneling in to DC it's not at all a sure thing that their strategy worked. It's a constant battle requiring an informed and educated citizenry. Given the present state of our media and education establishment it's hard not to be pessimistic.

 

But, hey, the feds aren't alone. On another page there was another article about New York State considering the funding of badly needed NYC subway repairs by legalizing and taxing pot. It seems inevitable since New Jersey has done it. No doubt some day soon we'll be hearing radio adds to smoke a little dope to keep New Yorkers riding. Sort of like the adds to help the old folks by playing the lottery, otherwise previously known as the numbers racket. No wonder you don't hear much about the mafia anymore.

 

In another part of the article one transportation expert opined that another benefit of legalizing pot would be that it would help keep people more relaxed when the subway was late.

 

Who needs the funny papers?

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Medicare for All

Among the agenda items of the new Socialist wing of the Democrat party is the concept of Medicare for All. Why not! As a standard Medicare beneficiary I can attest to how pleasant it is. At the time of any medical service I present my cards and it's all taken care of. So if it's this easy just extend it to everyone and our health care problems are solved. Seems pretty simple. 

Before we jump into it though there are a few little details that we should think about. 

Medicare Part A, which pays for hospital and home health, is in the red and the trust fund is expected to run out somewhere around 2026. Part B, which pays for the rest, won't go broke because, even though the recipients pay some in premiums, they only cover 25% of the cost and the general tax fund pays for all the rest. The cost is steadily increasing and continues day by day to add to the deficit. The really interesting statistic is that the unfunded liability, that is the amount that is anticipated to be needed for all present citizens when they reach eligibility but would not be funded by the present tax structure is something in the range of $50 trillion. Whoa!

More than that though, Medicare is structured something like a Ponzi scheme. The money that's paid for my medical services comes not from a fund I've saved up, but from taxes paid by present day young 'uns, thank you very much. That's one big problem because every year there are more and more of us, and less and less of them. When you think about it when everyone is on Medicare, who will be the poor suckers paying the bill? I guess all of us, but hey, if it's running us into debt now when the young majority is paying for the old minority, where are we going with that.  

No problema say the Socialistas. We save money on efficiencies and decreased administrative costs. OhKay?? How economical and efficient is the Medicare we've already got. Well for starters it's going broke and continually adding to the debt. This despite the fact that the percent of our incomes we pay to fund it have been gradually increased to anywhere from 10 to 15 times what they were when the program was started. Doesn't seem that economical to me, about what you'd expect from a government run program. What can we say about administrative costs which a single payer system is supposed to reduce. Well when Medicare started, doctors and other service providers just sent in their bills and they were paid. Now the payment systems are so complicated that doctors actually, quite literally, often take courses to learn how to do the coding that must be sent in to get paid. Why's that? Well what do you suppose happens when you're selling a service where you get guaranteed payment whatever you charge. You guessed it! So now the prices are set and documentation is required in detail that would warm the heart of any tax accountant. If you ever wondered why your doctor was typing on his computer so intently instead of listening to you this is what it's about. He's not just catching up on his emails. 

Now think about what I'm describing, folks. In the old days, when I was a young fella, you went into the doctor's office and he was it, or maybe there was a nurse or a secretary hanging around. But all the people around to check your Medicare number and do the billing and coding and reporting and the scribes and all the IT people, why they're all part of the administrative savings. 

Before Medicare poor people were treated gratis by a lot of doctors. I remember that when my mom called him to see me, my pediatrician, Dr Curtin, would always stop by to see the kids of the poor family across the street. When old folks needed the hospital but couldn't pay they went to Scranton State where they were treated by interns supervised by local doctors who went in to make rounds. Lyndon Johnson wanted to change that, and rightly so it appears, since the poor old folks opted for private care in droves. But ol' Lyndon said he wanted things the same for everybody so he arranged to put the government in change of the medical care of everyone over 65 whether they needed it or not. That worked fine for a little while because then there was plenty of money floating around for the politicians to play with. And for us beneficiaries it's still a pretty good deal. Not many restrictions and very heavily subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers and the national debt. The fit's going to hit the shan someday but, Hey, that's the future, and today's today. Personally I think 'ol Lyndon made a big boo-boo. Yes, help those who are unfortunate and can't arrange to take care of themselves, but leave the rest of us alone. 

Medicare for All? Boy does that sound good. But it can't be done without major destruction to our medical care system. I know, I know - they do it in Europe and Australia, etc so there must be some flaw in my reasoning. Our government really can run our medical care economically and with minimal bureaucracy. That's a subject for another day. All I can say is for the seniors who like Medicare the way it is - watch out!

Thoughts on the Caravan

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The people in "the caravan" are prima facie not asylum seekers although it appears that this is what they propose to claim if they reach our border. If they were fleeing political or social or religious persecution in Guatemala they have now escaped it by reaching Mexico. They are instead headed to the U.S. seeking jobs and available social services, the same as were obtained by those who preceded them. Some few mixed in are coming for more nefarious reasons. They are unskilled but are young and strong, and who does not admire their predecessor's dogged willingness to do hard physical labor. It is just what many of our forebears did, but in a legal fashion.

 

Their intention is to flaunt our sovereignty en masse since for decades this is what has been done on a more individual basis. Our country's immigration policy has been a sorry joke, fairly difficult for those who are inclined to obey the rules, non-existent for those who are contemptuous of them.

 

The timing of this event is fortuitous, some say purposely, coming just before the primaries. The Dems see it as a political opportunity, placing the onus for addressing the incident squarely on the President, even though it is the culmination of decades of mismanagement, hypocrisy and procrastination by previous administrations and especially a dysfunctional congress. They believe Mr. Trump is placed between the Scylla of preventing entry to a large but unarmed band by physical means and the Charybdis of recanting on one of his fundamental issues. He is an expert in getting around tight situations and it will be interesting to see what he comes up with.

 

Here's the issue, and the stakes are high. If this ploy is successful and the caravanners are dispersed throughout our country to do as they will it's essentially the end of any pretense of an immigration policy. They will be hired by the bottom feeders, attend our public schools, use our ER's and their children will blend into the next generation. Money will go back to the mother country and some of them will go back home to enjoy the fruits of their labors. The signal will go out even more strongly to those left behind that the sky's the limit, the boundaries are down.

 

The Dems and Libs are not raising a peep. It's time to make them say what they think. Do they want to go back to 18^th and 19^th century America with unrestricted immigration, but this time with government sponsored social services and Sanctuary Cities? If not what's their proposal for the caravan? This time it can't be "catch and release", because as we've seen, that's the same as doing nothing. Come on you guys, let's hear it!

The Judiciary Committee Hearing. Dr Ford vs Judge Kavanaugh.

I joined the millions of Americans who were riveted by the hearings yesterday.

 

Dr. Ford's testimony was emotional and seemed heartfelt. As it went on, especially in the face of the creampuff interrogation by Ms Mitchell and the interval sympathetic encouragement by the Democrat Senators, the feeling grew in me that Judge Kavanaugh's nomination might be sunk.

 

Then came Judge Kavanaugh, filled with righteous indignation and emotion over what was being done to him, who strenuously and unequivocally, under oath, completely denied all allegations made against him. My impression was that either he was absolutely truthful or a world class liar, on a par with Bill Clinton (couldn't help that one).

 

What is the observer to decide to resolve this stalemate? Well here's what I think.

 

Dr Ford was entirely believable, in that she seemed to believe what she said. But there are some major flaws in her case.

 

She recalled vividly all the details of her traumatic event, including walking past the others to leave the house. I can't fault her for not knowing where she was. She says the party was impromptu. But she doesn't know who took her there or more importantly how she managed to get home since she must have gotten there by car. Such vagaries of memory seem very strange.

 

She was able to name four of her companions at the party, including her close girl friend with whom she says she went to the party. All of these have given written statements under oath that they have no recollection of the event, including her close friend who Dr. Ford says accompanied her and who later apologized to her about having to truthfully undermine her accusation. The Democrats complain that these persons should be questioned in person, but when you read their statements they are all unequivocal. Dr. Ford herself could give no reasonable explanation.

 

It was brought out clearly in the hearing that her statement that she was unable to give testimony in private to the Judiciary committee due to fear of flying was clearly a falsehood. She appeared embarrassed by this. She also seemed not to know that the Committee had offered to interview her in California. It gives the impression that at this point of the situation she had become under the control of her handlers.

 

Judge Kavanaugh's testimony has to be taken somewhat at face value. However he was able to give some corroboration in the form of a calendar which he kept in great detail about his activities. But there is another useful way to judge. By this time numerous of his close high school friends have spoken on national media to testify about his character during the time in question and universally support him. His subsequent conduct since, particularly his behavior toward women, has also been validated by numerous friends, co-workers, students and his public record. The accusations against him are completely inconsistent with this reputation and don't jibe with the normal human experience of consistency of an individual's character.

 

I think those who come out worst in all of this are the Democrat Senators, particularly Senator Feinstein. It seems obvious that when Dr Ford's complaint came to their attention, that they determined to use the situation to their advantage as a political weapon. Probably the most telling fact is that Senator Feinstein had a lengthy private interview with Judge Kavanaugh and made no inquiry about the accusation even though she and her staff had already arranged legal counsel for Dr Ford. It seems clear that the Democrats, despite their call for further investigation at this late date, have no serious interest in fact finding, or as Senator Lindsey pointed out, they would have done it long ago. In fact they actively worked at avoiding fact finding by preventing Dr. Ford from testifying to the Committee in private after the accusations came to light. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that Dr Ford was exposed and used as a political tactic.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10