Tony Snow talks immigration with Hugh Hewitt
On the heels of the immigration deal being reached, Tony Snow willingly walked itno the lion's den this afternoon when he spoke with Hugh Hewitt about the farc, er, "deal" reached yesterday by both sides of the aisle in the Senate. Now, nothing has been released to the public about this yet, and Tony Snow emphasized that. He also called for cooler heads to prevail, citing the Oval Office office talking points.
I've got no problem with hearing what they have to say. Hell, I'd like to see the bill. Tony Snow did say at the end of the interview the text would be online by the end of the day. Granted, I'm not looking too hard at 12:11 a.m. on a Saturday morning. It's been a long day, and tonight was "date night." The Mrs. and I never miss date night. (Newlyweds we are, but we do love each other a great deal. We're both busy, so date nights are important to us.) I'll dig it up tomorrow if it's online.
But I'll listen to their case. From where I'm sitting right now, though, color us unimpressed, and color me ticked as Hell still. Show of hands, folks: Who trusts the federal government to abide by and execute this plan, completely as outlined, and stick to their promise of enforcement first? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Yeah, the comment's amusing, but I've been a longtime advocate of keeping as much out of the Fed's hamds as possible. Why? You want something screwed up badly, put the federal government in charge of it. They're very good at creating bureaucracy, red tape, partisan backlashing, and petty power struggles, but they're terrible at running anything effectively and efficiently. The closest they come to in terms of a good job is the military, and with all the petty antics in Congress, it's a wonder why we haven't lost this war yet.
So pardon my sarcasm and disbelief that the federal govenrment can actually follow through on their primary promise. The secondary one, which is regularization, is almost guaranteed to work the way it's believed to be set up in this compromise. The other concern I have, and it was the very first thing Hugh brought up is terrorism. I've heard a lot of this deal's defenders claiming that the "lone terrorist" theory is a straw man argument. Um, not it's not.
The federal government would be involved in a huge plan, and one that even illegals said they've got no desire to play the fed's game. I brought that up yesterday in my final post of the day on the subject. The illegals don't like the hoops they have to jump through. So, let's say a small cell of terrorists -- no more than six -- manages to slip through the nets. They either blow off the laws, or manage to evade the background checks. Let's even make it easy and say they're just going to go around blowing themselves up, nothing elaborate.
They only have to be right one time to effect their damage on the nation. The government has to be right 100% of the time. Given the fed's record, that leaves me sleepless at night, sometimes, but I've got faith. Remember, the government's good at protecting the nation, for the most part. (As long as they're not pandering to their PC, special interest, cry-babies.)
The point of this insomnia-driven rant is this: Tony Snow can spin this any way he'd like, but I'm not convinced that this is good, or that the government can even make this work. The odds, with regard to immigration, are stacked pretty high against them. And while faith pays off sometimes, all too often we, the American taxpayer, end up getting kicked in the teeth. It leaves a fairly sour taste in one's mouth and a dour outlook on life. (Marcie despises it when I end up in a such an obstinate mood because it usually leads me to get a tad surly.)
And based on the involvement of a couple key players, namely Kennedy, McCain, and Graham, I'm not wearing a happy hat over this. These guys have screwed up more in the last six years that I can count. (I'm almost to the point where I need an abacus, but not just yet.) Tony Snow wants me to buy that this deal is good, and that it solves our problem, he can keep take those delusion pills. I'm more apt to listen to Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation when he extrapolates the costs, which will stagger taxpayers. See the illegals under this bill aren't going to cost us less, and ease the burden we already shoulder for them. No, they're costs are going to skyrocket. Trust me. Remember these three words, read the bill, and understand the cost: Social Security checks.
Yeah, they'll be in the system, and based on Rector's models, they'll be heading into the Social Security pay-out phase right about the time Social Security begins to collapse. Can you say "crisis?"
Look, we'll see more when the bill is actually released so the public can see it. God help the ones who assembled this bill. This could be their political death knell. And God help the White House if this bill stinks. If this was some sort of "legacy promotion," and President Bush is willing to go along with a thoroughly flawed, possible piece of legislation (which we hope he's not given he's heard the Hell raised over McCain/Feingold, the Dubai Ports Deal, and Harriet Miers), then his legacy won't be worth a plug nickel.
I'm sorry to those readers who thought I might have had a heart. That beats for one person, alone. And my heart would beat a lot better if we had enforcement and security first; ALL OF IT. That means we get ALL of the fence; we get ALL of the border agents; we get ALL of the surveillance; we get ALL the background checks and guarantees that those that are a danger are gone. THEN we can work out a sensible and proper path to regularization. I want this natiuon secured by something more than a band-aid.
This bill, based on what we know, and the analysis we've read of it, is a band-aid. Congress is putting a band-aid on a tumor. I'm not demeaning those here who want a job and are working hard every day at that job. But the longer we screw around with this issue, the worse it gets. We need a solution, make no mistake about that at all. But it needs to be manageable, and it can't be a detriment to the nation. Illegal immigration has been enough of a drain on this nation already. The last thing we need is that continued misery enacted in flawed legislation.
Publius II
I've got no problem with hearing what they have to say. Hell, I'd like to see the bill. Tony Snow did say at the end of the interview the text would be online by the end of the day. Granted, I'm not looking too hard at 12:11 a.m. on a Saturday morning. It's been a long day, and tonight was "date night." The Mrs. and I never miss date night. (Newlyweds we are, but we do love each other a great deal. We're both busy, so date nights are important to us.) I'll dig it up tomorrow if it's online.
But I'll listen to their case. From where I'm sitting right now, though, color us unimpressed, and color me ticked as Hell still. Show of hands, folks: Who trusts the federal government to abide by and execute this plan, completely as outlined, and stick to their promise of enforcement first? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Yeah, the comment's amusing, but I've been a longtime advocate of keeping as much out of the Fed's hamds as possible. Why? You want something screwed up badly, put the federal government in charge of it. They're very good at creating bureaucracy, red tape, partisan backlashing, and petty power struggles, but they're terrible at running anything effectively and efficiently. The closest they come to in terms of a good job is the military, and with all the petty antics in Congress, it's a wonder why we haven't lost this war yet.
So pardon my sarcasm and disbelief that the federal govenrment can actually follow through on their primary promise. The secondary one, which is regularization, is almost guaranteed to work the way it's believed to be set up in this compromise. The other concern I have, and it was the very first thing Hugh brought up is terrorism. I've heard a lot of this deal's defenders claiming that the "lone terrorist" theory is a straw man argument. Um, not it's not.
The federal government would be involved in a huge plan, and one that even illegals said they've got no desire to play the fed's game. I brought that up yesterday in my final post of the day on the subject. The illegals don't like the hoops they have to jump through. So, let's say a small cell of terrorists -- no more than six -- manages to slip through the nets. They either blow off the laws, or manage to evade the background checks. Let's even make it easy and say they're just going to go around blowing themselves up, nothing elaborate.
They only have to be right one time to effect their damage on the nation. The government has to be right 100% of the time. Given the fed's record, that leaves me sleepless at night, sometimes, but I've got faith. Remember, the government's good at protecting the nation, for the most part. (As long as they're not pandering to their PC, special interest, cry-babies.)
The point of this insomnia-driven rant is this: Tony Snow can spin this any way he'd like, but I'm not convinced that this is good, or that the government can even make this work. The odds, with regard to immigration, are stacked pretty high against them. And while faith pays off sometimes, all too often we, the American taxpayer, end up getting kicked in the teeth. It leaves a fairly sour taste in one's mouth and a dour outlook on life. (Marcie despises it when I end up in a such an obstinate mood because it usually leads me to get a tad surly.)
And based on the involvement of a couple key players, namely Kennedy, McCain, and Graham, I'm not wearing a happy hat over this. These guys have screwed up more in the last six years that I can count. (I'm almost to the point where I need an abacus, but not just yet.) Tony Snow wants me to buy that this deal is good, and that it solves our problem, he can keep take those delusion pills. I'm more apt to listen to Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation when he extrapolates the costs, which will stagger taxpayers. See the illegals under this bill aren't going to cost us less, and ease the burden we already shoulder for them. No, they're costs are going to skyrocket. Trust me. Remember these three words, read the bill, and understand the cost: Social Security checks.
Yeah, they'll be in the system, and based on Rector's models, they'll be heading into the Social Security pay-out phase right about the time Social Security begins to collapse. Can you say "crisis?"
Look, we'll see more when the bill is actually released so the public can see it. God help the ones who assembled this bill. This could be their political death knell. And God help the White House if this bill stinks. If this was some sort of "legacy promotion," and President Bush is willing to go along with a thoroughly flawed, possible piece of legislation (which we hope he's not given he's heard the Hell raised over McCain/Feingold, the Dubai Ports Deal, and Harriet Miers), then his legacy won't be worth a plug nickel.
I'm sorry to those readers who thought I might have had a heart. That beats for one person, alone. And my heart would beat a lot better if we had enforcement and security first; ALL OF IT. That means we get ALL of the fence; we get ALL of the border agents; we get ALL of the surveillance; we get ALL the background checks and guarantees that those that are a danger are gone. THEN we can work out a sensible and proper path to regularization. I want this natiuon secured by something more than a band-aid.
This bill, based on what we know, and the analysis we've read of it, is a band-aid. Congress is putting a band-aid on a tumor. I'm not demeaning those here who want a job and are working hard every day at that job. But the longer we screw around with this issue, the worse it gets. We need a solution, make no mistake about that at all. But it needs to be manageable, and it can't be a detriment to the nation. Illegal immigration has been enough of a drain on this nation already. The last thing we need is that continued misery enacted in flawed legislation.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home