A Republican stance on immigration

    It’s not often that Republicans can speak about immigration reform without being called racist or anti-immigrant, but recently, House Republicans laid out their ideals of what immigration reform should look like and in honor of the immigration programming on campus this week, I will make you all informed as to our position.  That’s right, even Republicans are in favor of reforming the nation’s broken immigration system.  

    Our priorities are actually fairly similar to the Democratic Party except for a few key areas.  For Republicans, we acknowledge that the source of the problem must be addressed first.  That is why our main priority is border security.  With over 12 million illegal aliens having been able to gain entry through our country’s borders, the problem is both serious and neglected.  There is currently no effective way to track people over-staying their visas after gaining lawful entry into the country, and many areas of our physical border allow for easy crossing into the US.  It would be useless to address the issue of the 12 million illegal aliens already here if the border was still weak and making it possible for that large number to grow.  Greater security along our physical border coupled with a more effective entry-exit tracking system will help solve the original problem of inflow and allow for a shift in effort.  The Republican Party also acknowledges the blatant need to address those already here, and for that we offer a practical plan.  Amnesty would be sending the wrong message, and would be a slap in the face to those lawfully waiting in line, like many of our ancestors did years ago. 

    We Republicans emphasize a need for those illegal aliens already residing in our country to become current on their back-taxes and prove that they are able to support themselves.  Those illegal immigrants who are currently working, or display a willingness to serve the United States in the armed forces will be given priority when it comes to granting residency.  It is also necessary to improve employment verification and workplace enforcement programs to ensure that legal residents of the United States are the ones being hired, and that taxes are being rightfully paid.  

    The current bi-partisan immigration bill includes statutes for a long-term residency program to grant those here illegally who are also contributing to our economy the opportunity to become legal residents, and eventually apply for citizenship.  The key point here is that illegal aliens are not given time priority over those waiting to legally immigrate to the United States.  

    Another key point is zero tolerance for those who took advantage of other laws while in the US illegally, and that is why it is necessary to deport those with felony records or warrants as well as those with multiple misdemeanor offenses.  Both Republicans and Democrats also agree that children who are brought here illegally by their parents should not suffer and should have the opportunity to become legal in the United States if they receive a college degree or join the military. 

    Republicans ultimately dropped the Dream Act, originally a large part of the Democratic plan for immigration reform, because of its provision to grant federal financial aid to those illegal immigrant youth.  The majority who were opposed to the Dream Act held their position because US tax dollars would go to provide this financial aid when most sources agree that nearly 60% of illegal aliens pay no federal income tax.  Another part of the Dream Act that draws criticism is the age where the law drew the line for near-amnesty.  It cited that children who illegally immigrated here under the age of sixteen would be eligible.  This creates another double standard when the legal age of reason in the US is widely legally accepted to be seven years old, and many US citizens can be legally charged for felonies as adults at ages much younger than sixteen.   In conclusion, Republicans care a great deal about immigration reform, and are not just hell bent on sending everyone back where they came from.  Real reform will come from both sides and through cooperation.                

The Left's Intolerant "Tolerance"

The Left’s Intolerant “Tolerance”

            Confusing title?  Tolerance should be a less confusing concept, but some would never know based on the political left’s misuse of the term.  “Homophobe,” and “racist,” are two terms that have been frequently thrown about in reference to people who have different opinions than those on the left.  Believe in the sanctity of traditional heterosexual marriage? The left calls you a homophobe.  Don’t agree with President Obama’s crippling policies? The left accuses you of being a racist, and just plain unaccepting of America’s first African American president.

The Democratic Party and those who fall politically left of center often brag about being the “accepting” party and being “tolerant” of others, but yet they are the ones attacking people with differing views.  Senator Tim Scott recently got attacked by the increasingly liberal NAACP simply for being politically conservative.  The group, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, has taken such a far left stance in recent years that they are apparently only interested in advancing liberal colored people.  They went as far as to call Senator Scott a “ventriloquist dummy” for not following liberal agenda.  This sad misuse of authority has isolated the once highly benevolent organization and has continued the rift of intolerance among the politically liberal and their sycophants.      

Does anyone remember Phil Robertson?  The Duck Commander from Duck Dynasty got attacked by the liberal media for admitting his religious beliefs in support of traditional marriage.  The party of “tolerance” did not do much to tolerate Mr. Robertson’s religious beliefs.  In fact, the network A&E even fired Mr. Robertson for his religious beliefs, and those in the liberal organization GLAAD vocally called for his termination from the hit TV show.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?

The most frightening example of the Democratic Party’s intolerance is that of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s statements regarding conservatives.  The far-left governor said during a radio show this past month that “extreme conservatives have no place in New York.”  He described these “extreme conservatives” as people who are “right-to-life, pro-assault weapon, and anti-gay.”  I am not sure what he means by anti-gay, but I would assume that he is referring to those who are defenders of traditional marriage, people who are usually not “anti-gay.”  Governor Cuomo, like many of his liberal colleagues, incorrectly makes the jump from supporting traditional marriage to being homophobic and scared of gay people.  If Governor Cuomo wants pro-life residents and those that support traditional marriage to leave New York, then whom are the Democrats being tolerant of? 

  Since the election of President Obama, and the passing of Obamacare, religious groups have seen less and less tolerance from first White House without a Crèche.  Many Catholic organizations, the University of Notre Dame included, have been faced with mandates ordering them to go against their religious beliefs in order to comply with liberal policies.  If President Obama were the tolerant president that he claims to be, then he would be supportive of religious liberties and tolerant of those liberties and beliefs that build the religions themselves.  Not to mention, President Obama blamed his race as a factor that leads to his disapproval in an interview with Bill O’Reilly earlier this month.  I think it is safe to say that the main factor that leads to his disapproval is his disastrous foreign policy, frivolous spending, and wreck of a healthcare law, but who’s to say? 

And what is with the war on the wealthy that the Democratic Party has been supporting?  If America is the land of opportunity, then those who seize the opportunity and become successful should be held up to emulate, not taxed into the ground and be made to look like the enemy.  Democratic mayor of New York City, Bill DeBlasio has taken numerous stances against the wealthy members of Manhattan’s elite class.  He is even accused of purposely not plowing the roads on Manhattan’s upper east side; the city’s wealthiest neighborhood.  None of this behavior seems to spew tolerance of the successful.

On a more macro level, President Obama’s ignorance to the wishes of Congress set a bad example for the party that he leads.   In his State of the Union address, he claimed that he “has a pen and a cell phone,” and was willing to surpass the legislative branch elected the people in order to accomplish his individual tasks.  All of this confusion leads us to beg the question: who exactly is the Democratic Party actually tolerant of besides gay people who want to be married?  Attacking those who have different opinions than you is not only intolerant, but it is the disease plaguing liberal America.

The Republican Party on the other hand does not wave its so-called tolerance in anyone’s face like that rich Notre Dame girl and her Louis bag.  On the contrary, we simply support the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution.  We defend the first amendment that the Democratic Party squashes.  Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are vital lifelines to this country’s success and chance of continued prosperity.  If you are a beneficiary of prosperity, we won’t discriminate against you either.          

      

Where has Accountability Gone?

Over the holiday break, we were all given a glimpse of something so rare these days that it could be compared to a solar eclipse.  What am I speaking so reverently about? Accountability.  I will be the first to admit that Governor Chris Christie is not my favorite Republican, but I have to commend him on actually doing something about blatant misconduct by his staff. 

            This rare glimpse into what used to be commonplace should serve as a reminder of how dissimilar the White House has been on this same topic.  Obamacare, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, Fast and the Furious, the list goes on, yet no concrete solutions have been fostered by the President.  Kathleen Sibelius and Susan Rice still enjoy their jobs, and Susan Rice was even appointed for a promotion.  This could easily be the President of scandals.  Has the world gone haywire? 

            To contrast with the forgive-and-forget White House, New York City voters held Anthony Weiner accountable for his sexting scandal by burying him in the democratic primary polls, General Petraeus stepped down after an adultery scandal, and good old Richard Nixon stepped down as president of the United States after Watergate. 

            The democratic White House, on the other hand, has continued its lax standards of accountability from Bill Clinton perjuring himself related to adultery in the Oval Office to President Obama turning a blind eye to the multiple scandals under his control.  Who are we to look up to if the leader of the free world can’t lift a fraction of the finger that Donald Trump lifts when he says, “you’re fired.” 

            Let’s start with Fast and the Furious: a gunrunning scandal that was originally designed to allow illegal straw buyers to buy weapons from licensed dealers in Arizona in the hopes that they would be traced back to the Mexican drug cartels.  Instead of Border Patrol being able to make some serious headway into arresting cartel members, the guns turned up at massive crime scenes and bloodbaths both in Mexico and the United States.  US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was even killed by one of the guns involved in the program.  Attorney General Eric Holder demanded that Congress begin an investigation, but after hearings leaned towards senior officials being involved, Holder started to refuse his cooperation.  Only after being threatened with contempt of Congress charges, he testified in 7 hearings and denied any knowledge by senior officials.  President Obama personally advertised that he would get to the bottom of the scandal and hold someone accountable.  Yet now years after, a few members of the ATF were just transferred to the justice department.  If I got expelled for cheating in Mendoza, I don’t think Dean Huang would ensure I was able to study economics in the College of Arts and Letters.  It simply is not holding anyone accountable. 

            The Internal Revenue service admitted last year that they specifically targeted conservative groups through “intensive scrutiny.”  If the IRS can’t even be objective than maybe the country has gone haywire.  Again, an investigation was ordered yet no criminal charges were ever brought by the FBI, which investigated.  Again, Eric Holder and President Obama denied knowledge of what was going on and failed to hold anyone legally accountable.  Similarly, the NSA spying scandal has seen no concrete, accountable results. Obamacare’s disastrous roll out was chalked up to their best effort and Kathleen Sibelius was never blamed.  She even said “whatever” to a member of Congress during a hearing and has remained employed unscathed.   We all know the fate of the millions who lost their plans after the President promised that they would be able to keep them.     

            The monster of all scandals, however, is the Benghazi cover-up.  Anyone that denies that it is exactly that is suffering from celebrity brainwash.  Reports have indicated that the President knew within hours that the attack on the United States embassy in Benghazi was not a spontaneous demonstration, but a terrorist attack.  Yet after having received this information, President Obama attempted to convince the American public that terrorism was not to blame.  He even sent Susan Rice on a morning talk show round to ensure that his propaganda succeeded.  But America can smell BS faster than any country and it wasn’t long until public outcry began.  How did the President react?  He denied it some more. Then changed his story.  Then tried to promote Susan Rice.  This is the most outrageous scandal of all.  An American ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack after having requested additional security and yet nothing has come of it since.  No one has been held accountable, fired, reprimanded.  Nothing.  Where has the accountability gone?  

Obamacare: even economics should wash its hands of it

Obamacare, a common nickname for the Affordable Care Act, is not only unconstitutional in many regards, but it is economically unsound.  Forced lowering of price with increased cost will lead to unhealthy bottom lines, as is becoming the case.  The main points that I want to highlight are

1.     The government’s entry into an oligopolistic market with a perfectly competitive fringe.

2.     The increase in cost and forced decrease in price for many individual insurance plans.

3.     The rise in marginal cost of labor due to the employer mandate.

The insurance market, prior to the flawed rollout of Obamacare included 1,035 issuers[1], none with a market share of over 19%, but with at least four issuers with market share over 5%.  In 2012, roughly 47 million Americans were uninsured.  With the government now entering the insurance market and theoretically making itself the 1,036^th insurer with expanded Medicaid offerings, the market is most definitely going to be jostled.  With an endless bottom line (taxpayer dollars), the government could outbid every private insurer in terms of price for coverage.  With the debt snowballing as fast as it is, it would be a fair guess to assume that government spending will continue to occur in this new capacity of healthcare.  

When a new competitor joins a market for the sole purpose of providing insurance at a cost lower than the market previously provided, and has the means to do so, that competitor introduces an unfair advantage and erases any possibility of perfect competition.  The large amount of insurance businesses and the small amount of those businesses with over 5% market share makes the industry oligopolistic with a perfectly competitive fringe.  It is unclear how much the public option provided by the government will consume in terms of market share, but with 47 million uninsured and a significant amount qualifying for the new Medicaid standards, it could be substantially large.

The individual mandate rocks the economic boat in a few ways as well.  Firstly, the government now mandates that all Americans cover health insurance or face a fine (in many cases less than the cost of insurance, which makes me wonder about the economic decisions behind that).  This mandate also in turn forced insurance companies to offer policies to everyone so that they can become insured, including Americans with pre-existing conditions.  Along with this regulation, issuers were limited on the premiums they could charge and were not allowed to place caps on coverage.  This is possibly the most economically unsound part of the plan.  Forcing companies to make financial decisions that are unprofitable is going to adversely affect the private market sector.  This drives up average total cost for insurance issuers because pre-existing conditions are huge expenses over the long run. 

Additionally, one of the areas getting the most attention, the employer mandate forces companies to provide health insurance to full time employees if they employ over 50 employees.  This dramatically increases the cost of labor for each full time employee.  In many small businesses, employees work over 30 hours/week, but providing each with health insurance coverage would turn the employer belly up.  The average health insurance monthly cost is $328 according to a recent NBC report.  Adding $328 to the Marginal cost of labor will cause a severe downturn in hiring by small businesses, where the majority of post-recession hiring has taken place.  Adding that cost for each current “full-time” employee will also raise variable costs and Average cost of labor by that significant amount.  Some businesses in low margin industries will not be able to survive this mandate.  They will either need to lay off workers to compensate for the increased cost of labor or raise prices of goods significantly to match former levels of profitability.  Causing business to go out of business because of forced regulation and spending is economically wrong.  The government’s involvement in the private sector should not cause other businesses to go under.             

---

[1] IbisWorld

If You Can't Criticize Something You Love, Then You Don't Really Love it

Do you want to know what the problem with the Republican Party is today? No one gives a hoot about the young people that will form the future of the party. As the President of the College Republicans at Notre Dame, I have been an adamant conservative for as long as I have had political views, but not until now have I seen what is causing us to lose ground. On countless occasions I have reached out to politicians on both a national and local level and have been blessed to have an excellent relationship with our local Congresswoman in Indiana. Other than that, no republican politician even shows an effort to engage our club (of over a 1000 member reach). I have been asked to pay upwards of $50,000 for some to come to campus. Is that the way that we are expected to be involved in our party at a young age? Countless prominent Republican political figures come to Notre Dame's campus each year and I have reached out to almost all of them, asking them to pay a visit to a club meeting, or come meet our club's officers, but I have never even gotten a response. Governor Chris Christie was present for the BYU football game just two weeks ago and I reached out the week leading up to it and even followed up with a phone call to his office, but no response. He did however visit with the increasingly liberal University administration. Same with alumnus Condoleezza Rice and we had a similar experience with alumnus Congressman Peter King.  Chris Christie proved a deadbeat previously when the president of the College Democrats and I were planning a massive presentation by two Wall St. giants on the topic of generation equity.  One of the presenters had asked his personal friends, Senator Chuck Schumer and Governor Chris Christie to reach out to us and thank us for tackling the issue and to encourage us to drum up support for the event on campus.  Sen. Schumer personally had a lengthy conversation with the president of the College Democrats and I never even got an email from a Christie staffer.  More recently, Fox News, often considered a conservative media stronghold, has abused their contact with our club on three different occasions. For the Sean Hannity episode involving college students, Sean's staff hand picked a liberal from our great Catholic and still conservative University (at least as far as the student body is concerned). I was then personally contacted by one of his staffers and asked if I would be interested in being part of a segment to be filmed at Notre Dame and I was promised a list of topics within that same week. Our club put together teams to tackle the hot topics of the day, and we worked hard to prep for the segment that we hoped would highlight what our club is all about, and what young conservatives could bring to the table overall. One week before the proposed taping, we were told it would not longer happen. Just this week, I was once again contacted by a staffer for the The Huckabee Show. I was asked if I would be available for the taping of a segment involving the University's lawsuit against the HHS mandate of the Affordable Care Act. As a follow up, I was then asked to put that same staffer in touch with the student body president and someone from the student newspaper (at least I put them in contact with someone conservative). One day before I would have to fly out for the segment, I was told that the very person that I put the staffer in contact with from the student newspaper would be featured on the show instead. This unprofessional behavior and ignorance of the conservative youth of this country is exactly what is aggravating the young voters. If the Republican Party ever wants to survive, they must realize that ignoring the future of their party will not work. Why would we, as a young, Republican organization work to promote the views of a party that ignores us?