TX GOV 2010

[RedScare]

No, not really. The preponderance of the State of Texas' budget is based on a 6.25% sales tax. There are some auxiliary revenue streams, such as royalties from oil & gas production, but those are mostly correlated to and are often even more volatile than sales taxes.

Not sure what your definition of 'preponderance' is, but less than 25% of Texas' revenue comes from sales taxes. Interestingly, considering Gov. Perry likes to refuse federal money, Texas' biggest revenue source is the federal government at over 36%.

Texas Revenue Sources

[AtticaFlinch]

But that's not possible with a consumption tax because consumption taxes are too unpredictable. Attica said so.

If we're relying on the strength of my opinion to set taxation regulations, I think we need to drop all the taxes and fund the government exclusively with lotto revenue and a 1,000,000% tax on blue hair dye.

[musicman]

Every state except Vermont has a balanced budget law.

and each is written so differently that what is considered balanced in one state isn't balanced in another.

[TheNiche]

Not sure what your definition of 'preponderance' is, but less than 25% of Texas' revenue comes from sales taxes. Interestingly, considering Gov. Perry likes to refuse federal money, Texas' biggest revenue source is the federal government at over 36%.

Wow, I'm surprised at how many auxiliary sources of revenue we've got.

This proves two things: 1) I need to fact check things that seem to make common sense, and 2) sales taxes were only down 2.7%, whereas most other taxes were down significantly more. The franchise tax, which is basically a corporate income tax, was down 4.5%.

[AtticaFlinch]

Wow, I'm surprised at how many auxiliary sources of revenue we've got.

This proves two things: 1) I need to fact check things that seem to make common sense, and 2) sales taxes were only down 2.7%, whereas most other taxes were down significantly more. The franchise tax, which is basically a corporate income tax, was down 4.5%.

I think what's even more interesting is the expenditures.

If only we could rid the state of children and sick people, then we could get by on just sales tax and federal government revenue and still have about $10 billion to spare.

[RedScare]

Wow, I'm surprised at how many auxiliary sources of revenue we've got.

This proves two things: 1) I need to fact check things that seem to make common sense, and 2) sales taxes were only down 2.7%, whereas most other taxes were down significantly more. The franchise tax, which is basically a corporate income tax, was down 4.5%.

Looking at the list during the daytime when I am awake, it seems that you should get credit for a few more of those categories being called 'sales tax'. For instance, motor vehicle sales taxes, fuel taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, utility taxes and hotel taxes should all be considered under the umbrella term 'sales tax', even though they are assessed under a different law than the sales tax law. That puts it up into the mid-30s, still much lower than I would have guessed.

[Marksmu]

Looking at the list during the daytime when I am awake, it seems that you should get credit for a few more of those categories being called 'sales tax'. For instance, motor vehicle sales taxes, fuel taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, utility taxes and hotel taxes should all be considered under the umbrella term 'sales tax', even though they are assessed under a different law than the sales tax law. That puts it up into the mid-30s, still much lower than I would have guessed.

Texas is not magically getting this money from the Federal Government. Texas pays in collectively much more than it gets back.

The problem is not raising taxes, or changing the way we tax things, the answer is that the government needs to provide FEWER services. Federally, at the State level and Locally. You wont need to raise taxes if you cut services that the government should not be providing anyway. If you get rid of all the unnecessary government services, jobs, etc, there will be plenty of money to cover the things that are actually necessary.

[AtticaFlinch]

Texas is not magically getting this money from the Federal Government. Texas pays in collectively much more than it gets back.

The problem is not raising taxes, or changing the way we tax things, the answer is that the government needs to provide FEWER services. Federally, at the State level and Locally. You wont need to raise taxes if you cut services that the government should not be providing anyway. If you get rid of all the unnecessary government services, jobs, etc, there will be plenty of money to cover the things that are actually necessary.

What specifically do you recommend Texas get rid of? Compared to most other states, we're already running pretty tight as is.

[Marksmu]

What specifically do you recommend Texas get rid of? Compared to most other states, we're already running pretty tight as is.

Lets see, if it were me....

Illegal Immigrants. First, require proof of citizenship and home address for school registration. That alone will save billions. When we stop educating other countries children. Require the same for unemployment, welfare, health care, etc. All of it. Stop giving away freebies to those who do not pay into the system.

Second, police the border. If the Feds tell us now. Too bad were going to do it anyway.

Third - get rid of worthless government programs like they did the TRCC. I dont specifically have any examples other than TRCC that I have dealt with personally, so I wont speak on them, but Im guessing there are other worthless agencies out there that do nothing just like the TRCC did nothing.

For all I know there is an entire agency devoted to making sure that state medians do not contain fire ants.

There are alot more examples of Federal Waste, than State waste, but I am sure if one were delve in on the subject they could come up with alot of examples.

[RedScare]

Texas is not magically getting this money from the Federal Government. Texas pays in collectively much more than it gets back.

The problem is not raising taxes, or changing the way we tax things, the answer is that the government needs to provide FEWER services. Federally, at the State level and Locally. You wont need to raise taxes if you cut services that the government should not be providing anyway. If you get rid of all the unnecessary government services, jobs, etc, there will be plenty of money to cover the things that are actually necessary.

Actually, I am unaware of the state of Texas giving a dime to the federal government. Perhaps you could point out some examples. Now, certainly Texas TAXPAYERS send in a lot of money, some of which is sent back to the state. However, that makes it even harder to justify turning down over $1.2 Billion in taxpayer money being returned to the state.

[RedScare]

Lets see, if it were me....

Illegal Immigrants. First, require proof of citizenship and home address for school registration. That alone will save billions. When we stop educating other countries children. Require the same for unemployment, welfare, health care, etc. All of it. Stop giving away freebies to those who do not pay into the system.

Second, police the border. If the Feds tell us now. Too bad were going to do it anyway.

Third - get rid of worthless government programs like they did the TRCC. I dont specifically have any examples other than TRCC that I have dealt with personally, so I wont speak on them, but Im guessing there are other worthless agencies out there that do nothing just like the TRCC did nothing.

For all I know there is an entire agency devoted to making sure that state medians do not contain fire ants.

There are alot more examples of Federal Waste, than State waste, but I am sure if one were delve in on the subject they could come up with alot of examples.

Let's see...

Illegals are not allowed to get unemployment benefits. You have to have a valid SSN to collect. Illegals don't have one. Besides, only 25% of unemployed people in Texas get unemployment, due to our extremely restrictive rules. NO savings here.

Medicare & Medicaid - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

Healthcare - CHIP is not available to children of illegals. Of course, illegals can go to the doctor or emergency room and pay cash, and they can purchase private insurance. Only the emergency room care costs us when they do not pay the bill. I'll leave the debate on refusing medical care to dying patients to others.

Welfare, Food Stamps - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

Source: A Republican Texas Comptroller

Policing the border - We already run interdiction on the border at great cost to Texas taxpayers. I'm not sure how duplicating the federal effort (a cost shared by ALL US taxpayers) with a Texas border patrol...paid for only by Texas taxpayers...would save us money, but I look forward to your explanation. Not sure what state laws the Texas guys would enforce, either, but you can explain that too.

[Marksmu]

Actually, I am unaware of the state of Texas giving a dime to the federal government. Perhaps you could point out some examples. Now, certainly Texas TAXPAYERS send in a lot of money, some of which is sent back to the state. However, that makes it even harder to justify turning down over $1.2 Billion in taxpayer money being returned to the state.

Without the taxpayers there is no state, or federal government. I was of course talking about the individual taxpayers - which is why I said collectively.

As a whole Texas Taxpayers send more money to the Federal government and get back less proportionately than other smaller states. Texas is a net loser in the way the Feds distribute money. Especially when the Feds condition control on the receiving of money by the States.

I dont agree with turning down ALL of the Federal money being given away, but I certainly agree with turning down the portions that actually end up costing us more, or allowing the Feds more control of State functions. The Federal Government has already greatly exceeded its constitutionally granted powers. The Fed holds funding over the states to gain control that it could not otherwise legally have.

Texas turned down addittional unemployment benefit money b/c it carried strings on it that forced Texas to permanently extend the unemployment benefits in the future, long after the Feds money had disappeared. Texas should do everything it can to prevent any further Federal control over anything.

The Feds are in a huge deficit because they continue to spend money they do not have and borrow from future generations on the assumption that the economy will always be expanding. It is wise to turn down a short term benefit to save money in the long term.

[TheNiche]

Lets see, if it were me....

Illegal Immigrants. First, require proof of citizenship and home address for school registration. That alone will save billions. When we stop educating other countries children. Require the same for unemployment, welfare, health care, etc. All of it. Stop giving away freebies to those who do not pay into the system.

Second, police the border. If the Feds tell us now. Too bad were going to do it anyway.

Third - get rid of worthless government programs like they did the TRCC. I dont specifically have any examples other than TRCC that I have dealt with personally, so I wont speak on them, but Im guessing there are other worthless agencies out there that do nothing just like the TRCC did nothing.

For all I know there is an entire agency devoted to making sure that state medians do not contain fire ants.

There are alot more examples of Federal Waste, than State waste, but I am sure if one were delve in on the subject they could come up with alot of examples.

Wow, you seem intent on spending a lot of money to rid our economy of a source of labor that keeps wages low enough that the State can afford to budget for things like new roads. And yet, aside from ER health care like Red pointed out, this group of people contribute more by way of property and sales taxes than they take. And as for education, doesn't it strike you as obvious what would happen to the crime rate if you at the same time disenfranchise a whole generation of poor people of the same ethnicity and also have many tens of thousands of surly teens unattended to by their parents during the daytime?

Marksmu, your proposals would require a significant increase in the size and scope of government, federal, state, and local. It smacks of big-government liberal elitism.

Btw, "alot" is two words.

[TheNiche]

The Federal Government has already greatly exceeded its constitutionally granted powers. The Fed holds funding over the states to gain control that it could not otherwise legally have.

I'm certainly no constitutional scholar, but as I recall, you're in 10th Amendment territory.

[KinkaidAlum]

Intersting ideas, MarkSMU.

Of course, besides the obvious faults that Redscare points out like illegals NOT getting the benefits you claim they do, I'd also argue that you'd actually be increasing the size of the government because it takes PEOPLE to guard the border and/or go around and do searches on folks to check their status. It would take taxes to pay those people unless you want to hand them over to a private security corporation like Blackwater. Of course, after the first lawsuit for wrongful death or illegal search and seizure ona U.S. citizen, I'd imagine the costs would skyrocket.

[Marksmu]

Let's see...

Illegals are not allowed to get unemployment benefits. You have to have a valid SSN to collect. Illegals don't have one. Besides, only 25% of unemployed people in Texas get unemployment, due to our extremely restrictive rules. NO savings here.

Medicare & Medicaid - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

Healthcare - CHIP is not available to children of illegals. Of course, illegals can go to the doctor or emergency room and pay cash, and they can purchase private insurance. Only the emergency room care costs us when they do not pay the bill. I'll leave the debate on refusing medical care to dying patients to others.

Welfare, Food Stamps - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

Source: A Republican Texas Comptroller

Policing the border - We already run interdiction on the border at great cost to Texas taxpayers. I'm not sure how duplicating the federal effort (a cost shared by ALL US taxpayers) with a Texas border patrol...paid for only by Texas taxpayers...would save us money, but I look forward to your explanation. Not sure what state laws the Texas guys would enforce, either, but you can explain that too.

You dont actually believe that illegals can not collect on all these government programs do you? Illegals register their children in schools without a second thought. They register their children for free lunch programs, no questions asked, they register their children for state subsidized health care without a second thought. They receive food stamps under other people's identity - work under their social and then receive benefits. They goto emergency rooms for non-emergency care because they know they will not be required to actually pay for it. They commit crimes that our tax paid police have to deal with. They cost us a fortune.

An anchor baby allows an illegal immigrant a world of opportunity. Its quite common for them to have an anchor baby and subsequently work and collect benefits under that new social. I can not tell you how many times we have had an applicants social security numbers Match, and then run a background check, and find that though the number and name match on the automated verification system, but the person applying for the job is only 5 years old. An anchor baby also immediately qualifies for all those welfare programs that the parent is ineligible for as well, including CHIP...they even complain that the child's benefit is not enough to support the family.

I dont care who is in office - republican or democrat - every party is going to try to not make it look as bad as it is - especially when its part of their job to control.

[KinkaidAlum]

Egads, the Niche and I are agreeing alot a lot alot a lot lately.

[TheNiche]

An anchor baby allows an illegal immigrant a world of opportunity.

Yep, it certainly does. If you're born here, you're a citizen. It says so explicitly in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And if we started deporting parents then we'd have to break up families and provide foster care for the children orphaned by the decree of law. And that'd require increasing the size and scope of the government...again, making you sound like a big-government tax-and-spend liberal elitist.

EDIT: And your anti-family ideas make you sound like a pinko Marxist commie.

[RedScare]

As a whole Texas Taxpayers send more money to the Federal government and get back less proportionately than other smaller states. Texas is a net loser in the way the Feds distribute money. Especially when the Feds condition control on the receiving of money by the States.

A fact not helped in the least by turning down federal money.

I dont agree with turning down ALL of the Federal money being given away, but I certainly agree with turning down the portions that actually end up costing us more, or allowing the Feds more control of State functions. The Federal Government has already greatly exceeded its constitutionally granted powers. The Fed holds funding over the states to gain control that it could not otherwise legally have.

Can't have it both ways. If the fed is exceeding its powers, you cannot then complain that they use money to gain control. The state should turn down ALL of that $37 Billion...but they don't.

Texas turned down addittional unemployment benefit money b/c it carried strings on it that forced Texas to permanently extend the unemployment benefits in the future, long after the Feds money had disappeared. Texas should do everything it can to prevent any further Federal control over anything.

Not according to the Republican controlled Texas Legislature.

The Feds are in a huge deficit because they continue to spend money they do not have and borrow from future generations on the assumption that the economy will always be expanding. It is wise to turn down a short term benefit to save money in the long term.

We saved nothing, nada, zero. The money turned down by Perry was reallocated to other states. The total amount of the grants remained the same, and Texas taxpayers will help pay for grants to other states while receiving nothing. The only thing Texans got was a $1.2 Billion reduction in money spent in our own state so that Governor Perry could claim to be a conservative...something we already knew.

[RedScare]

You dont actually believe that illegals can not collect on all these government programs do you? Illegals register their children in schools without a second thought. They register their children for free lunch programs, no questions asked, they register their children for state subsidized health care without a second thought. They receive food stamps under other people's identity - work under their social and then receive benefits. They goto emergency rooms for non-emergency care because they know they will not be required to actually pay for it. They commit crimes that our tax paid police have to deal with. They cost us a fortune.

Let's be clear. You stated that the way YOU would save money is by not allowing these illegal immigrants to participate in these programs. I simply pointed out that they ALREADY cannot legally participate. Fraud is fraud. Investigators constantly look for it and root it out. However, as to your original point...that you would prohibit their participation...it already is prohibited.

Apparently, what you meant to say is that you would drastically increase the number of investigators to look for fraud, just as you would start up a huge state run border patrol and increase the size of our police forces and prisons to deal with our teenage unschooled criminal problem. Man, just how big do you want to grow Texas government!

[Marksmu]

Intersting ideas, MarkSMU.

Of course, besides the obvious faults that Redscare points out like illegals NOT getting the benefits you claim they do, I'd also argue that you'd actually be increasing the size of the government because it takes PEOPLE to guard the border and/or go around and do searches on folks to check their status. It would take taxes to pay those people unless you want to hand them over to a private security corporation like Blackwater. Of course, after the first lawsuit for wrongful death or illegal search and seizure ona U.S. citizen, I'd imagine the costs would skyrocket.

First things first - stop the hemorrhaging. Make anchor babies non-citizens and deport at birth. That is the first step.

As to entire agencies to deal with the new problem? I dont think so. Border Patrol already exists in all major cities as well as throughout the state. Employers are already required to verify citizenship, penalties against companies employing illegals needs to go way up. It needs to be a real financially painful event to have willingly hired an illegal without checking employment status. Many of them do it as they are supposed to. If they were required to report the applicant and allow him to be picked up, we could have much more efficient use of our resources. Instead of only patrolling vast borders, we can efficiently pick up job applicants and cut the flow of jobs. Its not difficult for a school to do the same. But the school wont do it. Why not? Because their funding is based on the number of students that they have. They want more money so they want more students.

Niche - I dont know where you get your statistic but everything I have been able to find shows that low wage illegal immigrants are a BURDEN on the system not a financial Positive. The illegals work low paying jobs, contributing nothing to the tax base. They have kids, they educate their new US citizen at a cost to every tax payer (they pay nothing) a large percentage of their kids do not complete high school because they need to help support their family, and the cycle continues. New illegal immigrants, new anchor baby, more negative cash flow.

Current immigration policies with respect to both legal and illegal immigration encourage the entry of a dis­proportionate number of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out.

[Marksmu]

From the Austin Statesmen....

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2009/03/12/perry_will_block_unemployment.html

To be eligible for all the money, Texas must enact legislation that would change how the state’s calculates a worker’s eligibility and extend benefits to more workers, including those looking for part-time work.

The state calculated this would be a long term BURDEN and declined the funds.

[crunchtastic]

First things first - stop the hemorrhaging. Make anchor babies non-citizens and deport at birth. That is the first step.

As to entire agencies to deal with the new problem? I dont think so. Border Patrol already exists in all major cities as well as throughout the state. Employers are already required to verify citizenship, penalties against companies employing illegals needs to go way up. It needs to be a real financially painful event to have willingly hired an illegal without checking employment status. Many of them do it as they are supposed to. If they were required to report the applicant and allow him to be picked up, we could have much more efficient use of our resources. Instead of only patrolling vast borders, we can efficiently pick up job applicants and cut the flow of jobs. Its not difficult for a school to do the same. But the school wont do it. Why not? Because their funding is based on the number of students that they have. They want more money so they want more students.

Niche - I dont know where you get your statistic but everything I have been able to find shows that low wage illegal immigrants are a BURDEN on the system not a financial Positive. The illegals work low paying jobs, contributing nothing to the tax base. They have kids, they educate their new US citizen at a cost to every tax payer (they pay nothing) a large percentage of their kids do not complete high school because they need to help support their family, and the cycle continues. New illegal immigrants, new anchor baby, more negative cash flow.

Current immigration policies with respect to both legal and illegal immigration encourage the entry of a dis­proportionate number of poor

ly educated immigrants into the U.S. As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out.

Immigration, legal and illegal, is necesary to keep growing the GDP and will be necessary to keep this country competitive against

China and India. The idea that services received should equal taxes paid is a great tea party sound bite but isn't the economic reality in a world economy based on leverage. Besides, if that were the goal, we'd be raising the hell out of tax rates on corporations, as they consume far more taxpayer-paid resources (mainly in the form of military protection, occupations and wars) than people living near the poverty line.

[RedScare]

First things first - stop the hemorrhaging. Make anchor babies non-citizens and deport at birth. That is the first step.

First step - Repeal the 14th Amendment. Shouldn't take long, a couple months, maybe?

Check. OK, what's the 2nd step?

[TheNiche]

First things first - stop the hemorrhaging. Make anchor babies non-citizens and deport at birth. That is the first step.

So, uh...you want to repeal the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution? Is that what I'm hearing?

As to entire agencies to deal with the new problem? I dont think so. Border Patrol already exists in all major cities as well as throughout the state. Employers are already required to verify citizenship, penalties against companies employing illegals needs to go way up. It needs to be a real financially painful event to have willingly hired an illegal without checking employment status. Many of them do it as they are supposed to. If they were required to report the applicant and allow him to be picked up, we could have much more efficient use of our resources. Instead of only patrolling vast borders, we can efficiently pick up job applicants and cut the flow of jobs.

So, as ineffective as our law enforcement agencies apparently already are at curtailing illegal immigration, you think that they'd manage to not only do the job that they're already doing poorly and also expand their role dramatically...without a massive surge in hiring?

Niche - I dont know where you get your statistic but everything I have been able to find shows that low wage illegal immigrants are a BURDEN on the system not a financial Positive. The illegals work low paying jobs, contributing nothing to the tax base. They have kids, they educate their new US citizen at a cost to every tax payer (they pay nothing) a large percentage of their kids do not complete high school because they need to help support their family, and the cycle continues. New illegal immigrants, new anchor baby, more negative cash flow.

I don't know where you get your statistic either.

I'll tell you this much. If all the illegal residents of Texas were rounded up and deported over the course of the next year, sales tax receipts would decline a little bit but the big hit would be felt at the municipal level where demand for real estate would plummet, foreclosure activity would spike, rents would decline, commercial and residential real estate values would dip, and your property tax rate would have to go up to cover expenditures that are most heavily concentrated towards educating CITIZENS and providing health care to elderly CITIZENS.

Current immigration policies with respect to both legal and illegal immigration encourage the entry of a dis­proportionate number of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S.

I concur that there are an insufficient number of highly-skilled immigrants allowed into this country. We need more immigrants if we are to continue to exist as an economic superpower...'alot' more...because obviously we aren't making enough babies.

It'd be nice IMO if we could source more immigrants from a greater diversity of countries, which is why I'm personally all in favor of Fred Thompson's "tall fences, wide gates" approach. But you originally harped on trying to cut expenditures by creating larger government agencies, and that's internally inconsistent. That's why everyone is beating up on you, and that's probably the only reason that KinkaidAlum and I are in unholy agreement with one another.

As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out.

Prove it. ...without using tired and cliched platitudes.

[Marksmu]

Immigration, legal and illegal, is necesary to keep growing the GDP and will be necessary to keep this country competitive against

China and India. The idea that services received should equal taxes paid is a great tea party sound bite but isn't the economic reality in a world economy based on leverage. Besides, if that were the goal, we'd be raising the hell out of tax rates on corporations, as they consume far more taxpayer-paid resources (mainly in the form of military protection, occupations and wars) than people living near the poverty line.

Lets be clear here I am not against Immigration. I am sternly against illegal immigration. and I am against immigration of unskilled, low wage workers. We have enough idiots. We dont need other countries idiots.

To steal a quote from the heritage foundation report on the fiscal cost of low skilled immigrants.....

"Hundreds of millions more people would immigrate to the U.S. if they had the opportunity. Given this context, the U.S. must be selective in its immigration policy. Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and other financial transfer programs with immigration does not expand the fiscally dependent population, thereby imposing large costs on American society".

Educated immigrants can help this country become more prosperous. Uneducated immigrants cost us money. We have enough uneducated immigrants now to fill all the low wage jobs that Americans allegedly wont do.

Seasonal worker programs can be used for agricultural when we need short term boosts of low wage, uneducated labor.

[Marksmu]

So, uh...you want to repeal the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution? Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes I do.

So, as ineffective as our law enforcement agencies apparently already are at curtailing illegal immigration, you think that they'd manage to not only do the job that they're already doing poorly and also expand their role dramatically...without a massive surge in hiring?

I think we can reallocate resources to increase efficiency.

I don't know where you get your statistic either.

I'll tell you this much. If all the illegal residents of Texas were rounded up and deported over the course of the next year, demand for real estate would plummet, foreclosure activity would spike, rents would decline, commercial and residential real estate values would dip, and your property tax rate would have to go up to cover expenditures that are most heavily concentrated towards educating CITIZENS and providing health care to elderly CITIZENS.

There would be a short term negative effect that would be offset by long term positives. If the US could solve its illegal immigration problem, we could allow more qualified immigrants entry and actually start improving. More of the same is not helping.

There would be immediate deficits due to a decreased tax base, but there would be huge sums of money currently allocated to provide services that could theoretically be refunded to the government. However I have never seen a state budget get smaller, so it would likely just increase waste, as each department would likely be unwilling to accept less, even though the quantity of services they would be providing would drastically decrease.

I concur that there are an insufficient number of highly-skilled immigrants allowed into this country. We need more immigrants if we are to continue to exist as an economic superpower...'alot' more...because obviously we aren't making enough babies.

It'd be nice IMO if we could source more immigrants from a greater diversity of countries, which is why I'm personally all in favor of Fred Thompson's "tall fences, wide gates" approach. But you originally harped on trying to cut expenditures by creating larger government agencies, and that's internally inconsistent. That's why everyone is beating up on you, and that's probably the only reason that KinkaidAlum and I are in unholy agreement with one another.

Prove it without using tired and cliched platitudes.

This quote, "As these low-skill immigrants (both legal and illegal) take up residence, they impose a substantial tax burden on U.S. taxpayers. The benefits received by low-skill immigrant households exceed taxes paid at each age level; at no point do these households pay more in than they take out." was supposed to be hyperlinked to this article......http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14.cfm

Its a very long read, but contains alot of good information....I already know many will dismiss solely b/c of the source, but it is chalk full of good information.

[RedScare]

I think we can reallocate resources to increase efficiency.

Hmmm...there are currently 1,800 Texas state police officers. It cost roughly $100,000 per officer to hire, train and support 1 officer. Let's assume that there are 2 million illegal immigrants in Texas. How many officers, at $100K per, do you estimate that it will take to ferret out those 2 million immigrants, house them while we verify that they are in fact illegal immigrants, and transport them back to their country of origin? How much of a hit on our sales tax revenue do you estimate the loss of 8 percent of our population will inflict?

Assuming that you favor the US government doing what it is constitutionally allowed to do, how much federal money do you estimate would be required to accomplish the task of deporting 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants?

You know, we're ignoring all of the legal trampling that you, as a lawyer, are proposing, but the least you could do is give us an estimate of the costs incurred by your obviously well-thought plan, as opposed to using lame terms such as "reallocate resources to increase efficiency". Just WHAT resources will you reallocate? We are not the lemmings that you want us to be. Prove your case.

[TheNiche]

So, uh...you want to repeal the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution? Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes I do.

^When one expression of disappointment/disgust at you just isn't enough.

[KinkaidAlum]

The Niche, Red, and Crunch are making my day. Seems like old times. Oh, and The Niche, there ain't nothin' unholy about our union!