Regarding the Los Angeles Times news story “Study: Bill could slash number of illegals by half” in the July 4 print edition of the Trib: How much confidence can we have regarding the new estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that the Corker-Hoeven amendment to the vast Senate immigration bill will decrease illegal immigration by one-third to one-half instead of by 25 percent, its estimate under the original bill? Even with this revision, CBO projects 3 million to 4 million new illegal immigrants within 10 years of the bill's enactment.
The CBO sullies its credibility as a source of responsible fiscal analysis with such guessing about matters that are more the province of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, points out that the original Senate immigration bill would actually increase the federal “on-budget” deficit by $14 billion over 10 years. Only when $211 billion in payroll taxes — which should be directed to the Social Security trust fund — were counted as extra revenue was the deficit “reduced.” But these payroll taxes are “off-budget” — money obligated for future claims on Social Security by immigrants.
We would request the Trib, in forthcoming articles, to make clear that such “unified” budget accounting procedures can be optimistically deceptive.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Why the difference?
- No ‘pass’ for Obama
- Arnold must cut police force
- Pa.’s ‘safety laws’
- Right to veto
- PETA & its tactics II
- Being a volunteer firefighter
- Uncaring toward soldiers
- PETA & its tactics I
- Bad cartoon
- Off base on Chatham prez