Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Despite Vow That ‘Pork-Barrel Era Is Over,’ Obama Proposes $700 Billion Public Works Project


Tuesday, December 09, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, holding a copy of the proposed public works plan, at U.S. Capitol, Dec. 8, 2008. (AP photo)

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40500


(CNSNEWS.com) - President-elect Obama, who vowed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday to eliminate pork barrel spending in Congress, is himself proposing a massive stimulus program that would toss money to cities across the country for “public works” construction projects -- and increase the federal deficit by an estimated $2 trillion.

"You know, the days of just pork coming out of Congress as a strategy, those days are over," Obama said Sunday during the interview.

Nevertheless, in light of the worsening economy and steadily increasing unemployment rate, the president-elect is proposing what he calls "the largest public works program in history" as part of a larger package -- up to $700 billion to be spent on public works projects. The intent is to inject cash into various U.S. cities for infrastructure projects and other “job creating” programs.

On Capitol Hill Monday, mayors from major metropolitan areas -- including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic -- met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to lobby for their "slice of the pie."

The mayors requested that the stimulus funds be directly allocated to the cities rather than to states – to reduce the “waiting time” and “red tape” associated with starting infrastructure programs such as widening roads, repairing bridges and replacing sewer systems.

"As mayors, we know that by investing in ‘Main Street’ metropolitan economies, which comprise 90 percent of our gross domestic product and drive the national economy, we have the most direct path to creating the jobs and stimulating the business that can begin to reverse the current economic downturn,” Plusquellic said. “This program would help Akron greatly."

Mark Williamson, a spokesman for the Akron mayor, told CNSNews.com that his city wants funds for some 230 infrastructure projects ranging in cost from $40,000 to $15 million -- and said the costs associated are a mere “drop in the bucket” when compared to the cost of the Iraq war.

Williamson said that it “would have been valuable” if even a small portion of the money that was spent rebuilding Iraq was instead spent on rebuilding neglected cities here at home.

“These are our cities,” Williamson stated. He went on to explain that Akron is only requesting the “basic” necessities such as road repairs, school construction and police – the “things that have gone neglected for too long.”

But conservative critics and economists argue that this level of government intervention will harm the economy in the long-run by adding to the already large federal deficit, leaving the financial burden to be absorbed by future generations.

When CNSNews.com asked how, in a severe economic downturn, the mayors have the temerity to seek financial assistance they should have sought in better funancial times, Williamson explained that his boss has “been fighting for infrastructure funds for years” -- in an effort to stave off tragedies like the 2007 Minneapolis bridge collapse, in which 13 people were killed and 145 injured.

Williamson also claimed that the new projects will boost the economy by creating jobs, causing a “trickle down effect.”

In addition to what Obama referred to on “Meet the Press” as “the largest” infrastructure and public works construction project in history, other parts of the proposed economic stimulus package would be spent on creating and installing energy efficient products and school construction.

Proponents of the stimulus program, meanwhile, liken the public works project to Eisenhower’s successful National Interstate and Defense Highways Highway Act of 1956 – an act that built 41,000 miles of interstate highway over a 20 year period across the country, while the federal government incurred 90 percent of its $25 billion cost.

Environmentalists Say Big Three are Blocking States from Imposing 'Clean Car' Standards


Monday, December 08, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

Nissan electric car being test-driven. (AP photo)

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40424


(CNSNews.com) – Environmental groups say consumers want to buy cars that get 50 miles per gallon and they want electric vehicles – but Big Three automakers don’t want to have to produce them.

When asked why the Big Three – Ford, GM and Chrysler LLC -- should be forced to make cars that the automakers say there is no demand for, Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network claimed that the market actually wants environment-friendly vehicles.

“Detroit claims that consumers don’t want these vehicles, while every day Detroit pays thousands of dollars to lobbyists to stop any kind of passage of higher gas mileage standards that would lead to hybrid cars, while it sues states that try to go on their own,” Tidwell told CNSNews.com.

“For Detroit to say that consumers don’t want it (fuel efficient cars) while simultaneously trying to stop state houses and Congress from improving standards is a circular and duplicitous argument,” he added.

Tidwell’s group, along with the Global Exchange and California Cars Initiative, called on Congress Friday to require automakers to commit to meet fleet-wide fuel economy standards of 50 miles per gallon (MPG) by 2015 and to produce 500,000 Plug-In Electric Vehicles (PHEV) by 2012, and 3 million by 2015 – before any bailout money is made available.

The groups circled the U.S. Capitol with 25 Japanese electric and hybrid cars as part of a pro-fuel-efficient vehicles demonstration.

The demonstration took place while the Big Three CEOs testified a second time before Congress to plead their case for a $35 billion bailout.

The environmental groups demanded that the automakers, as part of any bailout, agree to end legal action against “clean car” state laws in California and 14 other states.

The laws would require automakers to make significant reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions of cars and light trucks sold in those states, Tidwell said.

“Why is it that Detroit wants our tax dollars but is suing the states that are trying to make cleaner cars?” Tidwell asked.

The environmental groups claim the Detroit automakers have been suing “clean car states” in an effort to skirt the laws in place that they manufacture more fuel efficient vehicles.

When asked why all of the vehicles in the demonstration were Japanese, Tidwell explained that only Japanese automakers are manufacturing cars that get 50 mpg and that American cars have not yet come close to matching that.

Tidwell told CNSNews.com “The best Detroit car only gets 34 mpg.”

“The problem,” he added, “is that I would rather buy a Ford car that gets 50 mpg so I can support an American company.”

When asked if American automakers lacked the same technology used in Japan to manufacture such fuel efficient vehicles Tidwell said that American automakers have “chosen” their path to fall behind in technology and “lease their hybrid technology from Japan.”

He went on to explain that the Big Three had “created their own problem” by not investing in fuel-efficient technologies.

Tidwell, who said the bailout “might make sense” because he “does not want to see” any auto employees lose their jobs -- explained that the groups don’t feel their conditions are unreasonable, in exchange for what he called a “$35 billion taxpayer gift.”

“Is that an insurmountable condition?” he asked. “I don’t think it is.”

Tidwell, who claims that the corporate culture in Detroit, especially at GM, is one that dismisses climate change and energy security as “real concerns” said that if Detroit would “stop suing” then consumers would “get their hands on the hybrids sooner and they would see the demand they claim is not there.”

When asked if environmentalists were placing demands on the Big Three to produce vehicles that perhaps they cannot afford to manufacture now given their financial woes, Tidwell told CNSNews.com that if Detroit produced 50 mpg vehicles --“We’ll buy them.”

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Commission Recommends U.S. Use ‘Direct Force’--If Needed--to Stop Iran, N. Korea Nuke Programs


Thursday, December 04, 2008
by Tiffany Gabbay


(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Washington (CNSNews.com) – A bipartisan commission appointed by Congress is warning the incoming Obama administration that it must not rule out the use of “direct force” – military action – against Iran and North Korea, if diplomatic negotiations fail to stop their nuclear weapons programs.

At a news conference Wednesday, CNSNews.com asked the commission’s chairman, former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), if the panel was recommending that the U.S. take “military action” against Iran and North Korea, if negotiations and other tactics fail.

“We cannot omit from our range of options the use of direct force if other means are unsuccessful,” Graham said.

The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) Proliferation and Terrorism report contains a series of recommendations to the incoming Obama administration on how to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

As one of its recommendations, the commission recommends that, as a top priority, “the next administration must stop the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs.”

The commission was explicit in its language.

“In the case of Iran, this requires the permanent cessation of all of Iran’s nuclear weapons-related efforts,” the commissioners wrote. “In the case of North Korea, this requires the complete abandonment and dismantlement of all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.”

The bipartisan panel of former congressmen and experts warned President-elect Obama, however, in no uncertain terms:

“If, as appears likely, the next administration seeks to stop these programs through direct diplomatic engagement with the Iranian and North Korean governments, it must do so from a position of strength, emphasizing both the benefits to them of abandoning their nuclear weapons programs and the enormous costs of failing to do so,” the authors wrote. “Such engagement must be backed by the credible threat of direct action in the event that diplomacy fails.”

“This is a very serious issue,” Graham said, “not only by potentially increasing the nuclear capability of North Korea, adding Iran to one of the nuclear weapons states in the world would become extremely destabilizing to their (respective) regions.”

Graham explained that if North Korea, for instance, continues to add to its “stockpile” then the pressure on South Korea and Japan would weigh heavily, making it very difficult for them to resist responding.

He also said that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons then “Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries are going to be under pressure to match Iran’s (nuclear) capabilities.”

“The administration must give these issues the priorities they deserve,” Graham added.

The commission’s sobering report -- "World at Risk" -- goes beyond taking steps to prevent Iran and North Korea from possessing uranium-enrichment or plutonium-reprocessing capabilities.

Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), the commission’s co-chairman, said that the “bipartisan, in fact nonpartisan” panel had spent more than six months assessing the risk of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, and its “most important” finding is that the risk is growing – not because we have not made progress, but because our enemies have adapted to the changing environment.

Talent warned that the threat of biological weapons outweighs that of nuclear devices because biological weapons are easier to manufacture and duplicate.

Graham said that, based on 250 interviews with academics, scientists, the military and politicians, one conclusion was unanimous: “WMDs will be used somewhere by 2013.”

The commission was established in 2007 as a direct response to the 9/11 Commission warning that “the greatest danger of another catastrophic attack in the United States will materialize if the world’s most dangerous terrorists acquire the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Tiffany's Radio Interview: The Dan Rivers Show

Tiffany's interview on the Dan Rivers show. Topic: UAW Jobs Bank

Please follow the link below, the interview is about 10-11 minutes into the segment.

http://www.box.net/shared/5do4kopp0r

Tiffany's Radio Interview: The Charly Butcher Show

To listen to an interview with Tiffany Gabbay on the UAW Jobs Bank program and the Big-3, please follow the link below

http://www.box.net/shared/r6v3rsxzrs

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Automakers Forced to Pay 85- to 95-Percent of Wages to Union Members Who Are Not Working

Friday, November 21, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39803

(CNSNews.com) – The Big Three automakers are forced to pay 85- to 95-percent of union wages and benefits to members of the United Auto Workers union who aren’t working – even if their plants have been closed.

Industry analysts say union labor agreements that obligate the Big Three to pay millions of dollars to workers who are no longer working are a major reason why the automakers are in trouble – a problem that no short-term bailout can fix.

During hearings last week where the chief executives of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors appeared before the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) raised the issue.

Corker asked Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, why with all of the measures he has taken to prevent a collapse, his company was still not making money.

“Is it because of the (United Auto Workers) union?” Corker asked pointedly.

Wagoner, who demurred from answering directly, said that even at plants that are closing, “85 percent” of union employment benefits still “have to be paid.” He said that GM has had to restructure and reduce the cost of operating in the U.S., but the company still pays for employees that are not currently working at “idle facilities.”

Chrysler Chairman Robert Nardelli, facing a similar question from Corker, confirmed that “agreements are in place” between Chrysler and UAW that, regardless of demand, Chrysler must still operate at a pay rate of 95 percent of wages for employees not currently working at idle facilities.

Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland’s school of business, told CNSNews.com that one of the biggest problems the companies face is the UAW’s Jobs Bank – a program established more than two decades ago that guarantees nearly full salary and benefits to out-of-work employees.

“Right now if a plant closes in St. Louis and a new one opens in Kansas City, the workers don’t have to move from St. Louis to Kansas City; they can opt to get a $105,000 payout or go on Jobs Bank where they can collect 95 percent of pay for the rest of their lives,” Morici said.

The Detroit automakers have not released official numbers indicating how much they currently spend on their respective Jobs Banks, but previously released four-year labor contracts signed with the UAW in 2003 revealed “contribution caps” to be implemented by each of the Big Three.

These contracts say that GM agreed to allocate $2.1 billion in Jobs Bank payments over four years, Chrysler $451 million for its program along with another $50 million for salaried union employees, and Ford agreed to set aside $944 million.

Morici, who also testified at last Tuesday’s committee hearing, said that economists estimate that $2,000 per vehicle of every car manufactured by the Big Three goes directly to pay employee benefits, something foreign automakers do not have as part of their overhead.

The economist said he believes U.S. automakers are “capable of making high quality vehicles” but that the extremely high labor and product development costs will keep the Big Three from becoming profitable and surviving.

“My view is they can’t do that because their labor costs are too high and their product development costs are too high” Morici said.

“They need to lower their labor costs to those enjoyed by say, Honda at the new Indiana plant and eliminate all of the burdens and work rules that get in between the management and workers in terms of defining how the work place is run,” he added.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, meanwhile, told the congressional panel that his union will not be making any concessions in order to receive the proposed $25 billion in government aid – and attributed the automakers’ difficulties to the economy and the tight credit market’s impact on car buyers.

Shelby Asks Big Three CEOs: 'Is $25 Billion Enough?'


Thursday, November 20, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli speaks during a Senate hearing on the state of the auto industry on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008, in Washington. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39639

(CNSNews.com) - Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee were deeply skeptical of the pitch made Tuesday by the chief executives of the Big Three automakers for a proposed $25 billion bailout.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) asked whether the auto giants would be returning to Congress at a later date, seeking additional funds.

“Is $25 billion enough?” he asked. “Is this the end, or just the beginning?”

The CEOs -- Alan Mulally of Ford; Robert Nardelli of Chrysler LLC and Rick Wagoner of General Motors – came to Capitol Hill to make their case to the committee that only taxpayer help would enable them to stave off a “catastrophe.”

The trio said the collapse of the Big Three would cause the loss of “three million jobs” and an almost certain collapse of the entire U.S. economy. The situation, they said, is not of their making.
GM’s Wagoner said he and his company had been “well on our way” to turning GM around by investing in new technologies that would produce more fuel efficient cars until the credit crunch.

Wagoner explained that it was “not the auto manufacturers’ fault” that auto companies are in dire financial straits, but rather it is the “economic crisis” that put a strain on credit and people’s buying power.

“What exposes us to failure now is the global financial crisis and a reduction in industry sales,” Wagoner said – a reduction he attributed to the credit crunch.

“It’s not our employees, not our cars, not our operations” that are causing the problem, GM’s Wagoner said. “We will use this bridge to pay for essential operations, employee wages, and taxes.”

Chrysler’s Nardelli told the panel that without “immediate bridge financing support,” to help it across “the financial chasm” before it, Chrysler's liquidity could fall “below the level necessary to sustain operations'' as early as next week.

But Shelby and committee colleague, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), were openly skeptical -- questioning what the long-term effects of issuing a “bridge loan” would be and whether it would even be helpful.

“People already think the auto industry has failed, that your model has failed,” Shelby said, asking what assurances the CEOs could give that taxpayers would be repaid their $25 billion.

Chrysler’s Nardelli would only assure Shelby that the auto manufacturers “would generate profit” -- but offered no details.

“We wouldn’t be here today if we didn’t have a high confidence level that we could weather this storm,” Nardelli said.

Mirroring Shelby’s sentiments, Corker (R-Tenn.), meanwhile, told the three: “You are going to come back for more” – adding that they would have to, given their financial situation.

Corker also wanted to know why the three had “made a pact” to stick together on this issue – especially since some of the companies were worse off financially than others.

“Why are we talking about three companies that are each in a very different situation?” Corker asked.

Ford, he said, has “done a better job” of handling its financial situation, but GM “barely has a heartbeat.”

On Nov. 7, when the automakers released their third quarter financial statements, Ford Motor Co. reported losses of $129 million -- and the struggling automaker burned through $7.7 billion in cash in the quarter.

At the same time, Chrysler indicated it lost more than $1 billion during the first half of 2008.

GM, in the worst shape, said it lost $2.5 billion in the third quarter and warned that it could run out of cash in 2009.

The committee’s Republicans weren’t alone in their skepticism. Sen. Robert Menendez (D- N.J.) questioned the $25 billion figure itself.

“How did you come up with $25 billion?” he challenged. “All economists are saying that the economy will take at least a year to a year-and-a-half to recover. How does this number ($25 billion) take you there?”

Corker, meanwhile, pointed out that the amount each of the auto companies was asking individually had only been revealed to the co-chairman of the Senate Auto Caucus, Sen. Carl Levin (D- Mich.).

“We want to know what each of you have asked for,” Corker said. “Which of you three should survive and which shouldn’t?”

Reluctantly, the three top executives complied. Chrysler is asking for approximately $7 billion, Ford for between $7 and $8 billion and GM somewhere in the $10- to $12-billion range.

Nardelli listed Chrysler's current obligations, including: $20 billion in health care obligations, $2 billion in annual pension payments to retirees and surviving spouses, about $7 billion in current payables and $35 billion in future annual supplier business. In addition, he said, Chrysler pays $6 billion in annual wages.

Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, meanwhile testified at the hearing that even with a $25 billion loan, extremely high labor and product development costs would keep the auto makers from becoming profitable.

“They (the Big Three) are saying that they are the victims of the suppressed credit market conditions owing to the credit crisis and that people can’t borrow money to buy cars,” Morici said.

The automakers, he said, are wrong to believe that, if they can just get through this period until credit markets recover, they will be able to “make and sell cars at a profit, repay the loans and move forward from there.”

“My view is they can’t do that because their labor costs are too high and their product development costs are too high,” Morici told CNSNews.com

The committee chairman, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), who is supportive of a bridge loan to the auto industry, said that he does “not think it is likely'' that any aid will be approved in the next few days.

Senate Republican Leader Answers No Questions about Auto Bailout


Tuesday, November 18, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at U.S. Capitol

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39492

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Senate Republican leadership is being mum about the proposed $25 billion bailout of the auto industry.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the minority leader of the Senate, on Monday declined to comment when asked how many Republicans he thought would vote against the Democrat-sponsored auto industry package – or even how he himself intends to vote.

“I’m not going to answer any questions,” McConnell said. “We’re going to be dealing with this later.”
Reporters peppered McConnell with questions during a Capitol Hill photo opportunity introducing new Republican Senators-elect Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).

Some Republicans, including Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and John Kyl (R-Ariz.), however, have already expressed strong opposition to a package that, in their view, opens the door for other struggling companies to seek government assistance.

Even Republicans who favor offering some assistance to the auto industry, meanwhile, have placed stipulations on a potential bailout package.

Chief among them -- a requirement that the funds do not come from the $700 billion bailout Congress approved for the financial industry, the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP), but from a $25 billion Department of Energy loan program that was specifically designed for auto-makers to retool factories in order to build more fuel-efficient cars.

The White House, meanwhile, seemed to endorse that idea Monday.

"The administration does not want US automakers to fail, and in fact we support assistance to automakers,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. “We believe this assistance should come from the program created by Congress that was specifically designed to assist the automakers -- from the 25-billion-dollar Department of Energy loan program."

Democrats in Congress Monday unveiled their $25 billion plan to rescue the failing U.S. auto industry with funds carved out of the recent $700 billion bailout package.

The chief executives of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, meanwhile, will head to Capitol Hill Tuesday for a congressional hearing on the proposed bailout and the three top executives are scheduled to address a House panel on Wednesday about their companies’ financial concerns.

La Raza: Losing Jobs to Illegals is 'Not a Concern' of Americans


Friday, November 14, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) appears before the La Raza national convention in July. (AP photo)

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39335

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Americans are “not concerned” that they may lose jobs to illegal aliens in a tight job market, according to speakers at a panel discussion conducted Thursday in Washington, D.C., by the National Council of La Raza.

Simon Rosenberg, president and CEO of NDN – formerly the New Democrat Network -- said that Republicans are now “paying a steep price for demonizing Hispanics” in their “anti-immigration rhetoric” – rhetoric that he said created the “fear of losing jobs to undocumented immigrants of Americans.”

Research conducted for La Raza, which describes itself as the “largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States,” indicates that Americans are “more concerned” with undocumented immigrants “being able to pay their fair share of taxes,” Rosenberg said, than they are of losing jobs to illegals.

When asked if he still felt that American jobs would not be threatened by undocumented immigrants despite the fact the current unemployment rate is now at a 14-year high of 6.5 percent, Rosenberg told CNSNews.com that he believes undocumented immigrants have taken jobs that Americans “do not want,” but that there “might be” a shift in concern if unemployment rates continue to rise.

David Mermin, a partner at Lake Research Partners, a national public opinion and political strategy research firm hired by La Raza to study American voters, said 62 percent of American voters are now “more interested in converting illegal immigrants into legal taxpayers than deporting them because they might be taking jobs.”

In terms of steps to becoming “legal,” Mermin explained that “paying taxes, passing a criminal background check and learning English” are the most important factors to voters.

La Raza President Janet Murguia, meanwhile, said the fact that Latino voters turned out in unprecedented numbers to support Democratic candidates last week puts the Hispanic vote in the Democrat column – for the moment.

“Democrats can put Latinos in the (blue) column for now, but not forever,” Murguia said, adding -- “They should not rest on their laurels.”

“Latinos are swing voters -- if we don’t see action, we will seek it from somewhere else,” Murguia added.

She said that Democrats “must act on the issues that Americans care about” – including comprehensive immigration reform.

Pollster Mermin said his data revealed a large majority of American voters “broadly support” comprehensive immigration reform -- and that supporters of enforcement-only policies, such as raids on employers, “may be loud, but there aren’t very many of them.”

Mermin said 67 percent of both Obama and McCain voters support a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants, compared to just 10 percent of Obama voters and 20 percent of McCain voters who say that illegal immigrants “must leave the country.”

Murguia said that Hispanics “heard directly” from President-elect Obama that he “understood how destructive raids are” and that while she does not expect a moratorium on immigration raids, she does hope for a “vigorous conversation” on immigration to commence with the new administration.

Rosenberg added that American’ attitudes toward race have changed and that Republicans will have to “make peace” with the Hispanic community and work towards immigration reform or they will see their electoral map shift from red to blue “for a generation.”

He added that Americans are “not supportive of amnesty,” but was quick to clarify that comprehensive immigration reform “is not amnesty” in that its provisions expect undocumented immigrants to comply with such rules as paying fines and taxes, “going to the back of the line,” undergoing a “criminal background check” and a lengthy process of naturalization.

When asked if stricter border enforcement should be a part of immigration reform to protect new undocumented immigrants from acquiring jobs, Rosenberg said that strict border enforcement was “always a part of immigration reform” measures that were put forth and would continue to be.

His “advice” to Democrats: “If you want to get re-elected, pass comprehensive immigration reform.”

Senate Finance Chairman Calls for Mandatory Health Insurance

Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) in a Senate elevator, Nov. 12, 2008 (AP Photo)

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39278

CNSNews.com) – The Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a health-care reform plan Wednesday that incorporates many of the provisions of President-elect Barack Obama’s plan, but goes one step further -- it would require everyone to eventually buy insurance coverage.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) proposes that medical insurance cover pre-existing conditions, as Obama’s plan does, and would set up an insurance exchange to help people and businesses find insurance if they need -- but don’t have -- coverage.

“Americans are acutely aware of problems in the country’s health care system and they are ready for change,” Baucus said at a Capitol Hill news conference announcing his “Call to Action: Health Care Reform 2009” proposal.

But the Baucus plan would require that everyone purchase health insurance, once “affordable options” are available.
“Our health-care system is broken” he said. “46 million are uninsured and 25 million are underinsured.” In addition, insurance premiums are "out of control.”

Baucus is asking Americans to “suspend their judgment” and examine the provisions of his “white paper” on comprehensive health-care reform -- which details specific policy options to be considered by the 111th Congress -- before reaching conclusions.

The key to providing “quality, accessible health care to all,” Baucus said, is to shore up the employer-based system by creating a “Health Insurance Exchange” to “allow health care consumers to find and obtain health coverage that best meet their needs.”

The exchange would connect individuals and employers to insurance offered at the local, state, regional or national level by insurers who meet the requiremenents of a new independent Health Coverage Council.

Health-care reform should be the “top priority” of the incoming administration, Baucus said, and he hopes legislation will be introduced and debated in the first half of the year.

"We’ve fixed Wall Street, we’ve fixed the housing market, fixed taxes -- everything else but health care -- and if we don’t fix that, we will have more economic troubles,” Baucus said.

The long term benefits of health-care reform, he added, are that it “helps the economy” and will free-up funding for “education, infrastructure and energy independence.”

Aiming to get “everyone under the tent,” Baucus’ white paper outlines three health care features he said must be “dealt with” -- access, quality and cost.

His goal is to have “every American insured, reduce health-care costs and premiums; and provide a higher quality of health care and preventative care.” In addition, the Baucus plan would not allow insurance companies to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions.

If consumers are happy with their existing coverage, they can keep it, Baucus said, but he added: “The system can work better and cost less for everyone, if leaders are willing to work together for sound policy solutions.”

Baucus also said that businesses “will be able to compete” and that there will be tax credits for small businesses to help them provide health insurance to their employees.

Baucus would also provide coverage for those not currently covered by utilizing existing federally funded health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) – a federally funded program designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid.

Baucus also called for an increase in primary care physicians as well as implementing greater “reforms and regulations” on the insurance market.

When asked if President-elect Obama supports his proposal, Baucus deflected by saying that their respective plans are “more similar than they are different” and that he “would not expect (this bill) to be vetoed” if it passed the Senate and House.

Baucus, whose committee is charged with the financial aspects of health policy, will need to work with fellow liberal Democrat, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will play a key role in any legislation that is crafted. Kennedy, who was diagnosed with a brain tumor has “dedicated the remainder of his life” to passing health-care reform, offered “complimentary words” about his proposal, Baucus said.

Baucus, meanwhile, said his health-care reform proposal differs from the Clinton administration’s health care initiative in 1993 and 1994, which promised “universal health care” for all Americans.

The Clinton initiative was too “top dense” – or government-run, Baucus said, whereas his plan will combine “both public and private sector” elements. In addition, Baucus explained that it is the job of Congress to “get the ball rolling” on health-care reform.

Baucus offered few specifics about what the plan would cost to implement – nor did he say how it would be paid for, beyond noting that it would require an “initial investment” and would “cost for the first five years” but that in 10 years time, he predicted, "we would see savings."

He added: “There is an investment here, and we have to figure out how to pay for it and offset (the cost)” but “as soon as we get legislation, we’ll have more precise figures.”

"Inaction is much more expensive,” Baucus said.

Baucus also said that he wants to work with Republicans on the issue – and believes that the plan’s mixture of public and private provisions will help get GOP senators on board.

“Republicans and Democrats both know what we need to do” he said.

Baucus, meanwhile, said that he would like any health-care reform plan pass with “80 votes, not just 60” and that “nothing is off the table” in terms of negotiating and reaching a compromise acceptable to both sides of the aisle.

“The plan is not yet perfect, but we’ll keep working on it,” Baucus said.

Immigration Groups Mobilize to Push for ‘Pathway to Legalization’ Under Obama


Wednesday, November 12, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39188

(CNSNews.com) – Immigrant groups are calling on the incoming Obama administration to push for “just and humane immigration reform” and “a pathway to legalization”—amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants.

The National Capital Immigrant Coalition (NCIC) and the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) held a press conference Tuesday at the National Press Club to announce a “mass mobilization” by pro-immigration groups that is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 21—one day after the president-elect is sworn into office.

The mobilization is part of a series of events “designed to open a dialogue between lawmakers and the community,” according to FIRM, a group of pro-amnesty immigration organizations, policy makers and union leaders.

FIRM is calling on the Obama administration to enact immigration reform and “put an immediate stop to raids that have terrorized immigrant families.”

The NCIC, which describes itself as a “coalition of more than 30 organizations that advocates for and mobilizes immigrant communities in the Washington, D.C. area,” will partner with FIRM to make sure that the Jan. 21 event will draw “thousands of immigrants and immigration supporters” to the nation’s capital to welcome the new administration.

“We helped elect someone who represents our hopes and dreams,” said NCIC President Jessica Alvarez.

The immigrant community has “fully embraced the spirit of hope and democracy surrounding this historic election” and will be “asking for immigration reform,” she said.

Alvarez said immigrants were heard loud and clear in this election – the Hispanic vote increased 30 percent from 2004. More than 10.5 million Hispanics voted last Tuesday, she said, because “our future is at stake.”

Chung-Wha Hong, executive director for the New York Immigration Coalition, spoke pointedly about what her organization’s “expectations” are of the incoming Obama administration regarding immigration matters.

“We ask that President-elect Obama adopt just and humane immigration reform and includes this as one of his top ten national priorities to be accomplished within the first year of his administration,” Hong said.

Hong explained that this expectation “flows directly from Obama’s campaign promise” made to immigrant leaders that he will “make this (immigration reform) happen in the first year.”

Many immigrant organizations endorsed Obama’s candidacy specifically based on this commitment, Hong said.

“We applaud Speaker Nancy Pelosi for expressing her support for ending worksite raids and for calling for just and humane immigration reform,” Hong said.

The raids, according to Hong, have been “one of the most destructive aspects of our failed immigration policy.” She said raids on companies that employ illegal aliens “separate families and destroy work places.”

Likewise, FIRM and NCIC members said they expect Democratic leaders in Congress to “(use) the power of the new majority to get immigration reform done.”

“Together with a moratorium on raids, we ask Congress and (the next) administration to institute a number of administrative reforms to reverse anti-immigrant Bush administration policies that involve detention policies, family back laws, no-match letters, and foreign worker injustice,” Hong said.

Hong said one demand is that “everyone, including newly elected leaders, create a more respectful environment for the immigration debate” and that “anti-immigrant extremists” should “not be allowed to sway the debate.”

“President Elect Obama is fully expected and is called on to make immigration a winning issue for all Americans,” she added.

Alvarez added to Hong’s list of expectations.

“We are looking for humane reform, less punitive laws and for workers to be provided with a pathway to legalization,” Alvarez said.

When asked to clarify what exactly “humane reform” means, Angelica Salas, executive director of Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said she supports enforcing immigration and labor laws but does not support raids as an enforcement measure.

With a message of “ending raids, placing family first and due process,” Salas said more and more “(immigrants) are becoming aware of their political power,” and “we must put an end to the harsh tactics that don’t work.”

She told CNSNews.com “(Hispanics) abandoned the Republican Party, because the Republicans abandoned us.

“McCain passed along the baton to some of the extremists in the Republican Party, and that is why I think immigration reform failed,” Salas said.

Salas believes that members of the Hispanic community watched the immigration debate closely and saw that the people who voted against amnesty for illegal aliens were “from a certain party.”

Salas said she thinks Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was unfortunately hurt by the actions of members of his party.

When asked what McCain’s role should be in the next administration with regard to immigration reform, Salas said, “I am very convinced that McCain will have a role in this (immigration reform) moving forward, because President-elect Obama and Sen. McCain both see that immigrants are an important part of the American populace and that this is an issue that needs to be solved.”

McCain Lost Ground with Hispanics, Despite Immigration Stance


Thursday, November 06, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38890


(CNSNews.com) - Two-thirds of Hispanics – 66 percent – voted in favor of Barack Obama on Election Day, despite Republican John McCain’s long-time support of the Hispanic community, his work on comprehensive immigration reform, and the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill.

McCain won 32 percent of the Hispanic vote, less than the 40 percent garnered by President Bush in 2004, but more than the 21 percent that former Sen. Bob Dole received in his presidential race in 1996.

McCain, along with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), had sponsored an immigration-reform bill in 2000 that would have set-up guest-worker visas and created a “pathway to citizenship” for undocumented and illegal immigrants.

He also supported comprehensive immigration-reform proposals in Congress in 2006 and again in 2007, both of which went down to defeat.

But Mark Lopez, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center, said that McCain fared poorly among Latino voters because “he had a lot going against him.”

“McCain did reach out to the Latino community,” Lopez told CNSNews.com. “He had a group of advisors to help him, and he specifically aimed commercials at Latinos, not just in a few states but across the country, but he was running at a time when there is generally a good level of dissatisfaction with the current administration, and Latinos are no different in (holding) that view.”

Although immigration is an important issue to Hispanics, it was not the “top issue,” Lopez said.

“The economy, jobs and cost of living were more important issues to Latinos in this election,” he added.

A look at key Hispanic demographics that have traditionally leaned conservative, Florida’s Hispanic community flipped from Republican to Democrat.

The Florida Hispanic community is more diverse now, comprising young people and Hispanics from Puerto Rico and other Latin American countries. Cubans, who have traditionally voted Republican, are “no longer the majority,” according to Lopez.

Lopez said Hispanics feel Democrats might now be more “in tune” with their values and have a better understanding of the issues that are important to them.

Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of the office of research, advocacy and legislation at the National Council of La Raza, told CNSNews.com that “within the Republican field” McCain had been the candidate with “the best opportunity to do really well in the Latino community.”

“He always won a solid majority of Latino voters in Arizona,” Munoz added. “He has a very strong record, is very well-known and is very-well respected in the Latino community.”

Despite Mc Cain’s popularity, Munoz said the Hispanic community did not come out in full support, because the Republican Party “completely undercut him.”

“They became the party of immigrant-bashing, and the Republican brand was badly tarnished in the Latino community,” Munoz said. “He (McCain) was unable to overcome that. There were other candidates in his party that were running on very harsh anti-immigrant tickets and who had harsh anti-immigrant messages. I will say that those candidates lost.”

Munoz said she thinks the broader Republican message was a factor in not energizing Hispanic voters.

“Even though I think (Hispanics) like and respect Sen. McCain, they felt that he was representing a party that wasn’t with him on this (immigration) issue,” she added.

Hispanic conservatives also expressed disillusionment with the Republican “brand.”

Mario H. Lopez, president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, said that it was “unfortunate” that someone with McCain’s track record received such a small portion of the Hispanic vote – but it was equally unfortunate that his campaign “did not dedicate the resources needed to communicate effectively with the Hispanic community.”

“His (McCain’s) operation certainly did not approach the level of George Bush’s Hispanic outreach in ’04,” Lopez said.

The McCain campaign “missed an opportunity” to remind Hispanics, especially in battle ground states, of “all the things that they do have in common,” Lopez said, including McCain’s position on immigration, and his “conservative positions on taxes and small business.”

Lopez said he believes that a backlash against the Republican Party played a large role.

“Unfortunately we have a handful of people within the party and within the movement who didn’t care about how their rhetoric sounded during the immigration debate. I think some do not care (how they sounded) and others would change what they said if they knew how badly they came across,” Lopez said.

“Regardless, there was a backlash against that kind of rhetoric, and the sooner my fellow conservatives realize that that’s not the way to go if we ever want to be a governing majority again, the better off that the (conservative) movement is going to be,” he added.

Lopez told CNSNews.com he hopes conservatives will look at the data and “realize that train has left the station.”

“The message is: if you are a conservative and you care about tax cuts, and you care about school choice, and you care about any other number of issues, you have to care about Hispanic outreach,” Lopez said, “because we just cannot ever get to the point where we’re a governing majority again without more Hispanics in the fold.”

Lopez said speaking purely as a conservative, “I’d rather see a second Reagan revolution, and sooner rather than later.”

Hispanics, who made up eight percent of the total voter turnout, are America’s fastest growing and largest ethnic minority and, according to Lopez, “most of that growth comes from new births and not immigration.”

Boston Housing Agency Barred from Checking Obama’s Aunt’s Immigrant Status


Tuesday, November 04, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

Boston housing complex where Zeituni Onyango, Barack Obama’s aunt, lives (AP Photo)

http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38696

(CNSNews.com) - A loophole in a Massachusetts state law has allowed Zeituni Onyango - Barack Obama’s aunt and an illegal immigrant - to live in state-funded public housing in Boston since 2003, even though a federal immigration judge ordered Onyango to leave the country in 2004 after her request for asylum was denied.

The Boston Housing Authority (BHA) told CNSNews.com that illegal immigrants like Onyango can qualify for the state-funded housing in Massachusetts because, unlike federally funded programs, Massachusetts forbids the BHA from even asking about an applicant’s immigration status.

Federally funded vs. state-funded public housing

The BHA administers both federally funded and state-funded housing, according to communications director Lydia Agro.

Federally funded programs require that housing applicants be a U.S. citizen or be an “eligible non-citizen.” The Federal Housing Authority defines eligible non-citizens to mean those immigrants with a resident alien card, a temporary resident card, an employment authorization card or proof of refugee or asylum status.

But there is no such requirement for state-funded housing in Massachusetts, according to Agro.

“The federal program requires (us) to check immigration status, and we do” she told CNSNews.com. “But the same requirements do not hold true for state-funded housing. State law forbids the housing authority to inquire about an applicant’s immigration status.”

Agro said that Onyango originally qualified as an eligible non-citizen under the federal housing authority requirements.

One year later, the Kenyan national was subject to a deportation order but did not leave and has since shifted from federal to state-funded housing, where verification of her immigration status is prohibited.

When asked about the specific rules for a state-funded housing application process Agro said, “We are not supposed to ask (our applicants) about their immigration (status).”

Agro also said that the BHA had no knowledge of Onyango’s deportation order until it recently came out in media reports.

BHA staff have confirmed that Onyango had been a “volunteer resident health advocate” from December 2007 to August 2008 and worked six hours a week for a “small stipend” – the amount of which BHA has not disclosed.

In an effort to rectify flaws in the housing authority’s system, state Sen. Robert L. Hedlund Jr. (R-Weymouth) has tried twice to close the loophole that makes it possible for illegal immigrants to obtain state-funded public housing in the commonwealth.

Rick Collins, Hedlund’s communications director, told CNSNews.com that, in two separate instances, the Massachusetts Senate had approved an amendment intended to place stricter regulations and penalties on matters dealing with illegal immigration.

“It didn’t get out of the House and Senate conference committee,” Collins said.

“Auntie Zeituni” as Obama affectionately refers to her in his book, “Dreams From my Father,” is the half-sister of Obama's Kenyan father, who is deceased.

She contributed $260 to Obama’s presidential campaign, but the contributions were returned after her immigration status became known – and it was learned that she was allegedly not in compliance with campaign finance laws.

According to a recent Associated Press report, Onyango attended Obama's swearing-in to the U.S. Senate in 2004, but campaign officials said the Democratic presidential candidate provided her no assistance in getting a tourist visa – and said the candidate didn’t know the details of her stay.

The campaign said Obama last heard from his aunt about two years ago when she called saying she was in Boston, “but he did not see her there.”

IRS, U.S. Banks Accept Fraud-Prone Mexican ID That Lets Illegals Into U.S. Credit Market


Tuesday, October 21, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37928

(CNSNews.com) - The Internal Revenue Service and U.S. banks have been allowing foreign nationals, many of whom are illegal aliens, to use a fraud-prone Mexican identification card that the FBI says is not "reliable" to obtain U.S. bank accounts and Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) and thus enter the U.S. credit market.

Mexican banks, meanwhile, do not accept the card--the Matricula Consular--as identification, according to the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

The credibility of the Matricula Consular card, which is issued by the Mexican government to Mexican nationals in the U.S., is dubious at best, says Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the Republicans were in the majority.

“It troubles me that while banks in the U.S. have agreed to accept Matricula Consular cards as proof of identification, banks in Mexico do not,” Sensenbrenner told CNSNews.com.

“If Matricula Consular cards are not good enough to use there, then why should they be good enough to use here, in the U.S.?” Sensenbrenner asked.

He added: “If a Mexican national is present in the U.S. legally, then he or she does not need a Matricula Consular card, and moreover, should be in possession of more than a Taxpayer ID Number (ITIN) for identification purposes, such as a Permanent Resident (or “green card”) number.”

The Matricula Consular has been under scrutiny by various law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), on the ground that the authenticity of the documents used to obtain the Matricula cannot be accurately verified.

In 2003 testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on Matricula Consular cards, Steve McCraw, assistant director of the FBI’s Office of Intelligence said the U.S. government “has done an extensive amount of research on the Matricula Consular” to assess its "viability as a reliable means of identification.”

“The Department of Justice and the FBI have concluded that the Matricula Consular is not a reliable form of identification, due to the non-existence of any means of verifying the true identity of the card holder,” McCraw said.

He explained the basic “problems” with the Matricula Consular:

“First, the government of Mexico has no centralized database to coordinate the issuance of consar ID cards. This allows multiple cards to be issued under the same name, the same address, or with the same photograph,” McCraw said.

Further, McCraw testified, that the Mexican government “has no interconnected databases to provide intra-consular communication to be able to verify who has or has not applied for or received a consular ID card.”

“Third, the Government of Mexico issues the card to anyone who can produce a Mexican birth certificate and one other form of identity, including documents of very low reliability,” the FBI agent testified. “Mexican birth certificates are easy to forge and they are a major item on the product list of the fraudulent document trade currently flourishing across the country and around the world.”

McCraw told Congress that a September 2002 “bust” of a document-production operation in Washington state illustrated the size of the illegal documents trade.

“A huge cache of fake Mexican birth certificates was discovered,” he said. “It is our belief that the primary reason a market for these birth certificates exists is the demand for fraudulently-obtained Matricula Consular cards.”

ICE has also investigated the document counterfeiting industry.

After a five year investigation, starting in 2000, the agency obtained an indictment against Pedro Castorena-Ibarra, a Mexican national who it described as “the leader of a large-scale criminal organization involved in manufacturing and distributing counterfeit identity documents, including resident alien cards, Social Security cards, Mexico Matricula Consular ID cards, driver’s licenses and identity documents from various states of Mexico and the United States.”

When asked about the reliability of the Matricula Consular card, ICE spokeswoman Cori Bassett told CNSNews.com that Matriculas “are not valid for work authorization in the United States” nor are they “listed on the I-9 form as an acceptable form of ID.”

“We’ve arrested folks who (individually) have had multiple (Matricula) cards, each card with a different identity” Bassett said. The Matricula, she added, can be easily “counterfeited.”

In an attempt to improve the security of state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards in an effort to combat terrorism and reduce fraud, Congress passed Sensenbrenner's REAL ID Act in 2005.

Matricula Consular cards should not be accepted as valid for the purpose of obtaining U.S. identification, Sensenbrenner told CNSNews.com.

“The REAL ID bill signed into law prohibits the use of foreign documents as supportive documents,” he said. “Clearly, Matricula Consular cards, which are issued by Mexico, constitute a foreign document.”

Although the bill was passed in 2005, and became law, the Department of Homeland Security has issued extensions to states and U.S. territories, which claim they cannot yet meet all the requirements of the legislation. Some extensions for completing full implementation of REAL ID are good until May 2011.

Attempts to obtain comment from the Mexican government through the Mexican Consulate in Washington, D.C., were not successful.

According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office report, "almost all" of the 530,000 people who filed tax returns in the U.S. in 2001 using an ITIN rather than Social Security Number were illegal aliens.

IRS Opened Back Door for Illegal Aliens to Enter U.S. Credit Market


Friday, October 17, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay
(CNSNews.com) – Internal Revenue Service rules have opened up a back-door through which illegal immigrants can obtain an Individual Taxpayer Information Number (ITIN), which in turn helps them enter the U.S. credit market.

The IRS uses ITINs to process tax payments owed by people who are not eligible for a Social Security Number. It is issued regardless of immigration status to people living both inside and outside the country.

Although the IRS states explicitly that ITINs are not to be used for any purpose other than tax administration, banks across the country are accepting ITINs to open new accounts and extend lines of credit to customers who are not eligible for a Social Security Number.

When asked by CNSNews.com whether or not ITINs are being used by people for purposes other than tax filing, Dean Patterson, a spokesman for Internal Revenue Service (IRS), told CNSNews.com: “If a third party accepts an ITIN, we can’t speak to that.”

Patterson directed CNSNews.com to the IRS Web site, which contains pertinent information about the ITIN application process. An IRS Web page on frequently asked questions about the ITIN says:

“ITINs are issued regardless of immigration status because both resident and nonresident aliens may have U.S. tax return and payment responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code.”

It also says:

“ITINs are not valid identification outside the tax system. Since ITINs are strictly for tax processing, IRS does not apply the same standards as agencies that provide genuine identity certification. ITIN applicants are not required to apply in person, and IRS does not further validate the authenticity of identity documents. ITINs do not prove identity outside the Federal tax system, and should not be offered or accepted as identification for non-tax purposes.”

A brochure that is posted on the IRS Web site as a PDF – titled “Understanding Your IRS/Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ITIN” – expressly instructs illegal aliens that they are eligible to get ITINs.

A section on page 9 of the brochure carries the heading: “Can I get an ITIN if I am an undocumented alien?” The text for this section reads:

“Yes, If you are required to file a U. S. Federal income tax return or qualify to be listed on another individual’s tax return as a spouse or dependent, you must have either a valid SSN or an ITIN. If you are an undocumented alien and cannot get a SSN, you must get an ITIN for tax purposes. Remember, having an ITIN does not:

-- Give you the right to work in the United States,
-- Change your immigration status, or
-- Entitle you to the Earned Income Tax Credit or Social Security benefits.”

The General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office), which audits federal agencies on behalf of the United States Congress, has noted the problem of illegal aliens receiving ITINs from the IRS.

On March 10, 2004, Michael Brostek, GAO’s director of tax issues, submitted testimony to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight and Social Security in which he noted the widespread use of ITINs by illegal aliens.

“IRS has concluded that most resident aliens who have ITINs and earn wage income are not legally employed in the United States,” Brostek told Congress.

“IRS and TIGTA (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) have concluded that many of the taxpayers who file tax returns with ITINs are illegal resident aliens. Although estimates are not precise, according to TIGTA, hundreds of thousands of the tax returns filed with ITINs each year likely involve employed illegal resident aliens,” Brostek testified.

Brostek reported that since the IRS started issuing ITINs in 1996, the number of them in circulation has exploded. “IRS has issued over 7.2 million ITINs through December 2003 and over 1 million ITIN annually in more recent years,” Brostek said in his written testimony.

On July 11, 2006, Brostek joined with Barbara Bovbjerg, GAO’s director of education, workforce and income security issues, and Richard Stana, GAO’s director of homeland security and justice issues, in presenting a written briefing to Congress on immigration enforcement issues. One of the topics they discussed was the proliferation of IRS ITINs among illegal aliens.

“About 530,000 ITIN holders submitted tax returns with wage income in 2001,” said the briefing. “IRS officials believe that almost all returns filed with ITINs claiming wages are from unauthorized workers.”

Patterson explained that the IRS has introduced revisions to the ITIN application process in order to ensure its use for tax purposes only.

The revised application standards for ITINs require the completion of the new ITIN application form (or W7 form) accompanied by a federal income tax return. However, the new process also offers exemptions from these two requirements if documentation is provided. Bank requests for ITINs are among the accepted pieces of documentation making one eligible to claim exemption.

The W7 Form reads:

"Frequently, third parties (such as banks and other financial institutions) which are subject to information reporting and withholding requirements, will request an ITIN from you to enable them to file information returns required by law. If you are requesting an ITIN for this reason, you may be able to claim one of the exceptions described below.”

The section of the form explaining the “exceptions,” includes one for people who are “‘resident aliens’ for tax purposes.” It lists among those eligible for an exception:

“1(c) Individuals who are ‘resident aliens’ for tax purposes and have opened up an interest bearing bank deposit account that generates income subject to IRS information reporting and/or federal tax withholding.”

The fact that there is a difference between a “resident alien” for tax purposes and a resident alien for immigration purposes is spelled out in detail in another IRS publication called “Foreign Student and Scholar Text (for use in preparing Tax Year 2007 Returns for Nonresident Aliens).” It says that “undocumented aliens” are treated as “resident aliens” under the tax code.

“U.S. immigration laws speak of immigrants, non-immigrants (also called nonresident aliens), and illegal aliens (undocumented aliens), but U.S. tax laws speak of resident aliens and nonresident aliens,” explains this IRS document (bold text in original).

“The basic facts to remember about taxation of aliens are that resident aliens are taxed like U.S. citizens, while nonresident aliens are taxed differently. The tax law applicable to aliens – although based on U.S. immigration law – defines residency for tax purposes differently from how it is defined in immigration law,” says the IRS document. “Under the Internal Revenue Code, even undocumented aliens (sometimes referred to as ‘illegal aliens’) are treated as resident aliens if they meet the ‘substantial presence’ test in the tax code.”

To qualify as a “resident alien” as far as the IRS is concerned an “undocumented alien” need only be present in the United States for 183 days over a three-year period, including 31 days in the current year:

“Nonresident aliens meet the substantial presence test if they have spent more than 183 days in the United States,” says the IRS document. “To meet the substantial presence test and thus be considered a resident alien for tax purposes, an alien must at least:

“1. be physically present for 31 days in the current year, and 2. be physically present for 183 days (as calculated below) during the 3-year period consisting of the current year and the 2 immediately prior years. The 183 days are calculated as follows: a. all days of presence in the current year; b. 1/3 of days of presence in the year immediately before the current year; and c. 1/6 of days of presence in the year before that.”

Illegal immigrants have found the ITIN as a way to legally establish credit and own assets in this country. For illegal immigrants from Mexico, the first step is to obtain a Matricula Consular, an identification card issued by the Mexican government to nationals living outside the country.

The Matricula is obtained at any Mexican consulate or mobile “satellite station,” many of which visit Hispanic communities and local bank branches to offer expedited services. Matriculas are taken by numerous American banks as an acceptable form of I.D. with which to open bank accounts and lines of credit.

In August 2004, the GAO presented a report to Congress entitled, “Consular Identification Cards Accepted within United States, but Consistent Federal Guidance Needed.” The report said there were already well over 100 financial institutions accepting the cards.

“The Mexican embassy has reported that 160 financial institutions nationwide now accept the Mexican CID card as proof of identity for opening bank accounts,” the GAO said.

The GAO indicated that the Patriot Act was not seen as an impediment to banks accepting consular identification cards (CID) as identification for foreign nationals.

“Department of the Treasury adopted a regulation in 2003 pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) that, in effect, allows banks to decide whether or not to accept CID cards as identification for the purposes of opening an account or making other transactions,” the GAO report said. “On the other hand, a senior Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) official, within the Department of Justice, has stated that the Mexican CID card is not a reliable form of identification and that its acceptance could support false identities, while a senior DHS (Department of Homeland Security) official has also expressed security concerns.”

Most banks that accept the Matricula and ITIN to establish bank accounts state that an account holder must be in “good standing” with the bank for at least three months before extending to that person credit offers.

The credit cards and loans on offer under the ITIN have generally commanded high interest rates and an initial fee. Still, there is a demand for these products as it offers the applicant a chance to build credit without the use of a Social Security number.

Though ITINs are not intended for anything other than tax-filing purposes, they can in fact be used to establish a credit history in the United States.

Steve Katz, director of communications for TransUnion, one of the country’s three major credit-reporting bureaus, said: “TransUnion does accept ITINs to establish a credit rating” but stores a person’s ITIN-based credit history in its own separate database.

“If a person receives a Social Security number (at some point) in the future, we add it to their credit file (along with their ITIN-based credit history).” Katz said.

Rod Griffin, director of education for Experian, another of the three major credit-reporting bureaus, told CNSNews.com that the credit-rating organizations “will use everything (documentation) provided to us in order to establish credit,” including “date of birth, personal banking records, past payment history, and the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.”

“If a person opens a bank account with an ITIN, and the bank reports the account details to a credit union, (the ITIN holder) is building credit,” he said.

Bush’s Handling of Financial Crisis ‘Irresponsible,’ Gingrich Says

cnsnews.com
October 1, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

http://newt.org/EditNewt/NewtNewsandOpinionDB/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3768/Default.aspx



Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted President George Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Tuesday over the proposed financial bailout, saying the president “is being absolutely irresponsible” in his handling of the problem.

“There are steps that the administration could take today that would dramatically improve where we are immediately, without legislation” Gingrich said.

“If the president believes anything he is saying in his speeches about how big this crisis is, he should pick up the phone this morning and call SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Chairman Chris Cox and tell him to suspend the ‘mark-to-market’ accounting rules, which are the fundamental problem today and can be suspended.”

The mark-to-market system of accounting requires all assets, mortgages, and holdings to be valued at their current market value, regardless of whether that reflects their true worth.

It is an accounting practice that “literally hundreds of the most revered economists” blame for 70 percent of the current problem in the financial markets, Gingrich said.

“If you calculate 70 percent of $700 billion, that is $490 billion” he said.

Gingrich suggested suspending the mark-to-market system for a trial period of two to three weeks, along with suspending the capital gains tax and moving to a three-year rolling average – something that “could be implemented today without congressional involvement,” he said.

The criticism apparently hit its mark – at least in part. Late Tuesday, the SEC announced it intended to ease mark-to-market rules, which were part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that Congress passed in 1992 in response to the accounting scandal involving Enron and WorldCom.

The former House speaker, meanwhile, blamed both Paulson and liberal Democrats in Congress for the proposed bailout, which he termed “grotesque.”

Paulson, who Gingrich said represents a very narrow Wall Street view, wrongly created a “bailout” rather than a “work-out” – a principle that is more in line with American tradition, he said.

Paulson “has almost no concept of what the job of secretary of the treasury is in the United States Constitution,” Gingrich said.

Worse, he added, was the fact that the first draft of Paulson’s plan called for latitude for the secretary to spend $700 billion without judicial review or legislative oversight.

“(This) was such a fundamental violation of the American constitutional process and rule of law,” Gingrich said.

The bailout proposal is a further sign that the administration is “catering to liberal Democrats,” he added.

“This administration has given them (liberal Democrats) a greater chance to move towards a socialist economy than anything in modern times,” Gingrich told CNSNews.com.

“They can’t imagine how good George Bush has been [to them] in giving Congress what it wants,” he said. “They got $152 billion in a stimulus package this spring that didn’t work. They got a $300 billion housing bailout this summer that didn’t work. … If you’re a liberal Democrat, it doesn’t get much better than this.”

Liberal Democrats “had the gall,” Gingrich said, to try to attach a provision that would give $20 billion to “a left-wing organization” called ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations Right Now), in a power play that was just breathtaking.”

In the end, “two scandals that will come out of this” said Gingrich, “are political donations, and power on Capitol Hill, such as Chris Dodd being the largest recipient [of monies] from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

“It was ironic to watch Sen. Dodd, who was the largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money, and who himself had received favorable mortgage treatment on his homes, act as a key negotiator,” Gingrich said. “It made it (discussions) more difficult.”

The former speaker said that he would have “reluctantly and angrily” voted for the bill himself, explaining that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had empowered House Republicans, led by Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) to “substantially improve the bill.”

Gingrich said that the vast improvements made on the bill by House Republicans were a “huge step in the right direction.”

He was also clear to emphasize that the bill’s defeat was a product of bipartisan rejection, citing the 95 Democrats who also voted against the bill along with the majority of House Republicans.

Gingrich was critical of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had blamed House Republicans for stopping the bill.

“Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House.” Gingrich said. “There’s a majority of Democrats in the House. It seems to me that if the Speaker of the House cannot pass the bill, it’s a little bit clever to decide that it’s the Republicans’ fault when she cannot pass a bill in the House for which she is speaking. I think, in that sense, her speech was sadly inappropriate, very partisan, and deeply embittered a number of people.”

Gingrich went on to explain that Pelosi’s speech was different from the original text she had drafted and, in her effort to appeal to the left wing of her party, announced before House Members that passing the bill would result in a, “victory for Barack Obama.”

When it comes to accountability for the current financial problem, Gingrich said it is “politically incorrect” to note that today’s financial problems started in the 1970s during the Carter administration, and were “celebrated” by the Clinton administration.

Those problems, he said, were compounded by liberal involvement with ACORN, “which the Democrats wanted to give $20 billion to (now) and who they did give ($500 million) a year to in a housing bill over the summer.”

“There has been a perennial pressure for over 20 years now to get every last American into a home even if they couldn’t afford it,” said Gingrich, adding that this is a strategy that leads to bankruptcy – for individuals and lending institutions.

Gingrich also criticized the lack of attention paid to what he calls “predatory politicians,” those who demanded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages that were unsound and unable to be repaid. These were financially unsound decisions made to “make themselves [politicians] feel good,” said Gingrich.

Senate Democratic Whip Says End Iraq War to Pay for Bailout


Friday, September 26, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay, CNSNews.com correspondent
(CNSNews.com) – Senate Democratic Whip Richard Durbin (Ill.) told CNSNews.com yesterday that one way Congress can pay for the proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial industry is to end the war in Iraq.

When asked whether federal spending should be cut in order to help fund the bailout package, Durbin (D-Ill.) said: “First thing we could do is bring the troops home and stop sending $10 to $15 billion a month into Iraq, a country that already enjoys a very healthy surplus.”

Most, but not all, of the members asked said they believed spending should be cut to help pay for the bailout, and some Democrats suggested increasing taxes.

Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) said he and other lawmakers would cut federal spending “even if we weren’t doing this thing.”

“Frankly, with or without this (bailout) package, we have spent too much money in virtually every form of the budget,” Campbell said. “One good place to start might be earmarks. There’s a bill we passed out of here yesterday with over 300 votes and it has thousands of earmarks for billions of dollars. We don’t even know how many or how much, but that [earmarks] would be a good place to start.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R- Texas) took the opportunity to voice his opposition to the bailout plan itself. He said: “I am not in favor of the Paulson plan and $700 billion [package]. There would have to be another plan I could vote for that would allow the private sector, and not the public sector, to clean up this mess.”

Rep. Elliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said: "(We) have to look at cutting some programs, we have to raise taxes on ultra-wealthy people, but the truth of the matter is we're now in the waning days of Congress and its going to be very hard given the pressure on us to do something in the next few days to find areas in which to cut or to tax."

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), who like Gohmert was critical of the bailout bill itself, said he does not object to the idea of cutting federal spending but that he does not support doing so “if it still means spending $700 billion of taxpayer money.”

“I am in a position now where I don’t think that federal spending, to the magnitude which people are talking, is required,” LaTourette said. “I think you’re going to see a bipartisan approach that is currently developing now that is going to be more market based and is going to apply to the people who made the mess to pay, to clean up, and is going to rely on private capital.”

Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) said he would “go back to the appropriations bills, publicly comb through the earmarks” and start spending cuts there.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), said he believes Congress should look carefully at the proposed bailout plan and find what works best.

“I think there’s an effort by some members of Congress to say, ‘Let’s use a stop-gap for now and then look at it [plan] again at some time in the future and test the principles that they are applying to see if they’re working,’” Tiahrt said.

When asked what areas of federal spending should be cut, Tiahrt put training by government agencies at the top of the list.

“We have over 100 different agencies doing training in some form or another,” Tiahrt said. “We could consolidate and limit a lot of the bureaucracy and overhead and have more of a streamline training approach. We do it in the Department of Labor, Department of Education and Department of Energy. Every major industry has multiple training branches within them and so this is one area where we could consolidate them and still continue to provide the services but with less overhead.”

Tiahrt also suggested “getting our R&D out of the Department of Energy and out into the commercial market.”

Rep, Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), said he would eliminate “hundreds of millions of dollars” in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and for the National Endowment for the Arts.

When asked if he would cut federal spending to fund the bailout package, Rep. Edward Pastor (D-Ariz.) had a one-word answer “No.”