Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The State Department is as honest as it is honorable

Daily Caller ^ | 6/10/2013 | Laurel Conrad

Do you think that’s a compliment? You must be new here.

Laurel Conrad reports:

In order to avoid scandal, the State Department allegedly altered or dismissed investigations into illegal behavior of multiple government officials worldwide, including the sexual exploits of an American ambassador, CBS reported Monday.
A memo obtained by CBS from the State Department inspector general identified eight separate cases of illegal behavior where investigations were manipulated or called off.
In one case, a cover-up saved the career of a US ambassador in a sensitive diplomatic post believed to be propositioning prostitutes. According to a memo from the inspector general’s 2011 investigation, the ambassador “routinely ditched his protective security detail” in order to “solicit sexual favors from prostitutes” in a park.
This sort of behavior from the State Department would be shocking to me, had I not lived through the last 3 years of my life.
From the Daily Caller on February 4, 2010, presented in its entirety:
Struck Down: Feds refuse to explain how agent injured Daily Caller writer
The State Department has refused to answer basic questions about an accident that took place in Washington on Wednesday night, in which a U.S. Diplomatic Security Service vehicle struck Daily Caller employee Sean Medlock as he was crossing the street.
An agent in the vehicle, Mike McGuinn, did not identify himself to Medlock at the scene, or apologize for running him down. Indeed, Washington, D.C., police drove to a local emergency room to serve Medlock with a jaywalking citation as he lay prostrate in a hospital bed, while a man who identified himself as “special agent” stood by watching and taking notes.
Reached on his cell phone the following day by the Daily Caller, McGuinn refused to answer questions about the incident.
“I’m a federal agent and I’m not allowed to talk to the media,” McGuinn said, citing “liability.” McGuinn initially declined even to reveal which agency he works for. “You can refer to the [DC] police department report,” he said before hanging up abruptly. (According the police department, no report will be publicly available for at least three days.)
According to Medlock, who writes under the name Jim Treacher, he was struck at about 7:15 p.m. on Wednesday, while crossing M Street in downtown Washington. Medlock says he was walking within the bounds of the crosswalk, toward a blinking white signal, when a government SUV suddenly turned left and plowed into him, knocking him to the ground.
Bystanders tended to Medlock, collected his crushed glasses and called an ambulance. McGuinn, meanwhile, called The Daily Caller’s offices from the scene to tell Medlock’s colleagues about the incident. But he did not identify himself to them or to Medlock.
Medlock was taken to Georgetown University Hospital with a broken left knee, lacerations and bruises. He will undergo surgery later this week.
At the hospital, DC police officer John Muniz arrived to issue Medlock a $20 jaywalking ticket. Medlock was lying sedated on a gurney, so Muniz delivered the ticket to a Daily Caller colleague, who was at the hospital with Medlock. He looked embarrassed as he did so. Behind him stood a man dressed in a dark suit who identified himself as a “special agent.” He said nothing but wrote in a notebook.
Curiously, the ticket says that Medlock was struck at an intersection four blocks from where the accident actually took place. And it claims that Medlock was walking diagonally across the intersection at the time. In one of his strikingly short conversations with the Daily Caller, agent Mike McGuinn acknowledged that Medlock was not jaywalking at all, but walking “outside the crosswalk when the incident occurred.”
The question is: Did the federal agent driving the SUV, faced with potential liabilities from the accident, encourage local police to issue some sort – any sort – of citation to Medlock, to establish his culpability?
If not, what exactly did happen? Calls to the State Department were met with evasion and indifference. Spokeswoman Grace Moe first asked a Daily Caller reporter where the publication’s offices were located before taking a message.
A second DSS spokeswoman, Sarah Rosetti, requested that questions be submitted in writing. When she responded in an e-mail, Rosetti claimed that “a jogger collided with one of the U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service’s official vehicles” – as if Medlock, who does not jog, had somehow attacked the SUV.
“At all times, Diplomatic Security acted responsibly and appropriately and displayed due diligence in caring for the injured,” Rosetti continued.
Rosetti ignored a series of questions about whether McGuinn was on or off duty, who he might have been escorting or protecting, whether McGuinn identified himself to police at the scene of the accident, and whether McGuinn had anything to do with the jaywalking citation.
She said MPD had “conducted an investigation” of the incident and referred questions about the investigation to MPD.
MPD provided several answers about the level of detail they would be able to provide. MPD public affairs said a police report would not be available until early next week at the soonest. A Daily Caller reporter who visited the Second District station, where Officer Muniz posts, was told there will be no incident report at all filed for a traffic incident.
The Daily Caller will continue to press for answers. In the meantime here are the questions sent by The Daily Caller to the Diplomatic Security Services public affairs office, followed by the responses.
Was Mr. McGuinn protecting any member of the diplomatic corps when his SUV struck our Mr. Medlock? If so, who was he protecting? If he was not protecting or escorting anyone, was he on duty or off duty?
Was Mr. McGuinn driving a state department vehicle?
Did Mr. McGuinn at any time identify himself to Mr. Medlock or to Metropolitan Police? Did he accompany Mr. Medlock to the hospital?
Did Mr. McGuinn contact MPD to have them write Mr. Medlock a jaywalking ticket that was delivered to Mr. Medlock while he was in the hospital being treated for a broken knee (which will require surgery), lacerations and bruises? If so, do you consider that ethical or proper behavior?
Did a diplomatic security service special agent accompany the MPD officer into the hospital room while Mr. Medlock was being questioned, observe and take notes? Was that officer Mr. McGuinn?
Does Mr. McGuinn contend that Mr. Medlock was jaywalking?
Did Mr. McGuinn apologize to Mr. Medlock after the incident? Does the State Department plan on issuing an apology to Mr. Medlock?
Will any disciplinary action be taken against Mr. McGuinn? Is this the first time he has been involved in a vehicular accident?
At approximately 7:10 PM last night, a jogger collided with one of the U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service’s official vehicles.
The jogger was transported by ambulance to Georgetown University Hospital.
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) responded to the scene and conducted an investigation. Diplomatic Security has since learned that the jogger was cited for Jaywalking. For further details regarding the investigation, we would refer you to MPD.
At all times, Diplomatic Security acted responsibly and appropriately and displayed due diligence in caring for the injured.
Mike Riggs and Gautham Nagesh contributed to this report.
To answer your questions: 1.Yes, I am suing. 2.Yes, the State Department is stonewalling. For over three years now. 3.No, not a single word they’ve deigned to utter about this incident is true, other than the fact that I was transported by ambulance to GUH. 4.No, I will never stop telling the truth in the face of the State Department’s incessant lies.
I still get to do that last part. Because this is still America.
For now.
The State Department lied about what they did to me. They lied about what they did to their own in Benghazi. They’ll lie about anything and everything, because that’s what they do.
Will you be next? If you don’t think so… why not?

Team Obama: Inconvenient truths, Half-truths, Lies and Damn Lies

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 6-12-2013 | MOTUS

"In wartime, truth is so precious, she should be attended by a bodyguard of lies."  - Churchill to Stalin at Yalta.

You may recall from back in the day of the Bubba bimbo eruptions that “everyone lies about sex.” The efficacy of that defense started a new trend in government relations (no pun intended). Now everybody lies about everything.

The Attorney General lies:


Washington ain’t what it used to be: The quality of lies is in steep decline.

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska once damned fellow Democrat Bill Clinton with faint praise by saying he was “an uncommonly good liar.” Now we have Eric Holder.

Despite lots of practice, the attorney general remains an amateur with whoppers. His claim to Congress that he never heard of the Justice Department’s “potential prosecution” of a journalist for reporting classified material wasn’t just misleading — it was provably false.

the Director of National Security parses his lies:



“…But it is—there are honest differences on the semantics of what—when someone says ‘collection’ to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to him.”

Translation: It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

The Press Secretary is a full time “paid liar.”

jay carney getting hot under the collar

The former Secretary of State is a seasoned liar:



The former US Ambassador to the UN lied to throw off the dogs:


Susan Rice, a spectacular fivefold liar(SNIP)

And of course some people think that if you throw in lies of omission, half-truths and obfuscation that even Big Guy has been forced into lying to us. Constantly.


We’ve been advised that “al Qaeda is in retreat.” We’ve met the “bodyguard of lies.” The only questions remaining are: 1) againstwhom, precisely, is this war being waged?


“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”


And 2) who is left to hold “the precious truth?” I don’t know the answer to that last question just yet.

Butt here at the Ministry of Truth, let’s just stipulate that everybody lies about everything, all the time, okay?

truth team

Join the Truth Team: Expose the Lies

...Read The Rest Here>>>

The IRS Is Enforcing ObamaCare? They've Got To Be Kidding!

Forbes ^ | 06/12/2013 | Matt Kibbe

Stop me if you’ve heard this one. So, the president walks into the White House…

He cozies up in the West Wing, hopped up on “Hope and Change!” and proceeds to devise the largest healthcare overhaul in American history.

To get the deal done, this president ducks checks and balances by writ of executive order and some shady backroom dealings. In the process of the power-grab, his sidekicks at the IRS quietly suppress the opposition’s ground game.
Fast-forward a couple years. The legislation has birthed a behemoth. Thirteen thousand pages of regulations stand seven feet tall. It’s increasingly obvious that this massive entitlement regime doesn’t just demand more taxes while diminishing our Constitution. It’s also revealed that the regulatory tough-guys at the IRS have been rewarded with enforcement authority.
Did I mention that the chief inquisitor of the political opposition will run the show? Of course, her agency will have de facto exemption from the program they’re tasked to inflict on the rest of the country.
They’re in good company: the country’s largest employer—which just so happens to be the entire federal government—won’t have to join the exchanges, either.
But it gets better. A surge of scandal floods the media cycle, exposing abuses of federal power, assaults on private property, lies to Congress, and infringements on the First Amendment. Across the political spectrum, citizens are appalled by this “separate and unequal” overreach.
Ready for the punch line?
Well, the joke’s on us. IRS control of ObamaCare’s most coercive elements is the next step toward an abusive administrative state that operates with impunity. The recent scandal uncovered familiar themes: Government intrusion into our privacy and property; bureaucrats granted new opportunities to misuse their power.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Medicaid expansion scheme won't save ObamaCare from coming PR disaster

Coach is Right ^ | 6/12/13 | Douglas H. Book

During the past year, the American public has learned that the Affordable Care Act will not stand good for Barack Obama’s promises of lower insurance rates and better healthcare. This being the case, ObamaCare supporters are scrambling to somehow keep the only remaining, empty promise made to gullible constituents; that being that the Act will provide insurance for the majority of the nation’s habitually uninsured. It will be the only means left them to declare ObamaCare a “success.”
In addition to threatening scofflaws with penalties–that is, TAXES–it had been the intent of ObamaCare’s authors to expand coverage throughout the nation by demanding that each state provide Medicaid to...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

OBAMA OUT OF CONTROL: Tap Your Phones, Take Your Guns, Flip Your Health Care, Unleash The IRS ^ | 6/12/13 |

Reports that the Obama administration has been collecting the phone records of millions of Verizon customers in the U.S. could contradict statements made by top officials who previously claimed the government was not holding data on Americans.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was asked at a March hearing whether the National Security Agency collects any data on millions of Americans.
"No sir ... not wittingly," Clapper responded, acknowledging there are cases "where inadvertently, perhaps" the data could be collected.
NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander also told Fox News last year that the agency does not "hold data on U.S. citizens."
But the Guardian newspaper reported late Wednesday that the administration has been collecting the phone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon under a top secret court order.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Black American Leadership Alliance Marches on U.S. Capitol to Protect American Jobs (stop amnesty) ^ | 061213 | PRWire

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On Monday, July 15th the Black American Leadership Alliance (BALA) will host a march and rally on the National Mall called the DC March for Jobs. The purpose of the march is to oppose all forms of amnesty, to protect American jobs for American workers. The BALA and participants will march to the steps of the Capitol to petition Congress, the Gang of Eight and the Congressional Black Caucus, demanding that they protect black labor by opposing amnesty and halting efforts to double legal immigration levels, as required under the bill.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently reported that illegal immigration has kept wages and employment down over recent decades, particularly among black men. With unemployment for blacks at nearly double the national rate (13.7%), the number of African Americans living in poverty and without jobs is sure to soar should the bill be passed.
"Now is not the time for Congress to increase competition for scarce jobs by adding millions more workers through legalization," said Frank Morris, Alliance leader, and former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. "Increasing immigration levels through amnesty and new visa programs, particularly at the low skilled level, will flood the labor market with millions more people, leading to higher unemployment, more poverty, and a lower standard of living for many in the black community." ......
Members of the Coalition include:
Frank Morris, Former Executive Director, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, President and Founder of BOND (The Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny); Bishop Felton Smith, Prelate of the Tennessee Eastern First Jurisdiction and Senior Pastor of New Covenant Fellowship Church of God in Christ in Nashville, TN; Charles Butler, Veteran Chicago area Talk Show Host of The Take with Charles Butler; Leah V. Durant, Former US DOJ Immigration Attorney and Executive Director, Progressives for Immigration Reform; T. W. Fair, President and CEO, Urban League of Greater Miami; Vernon Robinson, Former Council Member, Winston-Salem, NC and former candidate for US Congressional Office; Kevin Jackson, Radio Host and Executive Director, The Black Sphere; Leo Alexander, Broadcaster, Writer and Political Commentator, Washington, DC; Kevin Martin, Author, Writer and Political Commentator; Tom Broadwater, National Chair, Americans4Work.

Politico: “Trust me” not really working for Obama, huh?

Hotair ^ | 06/12/2013 | Ed Morrissey

A couple of months ago, political analysts discussed Barack Obama’s increased political capital after winning re-election and increasing Democratic seats on Capitol Hill. These days, pundits like Glenn Thrush and Jennifer Epstein at Politico are openly wondering whether Obama and the avalanche of scandals have turned him into a liability. The scandals have eroded Obama’s greatest political asset — trust:
“Trust me” is President Barack Obama’s preferred mode of action in times of crisis — and his go-to comment to nervous staffers has always been some version of “Relax, I got this.”
But that message is an increasingly hard sell for Obama in his second term, following revelations that the man who once railed against the Bush administration over civil liberties abuses has himself surreptitiously quarterbacked the greatest expansion of electronic surveillance in U.S. history.
Obama’s call for trust, patience and near blanket secrecy is increasingly falling on deaf ears in his own party, spurring a backlash among Democrats who say it’s time for the “most transparent president in history” to provide the American people with a comprehensive explanation of a secret program that dragnets most phone records and much of the Internet.
It’s not just the scandals, either, but the administration’s response to them. When did Obama find out about the IRS targeting conservatives? When he picked up the newspaper — even though his chief of staff and White House counsel had briefed the West Wing on the scandal weeks earlier. He didn’t know that his close friend Eric Holder had named a Fox News reporter as a co-conspirator in espionage until that hit the newsstands, too. What did Obama do during the terrorist attack on Benghazi? He was “fully briefed,” but the White House refuses to say where he was and what specifically he did after the initial briefing. The administration managed to offer pictures of the Commander in Chief on the job during the Osama bin Laden raid, but all we get is a shrug when things went wrong in Benghazi.
You can’t say “trust me” and “I know nothing” at the same time, and expect people to buy either line. When the best defense the White House can offer during Scandalabra is incompetence, the natural progression will be to mistrust either motives or ability, both of which create big problems for Obama — and his approval ratings decline on leadership qualities make that plain.
One test of Obama’s political capital will come this month in Massachusetts, where Obama will campaign for Ed Markey right before the June 25th special election:
Trailed by controversy, President Barack Obama is pressing ahead with efforts to boost Democrats Wednesday in Boston and Miami, raising questions about whether the second-term president will be more asset or liability to his party in the coming election season.
Fulfilling a pledge to work harder to help elect Democrats than he did in years past, Obama visits Massachusetts to rally voters ahead of a nationally watched special Senate election. He stops in Miami in the evening to raise cash for the Democratic Party at two private homes.
Each stop lends Obama’s proven ability to energize Democrats to the party’s cause this year and next, with control of Congress and Obama’s second-term agenda at stake. But the visits also create opportunities for Republicans eager to link their Democrat opponents to the Obama administration’s recent troubles, like a string of high-profile controversies involving the Internal Revenue Service and government intelligence-gathering.
Even in Democrat-friendly Massachusetts, there are signs of modest declines in his popularity as Republicans seize on the White House’s struggles in the special election to replace John Kerry and in nascent campaigns across the nation.
He tried that with Martha Coakley, too, and ended up with egg on his face in Massachusetts, even without all of the scandal baggage. Markey’s doing his best to distance himself from it even as Obama makes plans to join him on the stump:
Rep. Ed Markey, the Democratic hopeful in Massachusetts, last week criticized the government’s massive collection of personal phone and Internet records, even as Obama defended the practice. The disclosures about the National Security Agency surveillance came with the administration already facing questions over the IRS’ improper targeting of conservative groups, the seizure of journalists’ phone records and the handling of the attack in Libya last year that left four Americans dead.
Markey’s got a lead in Massachusetts in the single digits, so this does present a risk. If the scandals worsen, Obama might end up doing more damage to Markey than to Gabriel Gomez, and in a special election turnout where the opposition has reason to be more engaged, that could end up being significant.

Line Dancing


Social Security Deficits




Smelling Fear!




Which Line?


Only Gay Patients?






Everyone Knew


Thanks a lot!


The Web of Lies


Keep this quiet!


Live the dream, liberals!


THINK about it!


The Smell




Meet Bob!


Eric Holder


Day Dreams!


What to do?

My password!

I don't understand!

Doesn't Know Shit!

Cannot tell a lie?

Not to worry!

The Wheels

Duke Grad Student Secretly Lived In a Van to Escape Loan Debt

yahoo/business insider ^ | june 10, 2013 | Mandi Woodruff

By the time Ken Ilgunas was wrapping up his last year of undergraduate studies at the University of Buffalo in 2005, he had no idea what kind of debt hole he'd dug himself into.
He had majored in the least marketable fields of study possible — English and History — and had zero job prospects after getting turned down for no fewer than 25 paid internships.
"That was a wake-up call," he told Business Insider. "I had this huge $32,000 student debt and at the time I was pushing carts at Home Depot, making $8 an hour. I was just getting kind of frantic."
Back then, student loans had yet to become the front page news they are today. Ilgunas could have simply deferred his loans or declared forbearance. He also could have asked his parents (who were more than willing to help) for a leg up. He could have thrown up his hands and gone to grad school until the job market bounced back.
Instead, he moved to Alaska and spent two years paying back every dime. And when he enrolled at Duke University for graduate school later, he lived out of his van to be sure he wouldn't have to take out loans again.
"I had no idea what I was getting into at the time. I didn't even know what interest was when I was 17," he said. "I just think that's awfully indicative of the incredibly poor personal finance education young people have at that time in their lives."
In his book, "Walden on Wheels: On The Open Road from Debt to Freedom," Ken chronicles his journey out of debt.
He was kind enough to share his story with us this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Pick your Scandal

National Review ^ | 6/11/2013 | Victor Davis Hanson

All can agree that the Obama administration is mired in myriads of scandals, but as yet no one can quite figure out what they all mean and where they will lead.
Benghazi differs from all the other scandals — and from both Watergate and Iran-Contra — because in this case administration lapses led to the deaths of four Americans. Nine months later, the administration’s problems of damage control remain fourfold: (a) there was ample warning that American personnel were in danger in Libya, and yet requests for increased security were denied; (b) during the actual attack, the American tradition of sending in relief forces on the chance that fellow Americans could be saved was abrogated; (c) the president and his top officials knowingly advanced a narrative of a culpable filmmaker that they knew was not accurate; (d) a through c are best explained as resulting not from honest human error or the fog of war, but from a methodical effort to assure the public in the weeks before the election that “lead from behind” in Libya had been a successful venture and that the death of Osama bin Laden had made al-Qaeda–inspired terrorism rare. All other concerns became secondary, including the safety of Americans in Libya.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer

Heritage Foundation ^ | 5/6/2013 | Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, Ph.D.

Executive Summary

Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:
  • Direct benefits. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
  • Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
  • Public education. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
  • Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.

The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.
The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households.
Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing. For example, in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113.
The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Half of unlawful immigrant households are headed by an individual with less than a high school degree, and another 25 percent of household heads have only a high school degree.
Some argue that the deficit figures for poorly educated households in the general population are not relevant for immigrants. Many believe, for example, that lawful immigrants use little welfare. In reality, lawful immigrant households receive significantly more welfare, on average, than U.S.-born households. Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.
In contrast to lawful immigrants, unlawful immigrants at present do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare. This does not mean, however, that they do not receive government benefits and services. Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be “congestion” effects that lead to a decline in service quality.
In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.
If enacted, amnesty would be implemented in phases. During the first or interim phase (which is likely to last 13 years), unlawful immigrants would be given lawful status but would be denied access to means-tested welfare and Obamacare. Most analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work “off the books” and therefore do not pay income or FICA taxes. During the interim phase, these “off the books” workers would have a strong incentive to move to “on the books” employment. In addition, their wages would likely go up as they sought jobs in a more open environment. As a result, during the interim period, tax payments would rise and the average fiscal deficit among former unlawful immigrant households would fall.
After 13 years, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and Obamacare. At that point or shortly thereafter, former unlawful immigrant households would likely begin to receive government benefits at the same rate as lawful immigrant households of the same education level. As a result, government spending and fiscal deficits would increase dramatically.
The final phase of amnesty is retirement. Unlawful immigrants are not currently eligible for Social Security and Medicare, but under amnesty they would become so. The cost of this change would be very large indeed.
  • As noted, at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.
  • During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.
  • At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.
  • Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.
  • Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
  • In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
  • At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
  • In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

These costs would have to be borne by already overburdened U.S. taxpayers. (All figures are in 2010 dollars.)
The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old. After amnesty, this individual will receive government benefits, on average, for 50 years. Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only a marginal impact on long-term costs.
If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.
Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.
The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution. The fact that the average household gets $31,600 in government benefits each year is a shock. The fact that a household headed by an individual with less than a high school degree gets $46,600 is a bigger one.
Many conservatives believe that if an individual has a job and works hard, he will inevitably be a net tax contributor (paying more in taxes than he takes in benefits). In our society, this has not been true for a very long time. Similarly, many believe that unlawful immigrants work more than other groups. This is also not true. The employment rate for non-elderly adult unlawful immigrants is about the same as it is for the general population.
Many policymakers also believe that because unlawful immigrants are comparatively young, they will help relieve the fiscal strains of an aging society. Regrettably, this is not true. At every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants, on average, generate fiscal deficits (benefits exceed taxes). Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a “fiscal surplus” that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. This situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty.
Many policymakers believe that after amnesty, unlawful immigrants will help make Social Security solvent. It is true that unlawful immigrants currently pay FICA taxes and would pay more after amnesty, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 per year in FICA taxes. After retirement, that individual is likely to draw more than $3.00 in Social Security and Medicare (adjusted for inflation) for every dollar in FICA taxes he has paid.
Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved.
Following amnesty, the fiscal costs of former unlawful immigrant households will be roughly the same as those of lawful immigrant and non-immigrant households with the same level of education. Because U.S. government policy is highly redistributive, those costs are very large. Those who claim that amnesty will not create a large fiscal burden are simply in a state of denial concerning the underlying redistributional nature of government policy in the 21st century.
Finally, some argue that it does not matter whether unlawful immigrants create a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion because their children will make up for these costs. This is not true. Even if all the children of unlawful immigrants graduated from college, they would be hard-pressed to pay back $6.3 trillion in costs over their lifetimes.
Of course, not all the children of unlawful immigrants will graduate from college. Data on intergenerational social mobility show that, although the children of unlawful immigrants will have substantially better educational outcomes than their parents, these achievements will have limits. Only 13 percent are likely to graduate from college, for example. Because of this, the children, on average, are not likely to become net tax contributors. The children of unlawful immigrants are likely to remain a net fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers, although a far smaller burden than their parents.
A final problem is that unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-skill U.S.-born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent, or $2,300, per year. Unlawful immigration also probably drives many of our most vulnerable U.S.-born workers out of the labor force entirely. Unlawful immigration thus makes it harder for the least advantaged U.S. citizens to share in the American dream. This is wrong; public policy should support the interests of those who have a right to be here, not those who have broken our laws.

The entire study at the link runs about a hundred pages and is well worth the read.