Agreement Allows Social Security For Non-Citizens

---

TAXES / 2004 TOTALIZATION AGREEMENT AUTHORIZES THOUSANDS OF NON-U.S. MEXICAN CITIZENS TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

---

Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the U.S. could reach one billion dollars by 2050, when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated five million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program. According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.

Totalization Is A Bad Idea

January 8, 2007

Through a Freedom of Information Act Request, a private group recently obtained a copy of a 2004 agreement between the United States and Mexico that will allow hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to receive Social Security benefits.

The agreement creates a so-called "totalization" plan between the two nations. Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments simply to make sure American citizens living abroad did not suffer from double taxation with respect to Social Security taxes. From there, however, totalization agreements have become vehicles for noncitizens to become eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The new agreement with Mexico would make an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens eligible in the next five years.

Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the U.S. could reach one billion dollars by 2050, when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated five million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program. According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.

It's important to note that Congress, like the American people, heretofore had not seen this totalization agreement. This decision to expand our single largest entitlement program was made with no input from the legislative branch of government. If the president signs it, Congress will have to affirmatively act to override him and in essence veto the agreement. This is the opposite of how it's supposed to work.

There are obvious reasons to oppose a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico. First, our Social Security system already faces trillions of dollars in future shortages as the Baby Boomer generation retires and fewer young workers pay into the system. Adding hundreds of thousand of noncitizens to the Social Security rolls can only hasten the day of reckoning.

Second, Social Security never was intended to serve as an individual foreign aid program for noncitizens abroad. Remember, there is no real Social Security trust fund, and the distinction between income taxes and payroll taxes is entirely artificial. The Social Security contributions made by noncitizens are spent immediately as general revenues. So while it's unfortunate that some are forced to pay into a system from which they might never receive a penny, the same can be said of younger American citizens. If noncitizens wish to obtain Social Security benefits, or any other U.S. government entitlements, they should seek to become U.S. citizens.

Also, totalization agreements allow noncitizens to quality for Social Security benefits by working in the U.S. as little as 18 months. A Mexican citizen could work here for only a year and a half, return to Mexico, and retire with full U.S. benefits. This is grossly unfair to Americans who must work more quarters even to qualify for benefits -- especially younger people who face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.

Those in favor of sending U.S. Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of U.S. assistance to that country's aged. While poverty in Mexico truly is deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program.

All logos, trademarks and postings on this site are property of their respective owner(s).

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Ron Paul: Decline Of The U.S. Dollar

---

COMMENTARY / CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL COMMENTS ON THE DEVALUATION OF THE U.S. DOLLAR

---

At some point Americans must realize that Congress, and the Federal Reserve system that permits the creation of new money by fiat, are the real culprits in the erosion of your personal savings and buying power. Congress relentlessly spends more than the Treasury collects in taxes each year, which means the U.S. government must either borrow or print money to operate -- both of which cause the value of the dollar to drop. When we borrow a billion dollars every day simply to run the government, and when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply by trillions of dollars in just 15 years, we hardly can expect our dollars to increase in value.

The World's Reserve Currency

January 1, 2007

The financial press reported last week that the euro, the new currency created only five years ago and used by most European nations, has supplanted the U.S. dollar as the most widely used form of cash internationally. There are now more Euros in circulation worldwide than dollars.

This alone is not necessarily troubling, as the dollar remains the world’s most important reserve currency. About 65% of foreign central bank exchange reserves are still held in dollars, versus only about 25% in euros. And the European Central Bank faces the same inflationary pressures that our own Federal Reserve Bank Governors face, including a growing entitlement burden that threatens economic ruin as both societies age. European politicians want to spend money just as badly as American politicians, and undoubtedly will clamor to inflate -- and thus devalue -- the euro to fund their creaky social welfare systems.

Still, the rise of the Euro internationally is another sign that the U.S. dollar is not what it used to be. There is increasing pressure on nations to buy and sell oil in euros, and anecdotal evidence suggests that drug dealers and money launderers now prefer euros to dollars. Historically, the underground cash economy has always sought the most stable and valuable paper currency to conduct business.

More importantly, our greatest benefactors for the last twenty years -- Asian central banks -- have lost their appetite for holding U.S. dollars. China, Japan, and Asia in general have been happy to hold U.S. debt instruments in recent decades, but they will not prop up our spending habits forever. Foreign central banks understand that American leaders do not have the discipline to maintain a stable currency. When the rest of the world finally abandons the dollar as the global reserve currency, both Congress and American consumers will find borrowing money a more expensive proposition.

Remember, America can maintain a large trade deficit only if foreign banks continue to hold large numbers of dollars as their reserve currency. Our entire consumption economy is based on the willingness of foreigners to hold U.S. debt. We face a reordering of the entire world economy if the federal government cannot print, borrow, and spend money at a rate that satisfies its endless appetite for deficit spending.

At some point Americans must realize that Congress, and the Federal Reserve system that permits the creation of new money by fiat, are the real culprits in the erosion of your personal savings and buying power. Congress relentlessly spends more than the Treasury collects in taxes each year, which means the U.S. government must either borrow or print money to operate -- both of which cause the value of the dollar to drop. When we borrow a billion dollars every day simply to run the government, and when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply by trillions of dollars in just 15 years, we hardly can expect our dollars to increase in value.

All logos, trademarks and postings on this site are property of their respective owner(s).

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Pelosi Faces Ethics Test In "Culture Of Corruption"

---

POLITICS / RADICAL LIBERAL EXTREMIST PELOSI EXPANDING DEMOCRAT'S "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"

---

Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia is under investigation by the F.B.I. regarding accusations that he funneled taxpayer money into nonprofit organizations he helped to set up and which support him with campaign contributions.

He is in line to head the panel that determines the FBI's budget.

"Somebody under investigation by the FBI shouldn't have any leverage over his investigators," Boehm said. "If Pelosi or the new majority in Congress doesn't understand that, then they don't have a clue as to what the 'culture of corruption' is because it's staring them in the face."

Pelosi Faces Ethics 'Litmus Test' With Mollohan Case, Analyst Says

~ By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
December 08, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - For the third time in as many weeks, House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi faces what one analyst called a "litmus test" of her stated commitment to ethics, as a congressman whose finances are being examined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is in line to head the panel that determines the FBI's budget.

Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee for Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies, which oversees the Department of Justice, including the FBI. Other than Mollohan, no Democrat has announced an intention to seek the chairmanship.

However, the FBI is investigating the 63-year-old lawmaker regarding accusations that he funneled taxpayer money into nonprofit organizations he helped to set up and which support him with campaign contributions.

Ken Boehm, chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that Mollohan's leadership aspirations were a "litmus test" of how serious Pelosi was when she and fellow Democrats campaigned this year on "draining the swamp" in Congress of what they called a GOP "culture of corruption."

"Somebody under investigation by the FBI shouldn't have any leverage over his investigators," Boehm said. "If Pelosi or the new majority in Congress doesn't understand that, then they don't have a clue as to what the 'culture of corruption' is because it's staring them in the face."

Noting that Pelosi made ethics in government "the absolute, number one issue" in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, the NLPC chairman said her decision regarding Mollohan is "going to be pretty telling," especially since the speaker-designate has suffered two political setbacks in recent weeks.

On Nov. 16, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer was overwhelmingly voted in as the new majority leader despite Pelosi's efforts supporting Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha for the post.

Murtha, whose war hero status and Abscam involvement came under scrutiny earlier, was supported by Pelosi because of what she called his "courageous leadership" in the national debate over the war in Iraq.

"Is that the type of person she wants as majority leader?" Boehm asked. "Apparently, her own caucus - by a vote of 149 to 86 - rejected that.

"If she can't sell her own caucus on putting a sleazy member of Congress into a position of authority, then how is she going to sell that [the Mollohan post] to the public? I don't think she will," Boehm added.

On Nov. 28, Pelosi announced she would not elevate Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) - her original choice for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee - because of concerns over his impeachment while serving as a federal judge in 1989. Instead, she named Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas to the post.

Because of the Murtha and Hastings setbacks, Pelosi's decision on Mollohan will be "a big, underappreciated test" of her leadership, Boehm noted.

'Integrity versus corruption'

According to documents obtained by the NLPC, Mollohan and his wife, Barbara, reported under $550,000 in assets in 2000. That figure soared to more than $8 million just five years later.

On April 10, the NLPC accused the West Virginia Democrat of violating more than 250 House ethics rules.

Eleven days later, Pelosi announced that Mollohan would step down from the ethics committee while defending himself against the allegations.

On June 13, Mollohan filed two dozen corrections to his past six annual financial disclosure forms, asserting that his accountant had uncovered several unintentional errors. He attributed his substantial rise in assets to prudent real-estate investments.

However, Boehm said that the congressman had admitted to other ethical breaches as well.

Mollohan should not serve on the subcommittee that handles appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the NLPC chairman said, because he "has a history of using earmarks in HUD to direct tens of millions of dollars to a group run by one of his business partners" who used to be a member of his staff.

"Wouldn't anybody who wants to 'drain the swamp,' as Nancy Pelosi has so elegantly put it, think that somebody who's shown time and again he'll abuse the appropriations process should be taken off the committee, and pronto?" Boehm asked.

Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday: "I don't have any thought that Mr. Mollohan ought to step down at this time."

The liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has recommended that "no member under federal investigation be involved in the oversight or appropriations of any agency involved in investigating that member."

Boehm welcomed CREW's stance. "This shouldn't be a conservative-versus-liberal issue, a Republican-versus-Democrat issue. This is an issue of integrity versus corruption.

"The standard that Nancy Pelosi has set for the 110th Congress is that this is going to be the most ethical one ever," Boehm added.

"She is being called upon to use her position to make a decision, and the decision ought to be in favor of what's right and what's ethical and the way Congress can be, especially in light of the fact that that's been her mantra for the past year," Boehm said.

Calls seeking response from Pelosi and Mollohan were not returned by press time.

Make media inquiries or request an interview with Randy Hall.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Randy Hall.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

American Concentration Camps On The Books

---

AMERICA / CONGRESSMAN: " AMERICAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS ARE ON THE BOOKS"

---

Right now we don't have concentration camps, but like you have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus . I have heard the argument that there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now part of the books, part of the law."

~ Congressman Ron Paul [R-Tx]

Congressman: American Concentration Camps "On The Books"

Texas Representative urges repeal of neo-fascist laws in America before it is too late

~ Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, November 13, 2006

Re-elected Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul joined Alex Jones on air last week to discuss the fallout of the midterm elections and what he sees transpiring over the next two years. He ended by ominously warning that if something is not done soon to overturn legislation such as the Military Commissions act, the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities.

Beginning with the positives to come out of the election, Ron Paul stressed that it has provided an important indication to the rest of the world that the people of America are unhappy with the usurpers that have seized control of their government and are trying to initiate change. The Congressman was quick to point out that this may not be carried into policy however:

"Not a whole lot will change because the leadership on the Democratic side, even if they had their way, don't have a different foreign policy. They have been supportive of an interventionist foreign policy in the middle east, and they are not about to back away from that ... They are willing to criticize the policy but only as a means to get power."

As we have seen over the past week, leading Democrats are all towing the party line, unreservedly dismissing any notion of the possibility of impeaching the President over Iraq.

The Congressman also stated that monetary policy will stay the same, which can only mean bad news for the American economy.

" They all believe in the federal reserve, they are not going to get rid of the IRS and the income tax. I think the dollar is going to keep sliding, which means prices are going to rise, when currencies self destruct, the end goes quickly. There are no signs that there is anything being done in Washington to correct the problem. Spending is going to continue and probably going to get worse, the deficits are going to stay high if foreign policy is not going to change."

The Congressman agreed that the elite globalists within the US government may not care about this too much because it means they can blow out the economy and then come back and buy it up very cheaply. These Internationalists care not about preserving and protecting American sovereignty when there is a quick buck to be made.

"That's also part of the foreign policy to be in position to hold onto natural resources, that's one of the major reasons why we're in the middle east, so yes if there is a financial crisis, they're going to have the guns, and they have control of the natural resources... It's not a good scenario, because what usually happens when you wipe out a currency is that you wipe out the middle class, and we already see this happening. The standard of living is going down." Paul asserted.

Ron Paul's comments echo those of Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who two weeks ago predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no," and also drew ominous parallels to the development of the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union.

What real Conservatism there was left in the House, to block such moves, as well as Bush's amnesty program for illegals, is gone. With Pelosi at the helm Ron Paul sees it as a forgone conclusion that such policies will sail through.

"I think that's right, although I complain about the two parties being exactly alike, I would say on this amnesty issue and what's happened with the election, there probably was a difference between the two. It is more likely with the Democrats in charge, and Judiciary and the other major committees, and with the President not really fighting for our national borders, he's always argued for some type of worker program, yes I think there's a much greater danger that that is going to be coming in the next session."

Commenting on strategies to defeat the North American Union, the Congressman urged a continuance of educating people on the real issues and reaching more and more Americans who care about preserving their national sovereignty:

"You have to keep doing what you are doing, you are reaching a lot of people, and they have to get to their members of congress, and in many ways the current House has been pretty good with this. With the new House we don't know exactly what is going to happen, but I had something very encouraging come to my attention just this week. I had a call from a young lady that won in Kansas as a Democrat, and in her literature she put my whole article on the NAFTA super corridor in there... She is not going to vote with Nancy Pelosi."

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, The Congressman spoke on the issue of going about demanding a repeal of freedom crushing legislation such as the Patriot act and the Military Commissions act and the Defense Authorization Act which essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus.

"We might have to hope that our Supreme Court helps us out a little. The Court has been better than the executive branch and a heck of a lot better than the Congress, because we've given the President everything he's asked for and the President has been begging for all this authority, so immediately we have to hope that the courts will save us on some of these things. But once again ultimately its only when the people wake up and say they don't like this... sometimes the people wake up to late. Right now we don't have concentration camps, but like you have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus . I have heard the argument that there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now part of the books, part of the law."

Take Ron Paul's suggestion up and contact your new or re-elected members and demand a move to repeal legislation paving the way for fascist government control in America today.

INFOWARS.net Copyright © 2001-2006 Alex Jones All rights reserved

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Lame Duck Democrats Can Do Nothing But Harass

---

POLITICS / LAME DUCK DEMOCRATS CAN DO NOTHING BUT HARASS THE ADMINISTRATION

---

The Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. The president has a veto the Democrats cannot override. Nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

Breaking from NewsMax.com

Dick Morris: Pitiful Democrats

For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that -- now that it is upon us -- it can do little or nothing but harass the administration.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush's administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen's filibuster applies.

The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60.

In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority -- 218 -- to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.

Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army -- disciplined, unified and determined -- the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail -- caucus by caucus.

First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus -- hat in hand -- to see if one's bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one's legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats -- the out and out conservatives.

If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.

The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.

This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dejà vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the Democrats in the House.

Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, "I didn't even recognize myself."

Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.

So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don't worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It's not going to happen.

What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only -- to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can't pass legislation.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column.

Copyright 2006 Dick Morris, All Rights Reserved.

NewsMax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114
Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---