"DREAM Act" Is Enormous Nightmare

Here is Senator Jeff Sessions' memo on the problems with it. (See my note at the bottom of the post.)

Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans

Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.

The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.

2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application

Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.

3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act

Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.

4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply. (Could it be all 20 million of them?)

Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately 2.1 million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 2.1 million due to fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM Act will be that if any young person can enter the country illegally, within 5 years, they will be placed on a path to citizenship.

5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits

The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.

6. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship – they simply have to get a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education,” defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education” includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges) and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school). Within 8 years of the initial grant of status, the alien must prove only that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they completed any program or earned any degree.

If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the education requirement can be waived altogether.

7. The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who don’t go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens to join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender much litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.

Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.

8. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration

Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the U.S. without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the U.S. as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to immigrate their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the U.S. illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens (6 to 8 years after enactment) and are 21 years of age.

Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the U.S., further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States (for those who don’t want to wait for the petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well. (Does this mean that if some 20 million illegals send for all their relatives - say about 20 for each illegal - that we could potentially increase our population of citizens by some 400 million people??)

9. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid

Section 10 of the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans (Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans), federal work-study programs, and other federal education services such as tutoring and counseling.

10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process

When an illegal alien’s DREAM Act amnesty application is denied, the bill states that the alien will revert to their “previous immigration status,” which is likely illegal or deportable. The bill, however, prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process. Thus, it will be extremely hard for DHS to remove aliens who they now know are illegally present in the U.S., because illegal aliens will be able to claim that the legal action is a product of the amnesty application, and DHS will have the nearly impossible task of proving a negative.

--------

The big, looming question: Will this lame-duck Congress pass the Dream Act, before the new Congress is seated? If so, and Obama signs it, it would become law. Then when all the present illegals are suddenly transformed into citizens, almost all 20 million of them would vote Democrat in gratitude in 2012. (Plus however many millions of their voting-age relatives they bring into the U.S. by then.) Obama would then be relected - by a margin of at least 20 million votes. Both the Senate and the Congress would become all but totally Democrat. And probably remain so forever.

Nice try! Can they do it?

Why Texas Leads the Recovery - Gov. Rick Perry?

From "Who Will Lead the Recovery? Start With Texas" by Josh Freedman, National Journal, 9-11-10.

Freedman maintains that there is agreement between experts on which state will lead the country to a solid economic recovery. "Nobody's messing with Texas."

Although the economy has slowed in recent months the prospects for a robust recovery are still looking up for the Lone Star State. Texas gained 14,000 jobs in June (2010) even as employment fell in 27 other states, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That brought Texas's total for the first half of 2010 to 178,700 - more than twice that of any other state.

How did that happen?

A key factor has been the state's energy production. "If you look at the first half of 2008, the U.S. [economy] had started to decline, but Texas was still growing," said Keith Phillips, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Oil and natural-gas prices were very strong, he explained, and so "we entered the recession late."

But energy production is not all there is to Texas.

"The best places are centers that use that energy resource to diversify their economies," said Doug Henton, the CEO at Collaborative Economics, a consulting firm.

High-tech centers in Austin and Dallas have created an economy ranging "from cow chips to computer chips," as the Fed's Phillips put it. A tech-heavy index of the best-performing cities in the country last year by the Milken Institute, an economic think tank, ranked Austin first and placed three other Texas locales - Killeen and environs, McAllen and Houston - in the top five.

So the five top-performing cities in the U.S. are, first, Austin, then some city outside Texas, then three more Texas cities - Killeen, McAllen and Houston. Four out of five ain't too shabby.

Could it be something in the water in Texas? Nah - just a very, very good Governor!

(All emphases added.)

___

(Other also-mentioned's were North Dakota, Oklahoma (especially Oklahoma City), the San Francisco Bay Area, Pittsburg, North Virginia (D.C. jobs), Huntsville, Alabama (government jobs), Tennessee, Georgia and Smyrna, Tennessee (Nissan jobs)

Health Care Bill Outlaws Private Health Insurance

On page 16 of the new 1,002 page Health Care Bill, it says that no NEW private health insurance may be purchased after the bill is passed.

That means, for instance, that if you changed jobs and lost health insurance, you could not buy new private health insurance to replace it. More and more, year by year, there would be less and less private health insurance. That would mean fewer and fewer people could use private health care. They would be stuck in the government health care system. No matter how bad it got.

(I am having computer problems and can't copy links here, but go to www.gerrycharlottephelps.com for links.)

The Monster Deficit Is About To Eat Your Lunch

What matters with deficits is not so much the actual size of the deficit, but how much of the GDP (Gross National Product) it takes. With deficits, it is the PERCENTAGE of GCP that matters. Our present deficit is a country-eating monster.

This deficit is 13% of the GDP. The biggest previous deficits never reached more than 6%, not even during major wars or the Great Depression.

Would closing down all our wars help with the deficit? No. When deficits were used to finance previous wars, they were paid off soon after the war stopped. Actually, the cost of the current wars in Iraq and Afganistan are so small in comparison to the size of the national budget that stopping them completely would still leave our current deficit the biggest ever.

That's not all. Future (annual) deficits will be worse, because of the cost of our national debt (cumulative, or total.) Presently our national, accumulated debt, is $95 trillion, and slated to grow drastically and rapidly. Why? Because of promises already made to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, future deficits can only grow.

We're looking at soaring inflation, higher taxes and lower incomes for the forseeable future.

What to do? Save. Stop spending. Get out of the stock market. Do all you can to earn extra income. Grow some of your food. Make do with what you already own.

And stop voting for politicians who are not willing to cut spending, cut taxes, stop funding new programs, and cut funding for old programs. Stop voting for politicians who want the government to support so many people.

We're broke, folks.

Jealousy, Taxes and The Stock Market

What is "fairness" where taxes are concerned? Equal tax rates for all? Or a "progressive" tax rate, where the rich are taxed at a higher rate than the poor? Americans have come to accept that progressive tax rates are "fairer." But - how much more do the rich need to be taxed for "fairness?" That may have become "how much more do the rich need to be punished for being rich." For many, "fairness" has come down to punishing the more successful. To simple jealousy, in fact. How it that?

Americans have always been ambivalent about their rich. On one hand, they hate them. On the other hand, they love them and imitate them. On one hand, they need them to create jobs. On the other hand, they want to take away the "unfair" wealth that makes large-scale jobs-creating investment possible.

It's all about "fairness" for many. But what does "fairness" mean? For children, it is always getting what everyone else has. That is, they want equality of outcomes. But children eventually learn that life is not "fair." Yet they also learn that there are compensations. They may do worse than otners in some ways, but better in others. They see that we all are different. So most accept that while our outcomes may not be "fair" (equal) that so long as our opportunities are more or less equal, we still have a "fair" shot at a good life. For most, when they become adult, they accept that.

Still, when it comes time to vote, we somehow can be led around by those who want us to punish the rich. All we have learned about "fairness" of outcomes vs. "fairness" of opportunities goes right out the window.

But is there any economic reason not to keep raising the tax rates for the rich? There is! Simply, the more we raise the tax rates for the rich, the less total taxes they pay. And the more we lower the tax rates for the rich, the more total taxes they pay! Paradoxical, isn't it? If we want the rich to pay more of the total tax bill, we must lower their tax rates. And that is in order to make taxes "fairer!"

How does this work out in practice? We hate the very idea. Politicians especially hate it. Most especially of all, the Democrat Party hates it. They won't even acknowledge it. They have gone so far as to prohibit the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) from acknowledging it.*

What does all this have to do with the continuing free-fall of the stock market? Just this. Some observers point out that the post-election fall in stock prices is due to Obama's promise to raise capital gains taxes. That would fall on any profits from the sale of stocks. If stock investors sell now, they pay current tax rates. If they wait, they will pay Obama's increased tax rates. So they are selling now, in this tax year.

Some predicted accurately that this would happen. One was Dick Morris, Clinton's genius political advisor and current political commentator. He warned Obama to renounce his proposed capital-gains tax increase to stop the market from falling more. But traditional Democrat attitudes toward "fairness" get in the way, as they have before. Dick and Eileen McGann wrote yesterday:

Dick recalls vividly his meeting with Bob Rubin when he was Treasury Secretary under Clinton. Rubin opposed any cut in the capital gains tax even though he admitted that a cut in the tax would not cut, but might even augment, government revenues. Obama, himself, defended an increase as a matter of social fairness in the campaign debates when he was asked whether he favored increasing the tax even though history showed that a higher tax did not generate increased revenues.**

"Fairness?" How are higher tax rates on the rich more "fair" if they bring lower tax revenues for the benefit of all? It hurts the punishers more than the punished. The rich will remain rich, even with higher taxes. But there will be fewer jobs, and less prosperity, for the rest.*** And the stock market could continue its free-fall, punishing anyone with a pension plan. What's fair about that? Isn't it actually more a case of jealousy and resentment rather than fairness?

It would be better to try using some common sense.

_____________________

*The CBO, due to Democrat insistance, has not been allowed to reflect this in "Pay-Go" - the idea that new spending must be covered by new taxes. Since lower taxes for the rich will bring in more tax revenue, that needs to be considered in such calculations. That would be a "dynamic" estimate. But the Democrats force a "static" estimate instead, based on the idea that only higher taxes on the rich will bring in more tax revenue.

**From "Obama Must Forsake Cap Gains Hike To Stabilize Markets", Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, 11-10-08, at http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/11/10/obama-must-forsake-cap-gains-tax-hike-to-stabilize-markets/#more-486.

*** How do tax cuts make the rich pay more taxes? Basically, because the rich include more of the people most gifted at making money. Tax cuts might make some of them work harder, true. But mostly, tax cuts open up new money-making opportunities "at the margin." Suddenly, some deals and investments that were not profitable before become promising. So new deals and investments increase, more profits result, more businesses are opened or expanded, more old jobs can pay more, and new jobs are opened up. The result? Everyone in the whole economy benefits. The rich get enough richer that, although they are now taxed at lower rates, they pay taxes on so much more income that their total tax bill actually goes up.

Dems Will Turn Meltdown Into Catastrophe

With scant elegance, nuance or tact, this "bird's-eye view" is a rough picture of what will happen if we go over this particular cliff at this, "our moment" in history, and why we may never regain what will be lost if we do.

The problem is not only with the presidency. Increasingly, Congress is the problem. Congress has much more power than the President now. If the Democrat majority grows, it will have still more power over the new President, whether Obama or McCain. What will that mean for the future, and especially for this meltdown?

Remember how this meltdown started. It was from the Democrat party, and from their mis-handled compassionate desire to help minorities and poor people own their own homes. The motive was laudable. The result was ruinous. We need to assess blame in order to know what not to do, and who not to put in charge next time.

To recap: President Carter started the CRA, which pushed banks to make sub-prime mortgages to people who could not afford them. ACORN pushed banks into making sub-prime mortgages that they were forbidden to make, by law and by prudent practice. ACORN pushed Congress into forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into accepting more of such mortgages than they wanted. Then Congress forced Fannie/Freddie to make 50% of all its mortgages be sub-prime mortgages. Then President Clinton's Justice Department under Janet Reno actively threatened any banks who did not comply. (Clinton has recently acknowledged his mistake.)*

Madness! The house of cards started its free-fall when the price of housing started down, and the "housing bubble" burst. But that house of cards was built, first to last, by the Democrats. To understand our future, that fact must be remembered at every turn. Because we must move from Left to Right to have any semblance of a good future.

Why? Because this meltdown will take years to work out, even if we do everything right. (Much worse, if we do not do everything right.) That is because this meltdown is a "perfect storm." More than one crisis is going on, and more will come. They will be worse than this one, because this one, at least, has some underlying equity behind the bad debt in the form of property. The oncoming crises do not. And these crises will all feed on each other.

The housing crisis will be followed quickly by the Social Security crisis and the Medicare crisis. It Democrats are elected this time, there will also be the nationalized health care crisis.

Why will they be crises? Because they are all Ponzi Schemes. None of them are sustainable. Each one is a bubble, waiting to burst. Each one is built on debt. Sooner or later, debts have to be paid. If not, there is default on the debts. Then the bubble bursts. Then there is a meltdown, like this one - or worse.

Each of these future meltdowns will rapidly become international, world-wide. Why? Because the U.S. has become the lynchpin, the cornerstone, that keeps the world economy functioning. Why? It is the major market in the world. Everyone wants to sell to the U.S. It is also the major "safe haven" for investment money. Why? Because money is less likely to be stolen or lost here than anywhere else. And because it is the U.S. military - supported by U.S. prosperity - that is the primary guarantor of however much safety and stability there is in the world.

Another more long-term, underlying trend must be factored in. It is demography (population studies.) All countries have had declining birth rates for several decades now. At the same time, life-expectancy and life-spans have also been increasing in all countries. This has caused a "gray overhang." That is, the older population percentage has been growing while the younger population percentage has been shrinking. This means there are fewer and fewer young workers to support more and more older non-workers. This will ruin retirement schemes all over the world. Not to mention universal health-plans, which are heavily impacted by the old. This trend also invisibly underlies many other economic/political problems and will help drive them into crises. Now that the retirement of the huge Boomer generation has arrived, these crises will not delay long.

But what of the prosperity we have had since WWII? It cannot last, without drastic changes - toward the Right. Our prosperity has mostly been based on debt - the promise to pay in the future what we borrow and spend today. Such promises eventually must be paid, or see the whole system collapse. The Asian countries save money. The West saves little. The U.S., nationally, does not save at all. Everything, all our prosperity, is based on debt. (For instance, our Social Security has no "lockbox". There are no funds, no actual savings there. Congress spends every dime, in "off-budget" spending. This "Ponzi Scheme" has assumed that taxes from younger workers would always pay retirement for the older non-workers. Our declining birth rates and growing survival rates have destroyed that possibility.)

All over the world, savings from retirement plans have been invested in the U.S. for security and safe returns. So when we crash, they crash too. And we will crash, because we are built on debt.

What can we do? First, when we are in a hole, we have to stop digging. So for a long time, we have to stop electing Democrats. Why?

Democrats want to help people. At least, some of the people. And they want to do it on a new, much larger scale To do that, they want to use force. That is, they want to force part of the population to support the other part. With what force? Government. Government is defined primarily as the ultimate coercive power - the highest power that can force people to do things. And Democrate, bless them, want to help people in the only way they know - through government.

To spend what they must in order to do what they plan, they must build government debt to great new levels- because there is no way they can spend that much out of current U.S. income.

What can we do? Don't let them spend what they plan. How can we stop them? Don't elect them. Don't vote for them.

Whatever other preferences we may have doesn't change the equation. We cannot afford the Democrat way. We cannot survive this, and the other coming crises, by making it worse.

I'm truly sorry. And I do realize and acknowledge that the Republicans have many, many problems of their own. But voting Democrat, at this time and probably for a long time, is to say "Bring it on!" to catastrophe. I'm sorry. But I can't argue with facts anymore than you can.**

__________________

* Congress is pushing mightily to shift blame from itself to Wall Street fat cats - who are not without fault here. But the truth is that it was Democrats in office who pushed Wall Street (through the banks who were forced into making bad mortgages) into accepting toxic debt. This meltdown belongs to Democrats in office.

**Helping the poor and disadvantaged must not be abandoned. But we must find ways to help them apart from government. Fortunately, there are many other ways, with good, less-ruinous track records.

Stop! Don't Pass That Bail-Out!

"A trillion here, a trillion there and next thing you know, you're talking real money."

Time is short. Congress is getting set to act, possibly this week. We need to stop them.

First, do we want to have this crash now or later? One way or another, we will have it.

Our choice is to have this financial crash now, or to postpone the very same crash until later. Having it later will be even more painful. That is because the pain will be extended over a long time. Either way, the system must work its way through taking the losses it must take, now or later. A bail-out just moves part of the business losses to us, the taxpayers. The down-turn will continue until until the transferred losses are hammered out of tax-payers. Then the economy can move into recovery.

Which is better, now or later? Having it now would make a sharp "V-shaped" downturn. Having it later would lengthen it into an "L-shaped" downturn. A "V" goes sharply down, then sharply up afterward. An "L" goes sharply down, then stays near the bottom a long time, until all the losses are finally taken and out of the system, than goes into recovery. Whether it is V or L depends on how fast we take our losses. We need to "bottom out" as fast as possible, to recover as fast as possible.

Banking-system crashes have come to both Japan and to West Asia. In the West Asian case, they took their losses on the chin, fast, not trying to save anybody. Recovery was swift - a "V."

Japan, on the other hand, bailed out every financial company at risk. It's downturn lasted at least 10 years before recovery began. It was a long, long recession.

It's our choice. Same pain. Fast? Or Extended?

We also have not grasped how big this is. In the last few weeks, the federal government has already bailed out one outfit after another. Even before Congress acts on the current bail-out, we have already spent something over $2 trillion in a few weeks. (Yes, trillion. Are we talking real money yet??) Now Congress has a $700 billion bill on its plate. If it is its old self, it could raise that $700 billion to another $1 trillion before they pass it.

Probably no taxpayers, anywhere, realize how much that will mean in new taxes.

Probably we are already on the hook for the $2 trillion already handed out. Do we want to add another $1 trillion to that, for a total of $3 trillion? Over and above our regular budget?

Second: There's more. Even worse downturns are ahead. Postponing this one could make it overlap with the next one. Even the next two.

In this downturn, there are at least some physical assets underneath the bad loans: buildings. They are worth something more than zero. That money can be re-couped sometime, somehow, at least in part. There are no such assets behind the next two downturns.

One downturn will come from Social Security/pension plans. There are no physical assets there. Still, there is at least a very inadequate income stream from payroll taxes.

The other downturn will come if or when we decide to have socialized medicine, more or less. There are no physical assets there, and no significant income stream, so the impact will be even greater.

Boomers started to retire this year. They are a huge generation. They did not replace themselves with a generation at least their size. So there will not be enough workers to support them. (Had they lived, the 40 million aborted kids would have made the number of supporting workers come out a lot better for Boomers.) The retirement problem is also aggravated by our longer life spans. The worldwide problem of declining birthrates combined with longer life spans for elders.is generally worse than ours, and will further aggravate the U.S. retirement problem.

The cost to taxpayers will be huge, from increases in both taxes and inflation, just from Social Security. Adding the costs of more or less socialized medicine could cost even more than Social Security. Taxes to support both would be toxic for non-retirees and for the economy. (Inflation is one way to reduce the tax burden paid by workers to support elders. Elders will have mostly fixed incomes. Workers will not.)

Do we waht to add another huge tax increase from this present financial crash to those new taxes that are also coming? We need to get this present crisis one over with, now! Take our losses now, and hopefully have a breather before the next crises hit. This present crisis is the only one where we even have that choice.

(For more, see Spengler at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JI23Dj06.html)