Voice For Voters

By Elois Zeanah

Sex for sale is called prostitution.  Votes for sale in the U.S. Congress is called political bargaining chips.  What’s the difference besides semantics?  Democrat sponsors of the so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation solicited votes for cash like pimps procuring deals in the waning hours before the House voted on the energy bill.  Billions of our confiscated tax dollars were doled out to lawmakers to buy votes.  Winning was more important than policy.

The Brunt of the Burden to Pay for Cap and Trade will be Borne by Poor and Working Families

“Households would face an annual burden of roughly $144.8 billion per year with costs disproportionately borne by low-income households, those under 25 and over 75 years, those in Southern states, and single parents with dependent children.”[1]

Billed as a climate change bill, it was readily apparent that the bill will hurt rather than help American consumers; and that the young, old and poor will be especially hurt.  Even the title, “American Clean Energy and Security Act”, is a trick, as titles are on most bills.  According to analysts, the bill will do little or nothing to fix global warning concerns, real or imagined, for many reasons.

Global Greenhouse Emissions will not be Reduced  

At the heart of cap-and-trade is to tax anything and everything that’s tied to “carbon-based fuels on which most of the prosperity and productivity of modern life depend.”[2] Winning a hand was far more important to the Obama administration and House Democrats than creating good policy that works.  Concessions made to lobbyists for manufacturing industry and other businesses will at best decrease greenhouse emissions by 2% in the United States.  Potential gains will be offset, however, by forcing manufacturing jobs to China and India, where power and labor will be cheaper and greenhouse emissions greater.   

Dependence on Foreign Oil will not be Reduced 

Obama’s claim that cap-and-trade will reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil is disputed.  An analysis by an Environmental Protection Agency announced that the cap-and-trade bill wouldn’t dent foreign oil imports.  “A study by the environmentalist Union of Concerned Scientists said the renewable electricity standard, watered down by compromise, might spur less wind and solar use than no standard at all.”[3]

The notion that a “light-switch” tax, as Obama puts it, will lessen our country’s reliance on foreign imports and strengthen national security is called a “canard” by Jeff Bergner of the Weekly Standard.[4]  Bergner states, “If lessening the nation’s reliance on foreign sources of energy is the goal, there are cheaper, quicker, and more reliable ways to achieve it.  Moving aggressively to develop proven American energy reserves is one.”  Developing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge reserves, significantly expanding offshore drilling, removing barriers to develop nuclear energy, and expanding natural gas production and clean coal technology are all examples, he writes.  “Even a large, straightforward tax on oil or gasoline – through devastating to our economy – would offer a quicker way to diminish U.S. reliance on foreign oil than cap and trade.”[5]   

Cap and Trade is an Energy Tax

Indisputably, cap-and-trade is the largest tax bill ever passed by Congress, it will negatively impact every business and citizen of every state, and it will lower the quality of life for Americans. Energy costs will increase for every household, as will the prices of food, furniture, clothing, and other items we use every day.  Even President Obama, as a candidate, acknowledged that his proposal would cause energy prices to significantly skyrocket.  And Obama-supporter, legendary multi-billionaire investor Warren Buffet said the bill “is a huge tax, and there’s no sense calling it anything else….”

The Heritage Foundation found that cap-and trade would “cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.”The Wall Street Journal states, “Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.”[6]

Cap-and-Trade will Kill not Grow Jobs

One model for cap-and-trade is Spain.  Could the knowledge of how cap-and-trade has cost Spain 2.2 jobs for every green job created and increased unemployment to 20% be the reason behind the rush to ram through a 1200-page bill plus 300 pages of amendments (released at 3:00 a.m. on the same day of the vote) before the public could digest the consequences? 

Another model is Britain. “Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.”[7]

Bypassing the constitutional concepts of digesting and debating bills by legislators before voting, Democrats kept voters in the dark to the fact that neither Americans nor the earth would be the winners.

And the Winners are …?

“The core of the legislation is meant to play to the environmentalist lobby who has been trying for years to slow down the global warming theory. However, the Waxman/Markey bill doesn’t get the stamp of approval from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, or Green Peace.”[8] 

“The winners of this legislation would be companies like, AIG, Goldman Sachs and GE; all stand to make billions by buying, selling and trading carbon derivatives. All these companies have been in the center of the recent financial meltdown which has sent the economy crashing.”[9]“Another aspect that no one is talking about is the fact that Pelosi, Markey and Al Gore are positioned to make a lot of money through investments in companies whose stock is worth nothing now, but will increase dramatically if cap-and-trade is passed in the Senate and signed by President Obama.  Gore is positioned to become the first global-warming billionaire. He owns multiple companies that would track carbon footprints of businesses.”[10] 

Cap-and-Trade will Decrease GDP

According to the Wall Street Journal, Democrats “will have to destroy the discipline of economics” to get the cap-and-trade bill passed.   On June 26, 2009, the WSJ writes:  “Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership’s solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.”[11] 

“The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars, that uses electricity which is practically everything. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.”[12] 

What can Voters do to Stop Tusami Taxes? 

“You’re going to find signs on manufacturing doors, if this bill passes [in the Senate], that says moved — gone to China. …We’ve got to have an international agreement so that we have a level playing field for American manufacturing so we don’t outsource any more jobs. This should be done in a way that affects China the same way it affects the United States.”Republican Gov. Hayley Barbour of Mississippi, said Republicans “have offered a very clear alternative. Our alternative is more American energy. We want to use all of the American sources of energy we have. We have tremendous amounts of American energy, more off-shore drilling, more drilling in Alaska, more opening up of shales and tar sands in other places for oil and gas.”

Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Barbour also cited nuclear energy and clean coal technology as viable sources of U.S. energy, noting that “we’re the Saudi Arabia of coal and we want to be using that coal. And we’re learning, even in my state of Mississippi, we have in permitting right now the first coal-fired electric plant that will on a commercial scale practice carbon capture and sequestration.”

 Ironically, a bill to strengthen laws against prostitution was introduced the same week that lawmakers practiced the ancient art of exchanging votes for money, treating the halls of congress like a red light district.  Arguments to move to cap and trade have no merit.  The agenda is not to move the economy forward or to advance national security; these are only window dressing to hide the agenda to move “the American economy away from carbon-based fuels.” [13] 

Perhaps the agenda behind cap-and-trade reveals why the largest tax on American businesses and middle class citizens does not concern the majority of Democrats and eight Republicans.  The best way for voters to send legislators who vote for cap-and-trade a message is to donate to their competitors in their next races.

[1]The Tax Foundation, “Who Pays for Climate Policy? New Estimates of the Household Burden and Economic Impact of a

[2] “Energy-rationing bill ignores counter debate,” by Jeff Jacoby, columnist for The Boston Globe, July 2, 2009

[3] L.A. Times, “Climate bill shaped by compromise”, June 28, 2009 

[4] The Weekly Standard:  “The ‘Dependence on Foreign Oil’ Canard”, June 22, 2009

[5] Ibid.

[6] Wall Street Journal, “The Cap and Tax Fiction:  Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill,” June 26, 2009

[7] Ibid.

[8] Examiner.com:  http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Cap-and-tax-passes-quietly-in-Congress 

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Wall Street Journal, “The Cap and Tax Fiction:  Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill,” June 26, 2009

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

By Elois Zeanah

President Obama’s health care reform plan reminds me of the TV game show “Pass the Buck” which premiered in 1978:  It relied on luck, instant decisions under pressure, and players risked losing everything.  “Pass the Buck” lasted only 13 weeks and dissolved into the long-running game show, “The Price is Right”.  Let’s hope Obamacare will do likewise.  Otherwise, the same young voters who put Obama in office will ironically pay for his folly, forfeiting family income that should go to improve their quality of life to burdensome taxes to pay for the past generation’s free ride.   

Will Obama “pass the buck” to kids who were born in 1978-on? 

My daughter was born in 1978 so this parallel is personal.  Here’s one way to view the impact of “pass the buck” on the Young Generation:  A 30-year-old’s parents are retiring.  They’ve worked hard and scrimped all their lives for the basics but want more in their golden years than pensions and savings can afford.  They feel entitled to live the last 20 years of their lives in luxury.  After all they deserve it!  They’ve been fiscally frugal their whole lives and have sacrificed to give their children more than they had growing up.  Their children are now grown and on their own.  The parents have a great credit rating, so they buy their dream life by borrowing. 

The parents die and their children, expecting to inherit the means to a similar luxurious lifestyle, discover to their dismay that alas, their parents left the bills for pleasures past to them.   Alarmed, they wrestle with the reality that not only will they not inherit money and the American Dream their parents promised if they studied and worked hard, they will have to spend every penny they earn to pay off their parents’ debts, leaving nothing for themselves and their children. Their parents had passed the buck.  Horrified, the children wonder how they failed to see through the high-falutin’ illusion while there was time to change the outcome.

Obama’s funding scheme for health care is a fanciful illusion 

Today’s Young Generation will face this dilemma unless enough college students and young professionals who put Obama in office see through his glittering rhetoric and slow down the gathering storms that could overshadow their adult lives.  We, the Older Generation, are the guardians of the American Dream and of our children’s well-being, and it’s our responsibility to provide comparisons and solutions to safeguard our children’s future.  While we need their help, we must provide the leadership.

Even without Obama’s catastrophic nationalized health care plan adding trillions of dollars more, public debt will double over the next ten years and the bill will pass on to today’s young adults.  Americans must not follow the pied piper Obama and rely on luck, make instant decisions under pressure, and risk losing everything.  We must sort through this problem methodically and take the time to do it right.  We simply cannot “Pass the Buck” to our children, but must make sure “The Price is Right” before the best health care in the world becomes inferior and its cost burdensome to the next generation.      

By Elois Zeanah

President Obama is using tactics of a car salesman to sell his health care plan.  It’s only appropriate that he recently bought a car company.  Surging with success of selling the public “investments” in the insurance, banking, and car industries, Obama is now supremely confident the public will buy his latest pitch to “spend” between one and three trillion dollars in order to “save” money.  The fact that some balk at the argument that a broke nation should count spending deficits as income doesn’t bother Obama.   After all, he is the superman salesman and performs better than most the tricks of the trade. 

Getting a bargain or being fleeced? 

Obama tells the public they shouldn’t worry about deficit-busting spending this year.  Nationalized health care, he says, is a bargain because it will save more than the trillions it will cost long term.  In truth, not only will the cost of government-run health insurance explode with additional taxes and fees that will hurt the middle class, the public will pay more for less.  

Using trust to trick buyers

Obama is counting on his personal popularity and the fact that voters trust him to sell them on his latest idea for yet another government takeover.  Like a good car salesman who gets personal to make friends, then uses the “trust” factor to trick customers to let their guard down, Obama is not telling customers the “drive-out price”.  

Creating a sense of urgency 

Hoping to sell his plan before taxpayers have a chance to understand the financing, Obama plies the “urgency” trick of a “limited time offer” to make a sell. We must reform health care this year, Obama warns, or the opportunity to save the economy will be lost forever.  The urgency to buy right now prevents the public from shopping around to get the best deal possible by making an informed choice.

Guilt trip 

Obama appeals to public compassion with a guilt trip:  We cannot ignore the 46 million uninsured Americans that go without health care, he moralizes.   His dazzling popularity and gift of double talk makes it hard for voters to separate facts from the sales pitch.

Leaving out details 

A salesman doesn’t have to lie to sell an inferior product, he can just forget to mention key details.  This is what’s happening with the push for government-run health insurance.  For example:  Of the 46 million Americans that Obama says need health insurance, the truth is more like 13 million.  Consider these rough estimates given by Bill Frist, a medical doctor and former House Majority Leader on CNBC on June 19:

11 million are entitled to health care insurance and opt not to take it.

11 million are illegal immigrants.

11 million earn $75 thousand or more a year.

This leaves about 13 million uninsured who need health care.   Multiplying the need three times helps, of course, to drive up the price Obama wants taxpayers to pay. 

Shouldn’t there be a debate about these groups who are uninsured and whether government should insure them?  Maybe taxpayers don’t want to pay for people who are here illegally, or for people who have access to insurance but don’t take it; and maybe taxpayers don’t feel it’s right to pay for insurance for those who can afford it.  The public has a choice:  Voters can be tricked by sales pressure tactics before they get key details, or voters can avoid getting swindled on yet another bureaucratic boondoggle, take time to shop around, and buy the best deal possible before choosing a car to drive off the lot.  

By Elois Zeanah

President Obama’s health care reform goal, he says, is not a single payer plan, but what he says in 2009 is not what he said in 2003. 

Today, Obama speaks about choices – a public option and a private option.  In 2003, Obama spoke about how government-controlled health care would be possible only after Democrats regained the White House and Senate.   Today from the White House, Obama tells the public that if they like their private health plan, they can keep it.  But for how long? 

Obama says “competition” in the marketplace is good.  Fellow Democrats define what Obama calls “competition” in the market place between a public option and private insurance this way:  “A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer.” (Rep. Jan Schokowsky, a fellow Illinois U.S. Representative, on April 18, 2009.)

Is a public option really a back door to single payer?  Democrats admit that a public option is a strategy for getting there.  It’s not a Trojan horse, one strategist asserts; it’s easy to see.  “We’re going to get there,” he said.  The government will move away from reliance on employer health insurance – but in a way not to frighten people and in a way to get them to accept government control.  A public option, Rep. Schakowsky says, is “a strategy for getting there.”  

Check the following video to hear the above comments:

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=6020772&referralPlaylistId=playlist

By Elois Zeanah

By Elois Zeanah

Consider this scenario:   

Put yourself in the shoes of a Mexican citizen still living in Mexico.  One day you get a phone call from friends and family in the U.S.  They’re having a party and invite you to join them in the U.S.  They tell you that you can make more in one hour than you can make in one day in Mexico.   

Then amidst all the party clatter at the other end of the phone, your callers drop the piñata of all surprises.  They tell you that not only can you make more in an hour than in a day in Mexico – but that the U.S. will pay you richly to come to the U.S. as an illegal alien and have a baby. 

At this point, you don’t know whether the loud party at the other end of the phone is out of control and your friends are weaving fantasy, or to put on your running shoes and become the latest illegal alien. 

Still holding the phone, you ask in disbelief, “The U.S. does what?” 

“Yes,” the answer comes back, “it’s true.  The U.S. makes it easy to cross the border, easy to find jobs, and the U.S. pays us to have babies.” 

Your friends at the other end of the phone drop another surprise:  When your anchor baby turns 18, you become a U.S. citizen – unless you get amnesty first!  If you were that Mexican, what would you do?  Is birthright citizenship not an irresistible magnet?

If I’ve gotten your attention, please (1) read the articles on this website and learn about the problem of birthright citizenship which is one of the most urgent issues of illegal immigration that needs to be addressed, and (2) check the website below to see if your U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored this legislation.  If not, please call his/her office and request that he/she do so.          Check http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1868 to read H.R. 1868, who the sponsor and co-sponsors are, and what the status is.       

 By Elois Zeanah

Worried about the depressed economy?  This could be tame according to some who warn of lurking threats to our capitalistic system that sound like science fiction.  The only problem is that these predictions rise from reality. 

Just when we thought it was bad enough to worry about a crippled economy and all the bailouts of financial institutions, the U.S. automobile industry, and now states that border on bankruptcy – and how much more taxes the government will take from us to pay for the bungled mismanagement of others, now we learn some sharp minds worry about stealth threats to our economy that we don’t see and that most of the mass media isn’t reporting. 

Our economy, based on capitalism, is one of our most precious national assets; and it is one of the building blocks that made America the greatest political experiment in the world.  But, alas, could the most prosperous economy in the world, be threatened from within – without violence, without war, and without a revolution? 

Newsmax Magazine Warns that “America Faces Stealth Jihad” 

A January 2009 Newsmax article by Tom Collie gives a “nightmare scenario of some leading thinkers who believe that America and the West are succumbing slowly to a ‘stealth jihad’ by radical Islamists infiltrating communities, courts, and schools in Europe and the United States.”[1] “Islamic law and finance – dramatic departures from what we traditionally practice in the West – are gaining a foothold” in America”, Collie writes. He quotes Robert Spence, author of the new book, Stealth Jihad:  How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs:  “The aim is to insinuate Islamic law into the United States where the two conflict.” 

Does this sound too far-fetched?  As unreal as it seems, the U.S. Treasury Department trained government employees on Shariah-compliant finance in 2008.  Why?  Islamic financial services are becoming a larger part of global finance and American financial institutions want to grab a piece of this pie as they expand operations into the Middle East.  (See Washington Post article “Would You Like Sharia With Your Coffee?” link below)

Collie writes that “the practice of ‘Shariah finance’ – banking done according to Islamic tenet” is “worrisome to Spencer and others” and that it “threatens to damage U.S. commercial law.” Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, states that Shariah finance law is “a sedious program, nothing less than an effort to overthrow democracy….It’s aimed right at the heart of the American economy.”[2]

As if the current crippled economy and the threat of radical Islamic law corrupting our economic framework isn’t bad enough, a

Wall Street Journal Article Predicts the End of the United States 

Does the disintegration of the map of the United States seem more unlikely than the melting of 110 floors of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001?   

Based on classified data supplied by the Russian national security agency, Russian academic Igor Panarin, who has studied U.S. economics and has a doctorate in political science, predicts that the United States will disintegrate in 2010.  The causes?  Economic decline, moral degradation, and mass immigration.  Panari called “ U.S. foreign debt ‘a pyramid scheme, and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington’s role as a global financial regulator.”[3]

The Wall Street Journal article of December 29, 2008, by Andrew Osborn, states that Igor Panarin “predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S.  When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union.  Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow.  The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.”  Panarin provides a map of the United States dismembered into four parts that he predicts will be grabbed by other countries.  

Some are taking Igor Panarin’s predictions seriously.  Certainly his graphic description of U.S. foreign debt and our knowledge that federal bailouts and stimulus plans explode U.S. indebtedness should give us pause.  As should the costs of mass immigration that snake through entitlement programs, expanding national debt, and the fact that Democrat U.S. Congressional leaders have promised to make these costs permanent through amnesty in the first year of Obama’s presidency. 

Perennial Socialist Party Candidate Says Democratic Party Has Adopted Socialist Platform  

Along with doomsday threats of radical Islamic law, mass immigration, moral degradation, and economic decline destroying the U.S. economy and dismembering the map of the United States, there is also the worry about creeping socialism in and of itself.  

Our capitalistic system is a mixed economy and becomes more socialistic as entitlement programs take root and spread.  As our country becomes more socialist, what happens?  We pay more taxes.  We lose freedom.  We lose individual choices.   

Do U.S. citizens want America to become a socialist country?

The six-time Socialist Party candidate Norman Thomas stated:  “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism.  But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”  He went on to say, “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party.  The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” 

Some argue that the collapse of capitalism in the United States will happen, that it come from within, that it will be gradual as the numbers of voters who are dependent on the government expand into majorities who will vote for welfare and, eventually, the capitalist structure will be so burdened that it will collapse. 

Maybe all of the above doomsday scenarios are stretched.  What is for certain is that our economic crisis will get bigger as more voters become dependent on government for life.  As government takes more money from individuals and families which have practiced fiscal responsibility to give more to businesses and others who have not, deepening the economic crisis and leaving more of the Middle Class in desperate financial straits, could this possibly cause civil unrest?  Should steps be taken to take no chances, regardless of how unlikely such a scenario sounds?

[1] Ibid.

[2] Newsmax, January 2009, “America Faces ‘Stealth Jihad,’” by Tom Collie.

[3] Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2008, “As if Things Weren’t Bad Enough, Russian Professor Pedicts End of  U.S.,” by Andrew Osborn

Washington Times ,June 2, 2009: “Would You Like Sharia With Your Morning Coffee?” http://mail.live.com/default.aspx?&ip=10.13.16.8&d=d4676&mf=20

By Elois Zeanah

On April 20, 2009, President Obama announced that he would ask his Administration to find ways to cut his budget of $3.5 trillion by $100 million.  Did he misspeak?  Could Obama have meant $100 billion?  After all, the interest alone on Obama’s stimulus package will be $95 million EVERY DAY!   These cuts, the President stated, will set a “new tone” in Washington.  How’s that, Mr. President, when your budget adds trillions to the debt?  As a candidate, you condemned the deficits of your predecessor, but your spending has multiplied his four times.

          But I want to take our President at his word.  If he is serious about cutting $100 million (surely he meant $100 billion) from his budget, let’s offer a few quick tips.  They’re easy!

TIP ONE:  Stop the Illegal Child Tax Credit to Foreign Workers and Aliens and Save Billions 

To begin, President Obama should tell the IRS to stop giving foreign workers and illegal immigrants a $1000 child tax credit.  This improper IRS action has cost taxpayers $7 billion in child tax credits from 2004 to 2007.   This one is easy enough for his Treasurer Secretary Tim Geithner to figure out.  This one fix alone could save much more than $100 million (or was it $100 billion?) a year.  This improper IRS action, like sanctuary cities, contradicts federal law and policy to remove incentives for illegal immigration.

TIP TWO:  Cut Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities and Save Billions 

Speaking of sanctuary cities, hey, there’s another tip.  Sanctuary cities are illegal:  they violate immigration law.  Obama likes to issue Executive Orders.   Unlike his many other Executive Orders that just reversed  policies of his predecessor that Obama disagreed with in ideology, this Executive Order would save at least tens of billions of dollars a year.  Obama should immediately issue an Executive Order to cut off federal funds to all cities that are sanctuary cities.  What’s more simple than signing his name to this Executive Order to save billions?

TIP THREE:  Mandate E-Verify and Save Hundreds of Billions of Dollars 

And while we’re on the subject of costs for illegal immigration, here’s a tip that’s quick and easy and would curb illegal immigration almost immediately.  Back E-Verify. Obama wouldn’t even have to secure our border.  I’m sure he didn’t purposely exclude building the project-ready border fence mandated by Congress in his stimulus package.  Here’s a way to make up for that oversight.  I’m sure it was an oversight since Obama promised during his campaign to secure our borders.  This tip would create jobs, stimulate the economy, and give him more than the $100 million (or is it $100 billion) he wants to cut from his budget.

               E-Verify would shut down renegade businesses and stop tax fraud.  That would help cut down on Tim Geithner’s police work and help him boost the economy overnight.  E-Verify would cut illegal immigration, cut costs, and cut the need for higher taxes.   How often can the President fix three problems with just one simple act?  E-Verify is the federal government program that helps business check the status of new workers.  It’s practically free, fast, and 99.5% accurate.   States that have mandated E-Verify for new workers prove that illegal aliens avoid, even leave states that have E-Verify.  

                There!  With these three tips and three phone calls, the President could cut many times the $100 million (I keep misspeaking: the $100 billion) that he wants his Administration to find and cut from his budget.   Simultaneously the President would achieve another principle he’s advocated many times, including on April 20 (the same day he announced he wanted to cut $100 million — that is, surely, $100 billion–  from his budget).  That principle is the rule of law. 

               After the President has placed those three phone calls and implemented these three tips, there is one other tip that would take a while longer — but with the President’s pledge to cut Bush’s deficits in half, he needs to start thinking long term.  Here’s a final tip:

TIP FOUR:  End Automatic Birth Citizenship for Chidren Born to Non-Citizens

            If President wants to cut deficits long term and stop stealing from our children to pay for the bailouts and his bigger government, he could lead Congress to get rid of the welfare magnet that attracts illegal immigrants.  E-Verify would help get rid of the jobs magnet.  But the welfare magnet requires legislation to end automatic citizenship for babies born to non-citizens.  Other countries banned automatic citizenship years ago to protect their economy.  If the President would like more information on this, he can find it on this website.

            Mr. President, you have called on other countries to lead.  Here is one instance where other countries are way out in front of the United States.  This is your chance to follow other countries since you seem to want to do that so badly and keep apologizing for  U.S. leadership.  The Heritage Foundation estimates that taxpayers pay $90 billion every year to illegal alien households for welfare, and hundreds of billions more for other free services used by illegal immigrants.  This is a meaningful opportunity to prove the the United States will listen and will follow good leadership of other countries.  It will also reap a reward that feels like winning the lottery.  What’s a one-time $100 MILLION saving compared to hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars saving every year? 

            You’re welcome, Mr. President.