No Way To Make Public Policy

Source: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=319419724231321

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Stimulus: Say this for the $787 billion behemoth that Congress voted on on Friday — never in our history has a more important vote been cast on legislation with so little scrutiny. Couldn't they at least read the thing before voting on it?

---

Read More: Economy

---

The 1,434-page bill is, in a word, massive. It's full of details that deserve to be given a close look before anyone votes. As the old saying goes, the devil's in the details — and if you can't look at the details, you might just end up with the devil.

The bill that President Obama called "the largest change in domestic policy since the 1930s" was jammed down Congress' throat, breaking almost all the promises of bipartisanship and transparency along the way.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed to give members of Congress at least 48 hours to look at the historic legislation before them.

After all, the bill will spend the equivalent of nearly 9% of our GDP while adding $1.2 trillion to our national debt. Obama vows to "create or save" 3.5 million jobs at a cost of $263,000 per job.

Shouldn't it get even a little bit of scrutiny?

Apparently not. The bill went on line sometime early Friday morning, not too long before passing 246-183 with not a single Republican vote and seven Democrats voting against it.

So much for a "bipartisan" plan, another promise broken.

In the House at least, there wasn't even the pretense of bipartisanship. The Democrats drafted their bill with no input from the Republicans.

In the Senate, Democrats found three Republicans — Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine (pop. 1.3 million), and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — to give them bipartisan cover and to provide a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority.

Even more obscene was the undue haste with which Congress voted on this bill as it was still coming together late last week. As House GOP leader John Boehner noted on the floor, "not one (House) member has read this bill."

That was by design. Pelosi was keen to leave town on a weeklong recess, and she didn't want to have to wait for a little thing like debate over the largest spending bill ever passed.

Nor is it a partisan issue. As Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver said, "Regardless of party, we all cast our votes with one hand and crossed our fingers with the other."

Is this any way to pass a so-called stimulus package?

Even worse, as U.S. News and World Report has noted, lobbyists — not members of Congress — got the first shot at suggesting changes to the measure.

The newsweekly's Paul Bedard said "one key Democratic staffer" e-mailed him the following: "K Street (Washington's lobbyists' row) has the bill, or chunks of it already, and the congressional offices don't."

This was Thursday night, on the eve of the vote. And remember, Congress had voted to put the bill online for at least 48 hours before it took action. Not until Friday morning, however, did it hit the Web. All a lie.

Why the haste? Surely one reason is the bill is stuffed with pork and short of real stimulus. Its authors don't want the details out. They shouldn't be surprised, then, when voters bridle at what they've been saddled with.

Another reason seems to be that lawmakers had pressing business overseas during this week's recess, and really didn't want to stick around Washington.

In Pelosi's case, she and several other Democrats were due to leave Friday evening for an eight-day tour of Europe, including Rome. We wouldn't want to get in the way of her travel plans, would we?

In this month of celebrating the bicentennial of President Lincoln's birth, we can't help recalling his prayerful hope at Gettysburg — that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

This bill pretty much inverts Lincoln's ringing words. In this sorry episode at least, it was "government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, for the lobbyists." In other words, real disgrace.

Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Are Two Sides of the Same Coin By Peter Berkowitz

LISA LISA & CULT JAM - Lost In Emotion
by keurbi

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336391229335459.html

JANUARY 31, 2009

Now that George W. Bush has left the harsh glare of the White House and Barack Obama has settled into the highest office in the land, it might be reasonable to suppose that Bush hatred and Obama euphoria will begin to subside. Unfortunately, there is good reason to doubt that the common sources that have nourished these dangerous political passions will soon lose their potency.

At first glance, Bush hatred and Obama euphoria could not be more different. Hatred of Mr. Bush went well beyond the partisan broadsides typical of democratic politics. For years it disfigured its victims with open, indeed proud, loathing for the very manner in which Mr. Bush walked and talked. It compelled them to denounce the president and his policies as not merely foolish or wrong or contrary to the national interest, but as anathema to everything that made America great.

In contrast, the euphoria surrounding Mr. Obama's run for president conferred upon the candidate immunity from criticism despite his newness to national politics and lack of executive experience, and regardless of how empty his calls for change. At the same time, it inspired those in its grips, repeatedly bringing them tears of joy throughout the long election season. With Mr. Obama's victory in November and his inauguration last week, it suffused them with a sense that not only had the promise of America at last been redeemed but that the world could now be transfigured.

In fact, Bush hatred and Obama euphoria -- which tend to reveal more about those who feel them than the men at which they are directed -- are opposite sides of the same coin. Both represent the triumph of passion over reason. Both are intolerant of dissent. Those wallowing in Bush hatred and those reveling in Obama euphoria frequently regard those who do not share their passion as contemptible and beyond the reach of civilized discussion. Bush hatred and Obama euphoria typically coexist in the same soul. And it is disproportionately members of the intellectual and political class in whose souls they flourish.

To be sure, democratic debate has always been a messy affair in which passion threatens to overwhelm reason. So long as citizens remain free and endowed with a diversity of interests and talents, it will remain so.

In October 1787, amid economic crisis and widespread fears about the new nation's ability to defend itself, Alexander Hamilton, in the first installment of what was to become the Federalist Papers, surveyed the formidable obstacles to giving the newly crafted Constitution a fair hearing. Some would oppose it, Hamilton observed, out of fear that ratification would diminish their wealth and power. Others would reject it because they hoped to profit from the political disarray that would ensue. The opposition of still others was rooted in "the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears."

Indeed, the best of men, Hamilton acknowledged, were themselves all-too-vulnerable to forming ill-considered political opinions: "So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes, which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions, of the first magnitude to society."

In surveying the impediments to bringing reason to bear in politics, it was not Hamilton's aim to encourage despair over democracy's prospects but to refine political expectations. "This circumstance, if duly attended to," he counseled, "would furnish a lesson of moderation to those, who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right, in any controversy."

As Hamilton would have supposed, the susceptibility of political judgment to corruption by interest and ambition is as operative in our time as it was in his. What has changed is that those who, by virtue of their education and professional training, would have once been the first to grasp Hamilton's lesson of moderation are today the leading fomenters of immoderation.

Bush hatred and Obama euphoria are particularly toxic because they thrive in and have been promoted by the news media, whose professional responsibility, it has long been thought, is to gather the facts and analyze their significance, and by the academy, whose scholarly training, it is commonly assumed, reflects an aptitude for and dedication to systematic study and impartial inquiry.

From the avalanche of vehement and ignorant attacks on Bush v. Gore and the oft-made and oft-refuted allegation that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq, to the remarkable lack of interest in Mr. Obama's career in Illinois politics and the determined indifference to his wrongness about the surge, wide swaths of the media and the academy have concentrated on stoking passions rather than appealing to reason.

Some will speculate that the outbreak of hatred and euphoria in our politics is the result of the transformation of left-liberalism into a religion, its promulgation as dogma by our universities, and students' absorption of their professors' lesson of immoderation. This is unfair to religion.

At least it's unfair to those forms of biblical faith that teach that God's ways are hidden and mysterious, that all human beings are both deserving of respect and inherently flawed, and that it is idolatry to invest things of this world -- certainly the goods that can be achieved through politics -- with absolute value. Through these teachings, biblical faith encourages skepticism about grand claims to moral and political authority and an appreciation of the limits of one's knowledge, both of which well serve liberal democracy.

In contrast, by assembling and maintaining faculties that think alike about politics and think alike that the university curriculum must instill correct political opinions, our universities cultivate intellectual conformity and discourage the exercise of reason in public life. It is not that our universities invest the fundamental principles of liberalism with religious meaning -- after all the Declaration of Independence identifies a religious root of our freedom and equality. Rather, they infuse a certain progressive interpretation of our freedom and equality with sacred significance, zealously requiring not only outward obedience to its policy dictates but inner persuasion of the heart and mind. This transforms dissenters into apostates or heretics, and leaders into redeemers.

Consequently, though Bush hatred may weaken as the 43rd president minds his business back home in Texas, and while Obama euphoria may fade as the 44th president is compelled to immerse himself in the daunting ambiguities of power, our universities will continue to educate students to believe that hatred and euphoria reflect political wisdom. Urgent though the problem is, not even the efficient and responsible spending of a $1 trillion stimulus package would begin to address it.

Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Buffalo Jewish Community mourns the loss of Cantor Susan Wehle

Source: http://www.bethambuffalo.org/main.html

The Temple Beth Am family expresses its sympathy to the family members of all those who lost their lives in the crash of Continental Airlines flight 3407. Susan Wehle, Cantor at Temple Beth Am, was on board and one of the 50 who lost their lives.

Cantor Susan Wehle has been serving Temple Beth Am of Williamsville, NY since November of 2002. Prior to that she was the Cantorial Soloist at Temple Sinai (Reconstructionist) of Amherst, NY for 9½ years.

In 2004, Susan received Cantorial Smicha from Aleph – the Movement for Jewish Renewal. She has a Bachelors Degree in Judaic Studies from the State University of New York at Buffalo, a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Theatre from the State University of New York at Buffalo, and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Acting from the Goodman School of Drama. She has performed with theatre companies in Buffalo, Chicago and New York City.

Susan has taught musical and spiritual workshops, has conducted youth and adult choirs, and has performed in concerts in the United States, Canada and Israel. She has recently released a CD called “Shirei Refuah v’Tikvah – Songs of Hope and Healing”.

She is the mother of two sons, Jonah and Jake and has two sisters, Eva Friedner and Dana Wehle, and a brother John Wehle.

Temple Beth Am will honor her memory at Erev Shabbat Service tonight, Friday, February 13, 2009 at 7:30 PM. The Service will be led by Rabbi Harry Rosenfeld from Temple Beth Zion, Rabbi Alex Lazarus-Klein from Temple Sinai, and Cantor Barbara Ostfeld.

Funeral arrangements have not been planned at this moment. Grief counselors from Jewish Family Service will be available for Temple Beth Am members, friends, and the community.

Founded in 1955, Temple Beth Am is a mainstream Reform congregation that prides itself on being a “Family of Families.” The Temple offers a wide variety of religious services and spiritual opportunities to its members and anyone interested in exploring Jewish life. These include Erev Shabbat services, Shabbat morning worship and Torah study, High Holy Day and Festival services, youth-led and family Shabbat services, healing services and more.

Temple's cantor was returning from Caribbean

Source: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090213/NEWS01/90213027/1002/NEWS

By Dave Andreatta

February 13, 2009

Those who knew her recall Susan Wehle as a person who put others first, and the last text message the 55-year-old mother of two sent before boarding Continental Connection Flight 3407 confirms that opinion.

“If it gets too late text me and I’ll take a taxi,” she wrote at 8:29 p.m. Thursday to Rick Ellis, who had planned to pick up his friend and co-worker at the Buffalo airport.

“That’s the way she was,” said Ellis, the administrator at Temple Beth Am in Williamsville, Erie County, where Wehle had been the cantor since 2002. “She was always thinking of others.”

Wehle had been vacationing in Costa Rica, and was scheduled to take a series of connecting flights through Houston and Newark to arrive home in Buffalo.

The daughter of Holocaust survivors, Wehle was primarily responsible for orchestrating the musical portions of temple services, but routinely went beyond her duties, temple congregants said.

“We thought of her as one of our clergy,” said temple President David Bergash. “She helped run the services, organize hospital visits, bar mitzvahs, bat mizvahs. You name it. She did it.”

Wehle soothed the sick and dying with her music, taught at the temple’s religious school, and two years ago produced a CD of Jewish spiritual music.

“Susan was one of the most brave and brilliant people I had ever met,” said guitarist Gunilla Theander Kester, who accompanied Wehle on the CD. “She had the idea of a CD in her head for years and never gave up on it. She didn’t know the word no in the sense that she knew no limits.”

A steady stream of congregants poured into the temple Friday afternoon. They hugged, cried and told stories of the woman they knew as a fixture at the temple. Her desk in her office was just as she had left it, they said, full of paperwork for projects she had hoped to tackle upon her return.

“Her spirituality, love and kindness for humanity will never be matched,” Ellis said. “The shine in her eyes was just constant.”

A frequent traveler, Wehle had performed in concerts around the country and in Canada and Israel.

Democrats to American Federalism: Drop Dead

The Punish Mark Sanford Amendment; Update: Durbin defends

Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/13/the-punish-mark-sanford-amendment/

February 13, 2009

By Michelle Malkin

Buried in the porkulus conference report is a provision specifically targeting governors who would exercise the choice to refuse stimulus money.

It’s an obvious end-run around the authority of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, the outspoken GOP fiscal conservative who has staunchly opposed the behemoth federal package.

Read it:

SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR — Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: 1) the State request and use funds provided by this Act , and; 2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.

(b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE — If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.

This seems blatantly illegal — a complete federal usurpation of states’ budget processes.

Do the members of the Senate GOP Turncoat Caucus approve?

***

11:15am Eastern. Sen. Dick Durbin is on the Senate floor defending the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment. He scoffs at the “political” views of fiscally conservative state executives and eagerly describes how he will make end-runs around those governors.

Don't mortgage our children's future By Mark Sanford

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/sanford.economy/

Gov. Mark Sanford says opposition to the stimulus bill doesn't mean doing nothing to fix the economy.

When a debate as important -- both in terms of policy and politics -- as the one currently rolling around our nation regarding the president's "stimulus" plan takes place, emotion often takes precedence over fact.

Words are ripped out of context, motives ascribed where none may exist, political strategies implemented with limited regard for actuality. This, then, is the playing field we step onto -- as it has long been.

But, as those in South Carolina have often heard me say, it is important to disagree without being disagreeable. So let's take a clear-eyed look at Paul Begala's recent defense of the president, which happened to refer to me by name -- because what I and others have suggested is far from "doing nothing."

First, dispense with the notion that there are simply two options here: Support the stimulus package or do nothing. The Washington Post debunked that idea quite convincingly earlier this week.

In truth, there are a variety of options outside a spending bill of unprecedented scope available in this time of considerable economic distress, including, but not limited to, cutting the payroll tax, opening foreign markets through an expansion of our trade agreements, and reducing our corporate tax, which is among the highest worldwide.

Second, we should all be skeptical of any argument centered on the idea of doing something for doing something's sake. We can't focus on the why and simply ignore the what. And what does this particular rendition of "doing something" actually do?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the effects of the bill on job growth as early as 2011 would be miniscule. More distressingly, CBO's long-term projections estimate that due to "crowding out of private investment," the package will result in a reduction of our GDP as early as 2019.

As for the jobs created in the short-term, what's the cost? The Heritage Foundation crunched the president's own numbers and came up with this startling figure: for every single job the bill creates, American taxpayers will spend $223,000.

Examining the bill's contents makes clear just how foolhardy that is. What stimulant effect will we get from the $180 million of spending on "diplomatic and consular services?" Should taxpayers really be doling out $300 million for what one newspaper described as "streamlined golf carts?"

And, even though it didn't make it into the final version of the bill, why would anyone even consider letting the very investment bankers whose companies just pulled down a few hundred million dollars in TARP funds to be in line to receive a $15,000 government credit for buying a new Hamptons beach house?

Finally, history shows us quite clearly that a government cannot spend its way out of an economic downturn. It didn't work in Japan in the 1990s, when the 10 stimulus packages implemented over an eight year period failed to prevent the "lost decade." And the New Deal, which the president's supporters are so quick to point to?

Here are the thoughts of Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury Secretary: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

The president's stimulus represents the largest and most invasive economic action in our government's history. For a relatively small number of short-term jobs, this administration and this Congress are poised to mortgage the economic future of my four boys and the millions of young Americans just like them. To me, that's simply not a morally acceptable outcome.

Mark Sanford, a Republican, is governor of South Carolina.

Lincoln's Defense Of Constitution Is Moral For Today's Republicans

Source: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=319247860548593

By THOMAS KRANNAWITTER | Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT

This is the 200th birthday of the first Republican to win a national election, Abraham Lincoln. It is good for Republicans today to remember Lincoln, not to be antiquarians, but to learn from his principled defense of the Constitution.

By becoming students of Lincoln, Republicans can win elections and would deserve to win by helping America recover its constitutional source of strength and vitality.

The greatest political crisis America faces today is neither the recession nor Islamic terrorism; it's not health care, education, immigration or abortion. It is that the United States Constitution has become largely irrelevant to our politics and policies.

All three branches of government routinely ignore or twist the meaning of the Constitution, while many of our problems today are symptoms of policies that have no constitutional foundation.

If we are to recover the authority of the Constitution and the many ways it restrains and channels government power, someone or some party must offer a principled defense of the cause of constitutional government.

They must understand not only the Constitution, but also the principles that informed its original purposes and aspirations, principles found in the Declaration of Independence among other places.

No one understood that better than Lincoln.

Employing a biblical metaphor, Lincoln once described the leading principle of the Declaration of Independence — equal natural rights — as "the word fitly spoken which has proved an apple of gold to us," while the Constitution stands as "the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it.

"The picture," Lincoln argued, "was made not to conceal or destroy the apple, but to adorn and preserve it."

Lincoln's right. The declaration's assertion that legitimate governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" because "all men are created equal" is precisely why "We the people" are authorized to "ordain and establish this Constitution."

Further, the Constitution limits the power of government because, as the declaration makes clear, the purpose of government is limited to securing the God-given, not government-granted, rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And a government of limited purpose should be one of limited power.

The Constitution, however, has suffered two nearly fatal criticisms: It's old and it's racist.

The former was launched by "progressive" thinkers more than a century ago and backed up by sophisticated theories of social and political evolution. Woodrow Wilson, for example, once compared the Constitution to "political witchcraft."

The charge of racism, mainly due to the Constitution's accommodations for slavery, found its loudest voice during the civil rights movement in the 1960s and following decades. Justice Thurgood Marshall voiced this critique in a 1987 Bicentennial essay when he refused to celebrate the original Constitution of 1787 because, he alleged, it was racist and therefore immoral.

The progressive and civil rights critiques have given us a century of New Freedom politics, New Deal politics, Great Society politics, Third Way politics, Compassionate Conservatism politics and now Responsible politics.

What we need, however, is a revival of constitutional politics. But the Constitution cannot be defended against these powerful criticisms unless someone can demonstrate that the Constitution incorporates principles that are both timeless and good.

And any such defense must confront two stubborn facts: The Constitution was indeed written long ago, and it did offer certain protections for slavery.

It was Lincoln's purpose to remind all Americans, white and black, that political freedom rests on an "abstract truth applicable to all men and all times."

That "abstract truth" is the principle of equal natural rights, a principle that cuts across time and space and is, contrary to progressive opinion, valid always and everywhere.

Regarding slavery, Lincoln explained that a constitutional regime dedicated to the declaration's principle of equality is a regime where slavery must be "placed in the course of ultimate extinction."

"If we do this," Lincoln said rightly, "we shall not only have saved the (constitutional) Union. . . . We shall have so saved it as to make and keep it forever worthy of the saving."

At Gettysburg's cemetery, as he struggled mightily to save the Constitution, Lincoln rededicated America to its original noble purpose in one of the most beautiful speeches of all time.

Lincoln understood that slavery did not make America unique. America's uniqueness is being the first constitutional government built on a foundation of equality and the terrible price America paid for ridding itself of slavery.

Lincoln's constitutionalism, I believe, is the only effective rebuttal to progressive and civil rights criticisms. Thus if Republicans are serious about recovering constitutional government, it's hard to imagine how they would be successful without Lincoln.

With Lincoln, it's hard to imagine how they would fail.

• Krannawitter teaches political science at Hillsdale College in Michigan and is author of "Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest."

Stimulate This: Prison Construction, So Inmates Aren't Just Turned Loose

Source: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=319249392216292

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Infrastructure: A panel of three unelected judges wants to release up to 57,000 prisoners to relieve overcrowding in California jails. Can't we just include prison construction in the stimulus package?

---

Read More: Judges & Courts

---

Think of them as medical clinics with bars. At least that's how U.S. District Court Judges Thelton Henderson and Lawrence Karlton and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt thought of them when they ruled Tuesday the state must reduce its prison population by much as one-third.

According to these imprudent jurists, because of the overcrowding of California penal institutions "there are not enough clinical facilities or resources to accommodate inmates with medical or mental health needs at the level they require." Poor inmates.

In a 10-page decision, they said overcrowding increased the risk of infectious diseases and that a shortage of doctors, nurses and correctional officers has denied inmates access to needed medical services. There's no mention of the health care needs of their victims.

According to the judges, overcrowding in California prisons is the "primary cause" of the state's "inability to provide constitutionally adequate medical care and mental health care to its prisoners" and "there is no relief other than a prisoner release order that will remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions."

Now all of this may be true, but that does not justify ignoring the main functions of prisons. They are to punish criminals for their crimes and to ensure the health and safety of the general public by physically separating documented predators from their potential victims. If you need more prisons, build more.

Even California Attorney General Jerry Brown, no right-wing zealot he, labeled the order "a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed."

Little note has been made that much of California's prison crisis is due to the crimes committed by illegal aliens invited in through the sanctuary policies of its major cities and their policies of not letting local police notify immigration authorities when suspected illegals are apprehended.

FBI data show that over 95% of arrest warrants issued in Los Angeles for murder are for illegal aliens. Nearly 25% of the California prison population is composed of illegal aliens. Increased border and interior enforcement, coupled with expedited deportation, might help immeasurably.

Study after study has documented the benefits to public safety of increased incarceration rates. Crime rates plummet when incarceration rates rise because of the deterrent effect and because many criminals are repeat offenders who can no longer repeat their crimes.

James Q. Wilson, America's premier social scientist, says scholarly studies "have shown that states that sent a higher fraction of convicts to prison had lower rates of crime, even after controlling for all of the other ways — poverty, urbanization and the proportion of young men in the population — that the states differed. A high risk of punishment reduces crime. Deterrence works."

Prison is supposed to be an awful place you don't want to go to. If you want adequate health care, don't rob the local convenience store or club your neighbor over the head. Releasing uncomfortable prisoners increases the risk of crime and the social costs to society, jeopardizing the mental and physical health of crime victims.

A study published a few years ago in the University of Chicago's Journal of Law and Economics by economist David Anderson found a net loss of $1.1 trillion a year, or $4,118 per American, due to crime. Wouldn't building more prisons be cheaper?

Maybe California could take some of the vast sums being lost fighting global warming and funding fruitless embryonic stem cell research and use it to build new prisons.

Failing that, the state could use some of the funds promised in Congress' massive stimulus bill. Aside from the construction work, think of all the prison guards, staff, wardens and unemployed bleeding hearts who would find jobs.

E-Verify requirement in stimulus plan sparks controversy By Jaikumar Vijayan

Source: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/020609-e-verify-requirement-in-stimulus-plan.html

02/06/2009

A proposal initially included in President Obama 's stimulus package that requires entities getting federal funds or tax breaks to use the government's E-Verify program to vet the immigration status of workers is proving to be controversial.

Supporters of the idea say it is needed to prevent illegal immigrants from securing jobs paid for by the stimulus package -- especially in the construction sector, which is slated to receive $104 billion if the measure makes it through Congress intact.

But opponents to including the E-Verification component are complaining about the relative unreliability of the system and its inability to stop people from using fraudulent IDs to get work authorization.

The E-Verify system is operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 's (DHS) Citizen and Immigration Services, together with the Social Security Administration (SSA). It is a free, voluntary Internet-based employment eligibility verification system that lets employers compare information from an employee's job application with information contained on DHS and SSA databases to determine work eligibility in the U.S.

According to a DHS description of the program, the SSA database against which the matching is done contains more than 425 million records, while the DHS' immigration databases hold more than 60 million records. In most cases, employers get search
results in seconds.

Only about 100,000 employers out of more than seven million in the U.S. are currently signed up for the program.

Recent enhancements to the system include a photo-screening tool for biometric verification and the availability of naturalization data that can confirm the citizenship status of recently naturalized U.S. citizens. As of this coming May, all federal contractors and subcontractors will have to start using the program when hiring new employees.

The version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed last week by the House of Representatives , included the E-verify mandate. But that provision has been culled from the Senate version -- prompting frantic lobbying on both sides of the issue to either put it back into the legislation or leave it out permanently.

Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a Washington D.C.-based immigration watchdog group, estimated that failing to properly vet the employment eligibility of workers under the stimulus plan could result in a large number of undocumented workers getting taxpayer-funded jobs. That could be especially true of the construction sector, where nearly 15% of the workers are illegal immigrants, Camarota claimed.

Camarota argued that there is little reason to oppose the E-Verify program and said that concerns about its reliability have been overstated. He noted that the number of instances where the E-Verify system had mistakenly fingered a worker as being unauthorized for employment was a "tiny fraction" of the overall number of eligibility checks made by employers. In cases where mistakes are made, the process allows for remediation, Camarota said.

He was also skeptical of claims that the E-Verify system would be unable to handle a sudden large-scale increase in employment
eligibility checks, noting it already processes millions of queries. "If there are still bugs to be worked out, including
the stimulus jobs would be good thing," because it would prompt quicker remediation, he said.

Other groups, including The Heritage Foundation , a conservative Washington D.C.-based public policy research group, and The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) have also pushed for the use of E-Verify.

Others, however, said that mandating the system's use in the stimulus package could create problems for both employers and employees -- and could slow the deployment of much-needed infrastructure projects.

Mike Aitken, director of governmental affairs at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a trade association in Alexandria, Va., said his group is not opposed to having an efficient and accurate employment verification system. But its use now could unnecessarily delay "shovel-ready" projects.

Many state and local governments that would participate in the program are currently not signed up for E-Verify. Requiring each of them to sign up now, and roll out new processes for procuring workers and checking eligibility, would be needlessly cumbersome, he said. And he expressed concerns about how the system would respond if that number were to increase dramatically as a result of a mandate, Aitken said.

"We don't think E-Verify can handle the massive influx of employers in such a short amount of time," he said. "We don't think it is ready from a capacity standpoint. It will take time to get the system up and ready."

Another issue would be the time needed to validate employees who are erroneously found to be ineligible for work, Aitken said. Such errors can result from something as simple as transposed digits in Social Security numbers, problems with hyphenated
names, and name changes resulting from marriages, he said.

Aitken's organization sent a letter raising those issues to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. , on Wednesday. Also backing the SHRM's position are the National Association of Manufacturers, Association of American Universities and the HR Policy Association.

According to the DHS' own estimates, about 96% of employees are work-authorized within 24 hours, while about 4% receive initial mismatches. Less than one-half of a percent of those mismatches are later confirmed to be authorized to work, meaning the system is generally reliable in spotting mismatches.

Stimulus to ban religious worship: 'This isn't like a convenient oversight, this is intentional' By Bob Unruh

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88178

February 06, 2009

President Obama's proposed economic stimulus plan makes a deliberate – and unconstitutional – attempt to censor religious speech and worship on school campuses across the nation, according to a lawyer who argued related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago and won them all.

"This isn't like a convenient oversight. This is intentional. This legislation pokes its finger in the eyes of people who hold religious beliefs," Jay Sekulow, chief of the American Center for Law and Justice, told WND today.

His was the organization that decades ago argued on behalf of speech freedom on school campuses, winning repeatedly at the U.S. Supreme Court. Since then, the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School District decision was added, clarifying that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities is unconstitutional.

The problem in the proposed stimulus bill comes from a provision that states: "PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. - No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities - (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."

The wording that specifically targets religious speech already has been approved by the majority Democrats in the U.S. House – all GOP members opposed it. In the Senate, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed an amendment to eliminate it, but again majority Democrats decided to keep the provision targeting religious instruction and activities.

Critics argued schools would accept any money offered, then impose a ban on religious events.

DeMint warned organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel and other religious groups would face new bans on access to public facilities that would not apply to other organizations.

"This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I'm outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination," DeMint said. "Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of faith."

DeMint's comments have been posted online and also are embedded here:

"These students simply want equal access to public facilities, which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion must end. Those who voted to for this discrimination are standing in the schoolhouse door to deny people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill," said DeMint.

The senator said the stimulus bill now becomes an "ACLU stimulus" that has the goal of triggering lawsuits "designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation."

"This language is so vague, it's not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of 'religious worship.' If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America," he said.

DeMint cited Obama's statement at the National Prayer Breakfast this week that faith "can promote a greater good for all of us."

"This provision is an assault against both. It's un-American and it's unconstitutional. Intolerant and it's intolerable," DeMint said.

The ban on religious organizations is linked to the $3.5 billion intended for "renovation of public or private college and university facilities."

The ACLJ, which focuses on constitutional law, said the provision "has nothing to do with economic stimulus and everything to do with religious discrimination."

"The thing is I litigated these cases on these exact issues 20 years ago," Sekulow told WND. "Not only did we win, two of the decisions were unanimous and the other was 8-1.

"We're seeing a rollback to the 1970s regarding church-state relations," he said. "That's what is troubling. It is a complete rollback that now institutionalizes discrimination through targeting religion."

Sekulow said he already is drafting a complaint that will challenge the constitutionality of the provision, to be used if it isn't removed.

He said under current court precedents, it will be a open-and-shut victory.

However, he also warned that the problem is the damage that can be done within the probable four years it would take to get the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court and what that court would look like at that point.

Under Obama, he said, "there will be an ideology shift." New appointments to the bench by Obama, he said, would be "much more left of where Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg and (Stephen) Breyer are."

 On an online forums page, readers were incensed.

• "Here comes the assault against Christian churches … Looks like he's trying to see how much damage he can do in the briefest period of time."


• "Obama is the most dangerous man of our times, period. He will seek to overturn everything our nation was built upon, personal freedom, capitalism, even the rock of faith. And he will seek to do it from within, openly, overtly and boldly. Will Christians now respond to this dangerous man in a strong, unified way? Or will Obama succeed in destroying the fabric of the greatest nation in human history?".
  
  


• "He's just following the Saul Alinsky rule (in his book, Rules for Radicals) to 'clothe everything you do in morality' because this is what most effectively fools the 'middle class' into agreeing with what you want to do."