According to the Pew Hispanic Center there were 11.1 million illegal aliens in the United States as of March, 2009.  If half of them are in the workforce (and my opinion is that many more than half are) the population of the illegal alien workforce is about 5.5 million.

Ergo, if we didn’t have illegal aliens, there would be 5.5 million jobs available to US citizens.  If those jobs were actually filled by US citizens the unemployment rate would drop to about just about 6%.

Yes, I’ve heard it many times:  “but Americans wouldn’t take those jobs”.  Why not?  Beneath them?  Too proud?  Apparently not too proud to look down on unemployment benefits though.  In some cases, apparently not too proud to collect some form of welfare.  But too proud to work menial jobs?  Please.

So what should be done about the illegal aliens?  Expecting the government to ship them all back to where they came from is impractical and unlikely to happen.

How about this?

• If an illegal alien is found to be working, the employer is required to pay the cost of sending them home.  Not to the border, home.  And the employer is required to provide severance pay – maybe 3 months severance.
• If an illegal alien is found to be living in the United States and is unemployed the government buys them a one-way ticket home and hands them a few hundred dollars to tide them over while they re-acclimate themselves to their native environment.
• In either case, the illegal alien is required to be positively identified: a tatoo in an easily-accessed-but-inconspicuous location (maybe a dot between two fingers or on the sole of the foot), fingerprints, dna sample, retinal scan, etc.    No one having been identified as previously illegally resident is ever permitted to legally cross one of our borders again.  Anyone previously identified who is found to be present in the US faces an automatic prison (or better yet work camp) sentence.  Multiple violations would result in a longer sentence.  Anyone having been so identified who is convicted of a crime in the United States gets some sort of enhanced sentence.
• “Anchor babies” is a misnomer in that no status is conferred upon the parents.  The child may petition after reaching the age of 21, but practically speaking this is unlikely – if the parents were illegal at the time of the birth they are restricted.  However adding the words ”at least one of whose parents are United States citizens” to “(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” would clear that issue up nicely.  In any case, if the mother is illegal, the child must go with her.
• If the employer of an illegal alien is found to be in the United States by virtue of any type of visa, said visa would be immediately revoked.
• Establish a program for illegal aliens to voluntarily return to their homes without legal consequences.  Pay for their transportation and give them $1,000 to get on their feet when they get home.  They would be required to submit to the identification procedure.  The cost to the state would probably be offset in less than a year when you consider the cost of educating their children, providing medical care, etc.

Before you tell me how difficult it is to verify legal status let me point out that merchants go to great lengths to be sure they validate currency.  If they didn’t they would be buried beneath a pile of phony money.  Difficulty is not an excuse.  Being in business is difficult.  If you’re not positive, don’t hire.

If there were no employment opportunity as an incentive to sneak across our border the flow of illegal aliens would be diminished so greatly as to be non-existent compared to what it currently is.

Mexico is the greatest enabler of illegal immigration.  Its easy to understand why.  They offload those who drain their own society by encouraging them to drain ours.  Secondly the illegal aliens send billions back to their families in Mexico which provides enormous benefit and untold opportunity for income from corruption.  For Mexico its a great plan.  For us, not so much.

In some cases we would be doing the illegal aliens a favor.  Some of them are slaves to the coyotes who smuggled them in.  Some would be able to establish themselves in business with the money they would get.  None of them would be suffering the stress which certainly comes from knowing they could be picked up off the street at any time and held for an indeterminate time awaiting processing only to be dumped at the border, in the middle of a war zone far from home.

Who pays to build it?
In some way, shape or form it’s paid for (at least in part) by taxpayers through bonds, subsidies, eminent domain, etc.

Who uses it?  Those who can afford to pay the tolls which are charged by those who run it.  On the face of it, this seems like a fair way to retire the debt incurred to build and run the tollways.  But is it really?  People who cannot afford to pay the tolls to use the tollways are still required to pay the taxes to build them.  They have no choice.  Basically, it they refused to pay the taxes they would be heavily fined and if they didn’t pay the fines they would face the court system.  It costs money to face the court system.  Lots of money.  So, in reality they can’t fight the system (YCFCT).  They’re just stuck.  Screwed and stuck in traffic on “free” roads.

How are the tolls paid?
Well, if you have a credit card you can register it and the Tollway Authority will happily charge it (in advance) whenever your reserve drops below a minimum which they determine.  That could result in overlimit fees from your credit card company if you’re not careful.  In fact if you’re operating at close to your credit limit it could result in overlimit fees even if you are careful because they can hit your card when you’re least expecting it.

Or you could pay for the tolls using a debit/credit card and the money would just be drawn from your bank account – if you have enough money in your bank account that is.  Well, what if you don’t have enough money in your bank account?  Up until recently, your bank might have paid it anyway so that they could charge you an “overdraft fee”.  Usually $25-$40 for each transaction.  So a 75-cent toll ended up costing you maybe $40.75.  Each time.  Of course you don’t know that while you’re zipping down the tollway.  Who do you know who gets on the tollway and passes through only one toll plaza?  Nobody, that’s who.  It’s almost impossible to incur only one toll, so that short trip could end up costing over $100 when you consider overdraft fees.  Thankfully the banks cannot do that anymore.  Now, unless your have “overdraft protection” they just refuse the charge.  Ha ha NTTA you might think.  Not so fast there Sparky.  The tollway authorities will just bill you – at a rate higher than those who have a valid toll tag.  They make it very “convenient” to pay (read about my experience here) by allowing you to send a check, pay at their office, or charge your credit/debit card.  They bill you under the ZipCash banner.

ZipCash is a program whereby those poor saps who don’t have a tollway account are allowed the convenience of paying to use the road their tax dollars paid for.  Here’s how it works.  You enter the tollway system and their clever machines photograph your license plate each time you pass through a toll plaza.  Then they access the state computer system and determine who the owner of the car is (you) and send a bill to the address shown on your vehicle registration.  Pretty clever.  Clever and diabolical.  If for any reason you don’t get (lost mail, vacation, illness, family emergency, etc.) or pay your invoice they get progressively more draconian.  First a friendly reminder with a late fee is sent.  In order to encourage you not to continue to be in arrears they helpfully advise you to “Pay the total amount immediately to prevent incurring additional fines, citations or collection fees.”

• additional fines – so the “Late Fee” is actually a fine and it has already been assessed. This is important because it allows for a “citation” – I think.
• citations – a citation is what you get from a Police Officer when you are pulled over for a traffic violation.  It usually has a court appearance associated with it.  Failure to appear for the court date usually results in a “Failure to Appear” determination which can result in an Arrest Warrant.
• collection fees – collection fees are what are assessed by Collection Agencies. Somewhere in the process they turn you over to a Collection Agency who harasses you until they collect while, in the meantime, ruining your credit.

So now your 75-cent toll (which resulted from travelling on a road which you paid taxes for each time you filled your car with gas or registered it) has turned into something with the potential of a jail sentence unless you immediately comply with the demands of the Tollway Authority Overlords.  This is put to you in the most courteous way possible in order that you might know that the tollway authority is customer-service-oriented.  Driving Friendly so-to-speak.

n the case of the Notice which prompted this screed I was helpfully advised that this matter could be cleared up immediately by sending a check, paying my invoice online or calling their office and presumably paying over the phone.

“Well what are you waiting for?” you might ask.  Just pay the invoice in the first place or barring that pay the reminder and fine and be done with it.  After all, the tollway authorities have gone to great lengths to make it easy to settle up.  You can:

• pay by check – paying by check is not convenient in my case because I no longer use paper checks.  I pay my bills directly through my bank online.  It would also add the miniscule cost of a stamp and an envelope and I would not be assured that it either got there or was properly posted to my account in which case I would be facing the prospect of a court appearance or a collection agency.
• pay by phone – waiting on hold for an agent is not a pleasant prospect to me.  Dealing with people for whom English is a second language is never pleasant to me.  Or people for whom English is the only language but is spoken in such a way as to be complete gibberish to my old ears is also unpleasant.
• pay online – that’s for me!  I can do it at my convenience, get a printable piece of proof that it has been done and directly access my own account so that I know it has been properly posted.  I attempted that this morning.  Here you can read debacle in complete detail.

“Wow! You are such a complainer!” you might say.  “I’m sick of complainers without solutions.” you might say.  I agree.  I too am tired of the constant whining of people who complain but have no suggestions about how to fix the problem they are complaining about.  Accordingly, I have a suggestion.  There are probably many other suitable methods by which this “problem” could be solved, but here is one:

First a few preliminary requirements.  In order to legally operate a motor vehicle in the State of Texas you must have a valid drivers license, the vehicle must be properly registered and inspected, the vehicle must be insured and the vehicle must meet certain condition standards.

My suggestion is pretty simple.  At the time any of the following events take place any unpaid tolls (along with the maximum interest allowed by law) could be collected and remitted to the tollway authority.  A reasonable fee (refelective ot the actual time and effort involved) in the process of collecting on behalf of the tollway authorites could be added by the collecting party.

• Vehicle Registration
• Vehicle Inspection.
• Drivers License renewal
• Any Traffic Court appearance.

None of the above events would be completed without the payment of tolls owed.  The result of this suggestion would be that the tollways could be used by anyone and the tolls would be paid one way or the other.  The exorbitant fines, draconian collection measures, price-gouging and accompanying stress to the taxpayers who fund the tollways would come to an end.

So, just to follow through all the way to the end on this issue I’d like to tell you how my phone payment went.  I called and the agent was able to immediately find my invoice and verify that I had a valid Toll Tag account for the entire period covered by the invoice.  Fine.  Why then did I get a ZipCash invoice in the first place?  It turns out that the system which reads Toll Tags has a 5% failure rate.  That means that, on average, 5% of the time it fails to record your Toll Tag.  And that failure results in a ZipCash invoice.  AT THE 50% HIGHER RATE CHARGED TO ZIPCASH CUSTOMERS.  So if I hadn’t called they wouldn’t have discounted my invoice to reflect the validity of my Toll Tag and the failure of their system.  Instead, I got invoiced at the 50% higher rate and they warned me in BIG BOLD TEXT of the serious consequences associated with not paying the invoice in a timely manner.  Nowhere on the invoice am I told how to deal with it if the problem is their failure.  If this weren’t a quasi-government organization the Texas Attorney General would be all over them.  This all goes to show that there is truth to the expression “You can’t fight City Hall”.  They are a pack of corrupt thieves backed by an armed police force, and we’re complaining about the corruption in Mexico.  Hah!

Our constitution guarantees the right to build the mosque.

But nothing guarantees that Americans must actually do the work. What if the builders couldn’t contract with a General Contractor? What if no materials suppliers sold them materials? What if the unions refused to work on the site?

If there was enough publicity surrounding the contract, no contractor in his right mind would take the job. The demonstations sure to accompany the building would be enough to guarantee that the completion date would never be met and punitive measures related to finishing on time would be impossible to avoid.

What concrete company would have the nerve to risk ever getting another contract? What about steel suppliers? It takes lot of materials to build a 13-story building. If they have to be brought in from the Middle East it’s going to cost a lot. And maybe the dock-workers would refuse to unload it. Then what? What if the trash haulers refused to haul the construction debris away? What if the lunch trucks refused to serve the laborers?

This would be a great opportunity for unions to show that their members are American Patriots and that their patriotism takes precedence over one job. Refuse to work there! Sure there are lots of Americans out of work right now, but just because you’re out of work doesn’t mean you’d be willing to work at something seen as anti-American.

What building inspector is not going to go over that place with a view towards sticking to the letter of the building code?

The entire project could be (already is) cast as anti-American. Who wants to be seen aiding and abetting this sort of in-your-face insult to the victims, the families of the victims, the service men and women who have lost their lives in the War Against Terror or the families of those service-people.

I guess Obama could assign the Corps of Engineers to build it. He is after all the Commander-in-Chief.

But I’m not really sure yet – its complicated. The word is that his version of the obamacare bill is going to allow states to opt out. The little weasel is taking this approach to offset resistance in Nevada so he can get re-elected.

“We’ve spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with senators who’ve shown a genuine desire to reform the health-care system,” Reid said. “And I believe there’s a strong consensus to move forward in this direction.” The Senate provision would give states the right to opt out of a government plan, though Reid spokesman Jim Manley was unable to provide further details, describing the legislative language as a work in progress that has yet to be scrutinized by the Congressional Budget Office.

Even though the little weasel is doing it for all the wrong reasons, he is opening the door to a big Obama failure and putting this issue smack-dab in the laps of the states – where it belongs in the first place, if it belongs anywhere at all.

In a, surprisingly, clear view into the mind of a liberal writer, a Washing Post article by David Broder is titled “Damaging option for liberals – Harry Reid’s self-serving bow to states’ rights.”

There is an air of desperate improvisation to Sen. Harry Reid’s scheme to pass a “public option” as part of health-care reform but at the same time provide an easy exemption for any state that objects to it. The warning flags ought to be flying for anyone who can count to three — let alone 60. The Democratic majority leader embraced this odd idea in hopes of satisfying two conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, he is under relentless pressure to satisfy the labor-left of his party in Washington, where a government-sponsored insurance plan has become the symbolic prize in the game, and back home in Nevada, where he needs union support to survive a scary election next year.

Now that is one fine example of speaking out of “both sides of ones mouth” isn’t it? It really does smack of desperation.

Broder goes on to pose the questions “Consider the precedent that would be set if a major piece of social legislation were to be passed with a states’ rights provision. Imagine, for example, if Franklin Roosevelt had signed the first Social Security law with the proviso that any states with Republican governors and legislatures could exempt themselves from its coverage.”

Just imagine. States exercising their rights. What an outrageous concept!

The problem, of course, is that even if states opted out, the coverage for the ones that didn’t opt out would be paid for, in part, by the the residents of the states that did opt out.

On the other hand, imagine all the moochers and illegaliens who would move out of the opted out states to the states which didn’t opt out. There’s a benefit to consider. It might even be a big enough benefit to offset the disproportionate taxation. If the moochers and illegaliens moved out, they would take their welfare, healthcare, free housing, etc with them. Those of us left would no longer be burdened with meeting all of their needs. That cost saving might offset the lost taxes. And, without the free healthcare given to the moochers and illegaliens healthcare costs would drop dramatically in the opt-out states making healthcare in those states more affordable. Hmmmm. That sounds like a plan to me.

Go Harry!

Mr. Bailey is an icon for the American success story. And McDonalds is an icon for American business success.

My neighborhood has a mix of poor and middle-class. It is has significant populations of Hispanics African-Americans and Whites, plenty of teen-agers and plenty of retirees, apartments condominiums and homes. There is no shortage of available labor for a business like the McDonald’s in my neighborhood.

I’ve noticed something odd about the McDonald’s in my neighborhood however. And in thinking about it, something insidious comes to mind.

In my experience (I’ve been paying attention for several years now), 100% of the non-customer conversation is in Spanish and 100% of the employees are Latino. The moment the employee stops speaking directly to the customer, they begin speaking Spanish. That is not exactly a huge problem for me, but it is improper language etiquette.

The bigger problem is that it totally eliminates the possibility for success of any non-Spanish-speaking employee. I have noticed once or twice a non-Spanish-speaking African-American or elderly employee there, but they never last long. In an environment where employees are directed and supervised in Spanish, how can a non-Spanish-speaking employee be successful? Why would anyone hire someone they knew, in advance, would not be successful? Why would anyone even apply for a job in an environment which conducts business in a language an employee didn’t understand?

The rhetorical answers to the above questions, of course, are they wouldn’t and they couldn’t.

What that means to me is that the Spanish-speaking workplace environment of my neighborhood McDonald’s precludes employment by non-Spanish-speakers.  And, since most Spanish-speakers are Hispanic, a workplace environment which precludes employment by non-Spanish-speakers is effectively, if not factually, discriminating if favor of Latinos and against non-Latinos.  The practice of Spanish-speaking in the workplace  creates a self-perpetuating environment of employment discrimination.

Where does the FED derive it’s authority to set salaries?

If the authority derives from agreements (made at the time the FED loaned money to them) with the corporations, then yes they have the authority. If the corporations don’t like that, then they shouldn’t have agreed to it and faced the consequences of not getting a loan from the FED. Someone who loans you money has the right to set conditions upon the loan. If you don’t like the conditions, either don’t agree to the conditions or borrow the money elsewhere. Once you agree, you have no standing to complain about what you agreed to.

If the FED has invented its authority that’s another story. They should not.

If Congress has passed legislation giving the FED the authority, that’s wrong too.

But, to me, none of those things are the issue here.

There’s a lot of talk right now about how offended the public is over the outrageous salaries and bonuses of management in some companies.

Publically held corporations are funded by shareholders, bonds and loans. Ultimately the control of the corporations rests in the hands of the shareholders. Any members of the public who are not shareholders should mind their own business and businesses in which they don’t hold shares are not their “business”. If non-shareholders are offended by the way a business is run they can express their dissatisfaction by not buying products from those businesses. if you don’t like the way a business is run, don’t invest in it or don’t buy their products, or don’t do business with them. On the other hand, if you are a shareholder, it is certainly your right to be concerned about the way your company is being run. Speak up. Form, or join, some sort of group whose collective share of the company is significant enough to effect the outcome of elections of Boards of Directors and vote in Directors who will direct the officers of the company in a way which meets your needs. Alternatively, sell your shares and invest your money in a company which operates the way you think it should – or put your money under your mattress.

The problem I have noticed over the 15-20 years is that Directors are hand-picked by CEOs in order to authorize what the CEO wants to do. So shareholders have two major problems, the CEO and the Board. Shareholders can vote out the Board and the Board can control the CEO. But shareholders go along with the company by signing proxies for their votes and then complain when they don’t like the way the company is run or the compensation of its employeees. Quit whining shareholders. You have a say/vote and if you don’t like something don’t give your vote away to management. On one hand you’re telling management to vote for you and on the other hand you’re compaining about what they do with your vote.

All that is to say that if you (shareholders) hadn’t enabled these companies to function immorally, pay themselves obscene salaries/bonuses, fly around the world in private jets, have board meeting in exotic locations and generally live the high life on your money we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Yet, I see and hear both conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans every day demanding that government step on other peoples individual rights.

A current example of the point I’m attempting to make is the move towards the legalization of marijuana. Christians, conservatives and Republicans have their panties in a wad over this issue. Why? Because they don’t like it, that’s why. The fact is the use of marijuana should be an individual decision and interference in an individuals use of it by government is as much a nanny-state tactic as obamacare.

Before you get all wound up, let me go on the record as stating unequivocally that I am not a user of marijuana. I tried it once about ten years ago and it was not for me. However, I have had a few friends over the years who did use it. In some cases, I was in their presence while they were smoking it. I can’t say that I’ve ever seen any effect on them except a “mellowing out.” That is not so say they couldn’t have been dangerous to themselves or others if they were driving or something – I just don’t know. Further to that point, I do use (and have mis-used) alcohol on occasion and have been in the presence of others who have mis-used alcohol on many occasions. They are almost always a danger to themselves and others. Look at the number of deaths associated with drunk driving. How many deaths are you aware of due to pot-smoking. Personally, I am aware of none. In fact I can’t even recall ever hearing about one. I am using the marijuana issue to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.

Back to my point now.

Even MADD doesn’t advocate a ban on alcohol. They advocate for safe driving. I think if they advocated for a ban they would be out of business so to speak. If someone wants to smoke pot and “mellow out” why should it matter to government? If someone wants to sell pot and not pay the taxes on it that’s another story. Do you see the difference? One person sells something which is supposed to be taxed (a proper use of government authority) and should be dealt with accordingly for his violation of the law and another person wants to mellow out and in the process violate no law other than an inappropriate law which violates his personal freedom.

Those same Christians, conservatives and Republicans (including myself) are all wound up about President Obama trying to jam his demented obamacare plan down our throats because, for one thing, it impinges on our right not to have health care by fining those who don’t choose to buy health insurance. There are other considerations, of course, but this one serves for my analogy.

The issue is not obamacare or legalization of marijuana – it is allowing our rights as individuals and citizens of the United States to be diminished. The issue of maintaining our rights as individuals and doing what we choose to do as long as it doesn’t harm others is what is important. We should ALL be able to agree on that.

In fact, lets compare Barack Obama to Robert Mugabe.

From Wikipedia: Mugabe’s government supported the Southern African Development Community’s intervention in the Second Congo War; expropriated thousands of white-owned farms; printed hundreds of trillions of Zimbabwean dollars, causing hyperinflation; and harassed and intimidated such political opponents as the Movement for Democratic Change.
Mugabe has described his critics as “born again colonialists”, and both he and his supporters claim Zimbabwe’s problems are the legacy of imperialism, aggravated by Western economic meddling.

Obama’s government supports ACORN’s intervention in the Mortgage Banking industry, the Internal Revenue Service and HUD. Obama has expropriated major financial, insurance and manufacturing businesses; prints trillions of dollars, which will soon cause hyperinflation; and harasses and intimidates such political opponents as FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Obama regularly denounces his critics, sometimes engages in name-calling, and both he and his supporters claim America’s problems are the legacy of racial prejudice, aggravated by personal and corporate greed.

That is not to say that the melding which occurred over the years of different cultures incorporated in American society has not had a beneficial effect because it has. We would not be what and who we are today without immigrants and the diversity in culture they brought with them. We could not have risen to the heights we have without the contributions and labor of those who came here hoping to live the American Dream or without the labor and culture brought by slaves and indentured servants.

However, thinking about it objectively, “the American Dream” is one developed primarily as a result of English-speaking, Christian, Western Europeans. They made it possible for all those immigrants to emigrate. They made it possible for all those immigrants to function freely, to vote and to achieve. Colonialism changed the world in a positive way. Yes, there are many instances where the indigenous population and culture were trampled along the way. But even with that, colonized countries grew, their economies prospered, their people gained a better standard of living than what they had when the colonists arrived, their children were educated, their lives grew longer, more of their babies lived, they were mostly able to speak and travel freely.

And then colonialists became “bad people”.

The children starving in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for “change” expecting the government to take care of all their needs. The unemployed in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for change. Those rioting in the streets today are the children of those who were dancing in the streets in anticipation of change. The owners of dusty unproductive farms piled high with broken, rusty once-high-tech farm equipment today are the children of those who once worked on productive farms which gave Zimbabwe the title of “breadbasket of Africa”. What wealth still exists there has been “re-distributed” to thieving politicians and their families – not the people who voted for change.

We are moving from a nation of self-reliant, self-starting, ambitious achievers to a nation of mooching “change-wanters” who don’t learn from history that big government never enriches anyone but the politicians and their henchmen. Be careful what you wish for….