Republicans estimate immigration bill could cost taxpayers billions, Rubio challenges claim

• 

• • 

    Immigration debate: Will there be reform?

  • 

    When is an 'illegal immigrant' not illegal?

  • 

    Power Play 4/1/2013: Immigration reform

Senate Republicans estimated Thursday that the annual cost to taxpayers of legalizing illegal immigrants could be in the billions, if they use their status to apply for federal benefits from Medicaid and ObamaCare. 

Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee -- responding to a draft immigration bill that includes a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants -- estimated that the cost could total up to $40 billion in 2022, "just for Medicaid and ObamaCare." 

"The net costs would be enormous and only increase once citizenship is granted," the office of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, top Republican on the committee, said in a statement Thursday. 

Payments from Medicaid and subsidies from the federal health care law represent just a fraction of federal government benefits that a green-card holder or U.S. citizen can apply for. 

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key member of the "Gang of Eight" which is drafting a proposal, has stressed that he would ensure there are limits on benefits being applied to these individuals. He told Fox News in January that the first phase for them would be to get a nonimmigrant visa -- not a green card -- "and you don't qualify for any federal benefits under that. You don't get federal benefits." 

Their eligibility, though, would change once they get a green card. 

Sessions' office voiced concern Thursday that a century-old law meant to prevent immigrants from taking root in the U.S. only to live on the government dole would not be applied here. 

That law is supposed to turn away those immigrants who are likely to become a "public charge." But the statement Thursday claimed nothing in the current plan would apply to those already in the country before they are granted legal status. 

Further, numbers recently provided by the Department of Homeland Security indicated the "public charge" standard is not aggressively enforced. The department found just one case for most of fiscal 2012 where the claim was leveled at an immigrant. "However, the charge was later withdrawn," DHS reported. 

The department blamed "data entry quality" for not having complete information on how many immigrants became public charges. 

Despite widespread reports and speculation about the immigration bill being drafted, a bill has not yet been introduced. Senators are working out the details in hopes of bringing it before Congress in the coming weeks. 

Related Stories

ICE officer union, construction industry try to put brakes on immigration bill

View the original article here

What to Cut: Excess federal property costing taxpayers billions

• 

A prime example of how slowly the federal government moves is a piece of prime real estate in Washington's tony Georgetown neighborhood -- an old steam-generating plant with a spectacular view of the Potomac waterfront. 

The government-owned building was finally sold to a private developer for $19.5 million this month. But it sat there for 10 years -- off the  market and vacant -- while taxpayers footed the bill for its upkeep. 

A for-sale sign only went up the day before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform dragged General Services Administration officials into the musty structure for a hearing last summer. Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., berated a bewildered GSA official at that hearing, saying: "You can't get your job done! I don't care if it's a Republican or Democratic administration, the job is not getting done!" 

Congressional frustration may be warranted. The federal government owns or leases between 55,000 and 77,000 vacant properties. But it's impossible to tell exactly how many. No precise inventory has been kept. 

Selling them off, though, could save taxpayers between $3 billion and $8 billion a year, according to various analysts. That's nothing to scoff at as the government grapples with a mounting debt and sequester-tied spending cuts. 

"These properties could be used first to consolidate agencies that now are in leased buildings," D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton told Fox News. 

Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste said: "This is a problem that has been identified for years, and every time someone in the White House says 'let's sell property,' the red tape is simply too much for this process." 

In 1987, amid media coverage of the nation's persistent homeless problem, Congress passed a law that said unused government properties first had to be offered to other federal agencies, then to state agencies, and, as a last resort, for use as homeless shelters before they could be put on the market. 

"We spend about 8 billion dollars a year maintaining properties that we have no use for. Now that 8 billion dollars is just thrown down the drain because we can't get past the homeless lobby to get a common-sense way to take care of their problems and also us to unload properties," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told Fox News. 

Former Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., notes that Congress is full of people who've never held private-sector jobs."There is nothing wrong with that. But it means they have never really been in the position of running something, of making hard decisions, of having scarce resources and having to set priorities." 

Schatz echoes that sentiment -- noting the way the government handles the excess properties is counter to common sense. "Rather than having the government get the first choice, the first choice should be to sell and then go back down the line. There are plenty of places for homeless shelters," he said. 

Legislation to require the federal government to expedite the sale of underused properties died in the last Congress. It was resurrected this year in Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget, which the Senate voted down this month. 

But Norton has hopes Congress will begin to remedy the problem this year."The Oversight and Government Reform committee has just passed again its bill which I think has a good chance of getting all the way to the Senate," she said. 

Still, if Congress does pass a bill to sell excess properties, inventorying all of them would be a daunting undertaking given that they're spread across all government agencies.

View the original article here

What to Cut: Excess federal property costing taxpayers billions

A prime example of how slowly the federal government moves is a piece of prime real estate in Washington's tony Georgetown neighborhood -- an old steam-generating plant with a spectacular view of the Potomac waterfront. 

The government-owned building was finally sold to a private developer for $19.5 million this month. But it sat there for 10 years -- off the  market and vacant -- while taxpayers footed the bill for its upkeep. 

A for-sale sign only went up the day before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform dragged General Services Administration officials into the musty structure for a hearing last summer. Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., berated a bewildered GSA official at that hearing, saying: "You can't get your job done! I don't care if it's a Republican or Democratic administration, the job is not getting done!" 

Congressional frustration may be warranted. The federal government owns or leases between 55,000 and 77,000 vacant properties. But it's impossible to tell exactly how many. No precise inventory has been kept. 

Selling them off, though, could save taxpayers between $3 billion and $8 billion a year, according to various analysts. That's nothing to scoff at as the government grapples with a mounting debt and sequester-tied spending cuts. 

"These properties could be used first to consolidate agencies that now are in leased buildings," D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton told Fox News. 

Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste said: "This is a problem that has been identified for years, and every time someone in the White House says 'let's sell property,' the red tape is simply too much for this process." 

In 1987, amid media coverage of the nation's persistent homeless problem, Congress passed a law that said unused government properties first had to be offered to other federal agencies, then to state agencies, and, as a last resort, for use as homeless shelters before they could be put on the market. 

"We spend about 8 billion dollars a year maintaining properties that we have no use for. Now that 8 billion dollars is just thrown down the drain because we can't get past the homeless lobby to get a common-sense way to take care of their problems and also us to unload properties," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told Fox News. 

Former Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., notes that Congress is full of people who've never held private-sector jobs."There is nothing wrong with that. But it means they have never really been in the position of running something, of making hard decisions, of having scarce resources and having to set priorities." 

Schatz echoes that sentiment -- noting the way the government handles the excess properties is counter to common sense. "Rather than having the government get the first choice, the first choice should be to sell and then go back down the line. There are plenty of places for homeless shelters," he said. 

Legislation to require the federal government to expedite the sale of underused properties died in the last Congress. It was resurrected this year in Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget, which the Senate voted down this month. 

But Norton has hopes Congress will begin to remedy the problem this year."The Oversight and Government Reform committee has just passed again its bill which I think has a good chance of getting all the way to the Senate," she said. 

Still, if Congress does pass a bill to sell excess properties, inventorying all of them would be a daunting undertaking given that they're spread across all government agencies.

View the original article here

South Carolina university project chugs along after 15 years, $24M cost to taxpayers

• 

  Shown here is a rendering of the James E. Clyburn University Transportation Center, left, and Rep. James Clyburn.South Carolina Legislative Audit Council/AP

WASHINGTON –  It was billed as a state-of-the-art transportation hub that was going to give students at South Carolina State University a leg up on the competition. 

The four building, 33-acre complex, named after its most famous alumnus, Rep. James Clyburn, would be a monument to the future -- where students could get hands-on experience and be a part of groundbreaking research in transportation. 

Fast forward 15 years and the site once called the "project of the future" has morphed into a money-sucking pit. Aside from the $24 million in federal funding already spent on the project, an estimated $80 million more is needed to finish it. Of the four proposed buildings, only one has been constructed, and the program's core goal -- to provide educational and research opportunities to students at new high-tech facilities -- has obviously not been met. 

Federal funding, as of now, has been suspended. But the school could still reapply, and the largely undeveloped site stands as an example of money that could have been saved for a rainy day -- funded by the same department that's now moving forward with serious sequester-related cuts. 

Funding for the James E. Clyburn Transportation Center was earmarked by Congress, through the Department of Transportation. Now, that agency is warning that sequester cuts will lead to FAA furloughs causing snarled lines at airports across the country. 

The problems facing South Carolina State University aren't new or isolated. There have been multiple projects that have been financed or earmarked with taxpayer money that have been forced to be abandoned. Millions of dollars wasted on proposals green-lighted through the federal government and now put on hold have added to the crippling fiscal problems facing the country. 

In South Carolina, the almost two decades-old construction project was supposed to include 8,500 square feet of automotive research and education space, a chiller plant and workspace. There were also supposed to be research bays and other transportation work pods. But that isn't what happened. 

According to Clyburn, the 2005 groundbreaking was followed by a series of bizarre and crippling problems. 

Clyburn, in a statement provided by his office, said the school learned -- after the groundbreaking -- that it did not own 3 acres in the middle of the 23-acre site and that negotiations to purchase that property took 18 months. Another year was tacked on for the city of Orangeburg to deed the street involved to the university. Then the state of South Carolina ordered the university to complete a traffic impact study, which took six months to do. In 2008, the chief architect for the project was diagnosed with cancer. This was followed by a record number of permit denials and modification demands. In 2009, more than one decade after the project was given the green light by the federal government, it finally won approval of the FHA and State Engineer's Office. 

But the headaches only grew, Clyburn said. 

The university opened the project up for bids on Dec. 18, 2009. The lowest of the 18 bids was selected, but four of the companies filed a protest. Then the chief architect died, and the search for a new one began. While permits were being secured and staff was being hired, the university underwent its own staffing changes -- there had been three different presidents and the staff on the Clyburn transportation center had changed "four or five times" Clyburn said. 

Spiraling construction costs and the loss of federal recognition for the facility brought the program to a standstill multiple times. And last year, the school was hit with a number of audits. There have also been allegations of missing money and reports of duplicate billings, questionable payments and abuses by individual employees at the center. 

The school itself is facing declining enrollment numbers and a $6 million shortfall. 

University spokeswoman Antia Dawkins told FoxNews.com in a written statement that the university has had to make changes in its plan to complete the center.

"The current approach is to seek the advice of a broad-based advisory board consisting of subject-matter experts in transportation," she said. "This advisory board will help us shape the focus and direction for the Transportation Initiative."

There is a possibility the amount of money the school needs to finish the project could eclipse the estimated $80 million. 

"While various transportation activities have been discussed and included in our Transportation Program over the last 15 years, we cannot adequately determine the financial requirement for any plan that was discussed over that time period," Dawkins said.  

Since accusations of gross mismanagement hit the school, Clyburn's enthusiasm seemed to ease a bit for the problem-plagued project. But instead of blaming the school and reported mishandling of resources, Clyburn believes the problem is a political one. 

"The faculty and the school have become victims of vicious manufactured attacks by political partisans, and that is unfortunate for the university and the students who would benefit from this program," Clyburn said in a written statement to FoxNews.com Monday. "I don't know what the future of the center is, and I will leave that up to the university and its alumni to determine."

View the original article here

Obama blackmails taxpayers while blaming Republicans

President Obama is at it again. Unable to manage the government or the economy effectively, he threatens to victimize taxpayers and stick Republicans with the blame.

It appears likely sequestration will require $85 billion in cuts to defense and non-entitlement government spending.

Unwilling to acknowledge the government has a spending problem—over the last five years, outlays are up $1 trillion and three times the amount required by inflation—and that tax revenues are short because his policies have instigated the weakest recovery since the Great Depression, President Obama is threatening draconian measures if Republicans don’t agree to more taxes.

Perhaps, Mr. Obama should read less Lincoln and behave more like Truman.

The president has announced meat inspectors will be furloughed and food shortages will result. His cabinet secretaries have threatened three hour waits at airports to clear security, reduced embassy protection and border patrols, cut the Persian Gulf Naval presence from two aircraft carriers to one, and the list goes on ….

Repeatedly, the president has exclaimed if Congressional Republicans don’t cooperate, spending cuts now could derail the hard won recovery. It puzzles me how $85 billion in a $16 trillion economy could make such a difference, especially when tax increases of similar size, implemented on January 1 at the president’s behest, had no similar effect in his mind.

The Constitution charges the president with running the government effectively on the money Congress provides. While appropriation legislation limits the fungibility of funds, the administration has considerable discretion allocating the 10 percent cuts in non-entitlement spending.

Military bands have more personnel than the State Department’s Foreign Service has employees—I would rather jettison some tubas than Marine guards at embassies.

The Agriculture Department has one of the largest staffs of economists in the world, and the Social Security Administration employs a similar crop of dull number crunchers. I fear for my brethren, but safe food is more important than yet another dull research paper.

To provide fuel and munitions to maintain the carrier presence in the Gulf, it would be better trim ballooning military health care costs, something Mr. Panetta has expressed sympathy about addressing.

That would require longer-term reforms, but President Obama has refused to look at skyrocketing spending with a critical eye. He talks about balanced approaches to deficit reduction—half spending and half taxes; however, instead of matching increases in payroll and income taxes imposed January 1 with spending cuts, he pushed through more spending on unemployment insurance and other initiatives.

Now, the president is unwilling to manage effectively $85 billion in cuts across a $3.8 trillion government—remember administrative, research and public affairs outlays associated with entitlements are fair game too. And what about the White House budget!

Instead, he would rather blackmail Americans with food shortages, long lines at airports and the like, and invoke the specter of another recession to gain political advantage over the Republicans.

Whether a second recession occurs is already baked in the cake. Mr. Obama’s high taxes, and those imposed by Democratic governors from Maryland to California, have forced consumers to trim purchases, retailers and wholesalers are reporting weaker traffic and are trimming inventories, and corporate leaders have announced plans to cut new investments and hiring owing to weak demand and more burdensome health care costs and regulations.

When you can’t get hamburger at the supermarket and unemployment rises this spring,  President Obama will do what he does best, cast blame on Republicans for permitting sequestration, but it is the American people that bear the burden of presidential disregard for the responsibilities of his office and the harmful effects of his policies.

Perhaps, Mr. Obama should read less Lincoln and behave more like Truman. The man from Missouri often exclaimed “the buck stops here.”

Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter @PMorici1.

View the original article here