United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump
Source:
The Conservative Treehouse
URL Source: http://theconservativetreehouse.com ... g-re-the-gop-and-donald-trump/
Published: Sep 7, 2015
Author: sundance
Post Date: 2015-09-09 13:11:45 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 929
Comments: 23
An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump Posted on September 7, 2015 A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion. Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider. While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position. The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists. I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong. On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am. The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow. Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010. Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes. Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate. Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise. From your own writing: With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO. Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”. If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled. Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump? We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare. Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths. We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism? Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference. Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump? Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities. I digress. Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski? A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities? Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party? Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump? Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary? Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”. Perhaps you forget. We do not. Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump. You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them. Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above? Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do. What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson. Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”. You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs? That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”) What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax. But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable. The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process. The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable. This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously. Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program? As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes? All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them. This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness. Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles: • Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO. • Who gave us the TSA? The GOP • Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP • Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP • Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP • Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell) And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY? Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox: Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice. The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET! That’s a strategy? That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with? THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY? Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t. And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government? ….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do? Seriously?
by sundance
The Conservative Treehouse […] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP “Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nolu chan (#0)
It just makes me smile!
Also • Republican nominees have controlled the Supreme Court continuously every single day since 1969. Every one of these terrible Supreme Court decisions we so decry, starting with Roe, down through Kelo, and Obamacare, and Gay Marriage, was handed down by a Supreme Court controlled by the Republican Party. When W was President, the Repulicans controlled the Presidency, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the rest of the federal judiciary, and 3/5ths of the state legislatures and governors' mansions in the nation - and what did the Republicans do? Lose the War on Terror, destroy the Middle East, gut our civil rights, and blow up the economy. Obama has done better than that! Trump is running as a Republican for the same reason Bloomberg did. And smart people should elect him for the same reason smart New Yorkers elected Bloomberg.
What you are really worried about is that Trump may start a knock down and drag out necessary revolution that he will not be the leader of in this country with his vocalizing a list of motivating past insults that will put many people in their graves.
With Obama, the GOP has been given the House and the Senate, huge gains in state and local seats, and Obama's veto pen is almost like new. They watched as prisoners were unlawfully freed from Gitmo and we got Bergdahl. They are preparing to deliver the Iran deal. They promised change. The people may be getting ready to give them change.
Yep. "Republican" is a synonym for "liar".
The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET! It is as if the GOPe don't think we know the above. It's an abomination not having a budget. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
I bet a lot of them get primaried in 2016... Yesterday, Goldberg did respond to this attack piece from "Sundance", an anonymous poster at ConservativeTreehouse. In last Friday’s Goldberg File I offered a lament or a screed or a diatribe or a thoughtful essay — opinions vary widely — on how and why I think Donald Trump is damaging conservatism. There’s no way I could — or should — respond to all of the criticisms or attacks. So I’ll just focus on a couple themes. The biggest criticism — in terms of quantity, not quality — is that I am a RINO squish faker fraud no-goodnik lib sucking at the teat of the establishment blah blah and blah. These usually take the form of angry tweets and e-mails. So I’ll fold my response to this silliness into my responses to the longer-form stuff. One of the most popular rejoinders comes from the Conservative Treehouse, a site I’ve liked in the past. But if it weren’t for the fact that Rush Limbaugh enthusiastically plugged it on air, I’m not sure it would merit much of a response. A 2,000-word “Open Letter to Jonah Goldberg,” written by someone named “Sundance,” it devotes barely a sentence to responding to anything I actually wrote. Nor does the author really defend Donald Trump — or his supporters — from my criticisms. Instead it is a long and somewhat splenetic indictment of the “establishment.” Sundance writes: “The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.” He then proceeds to conflate the GOP’s record with “Washington conservatism” as if they are synonymous. This strikes me as projection and deflection and nothing more. The whole thing is a non sequitur masquerading as a rejoinder. He lays down a tediously long list of questions, including: And so on. I won’t go through every item on the list, in part because a few of them are just ridiculous (opposition to the Patriot Act is now a conservative litmus test? Who knew?) and in part because all of them are red herrings. But the questions are a useful illustration of how Trump’s supporters see things. The argument very often seems to be: “You don’t like Trump? What about X?” Where X can be anything from Jeb Bush to John Boehner to the infield-fly rule. But as a rejoinder to me or to National Review it is about as on point as a stemwinder on how Trieste shouldn’t belong to the Italians. National Review — and yours truly — were on the “anti-GOP” side of a great many of the examples on Sundance’s list. National Review was instrumental in helping Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio win their primaries (just ask them). We were relentless critics of Arlen Specter. We opposed Bush on immigration, criticized the formation of the TSA, and we’ve heaped support on Mike Lee etc., etc. I was complaining about Bush’s spending and compassionate conservatism when many of Trump’s most prominent defenders would brook no criticism of W. And I was lamenting that the GOP had betrayed the base at least a decade ago. I defended the Tea Parties from the get go, dubbing them in part a “delayed Bush backlash,” and I’m fairly certain I’ve spoken to more tea-party groups than Trump has. I am to the right of Trump on nearly every issue I can think of. I came out in favor of a wall on the border in 2006. On specifics — wolfsbane to Donald Trump — I tend to agree with Mark Krikorian that you don’t need a literal wall everywhere, but I am 100 percent in favor of securing the border, and was saying so when Trump was posing with DREAMers and bad-mouthing Romney for being insensitive to Hispanics. I will admit, I think a Trumpian mass deportation of every illegal alien is unworkable and unwise, so if that’s your yardstick, I guess I’m the sell-out (though then again, I think Trump would cave on the promise very quickly). Also, I think his “we’ll take their oil” shtick is really stupid on the merits (but brilliant red meat). On abortion, I’ve become much more pro-life in recent years, but I may not be all the way there for some of my colleagues at NR. Still, unlike Trump, I wouldn’t appoint pro-choice extremists to the Supreme Court, so take that for what you will. But, I’m falling for the trap. None of this matters! Even if I were a RINO-squish-lickspittle of the D.C. establishment, even if every denunciation of the “Washington cartel” is exactly right and fair, that is not a defense of Donald Trump. If I say littering is bad and Donald Trump litters and then you note that I’ve littered too, that is not a defense of Donald Trump, nor is it a defense of littering. Tu quoque arguments are a logical fallacy, not a slam-dunk debating tactic. I don’t know how else to say this: The case against the GOP establishment is not the case for Trump, no matter how much it feels like it is in your head or your heart. Which brings me to my friend John Nolte, who at least bothered to defend Trump (unlike his boss Ben Shapiro, who concedes that he doesn’t think Trump is a conservative either, but then proceeds to dance the required tune). It’s funny, Nolte dings me for my use of a Marxist phrase when I describe the “trumpenproletariat,” but I actually explain in the piece that I am not using it on Marxist grounds. I do plead guilty for giving in to the seduction of a pun. Meanwhile, Nolte goes whole hog for Marxist-style analysis — and my Lord he’s not alone. This notion that all criticism of Trump amounts to wagon circling by a frightened and self-interested D.C./Beltway/Fox/establishment seems to be an Idea Whose Time Has Come for a lot of people. Nolte sums it up well when he writes that the “The Bourgeois GOP Is Mad For One Reason: They Are Losing.” Look, I can’t speak for the entirety of the “establishment.” In fact, part of my point is that I don’t believe I speak for it at all and I reject, and resent, many of these glib and facile accusations of bad faith. It’s usually just a lazy and cheap way of dismissing arguments you don’t like by attacking the motives of the people making them. Then again, John admires conservatives who fight like left-wingers so maybe that’s okay by him. I, on the other hand, think intellectual dishonesty and bad faith aren’t things to be admired, even when conservatives deploy them to great effect. Regardless, all I can do here is speak for myself on perhaps the only topic I know more about than anybody in the world: My own motivations. The idea that my opposition to Donald Trump stems from my “bourgeois” class-interest is ridiculous. I know, I know, that’s exactly what you’d expect from a court conservative protecting his luxurious billet in Versailles. So if you can’t take my word for it, explain to me why I wrote my first anti-Trump column in 2011? He wasn’t winning then, was he? (My first negative mention of the man — according to LexisNexis — was in 2001). Was I so perspicacious that I saw his true potential before everybody else? It’s a serious question, because I keep hearing that we “establishment” conservatives don’t like Trump because A) he proved us wrong when we cluelessly dismissed him out of hand and B) because we understand deep in our bones what a threat to our livelihoods he poses. So which is it? Because A and B are in conflict. Not only that, speaking only for myself (but with ample confidence many other Trump critics agree with me) both A and B are wrong. If you think pissing off millions of self-described conservatives is part of my secret plan to make more money, I’m going to need to explain to you how my business works. Why can’t the real explanation of my motives be the ones I put down in writing? To wit: I don’t think Trump is a conservative. I don’t think he’s a very serious person. I don’t think he’s a man of particularly good character. I don’t think he can be trusted to do the things he promises. Etc. If all that hurts your feelings, I’m sorry. But there’s no need to make up imaginary motives. The reason I’m writing such things is that I believe them — and that’s my job. Which brings me back to Nolte’s piece. There’s no way I can run through all of my disagreements, but I do take particular exception to this: First of all, this is a pretty shabby take-back. He gives me credit for not hurling insults and then says I’m insulting people anyway in effect because I’m saying things they don’t want to hear. Look, I don’t think all of Trump’s fans are unthinking, knee-jerk cretins. Far from it. But I do think they’re wrong. And I said so, and I explained why. I thought that’s what conservatives are supposed to do (“There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism,” Emerson wrote, “joined with a certain superiority in its fact”). It’s the Left that judges facts and opinions entirely by how they make other people feel. It’s funny how John is so eager to defend Trump’s insult-hurling and celebrate his ability to “fight like a leftist,” but condemns me for simply telling the truth as I see it. A polite Trump supporter offered I think the best explanation of what’s really going on in this disagreement. Here’s the deal on Trump. There are those of us prepared to give him benefit of the doubt (e.g. me), and those who are not (you). That’s exactly right. It’s not, as Nolte and so many others suggest, that my cluelessness stems from my inability to see his appeal. It’s that I can see through it. Or at least I think I can. What I am truly clueless about is how so many other people can’t. — Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review.
They are synonymous, Jonah. Which is why everything else you wrote is just a whine. Your type is finished, Goldberg. You see the Iran deal? That means that your ilk has lost. And when the nuclear war doesn't happen, year after year, and things settle to the new normal, the extent of your loss will become clearer and clearer. I read your first long article, Jonah. It was a long whine. I read Sundance's article, and agreed with it. I've given you enough time, Jonah. I read as far as the line I quoted, and then I stopped. You're going to defend what you think Jonah, but truth is, you and your ilk are simply sinking into irrelevancy now. Your type may divide the Republicans sufficiently to beat Trump, but then you'll just be defeated by Hillary Clinton anyway, so there's no point in spending any more time reading what you people think. You had power once. You blew it worse than Carter did. Nobody really cares about Carter's opinions, because everybody remembers he was a disaster. The same thing with Washington Conservatism. You had all the power under W Bush, and look at what a hash you made of things. You have most of the power today: House, Senate, Supreme Court - Obama and Clinton got things done with less than that. So did Reagan. You've made yourself a sort of an avatar for the "Loser Right" Jonah. So go ahead and write long articles now that try to explain esoteric differences and nuances in your belief system. I write long articles like that too, Jonah. Nobody cares about what I write - and I've never been a serious part of a movement that seriously fucked up the country. You have Jonah. You Washington Conservatives Carterized yourselves by being incompetent fools. Bye bye. Whine away in your echo chamber. Alone. Nobody is listening anymore. Mene mene tekel upsharin.
I like to read what you write. George Orwell had the capability of being honest with himself, and I see the same thing in your writing. Your ideas seem to reflect what at one time would have been known as a classical education, where the history was to learned from rather than the mere memorization of dates. When actually used to learn history provides powerful analogs, Pat Buchanan is a good example. I would not call Jonah a conservative, since he conserves nothing. What I love about America his type has been destroying. You keep on writing, I may not always agree with everything, but you are honest with yourself. Jonah is a prostitute who uses pen and paper as the medium to perform fellatio for his plutocratic clients.
You should post this at his blog site:) You may end up being the focus of his next article...lol To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.---Revelation 1:5b-6
If the establishment had a cock. Johan would suck it.
Very true. About the only thing he copies from his namesake Jonah is the whining.
Oh, goody. But that was nine years ago. For all that's been done about a wall in that time -- nothing -- you might just as well have opposed it. What's the difference? But here's what scares you. Trump is not only in favor of a wall ... he might actually build it! He might do a lot of things establishment conservatives have only talked about doing. All these conservatives out there with their puffed-up chests trying to out-conservative the other guy. They get to Washington and ... nothing. Every one of them wants a wall, we give them control of all three branches, and ... nothing. Well, that may change.
You know it's utterly amazing how many people can look in the mirror and NOT see what is actually there... It would cost a fraction of what the taxpayers spend on illegals for 1 year!!! The number I heard was $1,000 per illegal per year. Now, that does NOT include the children of illegals who are American citizens at birth. They receive free schooling, free health care, food stamps and every other benefit American citizens get.
Last I heard it was close to $350 billion per annum...
If there are 11 million illegals, that's $30,000 each, or $120,000 per household. Too high. According to the Heritage Foundation: "Overall, households headed by an unlawful immigrant received an average of $24,721 per household. Education spending on behalf of these households averaged $13,627, and means-tested aid (going mainly to the U.S.-born children in the family) averaged $4,497. Spending on police, fire, and public safety came to $3,656 per household. Transportation added another $662, and administrative support services cost $958. Direct benefits came to $44. Miscellaneous population-based services added a final $1,277." Total federal, state, and local taxes paid by unlawful immigrant households averaged $10,334 per household in 2010." (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful- immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer) If the illegals didn't have children, they'd get very little in government aid. But the 14th amendment makes the children U.S. citizens and, as citizens, they're entitled to benefits.
An estimate of $1,000 per year seems too low for the cost of incarceration alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Not adjusted for inflation. To view the inflation-adjusted data: Judicial, police, and corrections costs totaled $212 billion in 2011 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2007, around $74 billion was spent on corrections according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Church Publishing (CP) estimates the 50 states plus federal government expenditure amounts to $56.9 billion spent on U.S. corrections. CP adds an additional 8 billion dollars to that estimate in its white-paper "50 States' Departments of Corrections" revision to exclude double-counting state and federal subsidies for local lock-ups. Church Publishing cautions against any nationwide annual cost of corrections estimate over $65 billion in 2014. In 2014, among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the average cost of incarceration for federal inmates in fiscal year 2014 was $30,619.85. The average annual cost to confine an inmate in a residential re-entry center was $28,999.25. State prisons averaged $31,286 per inmate in 2010 according to a Vera Institute of Justice study. It ranged from $14,603 in Kentucky to $60,076 in New York. In California in 2008, it cost the state an average of $47,102 a year to incarcerate an inmate in a state prison. From 2001 to 2009, the average annual cost increased by about $19,500. Most illegal aliens appear to inhabit states like CA or NY rather than KY, making their annual cost higher than the average throughout the states. According to Pew Research, July 24, 2015, "Six states alone account for 60% of unauthorized immigrants — California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois." Be that as it may, the 2011 total for all was about $212 Billion; the Federal BoP average cost was $30,619. State costs varied widely. In NYC "The city paid $167,731 to feed, house and guard each inmate last year, according to a study the Independent Budget Office released this week," according to a NYT article of August 24, 2013. The prisons do not keep official records of how many within the prison population are illegal immigrants. To achieve a prison cost of $1,000 per illegal per year would require a rate of incarceration significantly lower than the general population. That is just the prison cost and does not consider any other benefits or costs.
The $1000 per illegal per year was an average for all 11 million illegals. It's another way of saying illegal immigration costs the taxpayers $11 billion per year. Not all 11 million illegals are incarcerated. Those who are do cost us the figures you cited. It's the children of illegals who really run up the costs. But they're considered citizens, so they don't figure into the $11 billion.
And I was saying it costs more than $11 billion per yer just for the illegals who are incarcerated, exclusive of the other illegals who are not incarcerated. The illegals are predominantly in 6 states where incarceration is very expensive compared to the federal prison average. But using that 31K/yr average, $11 billion would only pay to house about 355K prisoners which would permit only a 3.2% incarceration rate of illegal aliens. So, the only question is whether we have 355K illegal aliens incarcerated. That would the whole of your $11 billion estimated annual cost for all 11 million illegal aliens. I believe that the other 10,645,000 cost even more than the ones that are in prison. I just believe your cost estimate is too low. In the most recent figures available, a Government Accountability Office report titled, "Criminal Alien Statistics," found there were 55,000 illegal immigrants in federal prison and 296,000 in state and local lockups in 2011. Experts agree those figures have almost certainly risen, although executive orders from the Obama administration may have changed the status of thousands who previously would have been counted as illegal immigrants.
My understanding was that this $11 billion figure was a federal cost. States are paying a multiple of this figure, and are hit hardest by federal inaction -- a huge unfunded mandate. If all the states sent a bill to the federal government (which included the education costs of their 14th amendment children), my guess is that it would be close to half a trillion dollars.
#2. To: nolu chan (#0)
(Edited)
#3. To: nolu chan (#0)
And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
#6. To: nolu chan (#0)
Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.
#7. To: nolu chan (#4)
They promised change. The people may be getting ready to give them change.
#8. To: nolu chan, Justified, Vicomte13, CZ82, redleghunter (#0)
The Great Trumpian Divide
“To his credit, Goldberg doesn’t hurl names at Trump’s supporters but his sneering (and surprisingly clueless) incredulity does boil them down to unthinking, knee-jerk cretins.”
#9. To: TooConservative (#8)
(Edited)
"He then proceeds to conflate the GOP’s record with “Washington conservatism” as if they are synonymous." - Jonah Goldberg
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
I write long articles like that too, Jonah. Nobody cares about what I write...
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
#12. To: TooConservative (#8)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)
If the establishment had a cock. Johan would suck it.
#14. To: TooConservative (#8)
"I am to the right of Trump on nearly every issue I can think of. I came out in favor of a wall on the border in 2006."
#15. To: TooConservative (#8)
Jonah Goldberg
#16. To: misterwhite (#14)
Trump is not only in favor of a wall ... he might actually build it!
#17. To: CZ82 (#16)
"It would cost a fraction of what the taxpayers spend on illegals for 1 year!!!"
#18. To: misterwhite (#17)
#19. To: CZ82 (#18)
"Last I heard it was close to $350 billion per annum..."
#20. To: misterwhite, CZ82 (#17)
The number I heard was $1,000 per illegal per year.
Cost
#21. To: nolu chan (#20)
"To achieve a prison cost of $1,000 per illegal per year would require a rate of incarceration significantly lower than the general population."
#22. To: misterwhite (#21)
The $1000 per illegal per year was an average for all 11 million illegals. It's another way of saying illegal immigration costs the taxpayers $11 billion per year.
There are approximately 2.1 million legal or illegal immigrants with criminal convictions living free or behind bars in the U.S., according to ICE's Secure Communities office. Each year, about 900,000 legal and illegal immigrants are arrested, and 700,000 are released from jail, prison, or probation. ICE estimates that there are more than 1.2 million criminal aliens at large in the U.S.
#23. To: nolu chan (#22)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]