The Cost Of The Wall

One of the recent talking points used against those people who actually want to control our borders is the cost of building a wall. Obviously, Mexico will not directly pay for a wall–they enjoy having people come here illegally and send money back to Mexico. There is no incentive for them to put a stop to that behavior. So how do we pay for the wall?

Paul Sperry posted an article at The New York Post on Saturday that offers one possible solution.

The article reports:

Mexico won’t have to pay for the wall, after all. US taxpayers won’t have to pick up the tab, either. The controversial barrier, rather, will cover its own cost just by closing the border to illegal immigrants who tend to go on the federal dole.

That’s the finding of recent immigration studies showing the $18 billion wall President Trump plans to build along the southern border will pay for itself by curbing the importation of not only crime and drugs, but poverty.

“The wall could pay for itself even if it only modestly reduced illegal crossings and drug smuggling,” Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Post.

Federal data shows that a wall would work. A two-story corrugated metal fence in El Paso, Texas, first erected under the Bush administration has already curtailed illegal border crossings there by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which it was built.

The problem is not only illegal immigrants–it’s drug smuggling. How much money and how many lives do the illegal drugs coming into America cost?

The article concludes:

While Democrats complain the $18 billion price tag for the Trump wall is too high, the “Dreamers” amnesty bill they want Trump and Republicans to pass in exchange for funding the wall (or ideally in spite of the wall) would cost US taxpayers even more than the construction of the border partition over 10 years.

“The cost of the DREAM Act has been estimated as very large — a $26 billion net cost in the first 10 years,” Camarota noted.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that 3 million DREAM Act recipients would receive an estimated $12 billion-plus in ObamaCare subsidies, more than $5.5 billion in Medicaid benefits, $5.5 billion in earned-income and child-tax credits and more than $2 billion in food stamps.

A bipartisan bill incorporating the deal was defeated in the Senate last month by a vote of 54-45. Trump rejected the proposal in favor of a tougher border bill introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), which limits the number of DACA beneficiaries to 1.8 million, curbs family visas, or so-called chain migration, and phases out the diversity visa lottery, while earmarking $25 billion in funding for the wall and other border security.

The problem is not the money–the problem is the spending priorities.

A Moment To Be Carefree

To be carefree is a wonderful thing. It’s one of the first things cancer patients give up when they are diagnosed with the disease.  The Mimi Foundation decided that it would change that for some cancer patients. Please read the article at the Business Insider to understand the whole story and to see some wonderful pictures.

Meanwhile, YouTube posted the video:

Enjoy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Is No Real News Value To This Story–It Is Simply Nostalgic !

On Monday Business Insider posted a series of pictures taken inside the Intrepid–the parts where tourists are not allowed. Since my husband was in a Naval Air Squadron that was stationed on the Intrepid in the late 1960’s, I stopped to look at the pictures. Please follow the link above for the tour!

There are some lights on back here so it's easy to spot the odd items that make this feel like a time-warp — this type of soda was popular in the 1970s

This is one example of the time warp they discovered. When was the last time you saw a patio soda can?

The Navy brought us to New England and we stayed because we fell in love with the people and the scenery. I still have not gotten used to the climate!

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Just Distressing

Business Insider reported yesterday that Rham Emanuel sold up to $250,000 in Freddie Mac stock on February 21, 2003, days before it dropped by 10 percent and weeks before the announcement that it was under investigation. This is reported in Peter Schwiezer’s new book “Throw Them All Out.”

The article reports:

While by no means illegal; lawmakers are exempted from the insider trading laws they impose on private traders. But the timing of the trades is certainly suspect, especially given Emanuel’s service on the board during the time period for with the federal government was investigating the actions of Freddie Mac executives.

Why are lawmakers exempted from the insider trading laws they impose on private traders?

The beginning of cleaning up Washington, D. C., might be to make all lawmakers and office holders subject to the laws they pass. Wouldn’t that be a really good idea?

Enhanced by Zemanta