judging border Security how much authority will the watchdogs have?

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON A bipartisan group of senators collaborating on comprehensive immigration-reform legislation has not come to terms on a proposed commission to scrutinize border security. It's a potential sticking point between Democrats inclined to limit the panel to an advisory role and Republicans who want it to have meaningful authority.

The group, which would be composed of governors, attorneys general and other "community leaders living along the Southwest border," would gauge border-security progress and make a recommendation when it was satisfied that the legislation's security provisions were in effect.

Only then, according to a framework of the bill presented Jan. 28 by the so-called Gang of Eight senators, would the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the United States be able to start down a long path to citizenship.

The commission and border-security triggers were part of a compromise aimed at winning over conservative enforcement hawks.

But activists on both sides of the debate have reacted coolly to the idea and want to see the details.

While Republicans want to make sure the panel has muscle, immigration advocates and their Democratic allies want to make sure that commissioners can't politicize the process by using subjective criteria to perpetually claim that the border improvements are not good enough. They envision a commission more advisory in nature, with the secretary of Homeland Security -- whoever that is at the time -- making the final decision.

"We have not resolved anything on that issue yet," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a key Republican in the talks, told The Arizona Republic during an interview in his Capitol Hill office last week. "One of the things that you do in these negotiations is that you try to get some of the easier issues resolved before you get into the real tough ones. Kind of a momentum thing. So, we're still working away on it."

Generally speaking, McCain said, he and his seven Senate colleagues have been making progress on the bill, which is still expected to be released this month.

The other members of the group are Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado; and Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona, Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The effort, which is supported by President Barack Obama, is the most serious push for comprehensive immigration reform since 2007, when a compromise package co-authored by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and then-Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., failed in the Senate amid a public outcry against "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

McCain said the border-commission provision has proved somewhat tricky because the Constitution gives Congress authority over immigration and border issues, and a new panel can't trump that.

The lawmakers want the panel, which "has to have significant border representation," to be objective and not politically motivated, McCain said, and senators are asking the Government Accountability Office for input. The GAO is Congress' investigative arm.

"You've got to be careful about that, which is why I think it's important to have some metrics as to what they could look at from a statistical standpoint that would ensure that we have effective control of the border," McCain told The Republic. "We're looking to the administration to give us some recommendations there, and we're looking to the GAO to give us some recommendations."

Flake said the border commission is one of several issues that the Senate negotiators continue to work on, and the question about exactly how much influence it will have on the final conclusion about the level of security remains unresolved.

"We're still trying to figure that part out, and what role it plays," Flake said. "Now, whether that is an actual sign-off in the end or real input into what the metrics are and how it is judged (has not been settled)."

Immigration advocates would prefer legislation that does not make a pathway to citizenship contingent on border security, which they say has greatly improved in recent years with the addition of Border Patrol personnel, technology and fencing.

The Senate group's framework calls for a "tough but fair" path for prospective permanent residents and prospective citizens that would include passing a background check, paying taxes, learning English and U.S. civics, and going to "the back of the line" of legal immigrants. However, they would be allowed to immediately secure probationary legal status, which would let them live and work in the country by registering with the government, passing a background check and paying a penalty.

Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-reform organization America's Voice, called the proposed commission "worrisome" because of the potential for political mischief by border hard-liners who could tie up the process.

Even if the commission just makes a recommendation to the Homeland Security secretary, the final decision could hinge on who is president years from now, when the panel completes its work, he said. And it's anybody's guess who would be the governors and attorneys general in the four border states when the commission gets going.

"I'm not prepared to say it's a deal-breaker for us, but I am prepared to say it's excessive, it's expensive and it's mostly unnecessary," Sharry said. "I understand the pressures within the Republican Party, but in some respects we are talking about a condition to satisfy a perception that has been promoted in a distorted way."

McCain and Flake both acknowledged that the government has made strides in upgrading border security, but they said more is needed.

"The border piece certainly is a deal-breaker," Flake said, speaking for himself and possibly other Republicans. "We have to have some serious commitment and some serious progress there."

But some immigration-reform opponents and other observers also are not impressed with the idea of the new border commission.

Steven Camarota, director of research for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, said the border commission allows Republicans to posture on the security issue by suggesting they are tougher on the border than Obama and the Democrats.

From his group's perspective, it doesn't matter much if such a commission ever declares the border is secure because the undocumented immigrants will get provisional legal status, or "amnesty," regardless.

"It's hard to imagine it could really have much teeth," said Camarota, whose organization supports more immigration enforcement and overall reductions in immigration. "I see it as a kind of meaningless gesture that allows Republicans to say they're standing up to the president and that it means something. It doesn't. I don't think it means anything as a practical matter, and I don't think it means anything as a political matter."

One political expert who follows the immigration debate closely said he views the proposed commission as a way that the Senate could shift responsibility for securing the border from itself to others.

Either Congress will completely punt on the issue or will so strictly guide what the commission can do through the legislation that the panel will turn out to be a charade, said Louis DeSipio, professor of political science and Chicano studies at the University of California-Irvine.

"It's really a face-saving measure for the Senate that is almost guaranteed not to accomplish very much in the end, except maybe delay," he said.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Q-and-A: Why Are Social Security Cuts Even on the Table? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Ever since Social Security was first introduced, it's been political suicide for anyone to even suggest cutting it. GOP Rep. Paul Ryan, whose budget plan included dramatic cuts to the program, got booed when he showed up at town hall meetings afterward, and other Republicans who supported it have had to deal with similarly unruly crowds.

Democrats, on the other hand, have long been known as the party that supports Social Security, along with other "social safety net" programs like Medicare. This is one of the big things that's ensured their reelection even in contested districts. And it raises the question: Why on Earth is Obama starting to negotiate cutting it?

Doesn't Social Security add to the deficit?

No.

But we have to pay for it somehow, right?

It's already paid for through 2037. Your payroll taxes are used to buy U.S. Treasury Bonds, and the Social Security Administration has a huge stockpile of them already.

What happens in 2037?

You'll get about 80 percent of what you're supposed to get from Social Security, unless somebody fixes that. Conservatives want to stick it to the poor by lowering benefits and increasing the retirement age, and liberals want to increase the payroll tax cap, so that people making more than about $100,000 a year pay the same proportion of their income that we do.

Don't we have to fix Social Security, then?

Yes, on or before 2037. Right now we're facing a much closer deadline: If we don't either go further into debt or eliminate the deficit by Aug. 2, Bad Stuff starts to happen.

So that's why we need to cut Social Security, right?

Yes, one way we could eliminate the budget deficit is by tossing elderly people out of their homes and into the cold, just like back in the days before Social Security. The "poor house" is a part of our vernacular for a reason, and the more we cut holes in our safety net the more people will find out what it was.

But what else can we do?

Well, for one, the Bush tax cuts contribute about $400 billion to the deficit, and are adding trillions to our national debt. So that choice right there is simple: Make 84-year-old widows starve, or make rich people choose between Audis and Mercedes?

Are you saying that Bush caused the deficit?

Coming out of the Clinton presidency, we didn't have a deficit. We had a surplus, which is the opposite: We were making more money each year than we spent. President Bush immediately blew it all by giving it away to rich people in the form of a tax cut, plus going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars have added $4 trillion to our national debt, all so we can kill dirt-poor peasants who don't spend nearly as much to fight us.

Now all of a sudden, with millions of Americans in poverty and unemployed, what's hanging up our whole government isn't figuring out how to put people to work, New Deal style. It's making sure we don't go into debt, period, even though the longer people stay unemployed the less money we'll take in in taxes. And even though companies like General Electric effectively pay zero dollars in taxes, attempts to fix tax loopholes that the wealthy exploit are facing fierce opposition.

That's part of the reason that the plan they're hammering out right now does not raise taxes, and does cut things like Social Security. Because the rich are sacred, and it would be evil and awful to touch them. The rest of us are just going to have to make sacrifices, for their greater good.

That sounds pretty bad.

That's not even the worst part. The worst part is that a lot of Democrats agree with the Republicans on this, including Obama. And while he's trying to fix some of those tax loopholes, the fact that we're even talking about touching Social Security is a bad sign.

View the original article here