tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85424492024-03-07T02:38:09.228-05:00Glaivester"Keep Kicking at the Darkness Till it Bleeds Daylight." - Bruce CockburnGlaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.comBlogger3348125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-71348676112299410682023-12-21T19:55:00.009-05:002023-12-21T19:56:24.564-05:00Comment on H-1B RegulationThere is a new regulation whose comments close on December 22 (Friday) at 11:59 pm EST.</br></br>
It regards changes to the H-1B program. I don't remember where I first found out about it, but the changes in general loosen the requirements and most of the regulation ought to be junked.</br></br>
The regulation is here:</br></br>
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2023-0005-0001">https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2023-0005-0001</a></br></br>
You can comment here:</br></br>
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/USCIS-2023-0005-0001/">https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/USCIS-2023-0005-0001/</a></br></br>
A summary of the regulation is here (although this is by a firm that I suspect supports the regulation):</br></br>
<a href="https://www.murthy.com/2023/10/20/summary-of-proposed-regulation-to-change-h1b-program/">https://www.murthy.com/2023/10/20/summary-of-proposed-regulation-to-change-h1b-program/</a></br></br>
Here is my comment if it helps you to write your own:</br></br>
I am opposed to many aspects of this new regulation. Loosening the requirements for obtaining and maintaining an H-1B visa will make it easier for companies to pass over American workers in order to hire cheaper foreign workers. This is a trend that must be halted and reversed, and the proposed regulation will continue our move in the wrong direction.</br></br>
Aspects of the regulation that give the USCIS more authority to deny an H-1B petition based on non-provision of documents or that codify the ability of USCIS to ask for documents to establish a working relationship are good, however, and those parts of the regulation should be approved.</br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-77843715370856089492023-11-28T20:23:00.006-05:002023-11-28T20:37:58.665-05:00Commenting on Biden's Attempt to Outlaw Private Gun Sales<b>If you wish to comment on the new regulation proposed by Biden to ban or at least potentially ban all private firearms transactions and require a license to sell or attempt to sell even a single gun, please comment on <A href="regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. <a href="gunowners.org">GunOwners of America</a> has a suggested comment and you can comment through their site or directly. Note: If you want to copy their comment and post directly, it may contain too many characters to submit, even though it says there are characters left.<br><br>
You can comment up until 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on Thursday December 7th.<br><br>
<A href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2023-0002-0001">Rule is here</a>.<br><br>
<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/08/2023-19177/definition-of-engaged-in-the-business-as-a-dealer-in-firearms#open-comment">Comment here</a><br><br> or<br><br> <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/ATF-2023-0002-0001">here</a><br><br> (the latter link can be used to see if your comment will get flagged for too many characters, the actual limit is lower than what you are told, and if you use the first link, you might be told "invalid characters" when you try to submit it - the second link it will notify you in real time as you type).<br><br>
Comment through the <a href="https://hosted-page.civiclick.com/?campaign_ref=3822">Gun Owners of America</a> site.<br><br>
Note: This post is in bold, except for the comment.<br><br>
</b>
I am Opposed to this Unconstitutional Rule<br><br>
It disturbs me that ATF has weaponized the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act as a backdoor to enact Universal Background Checks and Firearm Registration by demanding that gun owners who sell a few personal firearms suddenly now must become federally licensed as gun dealers.<br><br>
The ATF’s proposed rule ATF 2022R-17 is not only unconstitutional but also misinterprets federal law and must not be finalized.<br><br>
1. ATF is wrong to suggest a single firearm sale—or no sale at all—might require a license:<br><br>
ATF’s rule claims that the agency “even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license.”<br>
However, the statutes enacted by Congress clearly do not intend to regulate the conduct of an individual who merely sells a single firearm. Instead, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(11), (21), (22), and (23) clearly contemplate regulating someone who “regular(ly)” and “repetitive(ly)” either (a) manufactures and sells or (b) purchases and resells multiple “firearms.”<br><br>
2. ATF fails to protect unlicensed conduct exempted by Congress:<br><br>
Additionally, Congress also expressly exempted “occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby.” According to Congress, ATF cannot presume anyone to be “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms simply because they sold a few guns on a few occasions. In contrast, ATF’s rule provides no such assurances.<br><br>
3. Wrongfully licensing constitutionally protected activity will lead to warrantless searches and additional constitutional violations:<br><br>
Moreover, by selling a single firearm—and thus purportedly coming under the jurisdiction of the ATF as a newly-minted gun dealer—private gun owners can now be subjected to warrantless searches of their homes and their firearm collections. This is a clear violation of both the Second and Fourth Amendments, and it runs totally contrary to the Supreme Court’s Caniglia decision in 2021.<br><br>
In that case, the Biden administration fully supported the ability of law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches of firearms in the home as part of a so-called “welfare check.” But the Supreme Court ruled against the Rhode Island police—and the Biden administration—with a 9-0 vote. Now, the Biden administration is trying to implement warrantless searches though the back door and without even having a vote in Congress.<br><br>
4. ATF suggests it might deny a license to applicants who the agency ordered to become licensed:<br><br>
One footnote in this proposed rule suggests the ATF might prevent a person from obtaining a license to even engage in future firearm transactions because they were presumed to have “willfully engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license,” but if such an individual, were to submit an application to obtain a license to deal in firearms, ATF’s footnote suggests the law-abiding individual might be denied the license simply because their previous conduct (even before this new rule) was presumptively (not objectively) unlawful. Thus, law-abiding citizens wishing to avoid any legal grey area created by this ATF rule are damned if they do get a license, and damned if they don’t!<br><br>
5. ATF’s backdoor Universal Background Check includes Universal Firearms Registration:<br><br>
So-called “Universal Background Checks” are only enforceable with a gun registry. Regulating private citizens as gun dealers will force them to run background checks on every firearm transaction in a backdoor attempt to require private citizens to create, maintain, and eventually turn over these registration papers (i.e. Forms 4473, Multiple Sales Reports, and Acquisition and Disposition logs). Failure to fill out registration paperwork and create a paper trail for even a single firearm transaction will be considered a federal crime.<br><br>
The Biden Administration described this as “moving the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.” And the rule is only enforceable by cannibalizing the existing commercial federal firearms license and background check system into an unconstitutional, illegal gun registration scheme for all firearm sales.<br><br>
But as ATF checks in on private transactions, those who privately transfer a firearm without a license and who do not maintain federal gun registration paperwork will be presumed by ATF to be in noncompliance with the law. As such, this rule exceeds statute and infringes on the constitutional right protected by the Second Amendment.<br><br>
6. The administration has been working overtime to revoke federal firearms licenses, meaning that people wishing to sell personal collections might not be able to get the permission to do so.<br><br>
<b>[End of comment]
That is all.</b>Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-56550961442870486772021-05-03T22:40:00.001-04:002021-05-08T10:49:45.347-04:00Comment on Biden's Proposed Educational PrioritiesUpdate:
Stephen Miller's America First Legal submitted a comment. <a href="https://wordpress.aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AFL-Comments-on-ED-Proposed-Priority-1.pdf">See it here</a>.</br></br>
Biden is proposing (in effect) preferentially giving grants to programs that teach Critical Race Theory.<br><br>
Here is the regulation propoal. You can comment through May 19, 2021:<br><br>
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2021-OESE-0033-0001">Proposed Priorities: American History and Civics Education</a><br><br>
What <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-republicans-biden-1619-project">Some GOP Senators have said against it</a>.<br><br>
Here is a sample comment (in bold) if you want to object to Biden's attempt to encourage Critical Race Theory in schools through grants:<br><br>
<b>Regarding Federal Register Regulation 2021-08068, Proposed Priorities: American History and Civics Education, I am very concerned about the implications of Proposed Priority 1, which regards incorporating “diversity.”<br><br>
These sorts of proposals usually involve trying to use the lens of contemporary racial politics as the primary way to understand every historical issue. The general goal of most “diversity” education is the denigration of western culture, the demonizing of people of European heritage, and the discouragement of a sense of pride and loyalty to the United States as a historical entity. Rather than developing a sense of patriotism and national unity, they serve to encourage resentment and division in some students, and a sense of shame and guilt in others.<br><br>
First of all, the lauding of the 1619 Project as an example of the kind of scholarship that we should strive to emulate is concerning. In addition to making many factually suspect claims, the 1619 Project which seems intent on overemphasizing one aspect of our country as the central fact of our country, effectively using our history to push a partisan, sectarian agenda under the guise of fairness.<br><br>
Quoting Ibram X. Kendi is also a red flag, as he has explicitly called for racial discrimination against those whom he sees as “privileged” as the way to combat racism. The idea that racist policies are “the cause of racial inequities” rather than “one cause” is of great concern, because it suggests that no inquiry into other causes will be allowed. Kendi does not seem interested in looking holistically into race relations, but only in looking at ideas that reinforce the view that white bigotry is the only cause of racial inequities and therefore any attempt to correct them must focus on punishing whites.<br><br>
My concerns regarding the five sub-priorities (a-e) of priority 1:<br>
(a) The term systemic biases tends to imply that only certain biases will be examined and corrected for. I am concerned that the real effect here will be to denigrate the perspectives of whites and to exalt only the perspectives of minorities rather than trying to find the truth in between.<br>
(b) “Incorporating diverse perspectives” is fine if the idea is to get all sides of an issue, or that one’s race, ethnicity, etc. should not be a barrier on analyzing an issue. However, I am concerned that the goal here is going to be to try to find a racial angle on every topic discussed, which can distract from teaching the topic at hand.<br>
(c) Again, I am concerned that this is just about injecting modern identity politics into every issue instead of looking at the issues as they existed at the time.<br>
(d) I am concerned here that the goal of validating and reflecting “the diversity, identities, and experiences of all students” in practice means distorting history to appeal to students.<br>
(e) Again, I am concerned that “identity-safe” learning environments means environments where students in “protected” groups are never challenged and students in non-protected groups are derided.<br>
As for Proposed Priority 2, I agree in principle with teaching students to examine their biases and to be aware of misinformation. However, I am concerned that any program to deal with this must look at the biases of those who created the program, and make certain that it does not only teach students to identify bias on one side, or that the program creates a narrative and only looks for misinformation if it contradicts the narrative.<br><br>
We need to examine our biases when looking for bias, and any program promoting “informational literacy” needs to tell students to question the program itself.</b><br><br>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-85884993790282343672021-01-20T09:15:00.005-05:002023-02-26T12:46:00.685-05:00Prayers for the Spiritual BattlePrayers from the 2013 anti-amnesty battle:
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-current-crisis-is-about.html">What the crisis is about</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/06/prayer-for-day.html">June 22</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/06/prayer-for-day_22.html">June 22</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/06/prayer-for-day_23.html">June 23</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/06/prayer-for-day_24.html">June 24</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/06/prayer-for-day_25.html">June 25</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/06/prayer-for-day_27.html">June 27</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/07/prayer-for-day_3.html">July 3</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/07/prayer-for-day_7.html">July 7</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/07/prayer-for-day_11.html">July 11</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/07/prayer-for-day_16.html">July 16</a></br>
<a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2013/07/prayer-for-day-july-28-2013.html">July 28</a></br></br>
.
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-57988913971025559412020-01-21T10:22:00.001-05:002020-01-21T10:22:29.774-05:00Last Day to Comment on Rule Tightening the Bars to Asylum EligibilityIt is the last day to comment on the new rule: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EOIR-2019-0005-0001">Procedures for Asylum and Bars to Asylum Eligibility</a>. Comments close at 11:59AM EST.</br></br>
Sample comment:</br></br>
I support the proposed regulation.</br></br>
People who request asylum are guests in our country and they ought to appreciate what we have given them. People who flagrantly violate our laws and endanger U.S. citizens have no right to claim entry into our country. While I feel sorry for people who face persecution in their homeland, if they wish for us to protect them they need to respect our laws and avoid putting our citizens at risk.</br></br>
Moreover, people who have previous immigration offenses are unlikely to be making the claim of asylum genuinely and are simply looking to loophole their way into the United States.</br></br>
Anything else is allowing the safety and well-being of foreigners to be prioritized over that of Americans.</br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-59167485812928977282020-01-13T17:57:00.001-05:002020-01-13T17:57:07.006-05:00Last Day to Comment on Proposed Rule to Remove Employment Incentives for False Asylum ClaimsToday is the last day to comment to support President Trump's efforts to alter federal rules to discourage false asylum claims for the purpose of gaining employment:</br></br> <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCIS-2019-0011-0001">Proposed Rule: Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants</a></br></br>
Here is my comment (in bold):</br></br>
<b>I support this proposed rule.</br></br>
If the vast majority of asylum claims were genuine, or were processed in a timely manner, this would be unnecessary. But given the large number of fraudulent or frivolous asylum claims, and the inability of our overloaded system to handle them all, reducing the incentives to file fraudulent or frivolous claims is a very wise policy.</br></br>
The current system is likely to result in a large number of people who are employed who suddenly lose their employment authorization due to their claims being denied. This creates a very strong incentive to overlook their legal status and ignore the fact that they have either filed a claim that does not meet the qualifications for asylum, or even that is downright fraudulent. This is particularly true because our antidiscrimination laws are such that employers will have to hire them despite the conditional and temporary nature of their work authorization.</br></br>
In effect, the current asylum system is likely to create a large mass of illegal aliens whose employment produces a difficult situation for them and for their employers, and therefore create pressure for a mass amnesty and for the further erosion of our immigration laws.</br></br>
This proposed rule is essential in order to retain the rule of law in our immigration system.</br></br></b>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-57118440481686928842019-09-22T20:54:00.003-04:002019-09-22T20:55:36.598-04:00Comment on Rule to Allow More American DisplacementThere is a new rule proposed by the Trump administration that would make it easier for agricultural employers to replace Americans with H-2A foreign workers. Please go to this <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=WHD_FRDOC_0001-0070">regulation on the regulations.gov site and make a comment telling Trump to nix the law and govern by the principles on which he ran</a>. <b>Note: comments must be submitted by 11:59 pm on Tuesday September 24 Eastern Standard Time. After this, the commenting period closes. </b></br></br>
The proposed rule is posted with the link. An explanation of why this rule would be bad (for those of you who do not have time to read and interpret multi-hundred-page regulations) is found <a href="https://nhlabornews.com/2019/07/farm-workers-union-decries-new-changes-to-h-2a-the-agricultural-guest-worker-program/">here</a> (yes, it's a liberal site, but I tend to think that unions and labor leaders are probably in the right on this particular issue).</br></br>
Here is what I posted, feel free to post this, with perhaps a few changes so you don't look like some sort of bot (also, giving contact information will likely make it more clear that you are a person posting this):</br></br>
<b>I am opposed to the Proposed Rule “Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in the United States” (Federal Register 2019-15307).</br></br>
This rule would work directly against the immigration principles on which this administration ran. In addition, with labor force participation for the past six years never once reaching the levels it was at between September 1978 and August 2013, any labor shortage clearly implies that businesses are not doing enough to coax Americans to take jobs rather than there not being enough Americans to take them.</br></br>
It would make it more difficult for domestic farm workers to take a job held by a guestworker, by reducing the period for such from halfway through the job to 30 days into the job. This would tend to belie the claim that we need H-2A visas because of a shortage of American workers, if we are making it harder for American workers to claim the jobs.</br></br>
Allowing employers to use one H-2A application for multiple seasonal jobs starting at different times of years would make it easier to avoid recruiting domestic workers. In addition, the ability to string together a series of unrelated jobs and the ability to make major changes in job terms also discourages domestic workers from applying.</br></br>
Allowing employers to avoid paying for long-distance transportation costs by shifting the cost to workers would allow employers to reduce the cost of hiring foreign workers, not only creating hardships for foreign workers, but further reducing the costs to employers of hiring foreign labor over domestic, which will incentive businesses not to hire Americans.</br></br>
Allowing businesses to self-inspect the quality of the housing given to migrant workers is an invitation to abuse.</br></br>
The new methods of calculating prevailing wages would likely result in reduced wages. This again would provide incentives for businesses to keep wages low and to claim that no American will take a job when in reality the businesses are just not offering adequate pay. If anything, the wages that businesses should be required to pay under the H-2A program should be raised significantly, so that businesses cannot use foreign labor as a tool to keep wages low.</br></br>
Expanding the categories of employees who are included in the H-2A program to include reforestation and pine straw employees would increase the competition that American workers face for jobs. In addition, it would take more workers out of the protection of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, making it easier for employers to mistreat or cheat them, and again providing another incentive to hire foreign workers over domestic ones.</br></br>
If this administration intends to live up to the pledges on which it was elected, it should withdraw this planned regulation and instead offer regulations that would require employers who wish to use H-2A visas to pay higher wages and to be more heavily regulated, and to use whatever means are possible within the law to protect all workers from exploitation.</br></br></b>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-70490551298815429362018-12-17T23:32:00.001-05:002018-12-17T23:34:36.468-05:00Advancing Native Missions' Prayers for North KoreaSome prayers for North Korea:
</br></br>
</br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd1XENZyBFR_k3sbtL4HXpgg8o9ReZF-0n7WBkZZiGzUpEZpPwWLGyr7fkS0OV1D6KAY4Z4aKoOH494S5IndZfL-S2vZfhUewNIH2Rt7Rui-_5yxG1XZemIdSc_e6amBEroPPmzQ/s1600/NK.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd1XENZyBFR_k3sbtL4HXpgg8o9ReZF-0n7WBkZZiGzUpEZpPwWLGyr7fkS0OV1D6KAY4Z4aKoOH494S5IndZfL-S2vZfhUewNIH2Rt7Rui-_5yxG1XZemIdSc_e6amBEroPPmzQ/s640/NK.png" width="640" height="424" data-original-width="1202" data-original-height="796" /></a></br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-8001188646975598032018-11-25T17:03:00.000-05:002018-11-25T17:03:29.013-05:00A New Cartoon for ThanksgivingA different take on the "the white men were illegal aliens" idea:</br>
</br>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKyd2TjJ0LBSANlu2y6Z8q0nGIftVNQr_jRjKZIyOyYztt95LqKWqLWKmjZllIo5MHJfBb5A8FOZ_ylBSHHsud3F8aKwgS2tzMMhHllE4p87a2vv18Buqz7W5MTy0zoYzyQ_qDQA/s1600/Wampanoag.jpeg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKyd2TjJ0LBSANlu2y6Z8q0nGIftVNQr_jRjKZIyOyYztt95LqKWqLWKmjZllIo5MHJfBb5A8FOZ_ylBSHHsud3F8aKwgS2tzMMhHllE4p87a2vv18Buqz7W5MTy0zoYzyQ_qDQA/s640/Wampanoag.jpeg" width="640" height="482" data-original-width="1091" data-original-height="822" /></a></br></br>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy5u7gjJ3OMM7wOF6zcf1yU7pEIMzm2wbrOEykvNuZ7q-BQaHCwWjQ2PdvdxqNdbT45wON7JxinAP7bFLNdVvTZ7jI-acEWQauubnU6l01Q4WWcuaDPktCTW2CFJSFIMDRvkQdPA/s1600/Wampanoag.jpeg" imageanchor="1" >Full size here</a>.</br>
</br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-51668194774128873292018-05-31T08:34:00.002-04:002018-05-31T08:34:15.591-04:00Roseanne: A Victim of "Black-Run America"Why isn't Samantha Bee fired, but Roseanne is? Black-Run America. In this 2011 article, <A href="https://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-black-run-america.html">Paul Kersey explains what Black-
Run America is</a>.</br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-21894701160741363822018-01-20T17:59:00.002-05:002018-01-20T18:06:06.481-05:00New Actions to Fight Amnesty and the #SchumerShutdown5 Democrats broke away from the Schumer Shutdown. Please let them know you appreciate it. I have included Twitter and Facebook pages; you can comment there, or call them. Be aware that if you are not a constituent, your voice has less influence, so keep any phone messages short "Thank you for voting to fund the government."</br></br>
These Democrats voted for funding the government and did not hold it hostage to get legalization of illegal aliens:</br></br>
1) Joe Donnelly</br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/SenDonnelly">@SenDonnelly</a></br>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/senatordonnelly/">Senator Donnelly's Facebook</a></br>
(202) 224-4814</br></br>
2) Heidi Heitkamp</br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorHeitkamp">@SenatorHeitkamp</a></br>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/SenatorHeidiHeitkamp/">Senator Heitkamp's Facebook</a></br>
(202) 224-2043</br></br>
3) Doug Jones</br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/SenDougJones">@SenDougJones</a></br>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/senatordougjones/">Senator Jones's Facebook</a></br>
202-224-4124</br></br>
4) Joe Manchin</br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin">@Sen_JoeManchin</a></br>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/JoeManchinIII/">Senator Manchin's Facebook</a></br>
(202) 224-3954</br></br>
5) Claire McCaskill</br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/clairecmc">@clairecmc</a></br>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/senatormccaskill/">Senator McCaskill's Facebook</a></br>
(202) 224-6154</br></br>
Here is a suggested tweet:</br></br>
To the 5 Democrats who broke away from Schumer:</br>
Thank you for voting against shutting down the government. You are truly putting country over party.</br>
@SenDonnelly</br>
@SenatorHeitkamp</br>
@SenDougJones</br>
@Sen_JoeManchin</br>
@clairecmc</br></br>
and a suggested Facebook message:</br>I want to let you know that we appreciate your voting to fund the government and not holding our military and first responders hostage in order to allow Dick Durbin to dictate the terms of an immigration deal. You are truly are putting country ahead of party. The grateful voters will remember in November [2020 if you are writing to Doug Jones, who is not up for re-election this year], and so will non-constituents who give to campaigns outside their state.</br></br>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-23510751603356172992017-11-26T21:26:00.001-05:002017-11-26T21:26:04.082-05:00Fighting DACA with wordsDear Readers:</br></br>
Here is a letter I sent my Senators and my Representative through their contact pages. Feel free to use it on your own Senators and Representatives. I added references not so much because I think anyone will look at them, but so that it does not look as if I am making up what I say.</br></br>
Dear XXXXX:</br></br>
I am writing to ask you please not to give any sort of legal accommodation whatsoever to DACA recipients until we have mandatory E-Verify for all businesses and an end to chain migration (i.e. limit family reunification to spouses and minor children). There is no reason to hurry to address DACA this year; it does not expire until March.</br></br>
Putting any sort of a “fix” in the spending bill, or passing legislation such as the DREAM Act, which would give away citizenship not just to DACA recipients but millions of other illegal aliens, would be a slap in the face to the American people and a declaration that you wish to put the children of illegal aliens ahead of those of U.S. citizens.</br></br>
Recent polls have shown that Americans do not consider sorting out the so-called DREAMers’ statuses to be a high priority ("DACA Fix Fades as a Priority for Voters: Poll" Anna Giaritelli, Washington Examiner 11/09/17). Moreover, polls consistently show that Americans favor enforcement measures prior to legalizing people here illegally ("Survey Highlights Popularity of Immigration Enforcement" Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, 11/07/16), which undercuts claims that the vast majority of Americans want DACA recipients legalized; even those who think that this should be the eventual decision do not want it done until we have taken steps such as ending chain migration and mandating E-Verify in order to limit its impact and to prevent future illegal immigration. (Various links on Glaivester blog, 10/20/13, last updated 9/26/17).</br></br>
There are also all kinds of problems that need to be addressed prior to even considering any “fix.” There is little verification of age or school attendance. ("Fmr. USCIS Investigator: There’s a ‘Huge’ Amount of Fraud in DACA" Margaret Menge, Lifezette, updated 11/21/17) People who arrived as older teenagers, make frequent trips to their countries of origin, and do not bother to become fluent in English still met the qualifications for DACA. ("Time to End DACA" Steven A. Camarota, 08/03/17. Center for Immigration Studies)
DACA recipients tend to be lower-skilled and lower-income - despite the public image of them as college graduates - and estimates for their contribution to the economy tend to be lower per capita than those of current Americans (even including non-working Americans such as babies)("Are Dreamers Net Contributors" Glaivester Blog 09/13/17), indicating that they will on average consume more than they add to the economy, while even moderately sized increases in workforce participation by millennials could easily offset any reductions in the workforce from DACA recipients going home ("Industry Group Reacts in Horror: Ending DACA Will Put a ¼ of 1 Percent Dent in Economy (and That Claim Isn’t Even True)" Ira Mehlman, ImmigrationReformDotCom, 09/16/17).</br></br>
The election of Trump was a clear message that the American people want the government to get control of our border. The constant drumbeat of opposition to the enforcement of our immigration laws indicates that our politicians do not care about the people of the country and simply want to let businesses and other interests import new people to use against us.</br></br>
Please put the American people before illegal aliens and oppose efforts to extend or continue DACA before we have mandated E-Verify and ended chain migration.</br></br>
Thank you for your time.</br></br>
Sincerely,</br></br>
XXXX </br></br>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-85940095168573499192017-11-26T21:23:00.002-05:002017-11-26T21:28:03.073-05:00Fighting DACA with DonationsHere are a few Congressmen (and Senators) who have come out against illegal immigration whom you ought to give to over the next week if you can afford it. Make certain to write a comment on one of their Facebook posts (a germane one if possible) letting them know why you donated, or contact them on Twitter. Make absolutely certain to ask them to keep speaking out against any DACA fix until we have mandatory E-Verify for businesses and an end to chain migration. You can easily find their campaign, congressional and social media pages, but as I have time I will list them as links for your convenience.</br></br>
A sample message: "Thank you for your work in XXX [e.g. introducing a piece of legislation, speaking out against DACA]. I just donated $X to your campaign. We need more people to stand up for Americans! Please [make sure to speak out/continue speaking out] against any attempt to tie DACA to the spending bill."</br></br>
Dave Brat.</br>
Why: <a href="https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/brats-no-amnesty-bill-has-top-3-goals">He has introduced the LAWS Act (H.R. 4340)</a> that would end chain migration and mandate that businesses use E-Verify.</br></br>
<a href="https://davebrat.com">Campaign website</a> (Donate <a href="https://davebrat.com/donate/">HERE</a>)</br>
<a href="https://brat.house.gov">Congressional website</a></br>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/davebratforcongress/">Campaign Facebook</a></br>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/RepDaveBrat/">Congressional FaceBook</a></br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/DaveBratVA7th">Campaign Twitter</a></br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/repdavebrat">Congressional Twitter</a></br></br>
Marsha Blackburn recently <A href="https://www.facebook.com/marshablackburn/posts/10155783686988396">introduced the CLEAR Act</a> that would help local law enforcement work with immigration officials to deport illegal aliens. She is running for Senate in 2018).</br></br>
Mo Brooks recently <A href="https://www.facebook.com/marshablackburn/posts/10155783686988396">introduced legislation to reform the temporary protected status program</a>. (His only campaign website right now is for his Senatorial special election bid; you can give there or just let him know you will give when his re-election campaign site opens up).</br></br>
Louie Gohmert.</br></br>
Steve King. (Appears to have two campaign sites: steveking.com and kingforcongress.com)</br></br>
Lou Barletta. (He is running for Senate in 2018).</br></br>
In the Senate there are:</br></br>
Tom Cotton (co-introduced the RAISE Act)</br></br>
David Perdue (co-introduced the RAISE Act)</br></br>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-27960848815451696182017-11-22T20:10:00.003-05:002017-11-22T20:10:51.192-05:00More on TaxesI like numbers and so tax policy can be quite an interesting subject for analysis. While my primary focus is on immigration and "national question" issues, taxes can be a bit of a respite for me.</br></br>
<a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/16inweek47.xls">This data (ExCel file) provides a starting point</a> for determining how tax rate changes would affect government revenues. It's the filing data for the 2016 filing season (i.e. 2015 taxes) at week 47 (about November).</br></br>
In particular, it shows that there are at least 431,335 filers (counting joint filers as one filer) with incomes of over $1,000,000 (numbers are likely a bit higher, assuming some tax returns were received more than 47 weeks into 2016.</br></br>
The overall adjusted gross income (AGI) for these people is about $1.377 trillion ($944 billion in non-capital gains), which would be more than $945 billion if you exempt the first million from the count ($513 billion in non-capital gains if you simply take the average AGI and subtract the percentage that is capital gains before subtracting the million - this is not quite a precise way of measuring this, as the exact distribution of capital gains among people of an income class will affect the results, but it's a good working estimate). This means that even if we make conservative assumptions on growth, over the next ten years these people would make at least $10 trillion ($5 trillion non-capital gains) even if we do not count the first million each makes.</br></br>
In other words, every 1% tax on income over $1 million would make $100 billion over that time, assuming static scoring (I think that's the right term, I mean assuming that the tax does not change the economy or behavior in a way that alters revenue).</br></br>
So a 44% tax rate over $1 million (accompanied with a 24.4% capital gains rate for income over $1 million) would make $440 billion (44% being 4.4% higher than 39.6%). Even if you did not tax capital gains higher, it would bring in a little more than half as much - say $240 billion.</br></br>
There are 44,416 people making over $5 million. Total adjusted gross income is $668 billion ($372 billion non-cap gains), $446 billion of which remains given an exemption of $5 million ($150 billion non-cap gains). (</br></br>
This would mean that a similar rate levied on incomes over $5 million would yield a little less than half as much - $210 billion, perhaps. If you only taxed regular income, it would be about a third as much - say about $70 billion.</br></br>
Obviously, there is a lot of wiggle room to use here if one wanted to shift taxes. I am all for moving taxes from corporate to high-income personal. </br></br>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-6742699845670514532017-11-15T23:41:00.000-05:002017-11-15T23:42:55.056-05:00Thoughts on Tax PlanI am trying to figure out how I would change the GOP tax plan if I could.</br></br>
A few ideas (numbers based on <A href="https://samjohnson.house.gov/uploadedfiles/tax_reform_bill_section_by_section.pdf">bill as shown on Congressman Sam Johnson's website</a>:</br></br>
First, I think it would be better at this point not to end personal exemptions. Ending them largely undoes the effects of increasing the standard deduction, and might increase taxes on those that itemize. Unfortunately, that would increase the "cost" of the tax plan by $1,562.1 billion dollars over ten years, so it would have to be made up for to keep the total "cost" at the level that the reconciliation rules require. (Note: I don't know whether costs are calculated as if each proposal were done alone against the current system, or how that proposal would do if measured against the rest of the tax bill being passed without it, or what. However, I am fairly certain that you can't just add the numbers up to get the total cost as each section will have some effect on the other sections, but I'll pretend that the parts do not effect each other for purposes of estimating the effect of these policy changes).</br></br>
I would make up for that in part by increasing the standard deduction only by 50%. I'll assume that this would approximately half the cost of the increase, which would give the government $460.7 billion more than the current House GOP plan.</br></br>
Second, I would keep the estate tax, and keep the personal alternative minimum tax as it currently is. The former would get the government $172.2 billion and the latter $695.5 billion.</br></br>
Third, I would ease up on the tax rate simplification. I would combine the two lower brackets into one 12% bracket, but leave leave the other brackets where they are (<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/09/14/projected-2018-tax-rates-brackets-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/#1a5c037c3e04">projected brackets for 2018</a>), except that I would eliminate the 35% bracket, and set the threshold from the 33% to the 39.6% bracket at $425,000 for singles, $437,500 for heads of households, and $450,000 for married ($225,000 for married filing separately). This would mean that everyone would pay somewhat lower taxes, even after the exemptions phased out at higher incomes, and even if they itemized deductions, except for people who itemize deductions and have an income under $15,875.00 ($22,666.67 for heads of household and 31,750.00 for couples,). This would be resolved by giving singles/heads of households/couples who itemize deductions a tax credit of $2 for every $100 of taxable income up to $10,000/$15,000/$20,000 and then taking away $2 for every $100 up to $20,000/$30,000/$40,000.</br></br>
I'm not certain how this would change costs, but with the current GOP plan reducing revenues by $961.2 billion, if it only reduced revenues by half as much, it would still add $480.6 billion compared to the current plan.</br></br>
Overall, these changes (assuming the rate change has half the cost of the GOP plan) would add up to $1,809 billion, more than enough to keep the exemptions.</br></br>
In addition, I would probably limit the amount of "pass-through" income treated as business income (page 3-4 of the tax plan) to some amount at or under a million dollars to allow this provision to be used mainly for small businesses. This would add to revenues compared to the current bill being proposed, although I am not certain how much.</br></br>
Now, for things I would like to do if I could find the money in the plan:
Keep the deductions for medical expenses.</br></br>
I would keep the deduction for state and local taxes but limit it to somewhere between $25,000 and $35,000 for all state and local taxes combined.</br></br>
If I could find the money, I would like to see some change in the alternative minimum tax the neighborhood of changing the rates from 26% and 28% to 24% and 30%, and changing the exemption phase out from 1/4 to 1/6 (i.e. you lose $100 exemption for every $600 of income over the threshold instead of $150). That would keep the highest effective marginal AMT rate at 35% (28% + 7% to 30% + 5%), and weight the tax away from lower earners to higher earners.</br></br>
Extra money in the plan beyond this could be used to increase the standard deduction by as much as we could afford.</br></br>
(There are other provisions in the tax bill that I am, in effect, leaving in place at this time. Maybe some of them should be changed; any of them that would have a significant cost to change would obviously have to be paid for somewhere, but I think this would be a better base to work from than the current plan).
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-18965037064695758112017-10-02T10:20:00.000-04:002017-10-02T10:28:35.063-04:00Tell the White House to Stick to its Principles on Immigration<a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article175484806.html">The White House is planning over the next few days to release a set of "immigration principles" that it wants Congress to act on. A leak of the talking points is very hopeful for restrictionists.</a></br></br>
May I suggest that everyone contacts the President using <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/">the online form at WhiteHouse.Gov</a> and encourage him to stick to his principles?</br></br>
Here is the message I sent, feel free to alter it to personalize it:</br></br>
Dear President Trump:</br></br>
I very much appreciated your speech to the United Nations where you pointed out the inefficiency of a refugee program dedicated to resettling people in wealthy countries as opposed to helping them closer to home. You are a voice of sanity in a world where there are very few.</br></br>
While I was hoping for a smaller number, I am still pleased that your refugee limit for Fiscal Year 2018 has decreased (compared to previous years) to 45,000. I hope that, as in most years, the number actually admitted is much smaller.</br></br>
I am also pleased to see what is in the leaked version of your “set of immigration principles.” Mandatory E-Verify (as in the Legal Workforce Act) and the limits of the RAISE Act are both needed very badly, and I hope that these remain in the final version of your framework. I also hope that you insist on getting votes on these prior to debating any considerations for DACA recipients.</br></br>
Finally, I am pleased to hear of the massive fine imposed on Asplundh Tree Experts for hiring illegal aliens. These types of fines are what are needed to stop the jobs magnet, and provide a great answer to those who mock immigration restrictionists on the basis that we supposedly are giving the employers of illegal aliens a pass. Asplundh is proof that your administration does target unscrupulous employers and is therefore truly serious about addressing illegal immigration from all angles, including the demand angle.</br></br>
Please continue to fight for the RAISE Act, for mandatory E-Verify, and for funding for a real, physical wall over as much of the southern border as is physically feasible.</br></br>
Sincerely, </br></br>
[Your Name]</br></br>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-61343550561470839662017-09-24T20:34:00.000-04:002017-09-24T20:41:53.278-04:00Email or call Rush Limbaugh to Come Out Swinging Against DREAM Act/DACAWhile it may not be his intention, <A href="https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/09/21/meanwhile-trump-is-kicking-butt-and-democrats-are-in-trouble/">this statement by Rush Limbaugh</a> could be seen as pooh-poohing the idea that Trump voters are opposed to any form of being sold out on the immigration issue.</br></br>
May I suggest that you mail him, email him (ElRushbo@eibnet.us), or call his show and impress upon him how wrong that is?</br></br>
For more details of how to get in touch, here is the <A href="https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/contact/">Contact Page</a></br></br>
Here is a pre-written message (or make your own):</br></br>
Dear Mr. Limbaugh:</br></br>
Please beware of any polls that suggest that Trump supporters are okay with Trump passing amnesty legislation for the so-called "DREAMers."</br></br>
Almost all of the polls are deliberately skewed, as this Breitbart piece shows:</br></br>
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/02/daca-polls-conceal-public-opposition-cheap-labor-amnesty/</br></br>
If you are merely saying that people don't think he really means it with a deal, and is simply playing a game in order to get Chuck and Nancy where he wants them, that's one thing. But please stop implying that an amnesty sell-out would be okay with us!</br></br>
Sincerely,</br></br>
[Your name]</br></br>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-57420497031220505312017-09-13T00:40:00.001-04:002017-09-13T00:40:41.705-04:00Are DREAMers Net Contributors?People often claim that "DREAMers," aka DACA recipients, are a boost to the economy. <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/11/18/292550/the-high-cost-of-ending-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals/">The Center for American Progress (CAP) says that deporting DACA recipients will cost $433.4 billion over ten years</a>, and <A href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/11/18/292550/the-high-cost-of-ending-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals/">CATO says $283 billion</a>.</br></br>
The problem, however, is the lack of context. What does this actually mean <i>per capita</i>? Well, let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations.</br></br>
<A href="https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp">According to Trading Economics</a>, U.S. GDP in 2016 was $18,569.1 billion dollars. We will assume a modest 3% growth rate in the future.</br>
I say this is modest because the average annual growth from 2009 to 2016 was 3.68%. I calculated this by taking the overall growth over 7 years (18569.10 divided by 14418.74 equals 1.2878 or 28.78% growth over 7 years) and taking the 7th root (1.2878^(1/7) = 1.0368 or 3.68% growth per year).</br></br>
Under this assumption, the GDPs for 2017 will be $19126.17 billion and the GDPs for the next ten years will be:</br>
2018 19699.96</br>
2019 20290.96</br>
2020 20899.69</br>
2021 21526.68</br>
2022 22172.48</br>
2023 22837.65</br>
2024 23522.78</br>
2025 24228.46</br>
2026 24955.32</br>
2027 25703.98</br>
The total GDP for the decade 2018 to 2027 will be $225,837.94 billion, or approximately $226 trillion.</br></br>
According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States">Wikipedia, the U.S. Population in 2017</a> is estimated at 325,365,189. Assuming a growth rate similar to that of 2000-2010, let's say the the population will be 10% bigger in 2027. That would bring it to about 358 million. This includes everyone, children, the elderly, the unemployed.</bR></br>
The number of DACA recipients is estimated at 800,000. The CAP study is based on 741,546 people leaving (645,145 of whom are workers). The Cato study is based on an estimate of 750,000 people. That comes out to between .207 and .2095 percent of the U.S. population. Using the lower number, .207 per cent of the GDP for 2018-2027 is $467.8 billion.</br></br>
In other words, unless the contributions of DACA recipients are more than $467.8 billion over ten years, they are actually reducing <i>per capita</i> GDP. And remember, this is using the population figure for the end of the period and assuming modest economic growth, both of which would tend to make the <i>per capita</i> GDP smaller and therefore make the DACA recipients' contributions look bigger in comparison. And of course, this is not counting how much collateral population growth letting DACA recipients stay versus deporting them will create - if half of DACA recipients have one kid (who won't be contributing economically at all for at least about fifteen years), that would mean that DREAMers would have to make $701.7 billion to keep <i>per capita</i> GDP flat.</br></br>
The point is, getting rid of the DACA recipients would reduce the size of the overall U.S. economic pie, but it would reduce the number of people eating the pie by a greater percentage. Most of the discussions of the "economic benefits" or immigration tend to act as if the immigrants simply produce value for the native population without consuming anything.</br></br>
Now this analysis does not conclusively show that there is no economic benefit to Americans from DACA recipients - that would depend on how much of the recipients' productivity is consumed by the recipients themselves. However, they would have to consume less than the average American for there to be any surplus at all, and perhaps significantly less if the CATO rather than the CAP study is correct. Then there is the issue of <a href="http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-schumer-rubio-would-loot-100-billion-annually-from-american-workers-and-redis">how the surplus is distributed, and whether there are winners and losers in the system</a>. And all of this is assuming that economics is the only measure here.</br></br>
In short, the benefits of allowing DACA recipients to stay are greatly exaggerated and may not exist at all. Don't let economists use half-calculated figures and incomplete statistics to trick you.</br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-40631965695557847712017-09-03T14:25:00.000-04:002017-09-04T20:59:46.376-04:00Pointing out Immigrant Welfare Use Under Our Current SystemA few articles to reference when people try to act as if immigration under a permissive system like ours is cost-free:(This is not to say that immigration is bad, <i>per se</i>, but that our current system is not selective enough.</br><br>
<A href="http://24ahead.com/cis-immigrants-use-welfare-higher-rate-natives">Immigrant households use welfare at a higher rate than natives</a>. <A href="https://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Households-Children">Here is a link to the referenced study</a> and <a href="https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households">here is a more recent study</a>. </br></br>
In fact, <a href="https://cis.org/Immigrant-Welfare-Use">CIS has a whole page on immigrant welfare use</a>.</br></br>
<a href="http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers">FAIR report on the burden imposed on taxpayers in each state by illegal immigration.</a></br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-64347262581430324652017-07-28T03:58:00.002-04:002017-07-28T03:58:22.320-04:00A Thought on How to Deal with Pre-Existing Conditions in the Individual MarketsIt occurred to me, if the big issue with health care is how to deal with people with pre-existing conditions, would it not make more sense to develop a subsidy system for insurance and to let insurers do more actuarial pricing?</br></br>
<b>Note: This is about how to deal with the biggest Obamacare problem, the individual markets that are encountering a huge rise in prices, and is not an attempt to solve other issues that have arisen.</b></br>
Essentially, what we have now is partial community rating. In real terms, that's like putting a head tax on insurance for healthy people. If we are going to subsidize health insurance for people who are too expensive to insure on the market, would it not make more sense to do it out of income tax revenue?</br></br>
Put another way, why not subsidize insurance prices at varying rates as percentage of income? For example, you have to pay your premiums up to the first 12% of your income (I choose that figure because it amounts to 1% of annual income a month, the actual numbers could be different), then get, say, a 50% subsidy for the next 12%, an 80% subsidy for the next 12%, 90% for the next 12%, 99% for the next 12%, and 99.9% beyond that?</br></br>
For someone making an adjusted gross income of $50,000 a year, this is what they would pay out for various monthly premiums:</br></br>
$ 500.00.......$500.00</br>
$1000.00.......$750.00</br>
$1500.00.......$850.00</br>
$2000.00.......$900.00</br>
$2500.00.......$905.00</br>
$5000.00.......$907.50</br>
$10000.00......$912.50</br></br>
For someone making an adjusted gross income of $100,000 a year, this is what they would pay out for various monthly premiums:</br></br>
$ 500.00........$500.00</br>
$1000.00.......$1000.00</br>
$1500.00.......$1250.00</br>
$2000.00.......$1500.00</br>
$2500.00.......$1600.00</br>
$5000.00.......$1810.00</br>
$10000.00......$1815.00</br></br>
We could avoid the issue of mandated coverage raising prices by allowing insurance companies to set rates actuarially, because then if you truly did not need coverage you would pay very little for it; i.e. a 55-year-old childless woman would still have to get pediatric dental, but due to the fact that very few 55-year-old women would need it, it would only add 25 cents a month to her bill. Without community rating, much of the "coverage I don't need" issue would become moot.</br></br>
We could also avoid the issue of companies trying to make money off of the subsidies by overcharging (hey, the customer will pay $1000 more a month if he gets $999 back) by giving the full subsidy only to the cheapest plan (if you get a more expensive plan you have to pay, e.g., the greater of your basic subsidy, or your basic subsidy for the cheapest plan plus 20% of the difference between plans. This would encourage price competition.</br></br>
This could be paid for in a variety or ways, either using existing tax revenue, raising income taxes, or putting on a special income tax (like we have for Medicare).</br></br>
The advantages are that we would not be taxing health, and the subsidies would be less for those who could most afford not to have them, as opposed to the current system where a person making, say, 5 times the poverty level (i.e. not eligible for official subsidies) could easily be subsidizing a sicker person who is making 10 or 20 times the poverty level. We would get better risk pools if we were able to charge healthy people less.</br></br>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-91638618126723357062017-06-29T00:04:00.001-04:002017-06-29T00:04:30.127-04:00Why Feminists Insist Rape is not About SexFrom <A href="http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/bearded-trans-chicks-think-it-unfair-they-arent-being-banged-too/#comment-318027">a comment at the Anonymous Conservative Blog</a>:</br></br>
<blockquote>Have you ever wondered why feminists insist that “rape is an act of violence, not sex”, when it most definitely and obviously is an act of sex?</br></br>
Because feminism is sexual Marxism, the belief that women need, and are therefore entitled to, surplus resources produced by men. The inverse implication, that men need, and are therefore entitled to, sex with women, is avoided by insisting that sex is actually not sex, but violence.</blockquote></br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-70003891421397587232017-06-09T22:17:00.001-04:002017-06-09T22:17:49.533-04:00Do You Think Jews are White? I Will Guess Your Answer After You Answer These Questions.(1) Do you generally sympathize with Jews as a group or not?</br></br>
(2) Do you generally sympathize with whites as a group or not?</br></br>
If you answered the same to both (1) and (2) then you think Jews are white.</br></br>
If you answered differently, then you don't.</br></br>
If your answers are nuanced, the more different your answers to (1) and (2) are, the less you think of Jews as white.</br></br>
Note: Obviously I am talking about Jews in an ethnic sense here. No one thinks Sammy Davis Jr. is white.</br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-46224011392012306472017-06-07T02:42:00.002-04:002017-06-07T02:42:31.421-04:00The Problem with Rod DreherI think Rod Dreher's biggest flaw as a commentator is his earnest desire to be the sort of conservative whom the <i>New York Times</i> ought to find respectable. Not that he is deluded that the left MSM would ever consider him such, but he wants to be able to say "if they were intellectually honest, they would consider me to be a fellow journalist in good standing."</br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-58344969515832127142017-06-04T10:07:00.001-04:002017-06-04T10:07:31.355-04:00Vox Day on the Terror Threat<A href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/06/good-luck-with-that.html">Here</a>.</br></br>
That is all.Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8542449.post-84160278569392069542017-05-03T07:59:00.000-04:002017-05-03T07:59:14.337-04:00Vox Day on Conservatives and Reactionaries"<A href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/05/how-bad-must-it-get.html">It's really rather remarkable what these self-styled conservatives are willing to give up so that no one will call them, or their society, racist. Is the complete economic collapse of that block in Washington DC really a price worth paying to end segregation?</a>"</br></br>
That is all.
Glaivesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.com0