Here we are talking about 13% unemployment rate, being $2B in debt, cutting school programs, raising taxes, closing libraries and recently closing all State parks.
“The Silver State spends $470 million annually to educate the children of illegal immigrants in public schools and an additional $45 million for limited English programs. Eighty five million goes to healthcare for illegal immigrants and $31 to incarcerate them. All in all the tax payers of Nevada pay over $630M a year to support this illegal foreign population within our State borders.”
“In Nevada the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) –created by the federal government to provide welfare to illegal aliens-program’s caseload has grown 96% since the recession hit the state. A news report reveals that around 4,250 of the families receiving the benefit in Nevada have “mixed immigration status.” In other words, Nevada taxpayers are supporting thousands of illegal alien families because they have at least one anchor baby.”
Illegal aliens are also largely responsible for Nevada’s home foreclosure crisis and are by far the fastest growing demographic of our prison population.
As far as the nation goes:
43 % of all Food Stamps issued are to Illegal Aliens.
41 % of all Unemployment Checks in the United States are to Illegal Aliens.
58% of all Welfare payments in the United States are issued to Illegal Aliens.
Any cuts should start with those who are breaking our laws. It is time to start looking out for Nevadans.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
What Ohio has done to curb illegal immigration
Controlling Illegal Immigration: What Ohio and Every Other State Can Do
by Matt A. Mayer
Heritage Lecture #1132
Chair Sandra Harwood, Vice Chair Mark Schneider, Ranking Member Matthew Dolan, and committee members--thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts and answer your questions to the best of my ability. The topic of this hearing is House Bill 184, the Ohio Job Integrity Protection Act.
Let me take a moment to provide you with my background. I practiced labor and employment law for five years in Ohio and Colorado. Since leaving the practice of law, I have served as the deputy regulator for then-Governor Bill Owens in Colorado. I left that position to join the fledgling U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where I was the chief of staff in what was then called the Office for Domestic Preparedness. When my supervisor resigned, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge named me as acting executive director of that office, which had been renamed the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. I led that office for 11 months.
Shortly after Michael Chertoff became Secretary of DHS, he and the Deputy Secretary asked me to serve as the policy and operational counselor to the Deputy Secretary. I performed that function concurrently with my other two positions at DHS (acting executive director and chief of staff). In that role, I participated in the development of today's federal border and interior policies. These policy developments included a shift from the capture-and-release policy to the detention-and-remove policy, the much-needed transformation of the Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the increased focus on securing the border.
Today, I am a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a prominent public policy research organization in Washington, D.C., where I research and write on homeland security issues. In addition, I serve as an adjunct professor at The Ohio State University, where I teach a course called "Homeland Security and Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis of Responses within the Transatlantic Alliance," which includes an analysis of immigration and integration in the U.S. and Europe. In my new book, Homeland Security and Federalism: Protecting America from Outside the Beltway, I argue for a return to the American federalist system where state and local governments play a stronger role on the critical issues impacting the lives of Americans, including enforcement of immigration law.
Currently, I am heading a project for Heritage that seeks to develop solutions for state and local governments in four homeland security areas: (1) preparedness and resiliency, (2) disaster management, (3) enforcement of interior illegal-immigration laws, and (4) counterterrorism. It is The Heritage Foundation's fundamental belief that the U.S. Constitution created a federalist system in which the federal government possesses expressed, but limited powers, and in which the states and the people retain all remaining powers.
Specifically, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments firmly established the federalist system of government by first stating that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should "not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and then adding the corollary limiting provision that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[1] As James Madison noted in The Federalist Papers, "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States."[2]
Immigration law is mostly covered in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which amended the INA.[3] States need the authority to enforce their own laws dealing with illegal immigrants and those who employ, house, or otherwise aid them and, thereby, create greater pressure on the federal government to allocate the resources necessary to deal with America's illegal-immigration dilemma.
The highest hurdle for state and local governments to overcome in dealing with illegal-immigration issues within their jurisdictions is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause states that, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."[4] The Supremacy Clause gives the Congress the authority to preempt state and local laws "where concurrent jurisdiction exists."[5] Congressional preemption can occur explicitly through statutory language stating as much, or implicitly through intent to regulate an entire field or when state or local law conflicts with federal law.[6]
Specifically, in order for the federal law to preempt state law, the federal law must contain explicit language that such preemption was "the clear and manifest purpose of Congress."[7] On immigration issues, because the Congress provided exceptions for state and local laws dealing with "licensing or similar laws" concerning the employment of illegal immigrants, the Congress failed to occupy the entire field of immigration law.[8]
In implied preemption cases, the U.S. Supreme Court noted three situations where implied preemption negates state or local laws: first, if the state or local law attempts to regulate immigration; second, if the federal law "occupies the field"; and third, if the state or local law conflicts with federal law.[9] When evaluating a preemption claim, the courts are required to "start...with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States [are] not to be superseded by...Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress."[10]
As the U.S. Supreme Court has found, state and local police power is "an exercise of the sovereign right of the Government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort and general welfare of the people."[11] Those sovereign powers "proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several states; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before."[12] As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded, "No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation's immigration laws."[13]
Moreover, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted: "States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship and protect workers within the State."[14] As such, state and local actions "to prohibit the knowing employment by...employers of persons not entitled to lawful residence in the United States, let alone to work here, [are] certainly within the mainstream of such police power regulation."[15] In what is the strongest statement on this issue, the U.S. Supreme Court noted:
Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State's economy generally, or the State's ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.[16]
State and local governments have wide latitude to enact laws concerning traditional issues within their jurisdictions.
The issue under consideration today is the use of the E-Verify system in Ohio. Although the E-Verify system is not a panacea, it is a relatively inexpensive ($100 or less per employer), efficient (an inquiry takes 15 seconds or less), and reliable (96 percent) online method of ensuring that Ohio jobs are filled only by Ohioans and those who are lawfully present. With Ohio's unemployment rate at 10.8 percent and increasing, such a law would provide much-needed job opportunities for those out-of-work Ohioans at both the unskilled and skilled levels. Specifically, many entry-level jobs currently filled by illegal border crossers (who make up 60 percent of all illegals) and some technical-level jobs currently filled by individuals who have overstayed their work or education visas (40 percent of all illegals) would become open as those holding the jobs illegally were let go.
Two examples from other states illustrate these opportunities. First, 28 illegal workers were arrested in an employer raid in Bellingham, Washington, in 2009.[17] The unemployment rate in Whatcome County, where the raid occurred was 8.1 percent. More than 150 Americans applied for the jobs that became available after the employer raid.
The second example is from Vernon, California, where Overhill Farms employed 260 illegal immigrants who had used invalid or fraudulent Social Security Numbers (SSN) to get their jobs.[18] The issue came to light in 2009 after an Internal Revenue Service desk audit uncovered that the 260 employees had provided bad SSNs. Despite the findings, the federal government did "not mandate that those employees be fired." Overhill Farms made the decision to fire the employees only after talking with three different law firms (apparently forum shopping for a law firm that would give them the advice they wanted). Although the union representing the illegal immigrants cried foul, Overhill Farms "gave the workers 30 days to correct the problem with the IRS and provide the company with verification, but none did so." Not one of the 260 employees came forward with any proof that he was in fact a citizen or lawfully present in the United States. Once again illustrating both the fallacy that "Americans won't do this kind of work" and the importance of reserving U.S. jobs for legal workers, Overhill Farms filled all of the $10-an-hour jobs with citizens or legal immigrants at a time when California's unemployment rate was 10.9 percent.
Thirteen other states require the use of the E-Verify system for government employees, government contractors, and private-sector employers. Based on recent court decisions, state and local governments have wide latitude to enact laws concerning the use of E-Verify.
In February 2007, the City of Valley Park, Missouri, enacted an ordinance that prohibited the employment of illegal immigrants.[19] A business found violating the ordinance will have its license suspended.[20] In January 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Eastern Division) found that "the Ordinance is a regulation on business licenses, an area historically occupied by the states."[21]
In May, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court and noting that just because "Appellants do not have a business license does not exempt them from this ordinance. Appellants fall within the ordinance provisions and must, as law-abiding citizens, comply and conform their conduct according to its directive."[22] The Eighth Circuit went on to conclude that "as a business entity covered by the ordinance, Appellants may not knowingly recruit, hire for employment, or continue to employ, an unlawful worker to perform work within the City."[23]
Likewise, in Arizona, the legislature passed a law in 2007 aimed at employers who hire illegal immigrants. The Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) gave "the Superior Court of Arizona...the power to suspend or revoke the business licenses of employers who intentionally or knowingly employ unauthorized aliens."[24] In February 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona concluded that the initiative and the requirement to use the E-Verify system were constitutional.[25]
On September 17, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--America's most liberal appellate court--issued its decision on the constitutionality of LAWA, which had been appealed by the plaintiffs after the District Court had found LAWA constitutional.[26] The Ninth Circuit concluded that LAWA was constitutional, that Arizona could require the use of the E-Verify system, and that the Supreme Court's holdings in the 1976 De Canas v. Bica were not superseded by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.[27]
Finally, on April 3, 2009, a Rhode Island Superior Court judge upheld Governor Donald Carcieri's executive order requiring government use of the E-Verify system by concluding that "[t]he executive order and the final regulation are a proper exercise of executive authority and do not violate any constitutional authority of the General Assembly."[28]
Critically, it is not for the courts to decide whether a particular state or local law is good public policy or not; rather, as the U.S. Supreme Court found, "debatable questions as to its reasonableness, wisdom and propriety are not for the determination of courts, but for the legislative body, on which rests the duty and responsibility of decision."[29]
For state and local governments to truly tackle their illegal immigration problems, they must take a more aggressive approach than simply relying on the federal government to do its duty and federalize a handful of state or local officers each year. There are many additional actions that state and local governments can take. Critically, state and local government action should "remove or reduce the economic incentives for unlawful presence."[30]
The costs of both legal and illegal immigrants can be difficult to determine. The Heritage Foundation estimated that low-skill legal immigrants without a high school degree receive "three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay."[31] Roughly "61 percent of illegal immigrant adults lack a high school diploma [while another] 25 percent have only a high school diploma."[32] The poverty rate for illegal immigrants is double the rate of Americans.[33] "Over a lifetime, the typical low-skill immigrant household will cost taxpayers $1.2 million dollars."[34]
For state and local governments, the economic costs of illegal immigrants can be crushing. For example, "up to 3 million people who illegally crossed the border" are living in Texas.[35] Depending on the education levels and familial status of those three million illegal immigrants, Texans could be paying more than $6 million per year in non-reimbursed government benefits and services.
Although the number of illegal immigrants is smaller in Ohio, the cost is still too much. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and answer any questions you might have on this important topic.
Matt A. Mayer is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, President and Chief Executive Officer of Provisum Strategies, and an Adjunct Professor at The Ohio State University. He has served as Counselor to the Deputy Secretary and Acting Executive Director for the Office of Grants and Training in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He is author of Homeland Security and Federalism: Protecting America from Outside the Beltway. These comments are based on his testimony before the Ohio House Committee on the Judiciary.
by Matt A. Mayer
Heritage Lecture #1132
Chair Sandra Harwood, Vice Chair Mark Schneider, Ranking Member Matthew Dolan, and committee members--thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts and answer your questions to the best of my ability. The topic of this hearing is House Bill 184, the Ohio Job Integrity Protection Act.
Let me take a moment to provide you with my background. I practiced labor and employment law for five years in Ohio and Colorado. Since leaving the practice of law, I have served as the deputy regulator for then-Governor Bill Owens in Colorado. I left that position to join the fledgling U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where I was the chief of staff in what was then called the Office for Domestic Preparedness. When my supervisor resigned, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge named me as acting executive director of that office, which had been renamed the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. I led that office for 11 months.
Shortly after Michael Chertoff became Secretary of DHS, he and the Deputy Secretary asked me to serve as the policy and operational counselor to the Deputy Secretary. I performed that function concurrently with my other two positions at DHS (acting executive director and chief of staff). In that role, I participated in the development of today's federal border and interior policies. These policy developments included a shift from the capture-and-release policy to the detention-and-remove policy, the much-needed transformation of the Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the increased focus on securing the border.
Today, I am a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a prominent public policy research organization in Washington, D.C., where I research and write on homeland security issues. In addition, I serve as an adjunct professor at The Ohio State University, where I teach a course called "Homeland Security and Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis of Responses within the Transatlantic Alliance," which includes an analysis of immigration and integration in the U.S. and Europe. In my new book, Homeland Security and Federalism: Protecting America from Outside the Beltway, I argue for a return to the American federalist system where state and local governments play a stronger role on the critical issues impacting the lives of Americans, including enforcement of immigration law.
Currently, I am heading a project for Heritage that seeks to develop solutions for state and local governments in four homeland security areas: (1) preparedness and resiliency, (2) disaster management, (3) enforcement of interior illegal-immigration laws, and (4) counterterrorism. It is The Heritage Foundation's fundamental belief that the U.S. Constitution created a federalist system in which the federal government possesses expressed, but limited powers, and in which the states and the people retain all remaining powers.
Specifically, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments firmly established the federalist system of government by first stating that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should "not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and then adding the corollary limiting provision that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[1] As James Madison noted in The Federalist Papers, "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States."[2]
Immigration law is mostly covered in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which amended the INA.[3] States need the authority to enforce their own laws dealing with illegal immigrants and those who employ, house, or otherwise aid them and, thereby, create greater pressure on the federal government to allocate the resources necessary to deal with America's illegal-immigration dilemma.
The highest hurdle for state and local governments to overcome in dealing with illegal-immigration issues within their jurisdictions is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause states that, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."[4] The Supremacy Clause gives the Congress the authority to preempt state and local laws "where concurrent jurisdiction exists."[5] Congressional preemption can occur explicitly through statutory language stating as much, or implicitly through intent to regulate an entire field or when state or local law conflicts with federal law.[6]
Specifically, in order for the federal law to preempt state law, the federal law must contain explicit language that such preemption was "the clear and manifest purpose of Congress."[7] On immigration issues, because the Congress provided exceptions for state and local laws dealing with "licensing or similar laws" concerning the employment of illegal immigrants, the Congress failed to occupy the entire field of immigration law.[8]
In implied preemption cases, the U.S. Supreme Court noted three situations where implied preemption negates state or local laws: first, if the state or local law attempts to regulate immigration; second, if the federal law "occupies the field"; and third, if the state or local law conflicts with federal law.[9] When evaluating a preemption claim, the courts are required to "start...with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States [are] not to be superseded by...Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress."[10]
As the U.S. Supreme Court has found, state and local police power is "an exercise of the sovereign right of the Government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort and general welfare of the people."[11] Those sovereign powers "proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several states; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before."[12] As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded, "No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation's immigration laws."[13]
Moreover, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted: "States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship and protect workers within the State."[14] As such, state and local actions "to prohibit the knowing employment by...employers of persons not entitled to lawful residence in the United States, let alone to work here, [are] certainly within the mainstream of such police power regulation."[15] In what is the strongest statement on this issue, the U.S. Supreme Court noted:
Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State's economy generally, or the State's ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.[16]
State and local governments have wide latitude to enact laws concerning traditional issues within their jurisdictions.
The issue under consideration today is the use of the E-Verify system in Ohio. Although the E-Verify system is not a panacea, it is a relatively inexpensive ($100 or less per employer), efficient (an inquiry takes 15 seconds or less), and reliable (96 percent) online method of ensuring that Ohio jobs are filled only by Ohioans and those who are lawfully present. With Ohio's unemployment rate at 10.8 percent and increasing, such a law would provide much-needed job opportunities for those out-of-work Ohioans at both the unskilled and skilled levels. Specifically, many entry-level jobs currently filled by illegal border crossers (who make up 60 percent of all illegals) and some technical-level jobs currently filled by individuals who have overstayed their work or education visas (40 percent of all illegals) would become open as those holding the jobs illegally were let go.
Two examples from other states illustrate these opportunities. First, 28 illegal workers were arrested in an employer raid in Bellingham, Washington, in 2009.[17] The unemployment rate in Whatcome County, where the raid occurred was 8.1 percent. More than 150 Americans applied for the jobs that became available after the employer raid.
The second example is from Vernon, California, where Overhill Farms employed 260 illegal immigrants who had used invalid or fraudulent Social Security Numbers (SSN) to get their jobs.[18] The issue came to light in 2009 after an Internal Revenue Service desk audit uncovered that the 260 employees had provided bad SSNs. Despite the findings, the federal government did "not mandate that those employees be fired." Overhill Farms made the decision to fire the employees only after talking with three different law firms (apparently forum shopping for a law firm that would give them the advice they wanted). Although the union representing the illegal immigrants cried foul, Overhill Farms "gave the workers 30 days to correct the problem with the IRS and provide the company with verification, but none did so." Not one of the 260 employees came forward with any proof that he was in fact a citizen or lawfully present in the United States. Once again illustrating both the fallacy that "Americans won't do this kind of work" and the importance of reserving U.S. jobs for legal workers, Overhill Farms filled all of the $10-an-hour jobs with citizens or legal immigrants at a time when California's unemployment rate was 10.9 percent.
Thirteen other states require the use of the E-Verify system for government employees, government contractors, and private-sector employers. Based on recent court decisions, state and local governments have wide latitude to enact laws concerning the use of E-Verify.
In February 2007, the City of Valley Park, Missouri, enacted an ordinance that prohibited the employment of illegal immigrants.[19] A business found violating the ordinance will have its license suspended.[20] In January 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Eastern Division) found that "the Ordinance is a regulation on business licenses, an area historically occupied by the states."[21]
In May, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court and noting that just because "Appellants do not have a business license does not exempt them from this ordinance. Appellants fall within the ordinance provisions and must, as law-abiding citizens, comply and conform their conduct according to its directive."[22] The Eighth Circuit went on to conclude that "as a business entity covered by the ordinance, Appellants may not knowingly recruit, hire for employment, or continue to employ, an unlawful worker to perform work within the City."[23]
Likewise, in Arizona, the legislature passed a law in 2007 aimed at employers who hire illegal immigrants. The Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) gave "the Superior Court of Arizona...the power to suspend or revoke the business licenses of employers who intentionally or knowingly employ unauthorized aliens."[24] In February 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona concluded that the initiative and the requirement to use the E-Verify system were constitutional.[25]
On September 17, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--America's most liberal appellate court--issued its decision on the constitutionality of LAWA, which had been appealed by the plaintiffs after the District Court had found LAWA constitutional.[26] The Ninth Circuit concluded that LAWA was constitutional, that Arizona could require the use of the E-Verify system, and that the Supreme Court's holdings in the 1976 De Canas v. Bica were not superseded by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.[27]
Finally, on April 3, 2009, a Rhode Island Superior Court judge upheld Governor Donald Carcieri's executive order requiring government use of the E-Verify system by concluding that "[t]he executive order and the final regulation are a proper exercise of executive authority and do not violate any constitutional authority of the General Assembly."[28]
Critically, it is not for the courts to decide whether a particular state or local law is good public policy or not; rather, as the U.S. Supreme Court found, "debatable questions as to its reasonableness, wisdom and propriety are not for the determination of courts, but for the legislative body, on which rests the duty and responsibility of decision."[29]
For state and local governments to truly tackle their illegal immigration problems, they must take a more aggressive approach than simply relying on the federal government to do its duty and federalize a handful of state or local officers each year. There are many additional actions that state and local governments can take. Critically, state and local government action should "remove or reduce the economic incentives for unlawful presence."[30]
The costs of both legal and illegal immigrants can be difficult to determine. The Heritage Foundation estimated that low-skill legal immigrants without a high school degree receive "three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay."[31] Roughly "61 percent of illegal immigrant adults lack a high school diploma [while another] 25 percent have only a high school diploma."[32] The poverty rate for illegal immigrants is double the rate of Americans.[33] "Over a lifetime, the typical low-skill immigrant household will cost taxpayers $1.2 million dollars."[34]
For state and local governments, the economic costs of illegal immigrants can be crushing. For example, "up to 3 million people who illegally crossed the border" are living in Texas.[35] Depending on the education levels and familial status of those three million illegal immigrants, Texans could be paying more than $6 million per year in non-reimbursed government benefits and services.
Although the number of illegal immigrants is smaller in Ohio, the cost is still too much. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and answer any questions you might have on this important topic.
Matt A. Mayer is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, President and Chief Executive Officer of Provisum Strategies, and an Adjunct Professor at The Ohio State University. He has served as Counselor to the Deputy Secretary and Acting Executive Director for the Office of Grants and Training in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He is author of Homeland Security and Federalism: Protecting America from Outside the Beltway. These comments are based on his testimony before the Ohio House Committee on the Judiciary.
Post-Bill
Bill,
Back at you on “Thank you for taking the time for a thoughtful, direct, and considered response.”
Your post I think clearly states the thoughts of most concerned reasonable people throughout the world.
Let me answer the war issue first. No I don’t think we should be fighting wars for oil. First of all we don’t need foreign oil. The Rockies have enough shell oil equal to the Saudi reserves. ANWAR has at least a 100 year supply, and I have been told probably 4-5 times more. Then we have off shore. The real shame-and folks I am not trying to get political- is that our politicians will not allow us to explore in our country, while they are allowing people in the middle east to get rich (who are funding all these terrorist groups) and allow the Chinese to set up just outside our maritime boundaries and angle drill our oil.
In 2006 the CEO of Saudi Aramaco stated that known reserves were around 4.5T barrel or roughly a 140 year supply. Since then roughly another 1T barrels have been discovered.
What we know:
1. We have at the very least 150 years of known oil reserves
2. We have a probably at least that much in Natural gas
3. Coal is anyone’s guess but it is measured in centuries
4. Worst case scenario by the IPCC ( I’m giving you this) is a temperature rise of 1.6 degrees in 100 years, well below the medieval warm period or the Roman warm period.
5. America has spent $80B on research of Global Warming
6. The world needs a strong and healthy America
7. Solar is roughly $6k/kW installed, new advances in thin film may take that down to $4K in a few years.
8. Wind is roughly $5K/kW installed and I don’t know of any new significant advances in the near future.
9. Conventional plants cost roughly $1.5K/kw not sure about Nukes.
10. Coal puts out ~2.1 lbs/kw of CO2, Gas 1.3, and petroleum 1.8, nuke 0
11. etc etc
What is best for the environment and the economy?
1. Drill here now, open up ANWAR (I have probably been up to the slope 40 times and believe me when I tell you are not hurting the environment by drilling there).
2. Build the Trans Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline
3. Streamline the permit process for Nukes especially for existing sites that want to add additional generation.
4. Allow existing coal and natural gas plants to expand generation. You can not shut down coal, too many people depend on coal mining. Gradually over the next 50 years shift to cleaner forms of generation.
5. Take a small portion of that $80B and instead of wasting it on cooked scientific studies use it to:
Encourage onsite power generation to include wind, solar, CHP, ORC etc-it is much more efficient, can save money if done right, and enhances our national security.
Fund American companies to bring power to the 3rd world, that will have much more impact on world pollution, health issues, deforestation, and American business.
Develop items like carbon capture etc.
I believe in America and its ingenuity. I don’t believe we are destroying the planet. We will solve these issues, but we can’t solve these problems unless we have the capability. We don’t have the technology at this time to implement cap and trade with a stroke of a pen, especially in the middle of a major recession. But we can start down the road with much of the technology on the ground today and make real differences with positive effects and little pain-possibly some gain.
Back at you on “Thank you for taking the time for a thoughtful, direct, and considered response.”
Your post I think clearly states the thoughts of most concerned reasonable people throughout the world.
Let me answer the war issue first. No I don’t think we should be fighting wars for oil. First of all we don’t need foreign oil. The Rockies have enough shell oil equal to the Saudi reserves. ANWAR has at least a 100 year supply, and I have been told probably 4-5 times more. Then we have off shore. The real shame-and folks I am not trying to get political- is that our politicians will not allow us to explore in our country, while they are allowing people in the middle east to get rich (who are funding all these terrorist groups) and allow the Chinese to set up just outside our maritime boundaries and angle drill our oil.
In 2006 the CEO of Saudi Aramaco stated that known reserves were around 4.5T barrel or roughly a 140 year supply. Since then roughly another 1T barrels have been discovered.
What we know:
1. We have at the very least 150 years of known oil reserves
2. We have a probably at least that much in Natural gas
3. Coal is anyone’s guess but it is measured in centuries
4. Worst case scenario by the IPCC ( I’m giving you this) is a temperature rise of 1.6 degrees in 100 years, well below the medieval warm period or the Roman warm period.
5. America has spent $80B on research of Global Warming
6. The world needs a strong and healthy America
7. Solar is roughly $6k/kW installed, new advances in thin film may take that down to $4K in a few years.
8. Wind is roughly $5K/kW installed and I don’t know of any new significant advances in the near future.
9. Conventional plants cost roughly $1.5K/kw not sure about Nukes.
10. Coal puts out ~2.1 lbs/kw of CO2, Gas 1.3, and petroleum 1.8, nuke 0
11. etc etc
What is best for the environment and the economy?
1. Drill here now, open up ANWAR (I have probably been up to the slope 40 times and believe me when I tell you are not hurting the environment by drilling there).
2. Build the Trans Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline
3. Streamline the permit process for Nukes especially for existing sites that want to add additional generation.
4. Allow existing coal and natural gas plants to expand generation. You can not shut down coal, too many people depend on coal mining. Gradually over the next 50 years shift to cleaner forms of generation.
5. Take a small portion of that $80B and instead of wasting it on cooked scientific studies use it to:
Encourage onsite power generation to include wind, solar, CHP, ORC etc-it is much more efficient, can save money if done right, and enhances our national security.
Fund American companies to bring power to the 3rd world, that will have much more impact on world pollution, health issues, deforestation, and American business.
Develop items like carbon capture etc.
I believe in America and its ingenuity. I don’t believe we are destroying the planet. We will solve these issues, but we can’t solve these problems unless we have the capability. We don’t have the technology at this time to implement cap and trade with a stroke of a pen, especially in the middle of a major recession. But we can start down the road with much of the technology on the ground today and make real differences with positive effects and little pain-possibly some gain.
Letter to the editor-Palov
Reading “Dr.” Palov’s editorial in Tuesday’s paper got me to wondering if we will really make as a country. Not sure if he is a paid member of the DNC or what…
I’m not going to go into detail, anyone with an internet connection and half hour can find out whom and what really caused this crisis, I would just like to ask Dr Palov a few questions.
1. Who put the Community Reinvestment Act on steroids forcing banks to make sub prime loans to unqualified buyers? A) Bill Clinton B) Donald Duck C) Wonder Girl.
2. Who sued Citi Bank forcing them to make Sub prime loans to unqualified buyers? A) Batman B) Barack Obama C) Goofy.
3. What organization was tied to the hip with Countrywide Mortgage that led the way with sub prime lending? A) Reno Aces B) Wal-Mart C) ACRON.
4. Who blocked efforts of the Bush Administration to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 2001-2006? A) Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity B) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd C) The Dixie Chicks.
I agree that we should go after the greedy that caused this crisis, the only problem for Dr. Paslov is that our current President would have to bring a new cabinet. As one reporter wrote in September 2008 “You can’t swing a cat in the Obama Headquarters without hitting a sub prime, junk mortgage failed bank executive or CEO”.
Let me put this in terms even Dr. Paslov can understand. This current crisis was caused directly by the actions of a very small but politically powerful group of democrats, not by tax breaks for the wealthy or unregulated markets. It is another failed social experiment that made this small group of democrats very rich while we tax payers have to pick up the bill. Worst still is many of innocent people who really have played by the rules have had their savings and jobs wiped out. And to top it off Dr. Paslov and his buddies have put my two teenage sons so far in debt they will likely never get out of it.
I would expect a former state School Superintendent to be able to think a little deeper than an indoctrinated college junior, however maybe that’s why we have a –in his own words- failed k-12 school system.
I’m not going to go into detail, anyone with an internet connection and half hour can find out whom and what really caused this crisis, I would just like to ask Dr Palov a few questions.
1. Who put the Community Reinvestment Act on steroids forcing banks to make sub prime loans to unqualified buyers? A) Bill Clinton B) Donald Duck C) Wonder Girl.
2. Who sued Citi Bank forcing them to make Sub prime loans to unqualified buyers? A) Batman B) Barack Obama C) Goofy.
3. What organization was tied to the hip with Countrywide Mortgage that led the way with sub prime lending? A) Reno Aces B) Wal-Mart C) ACRON.
4. Who blocked efforts of the Bush Administration to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 2001-2006? A) Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity B) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd C) The Dixie Chicks.
I agree that we should go after the greedy that caused this crisis, the only problem for Dr. Paslov is that our current President would have to bring a new cabinet. As one reporter wrote in September 2008 “You can’t swing a cat in the Obama Headquarters without hitting a sub prime, junk mortgage failed bank executive or CEO”.
Let me put this in terms even Dr. Paslov can understand. This current crisis was caused directly by the actions of a very small but politically powerful group of democrats, not by tax breaks for the wealthy or unregulated markets. It is another failed social experiment that made this small group of democrats very rich while we tax payers have to pick up the bill. Worst still is many of innocent people who really have played by the rules have had their savings and jobs wiped out. And to top it off Dr. Paslov and his buddies have put my two teenage sons so far in debt they will likely never get out of it.
I would expect a former state School Superintendent to be able to think a little deeper than an indoctrinated college junior, however maybe that’s why we have a –in his own words- failed k-12 school system.
Letter to the editor
Although not surprised, I find it amazing that the Appeal has not one article on the climate-gate scandal now proving without a doubt that the global warming/climate change is a complete fraud. This information now readily available to the public-though long known to congress and anyone else who cared to study the subject-makes people wonder why:
A newspaper that purports to represent northern Nevada wouldn’t report this fraud when the proposed Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill would cost the 2nd Congressional district $540M in Gross State Product (GSP), $649M in Personal Income, and 5,500 Jobs.
The “most powerful Senator in America” would sponsor this legislation knowing that by 2012 it would cost Nevada $1.4B in GSP, $1.8B in Personal Income, and 14,000 Jobs
Congress would pass legislation to solve a problem that they know isn’t a problem while destroying a large percentage of the American economy by 2035.
These figures are the results of different studies conducted by the Heritage Foundation, the Black Congressional Caucus, and others. Other studies by the EPA and CPO show a lighter although still drastic impact, however a close look at these figures show they have much in common with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control figures now laying in the ash heap of lies.
There are many ways to wage war against a country-one of which is to destroy its economy-if I could quote:
Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
- Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP
I watched as they killed the steel industry in America during the 1970s because man made Global Cooling was going to kill us all.
I watched as they killed coal production in America during the 1980s because Acid Rain was going to kill us all.
I watched as they killed CFCs in the 1990s because a hole in the Ozone was going to kill us all.
I’m done watching.
In 1997 the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which warned the Clinton Administration not to enter into any global warming treaty that leaves out developing nations or hurts the American economy. The unanimous 95-0 resolution, passed prior to the creation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which Al Gore signed anyway but knowing he didn’t have the votes President Clinton never presented it to the Senate.
As President Obama prepares to leave for Copenhagen I call on Senator Reid to reaffirm the Byrd-Hagel Resolution and stop this attack on the American Economy.
A newspaper that purports to represent northern Nevada wouldn’t report this fraud when the proposed Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill would cost the 2nd Congressional district $540M in Gross State Product (GSP), $649M in Personal Income, and 5,500 Jobs.
The “most powerful Senator in America” would sponsor this legislation knowing that by 2012 it would cost Nevada $1.4B in GSP, $1.8B in Personal Income, and 14,000 Jobs
Congress would pass legislation to solve a problem that they know isn’t a problem while destroying a large percentage of the American economy by 2035.
These figures are the results of different studies conducted by the Heritage Foundation, the Black Congressional Caucus, and others. Other studies by the EPA and CPO show a lighter although still drastic impact, however a close look at these figures show they have much in common with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control figures now laying in the ash heap of lies.
There are many ways to wage war against a country-one of which is to destroy its economy-if I could quote:
Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
- Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP
I watched as they killed the steel industry in America during the 1970s because man made Global Cooling was going to kill us all.
I watched as they killed coal production in America during the 1980s because Acid Rain was going to kill us all.
I watched as they killed CFCs in the 1990s because a hole in the Ozone was going to kill us all.
I’m done watching.
In 1997 the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which warned the Clinton Administration not to enter into any global warming treaty that leaves out developing nations or hurts the American economy. The unanimous 95-0 resolution, passed prior to the creation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which Al Gore signed anyway but knowing he didn’t have the votes President Clinton never presented it to the Senate.
As President Obama prepares to leave for Copenhagen I call on Senator Reid to reaffirm the Byrd-Hagel Resolution and stop this attack on the American Economy.
Letter to Senator Ensign-Cap and trade
Stephen G. Yeater
332 Stillwater
Dayton, NV 89403
November 18, 2009
Honorable John Ensign
United States Senator
Dear Senator Ensign:
I recently received your response concerning the Cap and Trade Proposals currently working their way through the House and Senate. I appreciate your efforts opposing this terrible piece of legislation.
As someone who has been in the Energy business for 29 years, including the leading edge of various forms of alternative energy I can assure you passage of this bill in any form would be a disaster to the United States in general and American Business in particular.
I believe on many different levels the “science” used to justify Global Warming has been altered, misleading, and in some cases outright fabricated. I simply can not understand; 1) How any informed person can believe that man is causing Global Warming, which has been in-fact Global Cooling over most of the current decade and 2) Why US Tax dollars are still going to opportunistic “scientists” when again and again they are shown to falsify facts and information for what can only be viewed as an effort to promote a political goal.
Please continue your opposition to this policy and the up coming Copenhagen malaise.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Stephen G. Yeater
Managing Member, The Yeater Group
Dayton, NV
332 Stillwater
Dayton, NV 89403
November 18, 2009
Honorable John Ensign
United States Senator
Dear Senator Ensign:
I recently received your response concerning the Cap and Trade Proposals currently working their way through the House and Senate. I appreciate your efforts opposing this terrible piece of legislation.
As someone who has been in the Energy business for 29 years, including the leading edge of various forms of alternative energy I can assure you passage of this bill in any form would be a disaster to the United States in general and American Business in particular.
I believe on many different levels the “science” used to justify Global Warming has been altered, misleading, and in some cases outright fabricated. I simply can not understand; 1) How any informed person can believe that man is causing Global Warming, which has been in-fact Global Cooling over most of the current decade and 2) Why US Tax dollars are still going to opportunistic “scientists” when again and again they are shown to falsify facts and information for what can only be viewed as an effort to promote a political goal.
Please continue your opposition to this policy and the up coming Copenhagen malaise.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Stephen G. Yeater
Managing Member, The Yeater Group
Dayton, NV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)