Debt crisis..

According to Webster: debt, 1. Something owed, such as money, goods, or services. 2.a. An obligation or liability to pay or render something to someone else. b. The condition of owing:

According to Webster: cri·sis, 1.a. A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point. b. An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change.

While campaigning for the 2008 election, Barack Obama promised Americans “change.” A fundamental change.

According to Webster: fun·da·men·tal, 1.a. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: b. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central: c. Of great significance or entailing major change:

According to Webster: de·ci·sive, 1. Having the power to decide; conclusive. 2. Characterized by decision and firmness; resolute. 3. Beyond doubt; unmistakable:

Question: “In your considered opinion, with gasoline prices once again soaring upward towards four dollars a gallon and America’s National debt increasing by $1 million a minute, do you believe that the change Barack Obama has delivered is beneficial to you and to America?”

Editorial: Not being a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law school, I readily admit that my formal education is so far below Barack Obama’s that it would probably take a competent backhoe operator six days to dig a hole deep enough to measure the difference. However, with that said, and depending solely on my God-given common sense, I would like to state that, at least in my opinion, that Barack Obama has not only surpassed Jimmy Carter as the “Worst President” in the history of America by a margin so large, that again, in my humble, albeit “common sense” opinion, it could only be viewed from a platform such as the International Space Station.

“Our Government at work.”

Steven A. Camarota is Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. He holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Pennsylvania and a Ph.D. in public policy analysis from the University of Virginia. Dr. Camarota often testifies before Congress and has published widely on the political and economic effects of immigration on the United States. His articles on the impact of immigration have appeared in both academic publications and the popular press including Social Science Quarterly, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Campaigns and Elections, and The Public Interest. His most recent work published by the Center for Immigration Studies includes: Immigration in a Time of Recession: An Examination of Trends Since 2000; Where Immigrants Live: An Examination of State Residency of the Foreign-Born; Back Where We Started: An Examination of Trends in Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform; and The Open Door: How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered and Remained in the United States, 1993-2001.

Executive Summary

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

  Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

  Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

  With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

  On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

  Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U. S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.

  If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

  Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status — what most illegal aliens would become — can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.

  Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.

  The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain — many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

  The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.

  The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants’ “education” level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

According to Webster: ed·u·ca·tion, 1. An instructive or enlightening experience.


The United States Department of Education, also referred to as ED or the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. Created by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979, it began operating on May 16, 1980. The Department of Education Organization Act divided the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department of Education is administered by the United States Secretary of Education. It is by far the smallest Cabinet-level department, with about “5,000 employees.” The agency’s official acronym is ED (and not DOE, which refers to the United States Department of Energy). It is also often abbreviated informally as DoED.


A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but soon was demoted to an Office in 1868. As an agency not represented in the president’s cabinet, it quickly became a relatively minor bureau in the Department of the Interior. In 1939, the bureau was transferred to the Federal Security Agency, where it was renamed the Office of Education. In 1953, the Federal Security Agency was upgraded to cabinet-level status as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Upgrading Education to cabinet level status a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as unconstitutional, arguing that the Constitution doesn’t mention education, and deemed it an unnecessary and illegal federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. However many liberals and Democrats see the department as constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and that the funding role of the Department is constitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause. On March 23, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law H.R. 584, which designates the ED Headquarters building as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building.


The primary functions of the Department of Education are to “establish policy” for, “administer and coordinate” most “federal assistance” to education, “collect data” on U.S. schools, and to “enforce federal educational laws” regarding “privacy and civil rights.” The Department of Education “does not establish” schools or colleges. (Source Wikipedia)

Reality check: In the world common sense, the U. S. Department of Education is simply no more than an “entity” to “consume” U. S. tax dollars, providing benefits to no one beyond those employed by the Department of Education.

According to Webster: en·ti·ty, 1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: 2. The fact of existence; being. 3. The existence of something considered apart from its properties.

In 1992, the United States spent more per student on primary and secondary education (in constant U. S. dollars) than did all of the other G-7 countries. However, U. S. per student spending on higher education ($7,097) was in the mid-range of the G-7 countries (source, the National Center for Education Statistics)

Wake up America, we’re, i.e., “We the People” are feeding a herd of 5,000 dead horses.

Think about it, I’ll be back tomorrow

Crusader Rabbit…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: