Worker Visas Have Been Okay So Far So Why Not Now?

When we needed more workers in high tech, Congress created a visa category (H-1B) to address that need. In fact, we now have 31(!) different categories of temporary visas for such and other purposes. We have ALWAYS used temporary visas for various work in the USA. So why is a temporary worker visa for such workers as those from Mexico not appropriate? Why are people getting so worked up over the notion of requiring non-resident immigrants from Mexico to carry such legal documentation? Everyone else who isn't a legal resident has to! In fact, police have the legal authority ask anyone for identification now after they've stopped them for whatever reason.

A temporary worker visa is a perfect solution to this problem but people are opposed to that too for some reason even though we've been using those for years and years already. For example, look up the H-1B worker visa description on the internet. This argument that Mexican workers are needed for jobs Americans won't or can't do has an EXACT corollary to the high tech worker need and there's no logical reason why the solution cannot be the same. It has worked before. In fact, it has become THE STANDARD way of dealing with non-resident immigrants.

Now Arizona has a law that will require non-resident immigrants to carry documents ... just like the federal government ALREADY requires! The federal government has been enforcing (although erratically!) this requirement for many, many years. So why is it unacceptable for Arizona to say, yes we agree and want to make that very SAME requirement enforceable at the local level too for more effective enforcement. The only thing different with the Arizona law is that they intend to enforce it rigorously. The only difference is that Arizona's law will be enforced by local law enforcement, not federal. The Arizona law is no more unconstitutional than the equivalent federal law.

Arguments against worker visas for immigrants are nonsense. It is constitutional and has been practiced for many years for all other categories of non-resident immigrants.

The fact of illegal immigrants finding a way to get here does not obligate US citizens to grant them amnesty and a permanent stay here. We have a moral obligation to consider all applications for residency and citizenship but we already have processes for that. Come here by one of the many legal means and you can stay. Come here illegally and all you're 'entitled' to is arrest and deportation or imprisonment for breaking our laws. We ARE a nation of laws aren't we? Or do we now prefer anarchy?

And They Call Us Stupid and Hypocritical!

From our local paper last week Friday (04/23/2010) in referring to conservatives, especially Tea Party types:

"What exactly are you complaining about? Almost everyone got a tax cut and most of the deficit belongs to George W. Bush anyway."

Can't help myself. Gotta comment ... again!

What President Obama and most democrats call Obama's "tax cut" was a TEMPORARY, ONE-TIME tax CREDIT. A one-time payment to Americans of $400 ($250 for retirees). We want a tax CUT ... a PERMANENT cut in tax RATES. We also want an accompanying spending cut so that the tax cut does not increase the debt. Neither Democrats nor Republicans reduced spending.

Also, people who keep pointing out President Obama's "tax cut" to us Tea Party types as if WE are the ones not paying attention are themselves the ones not paying attention or they'd understand that we are not just upset with taxes at the federal level. We're upset with taxes, spending and debt at ALL levels of government.

Regarding who's responsible for our national debt, for those who are interested in actual facts, the deficit is NOT mostly Bush's. Congress has 100% of the constitutional authority AND responsibility to increase/decrease spending and taxes. THEY (not the president ... read your constitution please!) are responsible for any debt or surplus. Democrats were in total control of both houses of Congress for two of Bush's eight years. During those 2 years they increased our debt just as much as Republicans did during Bush's first six years in office. So Democrats bear equal responsibility for the "Bush debt" and they're TOTALLY responsible for the mind-blowing debt increase since Obama took office. The fact is that, in only three years(!), Democrats have increased the debt more than ALL PREVIOUS CONGRESSES IN OUR HISTORY COMBINED ... including Bush!

Of the debt created in the past ten years here's the scorecard:
Republicans: $2.5 Trillion
Democrats: 4.2 Trillion (and increasing more rapidly than ever)

Democrats are equally responsible for the Bush years debt and have increased it greatly since then. They have NOT, in fact, given us a tax cut nor spending cut. Tea Party folks are taking the time to understand the constitution and its delegation of authority and responsibility. Based on actual facts, if you're interested, we're neither ignorant of the facts (or constitution) nor hypocritical.

Jobless Recovery Hypocrisy

We've been hearing from the president and legislative democrats for several months now that, yes, this is a 'jobless recovery'. Yes, jobs aren't picking up fast enough but at least it's a recovery. They say that a jobless recovery is a good thing. I suppose that does sound good but do you remember how democrats railed against the economic recovery after Bush's tax cuts? They said that was a 'jobless recovery' too ... yes there's a recovery going on but the jobs aren't picking up fast enough.

So, to these democrats, a "jobless recovery" was a really bad thing during the Bush years but the exact same nature of 'recovery' is acceptable when democrats are in charge. Sounds like a double-standard to me.

A bad thing is unacceptable when the other guy is in charge but the same bad thing is acceptable when we're in charge. Americans are beginning to understand how both parties routinely practice hypocrisy. We crave more honesty, openness, and clarity. To all our elected representatives: have you no self-respect or respect for us? Integrity matters! Practice it or please find another line of work.

Please, Please Listen Up: Just Because You Call It A Tax Cut Doesn't Mean Conservatives Like It!!

President Obama, Democrats in general and letters to newspaper editors are calling Tea Party folks hypocrites and stupid for making an issue out of wanting tax cuts when Obama, as he claimed on tax day, says he gave us exactly that ... a $173B tax cut immediately after taking office. He said, "You would think they'd be saying thank you". And he asks, 'So what do they want'?

What we want, President Obama, is a REAL tax cut and accompanying spending reduction. That $173B Economic Stimulus (delivered in the mail to taxpayers) was, in fact, not a tax cut but, rather, a tax credit. It was temporary and does so little to resolve our over-taxed condition it isn't significant as a 'tax cut'.

The other bad thing about President Obama's tax credit was that it added to the debt. Yes, we conservatives in general, Tea Party folks especially, want tax cuts but we also want spending cuts so the tax cuts don't increase the debt. That is where Bush and congressional Republicans let us down too ... they delivered a real tax cut, yes, but they increased spending (and the debt!) which is a big reason why we're upset with them too. Yes, we're upset with BOTH party's leadership, not just Obama!

Where's A Good Cowboy When We Need One?

Saw an article wondering who does all the domestic/international defense, inventing, etc when (not if!) we become Europeanized (where 50% of GDP goes to welfare, leaving not enough for actually inventing stuff and for other's defense let alone one's own). (Europeans have PROVED you can have welfare or an adequate military but not both!) Now we're 'un-' growing a spine under the 'leadership' of these people.

This utopian state of existence that Obama thinks he can create for the whole world is the most irrational thing I've ever heard from a nation's leadership, perhaps from any human ... ever. It ignores both ALL of history and simple human psychology. Socialists have done stuff like this throughout history and it has invariably led to nations' internal troubles (too much debt, spending, taxes, dependence on government) and wars (inability to adequately defend one's self invites bullies to do harm to you and your friends). This president is doing much the same and expecting different results. Gads!

The important truth is, we could use a few cowboys in leadership. The world will still function like the 'old West', given a chance. We can choose to become spineless and allow the lawless to have their way or we can encourage and welcome men of moral courage and strength to do what needs to be done. Good guys vs bad guys. It's the way things are. Wanting everyone else to play fair just because you do doesn't mean they will. In fact, history proves(!) they won't.

Haven't these guys EVER been on a playground where bullies cause problems? Haven't they ever experienced some sociopathic adolescent walking up to them and kicking them in the groin just for the fun of it? Obviously not because they don't understand bullies happen and weakness is an invitation to them to at least experiment on harming you just to see if they can get away with it. (And when they do, it begs even worse treatment! DUH!) Moral strength (exercised!) and courage beget a measure of both voluntary and imposed civility sufficient to allow people to live decent lives. I worry about where this president is leading us.

God Bless Our Country. We need you more than ever!

Freedom Through Strength

So, President Obama thinks taking the teeth out of our 'deterrent' strategy is a good thing. We don't want our enemies to fear us, right? We want them to like us enough to play fair and dumbing down our nuclear and other strategies achieves that, right?

Well, here's what one of the greatest threats of our age has to say about that:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36212348/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Hmmmm. Gives one pause, eh?

By the way, President Obama and his administration made a huge deal out of his recent nuclear warhead reduction announcement as a terrific accomplishment. Obama said he's reducing the number of warheads from some 2,500 today to 1,500 which sounds good, right? Problem is Bush left office with us already on track to reduce them to 1,700 so in reality Obama has only increased the reduction by 200. Some accomplishment!

Here are the FACTS if you're interested in them (versus the Koolaid from The Media and the administration):

Jan 3, 1993: US and Russia both have about 10,000 warheads. Today Bush Sr (after working on this throughout his time in office) and Yeltsin signed START II in which they agreed to reduce these levels by 3,000 to 3,500 each. In addition, sea-based weapons were to be cut to 1,750 each and ALL land-based multiple-warhead missiles were to be eliminated. It all meant that by 2003 ¾ of all nuclear warheads possessed by both sides would be destroyed.

May 24, 2002: Putin and Bush Jr signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty by which they agreed to cut the nuclear warheads of each side from levels of between 6,000 and 7,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by 2012. By the time Bush Jr left office this plan was on track toward the goal of 1,700 by 2012, having reduced the stockpiles by half so far during his time in office.

April 5, 2010: Under the Bush Jr agreement, the number of warheads has now been reduced to approximately 2,500 by each country and is still on track toward Bush Jr’s goal of 1,700 by 2012. Today Obama announced that he’s reducing the stockpile from that current 2,500 to 1,500 by 2012 which is only 200 less than Bush Jr had agreed to and was on track to accomplish.

While Obama loudly touts this ‘big’ accomplishment in warhead levels, it’s interesting to put his further reduction of 200 warheads in true perspective relative to what Bush Sr and Bush Jr actually accomplished ... from 10,000 to 2,500 and on track to 1,700 by 2012. Hmmmm.

Question, based on actual facts: which party's presidents have done the best job of ridding us of nuclear weapons (by a ratio of 8,300 to 200)?