Spending Cuts Are Painful For House, But Cutting Immigration Would Be Easier Way
We've been watching Members of the House all day and evening as they heatedly debate attempts to make painfully large cuts in various federal programs that will result in no more than paltry cuts in the overall federal deficit.
One Member raises what to him/her seems expendable or even foolish spending and argues for elimination or deep cuts. Then another Member -- often of the same Party -- takes the mike and gives detailed explanations for why that spending has deep ramifications for the economy (especially of that Member's District) and for the future of humankind.
The fact is that nearly every program and every part of the budget has big constituencies with sincere reasons to not only protect the budgets but to expand them. No cut is easy to swallow, just as no new tax would be easy to swallow.
But the growing consensus within the mainstream media and other elites now seems to be that projected budget deficits simply can't be sustained.
None of these issues is our target issue at NumbersUSA where we deal with only one issue -- immigration numbers.
Nonetheless, we want to cut the numbers for all kinds of reasons, but especially to make it easier to have a sustainable society. That would be a society that does not borrow now from our grandchildren's and their grandchildren's futures.
When I see the anguish on the faces and in the voices of congressman after congresswoman on C-SPAN tonight about what will be lost with each spending cut, I can't imagine why any of them would want to force more of these choices through high immigration.
For example, it is clear that money for various kinds of social services to poor Americans will be cut significantly in the Continuing Resolution being debated in the House.
So why would Congress insist on continuing to import more and more poverty by giving out more than a million green cards a year to immigrants who are much poorer than the average American.
If more than half of all immigrant families with children are poor enough to use welfare services, continuing our immigration program obviously just adds a lot more people to divide up a shrinking pie of social services.
If nearly 90% of the increase in the uninsured in America in recent years is due to immigrants, continuing our immigration program obviously just puts enormous demands on all of our country's health care systems to fill in the gaps.
If the average typical poorly educated immigrant household costs the government around $20,000 more in services than are paid in taxes, then continuing our immigration program obviously just makes all the choices on spending cuts and tax increases that much more difficult.
A time-out on most immigration would not solve the nation's budget crisis. But it would stop immigration from making matters worse.
Plus, a time-out on most immigration would mean that hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans who would not otherwise get back to work would do so in the first year alone. That would be a huge victory for those Americans and a modest reduction in expenditures by taxpayers to support them.
The amendment to the CR by Rep. Goodlatte (R-Va.) to suspend the visa lottery program would reduce permanent foreign worker visas by 50,000. It would be a small step but oh so much less painful that some of the cuts debated on the floor today.
We'll be watching the vote on Goodlatte's amendment closely and will score it on every Representative's Immigration-Reduction Report Card.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA