In the Wake of the Rally to Restore Sanity

Well, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert pulled it off.  They held their Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear on the Mall in Washington DC on October 30th, 2010.  I wasn’t able to attend it in person, but Comedy Central aired it (commercial free), live that morning.  I was entertained by the first 2.5 hours, and moved by the last 30 minutes of it.  That balance (in retrospect) seems about right, but watching the convention, I kept wanting Stewart to get to the damn point already.  Still, at the end of the day, I thought it was a great event and had a great message:  That the political extremists on both sides of the isle have hijacked this country, and we the sane need to take it back.  Our main stream media does little more but fuel the fire, just so they can stir the pot and make news out of it.  Our Media spends all it’s time focusing on the extreme, the sensational, and the most controversial stories they can find, often blowing them out of proportion, if not not lying about them altogether, and at the end of the day that is hurting America.

Here’s a prime example of this phenomenon, I just picked this up off of a friend’s Facebook Wall.  Apparently, the president is headed to India for a G20 conference.  An un-credited, anonymous source in INDIA has claimed that the president is going to be traveling with 3000 people, will rent out the entire Taj Mahal hotel, and will spend over $200 million dollars a day on the trip.  Factcheck.org did the math on this as part of their investigative work.  Apparently, it only costs $190 million dollars a day to run the war in Afghanistan, so the idea that a small state visit would exceed that cost is pretty far fetched.  The white house has categorically denied the claims, but they can’t put forth the real numbers for fear of letting the wrong people know important details about the president’s security detail while he’s overseas.  Most conventional wisdom points to an error in the translation, and that the Indian reporter meant 200 million rupees a day, which translates to about 5 million US Dollars a day.  That figure is much more in line with what a presidential trip should cost, based on figures from the Bush and Clinton administrations. 

However, Rush Limbaugh got a hold of this and blasted it all over the American radio.  Of course, all he focused on was the $200 million dollar a day figure.  Then Glen Beck added in that he would be taking 34 warships and an aircraft carrier (which, by the way, would be about 10% of the entire US Navy).  Neither man would list his source, or perform the most basic fact checking.  Instead, they are riling up the American people against the President’s flagrant waste of Tax Payer’s Dollars...  How is this helping America?  It’s not.  It’s helping Rush, and Beck, and their supporters.  When Fox News pulls the same stunts, they aren’t doing it to help the people, they are doing it to help their stock holders and their Republican Buddies.  When MSNBC (who is actively trying to emulate Fox News now, but for the Democrats instead) pull the same moves, it’s not to help the people but to help their ratings, their stock holders, and get a little more air time for the democrats.  I could rant about that move from MSNBC for awhile, but I wont… I’ll just chalk it up to fighting fire with fire, and move on.  At least MSNBC is fighting for the little guys, not the big and powerful… but that’s a rant for another time.  Even CNN, which does a reasonable job of being moderate and trying to represent both sides, resorts to sensationalist reporting to grab people’s attention.  Steven Colbert drew attention to this at the rally, when he awarded Anderson Cooper’s tight black tee-shirt one of his Fear awards.

In looking over all the major players in the Mainstream Media, a trend becomes painfully obvious, coming from all sides of the landscape.  The media has long since lost their ‘journalist integrity’…  they lost it the day that the networks decided that news shows needed to be profitable.  The day that the people in charge put profits over proper reporting, the media ceased being a reliable source of news and became no better than the politicians they are covering.  Think about it… Most people would agree that it’s wrong for a politician to take money from a lobbyist group and then legislate in favor of those lobbyists.  How is it any better for the media to take advertising money from the same corporations, and be expected to report fairly on news based around those corporations, especially when it involves corruption in Washington?  I lost the last of my illusions on that matter while watching the BP Oil Spill coverage on CNN.  Every night, Anderson Cooper would rail BP for their bullshit in the gulf, hitting them especially hard for the millions of dollars they spent on their PR campaign while refusing to pay the locals… but the very next day, those same BP commercials were being aired on CNN, DURING AC360.  I don’t fault Cooper for that, but if the network, CNN, is willing to take ad money from BP, how can we be expected to trust that they are going to give a fair report of BP’s actions?

The problem is worse that all that, though…  If ratings are king, and sensationalism gets ratings, how do you drum up your sensationalism?  Easy… you take a note from the grocery store tabloids and you lie through your teeth!  Either through active deception (i.e. saying something you know isn’t true), or regurgitating facts that no one on your staff has bothered to fact check, you can deceive your audience.  The India trip debacle has gotten so far out of hand that members of Congress are going on national news programs and calling the president out on this ‘wasteful spending’.  One senator was on AC360 last week to discuss how the Republicans are going to trim the budget in the House.  Instead of talking about that, she tried to change the topic from reducing Medicare costs to the India Trip, and Anderson had to lay the smack down on her for it.  Fox news is so good at lying on the air that they’ve gone to court over it.  The result of that lawsuit and similar suites like it is that Fox News can legally lie on the air, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

Of course, without the media, how are any of us going to know what the hell is going on?  And if the Media can say whatever the fuck they want and not be held accountable for it, they how can we believe what we hear?  It’s a never ending spiral of lies and blame and bullshit that does nothing but hurt this country and the people who live here.  It’s gotten to the point that I almost can’t bear to watch the news anymore, even on CNN.  I’m not alone, either… and I think it’s a big part of why Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are the 2 most trusted sources of news on Television today.  As much as I like those 2 guys, this is not the way it should be!  What happened to the folks like Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Walter Cronkite?  What can we do to get our news media back to the way it was?

Well, I think the first solution is to pass legislation that forces News organizations to fact check stories they put out there, and clearly labels opinions and unproven ‘facts’ as such.  This goes for everyone, from Fox to CNN to MSNBC, even NPR:  If you want to call yourself a NEWS show, you have to be reporting honestly.  Just forcing the media to tell the truth about situations will go a long way towards clearing the air.  I’m not saying that news shows can’t or shouldn’t have opinions, or pundits, or commentators, or analysts… those folks are there to help explain what's going on and what it means to the rest of us.  Fine, I can live with that.  But what I can’t stomach are ‘News’ shows that spend hours analyzing, debating, and propagating stories (like the India trip) that are complete falsehoods.

The other solution to the problem is to remove the motivation for news shows to pander to their supporters.  National News Organizations that are privately funded are ultimately motivated by their sponsors and their revenu money.  I don’t believe that a news show can be truly objective in that situation.  I would like to see publicly funded news organizations, prohibited from receiving private capital and forced to fact check the stories they report on.  Everything else has to be labeled as opinion pieces, and prohibited from being called ‘News Organizations’.  I know that idea will never fly, but it’s the only way I can think of to remove the driving force of the Media to put their ratings over their integrity. 

The reason it would never fly is that a publicly funded newscast would wind up being boring.  Beyond the obvious lack of the outlandish stories that are the mainstream media’s bread and butter, these networks would have to work with a limited budget.  Fox wouldn’t be able to hire analysts like Karl Rove and Sarah Palin, or hire talk show hosts like Glen Beck.  MSNBC would have similar issue (although, given his crusader like mentality, I think Keith Olberman would keep working).  CNN wouldn’t be able to keep buying those nifty (and completely useless) technological toys, like their 3D holograms and Wall-O-Bricks charts.  News would go back to the way it was in the 60’s, with a couple of anchors behind a desk, reporting on the stories, with the occasional editorial or opinion piece off to the side and on the scene reports for big events.  Personally, I would love it.  We would learn more and there would be a lot less anger and hatred between the right and left in the country.  Unfortunately, most American’s don’t give a fuck about learning more, they want to be entertained, they want to fight, and they need someone to blame for things they dislike.  So, we’ve allowed our news channels to become a source of entertainment, and let ourselves get into the mess we’re in now.

Obviously, I’m going to have to fix this, when the world is mine…
--Crash

What the hell is wrong with these assholes?

Ok… I know I’ve already written about the Prop 8 ruling… but lets face it, this is going to be in the news for awhile, and like anything else in the news, it’s going to get attention from both sides of the issue.  Today’s example in extreme asshattery comes from one David Frum, a republican author who wants conservatism to ‘win’ again (whatever the fuck that means), and is a regular columnist for CNN.  He’s written an editorial called ‘Bristol Palin and the Future of Marriage’.  In this article, Frum makes the case that the recent re-breakup between Bristol and Levi is more important than the ruling on Prop 8 last week, that re-legalized same sex marriages in California.  Frum went on to say things like ‘Same Sex marriage has lead people to believe that having children out of wedlock is normal’, and that children born outside of wedlock are less likely to finish school, more likely to experience poverty, and more likely to go to prison.  He attempts to make the case that allowing same sex marriages is tantamount to dooming children across the land to lives of uneducated poverty and prison. 

After reading this article, I would very much like to find David Frum, and kick him in the head.

So, let me start my rebuttal with the obvious glaring hole in Frum’s argument.  No where in his editorial, or in court last week, was anyone anywhere able to prove that same sex marriage leads to  less hetero-sexual marriages.  Furthermore, no one has been able to prove that same sex marriages promote promiscuity between unmarried couples.  (Hollywood does a FAAAAAR better job of doing that for us, but that’s another rant).  Since Frum’s entire argument relies on the notion that same sex marriages lead to more children out of wedlock, we could stop right here and be confident we’ve made our case.  However, I would like to point out the other, far more obvious fact about same sex couples (both in and out of marriage)… THEY DON’T HAVE CHILDREN ACCIDENTALLY!  I’ve never heard of a pair of lesbians having pre-martial sex and ‘accidentally’ getting knocked up!  It just doesn’t happen!  And if it did?  Guess what!  THEY AREN’T FUCKING LESBIANS!  We learned that shit in biology 101!  How the FUCK can you make the case that same sex marriages promote unwed pregnancies?  It’s fucking ridiculous, and Frum should be a ashamed of himself for committing such a stupid thought to words, much less publishing them in a national forum!

Of course, Frum’s own data works against him.  Allow me to present exhibit A:

Notice that Alaska is not among the handful of states that allow same sex marriages.  (It does allow marriage to first cousins though, which might explain Bristol’s mom… but I digress…)  However, Frum’s ‘data’ shows that nearly 30% of white women in 2007 who gave birth, did so out of wedlock.  Is he implying that 30% of the white people in the USA live in that 5% of the country, and that those 30% of white children born were born in areas that allow same sex marriage?  He is certainly implying that same sex marriage is the only factor that leads kids to think marriage isn’t necessary.  So, given her mother’s very public stance on the issues and her geographic location, the notion that Bristol’s exposure to same sex marriage made her think that it was cool to get knocked up at 16 before getting married, during her mother’s failed attempt at running for VP is really not holding much water.  I may be going out on a limb here, but I think it’s safe to say that some other factor lead her to believe it was cool to get knocked up early and unwed.  Hrmmm… what could it be, what could it be?  Could it be…. SATAN?!?!  Nope… it’s probably just some pussy in glitter:

But anyway, enough about Bristol.  I’m writing this post to rip on Frum here, for being an asshat and continuing to push the notion that same sex marriage is hurting our children.  Frum isn’t the only one doing this either.  Most analysts agree that the PR blitz in ‘08 about Prop 8 was largely successful because they played on a parents fear that allowing same sex marriages would somehow make their kids gay.  Now they are changing their tune slightly, and saying that it wont make them gay, it will just make them disrespect the institution or marriage, presumably because it’s not an exclusive thing anymore, and just old anyone can get married now!  It’s the same bullshit move with a fresh coat of paint tacked onto it.  It isn’t any more true now than it was in ‘08, and I’m sick and tired of seeing these assholes hide their intolerance and bigotry behind the shield of ‘SAVE THE CHILDREN!’.  This bullshit is doing more harm than good and it needs to stop!

If 2 people are lucky enough to find happiness together, let them be happy!  This doesn’t hurt anyone!  A Man and a Woman, a White and Black, and Jew and a Christian, who cares, and why are any of these couples fundamentally different or entitled to any different treatment?  Marriage is about love and happiness, plain and simple.  Denying marriage to same sex couples is teaching your kids that it’s ok to oppress people because they are different from you.  If you think that’s a good idea, than a few unwed teens having babies is the least of your problems!

I could rant on this for hours, but I have work to do…
Crash

Oh, the conversations I have with my mother…

So, I went home for lunch today, to find my mother (who’s in town visiting this week+), watching some space exploration show on the Science Channel.  The talking head on the TV made a comment about how we could potentially have a man on Mars by the end of President Obama’s second term.  Now… my mother is not a fan of the president.  At all.  She’s convinced that Obama isn’t a citizen, is a Muslim terrorist, and is selling out our country to the Chinese.  I’m not really sure when she became a rabid right wing nut job, but there it is, clear as day.  So, when mom heard that statement about Obama and space travel, her first reaction was ‘NO WE CAN’T!  OBAMA TOOK AWAY ALL THE MONEY FROM THE SPACE PROGRAM!  RAWRRRR!’  Of course, being the more rational of the two, I felt obligated to correct her…

I reminded her that Obama didn’t just call up the heads of NASA and have them all summarily shot in their faces.  Instead, he’s repurposed NASA towards more pressing terrestrial scientific endeavors, and turned over the task of manned space exploration to the private sector.  When asked who she would rather see running the show on space flight:  the Government or the Private sector, mom was forced to concede that we’re better off in the private sector’s hands.  The government bureaucracy is so inflated right now that between budget arguments, congressional committees, and ceaseless politicking, nothing serious would ever get done again.  However, in the past 6 months since the private sector has been let loose on the issues, we’ve already seen our first 100% private run and funded orbital object launch.  (Way to go, Space X!)

That’s the thing about my mother… she loves to argue politics, but she’s so mired in the conspiracy theories, hate and fear mongering, and eternal pessimism of the right wing that she can’t make a single argument that stands up to fact checking or the slightest amount of reason.  I make a habit of shooting down anything like that I hear her say, especially when I’m home for the holidays.  It would be hilarious, if she and my grandmother didn’t get into screaming matches over these very same things when I’m not around…

Anyway, little conversations like this make my day, especially when they result in mom having to admit that something the President did is working out positively.  I wish it was that easy to convince the rest of the folks around here of all that… but at least it’s something ;)

 

Crash

Prop 8 my homework!

(see what I did there?  Anyway…)

So, yesterday, in what will certainly be a court case for the ages, California Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker (appointed by Ronald Reagan, by the way) shot down Prop 8 as being unconstitutional.  For those of you who don’t pay attention to California politics, Prop 8 was the ballot initiative in 2008 that banned the state of California from issuing any more same sex marriage licenses.  Judge Vaughn overturned the law the grounds that it violated due process and equal treatment guaranteed by the 14th amendment.  In the verdict of the case, he said that the defendants (i.e. the state of California) failed to produce any evidence that backed up the claims that same sex marriages hurt heterosexual marriages in any way, nor was there any evidence that same sex couples were unfit parents.  He summed up the ruling by affirming that prop 8 was based on a moral point of view that held same sex marriages as inferior to heterosexual marriages, and that moral opinions were not a basis for any kind of law.  I could sum it up even more, but I have a better idea:

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians.  The evidence shows
conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private
moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex
couples.  FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind
now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage
imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons
affected.”).  Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians
without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

CONCLUSION

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-
sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.  Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. 

You can check out the full PDF case briefing here.  Personally, I think is one of the best things to come out of the judiciary system in ages.  I’m hoping that this will be the domino to fall and start the chain reaction to legalize same sex marriages across the country.  I fear that my gay friends here in Alabama may have another couple decades to wait until it’s their turn, but at least this is movement in the right direction.

I’m glad to see legislation like this coming down the pipe.  Many analysts predict that in 20 years, same sex marriage will be legal across the country (well, except here in Alabama, of course).  Now that the ball is rolling, there are a few other laws I would like to see changed across the country.  For example, Pot.  Legalize that shit, and tax the hell out of it!  People are going to smoke it either way, the only question is who gets the profits… drug runners, or the US Government and Phillip Morris?  As much as I like to dish on the corporate fat-cats who are ruining America, I would rather see all that pot money go to US companies over Mexican drug lords.  Plus, legalizing it will free up a lot of police and judiciary resources to focus on real dangerous crime.  But that’s another rant for another time…

Crash

Crash For President: Immigration and Welfare

In what I hope will be the first of many posts on the subject, I'm going to talk about how I'll run things when I become the President of the United States of America.  In this post, I share my ideas on how to fix Immigration, and the rampant abuse of our entitlement programs (i.e. welfare) by Americans.

So, recently Arizona passed a very controversial immigration law, in a very short sighted attempt to curb the illegal immigrants pouring into the state from Mexico.  Illegal immigrants are sneaking into the state, draining public resources, and 'stealing our jobs' from the local populace.  The law requires every immigrant in Arizona to carry their immigration documents with them at all time.  Arizona cops can demand to see these papers pretty much any time they want too (with the help of any thinly veiled context they can come up with on the spot).  The radical right thinks this is a fantastic solution, while the bleeding heart left has gone so far as to compare this to the Nazi's treatment of the Jews, pre-world war 2.  First off, while I am very left of center, I think comparing it to the Nazi's is a bit premature... when they start rounding up illegals into concentration camps and construction begins on the ovens, then we'll talk.  Second, isn't there a law out there somewhere about abusing the Nazi card in an argument?

The public discourse on this topic of late has been focused primarily on who's to blame (hint:  Everyone wants to blame the illegal immigrants!), which I think is a horrible way to go about solving the problem.  Hell, I don't even want to talk about that law.  Instead, I want to look at the root causes of the problems that spawned the new law, instead of trying to treat the symptoms it was written to combat.  I believe that the immigration problem we have is not the cause, but a symptom of  larger problems.  Everyone wants to dog pile on the 'BLAME JOSE!' bandwagon, but that's just because no one wants to take responsibility for our problems.  I don't blame the immigrants, I blame the people who are taking advantage of them when they get over here, and enabling them to make enough money to stay here indefinitely.

Sure, these immigrants are coming over here illegally, and yes, that's bad, but I want to make this clear... I don't blame them for coming over here illegally.  That's not a very popular view point, but put yourself in their shoes for a few minutes.  You find yourself living in a third world country, your government is fundamentally corrupt and you are so poor you can't afford to buy bread.  There's no law enforcement to speak of, hospitals are laughable at best, and you can't drink the water.  You hear about life in the promised land: America!  Easy money, accessible health care and education for your kids...  you'd think life looks pretty good on the other side of the fence too.  If we found ourselves in that situation, I think any one of us would give serious thought to the jumping the fence too.  In that light, knowing that I would make the same choice if I were in their shoes, I can't really find fault with the immigrants who sneak into the country, hoping to find a better life.  I'm not saying I'm happy to pay for that better life, I'm just saying that I understand why they do it.

Anyway, moving on... the question we need to be asking ourselves is this:  Why do these illegals come into the country?  Well, that's an easy answer:  Because they can find work here.  Sure, it's doing the jobs that none of the rest of America wants to do, for wages that none of the rest of the country want to work for, but hey... it's work, and it's better than what they have in Mexico.  People are willing to hire them, despite the illegality of it.  As long as they can find jobs, immigrants will continue to come here, by any means they can.  So, if you insist on placing blame, don't you think it should lie squarely around the necks of the people who hire these illegals?  (For the record, yes, I do!)  These folks are paying less than minimum wage, not paying payroll or social security taxes on these folks, and give away jobs to non-American citizens.  I think it's fair to say this is a major problem.

However, I'm not interested in placing blame here, I'm just trying to get to the root causes and address them.  So, why do you think that these businesses would willingly hire illegal workers, knowing that what they are doing is contributing to the problem and hurting the country?  Again, this is an easy answer:  It's cheaper!  This is the root of so many bad choices in this country... go green or burn coal?  Coal!  Why?  Cheaper!  Buy organic or buy chemically enhanced, mass produced goods?  Bring on the HFCS!  Why?  Cheaper!  You get the point.  The people who hire illegals hire them because it costs them much less than having to hire legal workers and pay into the system (like everyone else!).

Simply saying that cutting off the supply of illegals will solve the problem is a big steaming pile of crap.  We'll never be able to cut off the supply fully, and even if we could, what do you think would happen?  Think it through... these businesses that hire illegals now will have to hire legal employees, which cost more.  These businesses will have to raise their prices, or go out of business.  The rest of us will feel the effects as these costs trickle up through the system.  As things get more and more expensive, we'll look for cheaper and cheaper options.  We'll begin to import more (cheaper) goods to offset the higher cost of domestic goods... which of course, defeats the entire purpose of trying to keep American jobs in American hands.  Sound impossible?  When was the last time you called tech support?  Did you enjoy talking to Raji?  I know he enjoyed talking to you...  Simply cutting off the supply of cheap labor here will not fix the problem, it will only offset it, and cause a whole new host of problems to rise up.

Anyway, enough of that for now... lets set that aside for a little bit and switch gears.  We'll get back to this later, I promise...

As I said earlier, I'm fairly far left of center.  I don't describe myself as a bleeding heart liberal, but I do like big government, and I think that our 'entitlement' programs like Welfare, medicare, food stamps, etc, are useful to society.  However, I'm not so blind that I can't see that these systems are broken.  Welfare, in particular, needs some attention.  Welfare was designed to be a 'hand-up' for people who were down on their luck or found themselves in a bad situation.  However, it has become little more than a 'hand-out' program now, and people who are on the system rarely look to get off it.  It's basically 'free money', and we've never asked them for anything in return for it.  Of course, if someone offered you a free check every month to sit on your ass all day, I think some of you might consider that option as well.  That's not a difficult choice to understand.

So, let me see if I can't take what we've talked about so far and roll it all up in a handy little recap...  We've got illegal immigrants rushing into the country because there are plentiful jobs that no one else wants.  We've got business owners and private citizens hiring illegals because they are less expensive than hiring legitimate full time employees.  We've got an ever increasing segment of people with no job and nothing to do all day but sit around, and are already GIVING them tax payer money.  Hmmm.... if only there was a way to use one problem to fix the other... Oh wait, I've got it!

Lets start with the welfare handouts.  You want money from the government?  Sure, no problem.  Report to work at 08:00.  Work?  I didn't sign up for this shit!  Sure you did.  Money for Nothing and Chics for Free is just a song, pal.  Here in the real world, we work for our money.  You want money, food, and a hand up from the government, we're happy to help.  But you're going to start pulling your weight to earn it.  But, but, but... I have kids to care for!  I can't spend all day working and leave my kids unattended!  Don't worry, we've got that covered!  Check this out...

If you're on welfare, you join a government subsidized work force.  You'll get your standard welfare benefits, plus a small cash stipend to spend as you please.  If you fail to report to work, the government fails to mail out your welfare package.  But, what will we do with all these workers, you ask?  That is a great question... hey, what about all those employers who hire illegals because they're cheaper than the regular workforce?  These business owners can hire out from the welfare workforce for around what they are paying illegal workers now.  As long as it doesn't cost more (or much more) than hiring illegals, there's no incentive for the business owners to hire illegals over citizens.  The government will subsidize the whole thing, making sure the workers on welfare get their benefits, while the employers pay what they can afford without having to raise their prices.

Anyone who doesn't get hired out to local businesses, farmers, construction companies, or whatever, can do public works stuff.  We need clean up crews on the streets (who aren't in orange jump suits and chains, preferably).  We need people to clean up graffiti around town.  We need Census takers.  There's always work that needs to be done around our country.  Oh, and lets not forget the welfare parents... we'll need day care facilities to care for the children of these workers!  The best part is that we can staff those daycare centers with other welfare workers.  The employers pay into the system to hire people out at the same low cost to them that they are used to when working with illegals.  They don't have to increase their prices, so we don't feel the burden higher up in the system.  The government subsidizes the rest.  We're already giving away most of that money as free welfare anyway, why not get something out of the investment?

So, you might ask what happens if someone gets assigned to a job they don't want to do?  Well, if they're so down on their luck that have no other choice but to go on welfare, they really don't get to be too picky about what work is out there for you.  Beggars and Chooses, you see...  If you don't like constantly being on street cleaning duty, that's incentive to go out and get a real job.  Hey, look at that!  We've found motivation to get off of welfare.

This accomplishes several things.  First off, it lets the employers keep operating at or near the same cost as they do now.  They no longer need to hire illegals, and the money that is currently going to illegals or being sent back to Mexico gets to stay in the US Economy.  When there are no jobs for Illegals to 'take', they lose their primary reason for crossing the border in the first place.  This also gets the welfare recipients out of the hand-out mentality and back into the hand-up mentality.  There is a great deal to be said for working an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, and being made to work a job you don't really enjoy will motivate them to find one they are happier with.  Kids grow up watching mommy and daddy working, instead living off of Uncle Sam, and they come to expect to work as well.  If people working for welfare want to better themselves or get a better job, they've just earned some work experience to build on.

Sure, there are some problems with this (as well as every other) solution.  For example, illegals will still come here to try and get health care.  Fine.. if they're dying or seriously injured, of course we should try to save them.  I'm a big fan of this radical concept called 'basic human rights', and I believe no one should be turned away from a hospital if they're bleeding from multiple stab wounds.  However, I don't think it's out of the question to verify immigration status if a patient can't produce any kind of health insurance or pay for their treatment.  If they're an illegal, we patch them up and hand them off to INS when they're discharged.  I really don't expect this to be a big problem, once the supply of jobs dries up for illegals.  Doubt that?  Look north.  Canada's got completely free health care.  How many American's without insurance jump the (non-existent) fence to Canada to get fixed up when they're sick?  Sorry pal, it really doesn't happen.

Another potential problem would be placing welfare workers in the right kind of work.  I really wouldn't want to see an abusive alcoholic father be staffed to a daycare center, for example, and I wouldn't expect to place a small woman with back problems in the fields picking strawberries every day.  We would have to do some basic screening and aptitude tests to make sure the right people were pulled for the right work.  That's really not all that complicated.  We would also have to put sensible restrictions on who could or could not pull from the welfare worker corp, as well as what kind of jobs those workers could fill.  If you don't, eventually everyone is trying to hire from that pool, and the people working in those sectors legitimately suffer undue competition (however, one of the biggest arguments in the immigration issue right now is that illegals only take the jobs that decent American's don't want... so pick a side and stick with it).  There would also have to be some pretty harsh penalties for employing illegals after the system goes live and a serious effort behind enforcing these laws after the system was implemented.

Really, the only side of this that I haven't addressed yet is what to do with the illegals who are already here, taking advantage of public services without paying anything into them.  So, what should we do with them?  Hey, That's easy too.  Make them a part of the system.  Legalize them, or at least simplify the path to legalization and remove the threat of deportation for illegals who apply to the system.  People can say this all they want:  'If they want to immigrate, they should do it LEGALLY'... but if the legal path to immigration is prohibitively expensive and time consuming, it's not a practical option.... applying for green card alone costs $1,000 as of 2007, and that's if you try to do it without the help of a lawyer.  Applying for citizenship can take years.  If they are coming to America because they're too poor to provide for themselves in Mexico, how are they going to save up that much cash for a green card?  (FYI:  $1 dollar is approximately 13 pesos... so 13,000 peso's for a green card.  Average minimum wage in Mexico is about 55 pesos per day.  Do the math and tell me how well that works for you...  So can we all please get off the 'they should just do it legally' bandwagon?  Source).

I think the benefits of this system would far outweigh the burdens.  You keep US money in US hands, you make jobs for people who need them, and you keep costs low for the people who have to hire illegals now.  You remove the reason we have so many illegal immigrants trying to get into the country.  News flash folks:  people do things for reasons.  No reason mean no action.  Yes, the government will foot the bill for some of this.  I'm for big government, remember?  I don't mind.  You don't think this system will work?  That's fine too.  Bring me a better plan, preferably one that doesn't rely on trickle down economics or have anything to do with Haliburton.  If you can show me a better, mutually beneficial solution for these problems, then maybe I'll have found my VP candidate!

Crash for President!