“I don’t believe we’re not going to round up and deport 12 million people, I’m not going to lie to you about that.” ~ Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio practices deception right before your eyes.
Not all 12 million need to be rounded up in five minutes, nor five weeks, nor five months or even five years.
It's simple, really.
Ban illegals from welfare, even for their kids unless they surrender their kids to foster care.
Confiscate all business assets via asset forfeiture or asset seizure under an alike RICO law for any firm that knowingly hires illegals.
Offer to pay for transportation and give one-time payment of $1,000 for every illegal who surrenders to go back to his real country.
Most illegals will go home, simply without needing to round them up. The goal should be to deport all illegals over 10 to 15 years, not instantaneously.
12 million illegals at 15 years, is a measly eight hundred thousand (800,000) a year. If Congress had to pay them $1,000 each, that would cost only $800 million. That is a rounding error on the budget for Congress. It without doubt is cheaper than all of the spending for welfare, infrastructure and crime caused by illegals.
Marco is either an idiot if doesn't have a plan like the one outlined above or a liar and saying it can't be done.
After Obama gave his State of the Union address, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley spoke a rebuttal. During her rebuttal, Haley attacked Donald Trump, the Republican Party front runner for the party nomination to run for the presidency.
After her speech, in a grand display of publicly-expressed idiocy, Haley told reporters, "We’ve never in the history of this country passed any laws [sic] or done anything based on race or religion."
The word country entered into English in the mid-1200s from the Old French meaning district, native land.The word race entered English from the Middle French in the 1500s meaning people of common descent and derived from razza meaning race, breed, lineage, family.
Likely, Haley spoke euphemistically along these lines — Never in the history of Congress has Congress passed any law against any people. She did so either because she has poor English-speaking skills or she meant to deceive listeners.
Nikki Haley is what happens when an ignorant child of immigrants grows up and becomes a stupid politician.
President Chester A. Arthur signed into United States law The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (May 6, 1882). The law restricted immigration including prohibiting immigration of Chinese laborers. Congress renewed the 10-year law in 1892. Congress then made the law permanent in 1902. The law wasn't repealed until the 1943 by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States.
And then there was that whole Dred Scott USSC decision, numerous laws in support of slavery, the Missouri Compromise and so forth.
With passage of the omnibus spending bill signed into law by President Obama himself on on January 17th, 2014, Obama re-authorized the Lautenberg Amendment to give a religious preference test for Jews, Christians, Baha’is, and other religious minorities seeking to flee Iran.
So yes, Congress has a rich history of passing laws based on both race and religion.
Here are notable acts of Congress doing exactly what Nikki Haley, the daughter of immigrants claimed Americans never have done:
The Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875) was the first immigration law from Congress. It prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as undesirable — any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer. Imposed a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States "without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service." The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited Chinese naturalization thus blocking Chinese immigrants from ever becoming citizens. Not only did this act from Congress restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years, but also provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.
The Alien Contract Labor Law Act of 1885 prohibited the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens to perform labor in the United States while under contract.
With The Geary Act of 1892, Congress expanded the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 with new, prohibiting requirements. The law required all Chinese residents of the United States to carry a resident permit, a sort of internal passport. Failure to carry the permit at all times was punishable by deportation or a year of hard labor. In addition, Chinese were not allowed to bear witness in court, and could not receive bail in habeas corpus proceedings.
In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), by a 7–2 decision, the United States Supreme Court justices decided that Dred Scott was still a slave in spite of having lived in slave-free territories precisely because no one of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and thus could not bring suit in federal court.
By now, you have read about Mohammadan, aka "Muslims," hoodlums in Germany who went on raping and sexual assault sprees across Germany in what quite likely were social media organized, coordinated attacks against German women. The Mohammadan hoodlums even went around with a how-to-speak German crib sheet with phrases to demand sex.
Deceptively, mainstream media propagandists continue to refer to these hijrah — jihad through immigration — Mohammadans from North Africa, the Middle East and Pakistan as "male migrants." They do so precisely because the word migrant defuses thought and makes it seem these males in the primes of their lives are the weak, frail, helpless who need humanity.
In anticipation for the need of extra policing, the police chief Wolfgang Albers of Köln (aka Cologne), Germany, asked to put more men on duty. Ralf Jäger, Home Secretary of the North Rhine-Westphalia state turned down Albers. After the Mohammadan rape incidents, Jäger tried to lay blame on Albers.
It wouldn't matter if there were 5,000 cops working that night. The cops didn't cause these Mohammadans to rise up and rape white Christian and white secular Germans. Believing in Islam and Mohammad caused these Mohammadans from North Africa, the Middle East and Pakistan to rise up and rape white Christian and white secular Germans.
Henriette Reker, the Mayor of Cologne, blamed the free German women for being victims of rapes and sexual assaults. Reker claimed women should be held to a "code of conduct" so that hijrah Mohammadans will lack the means of raping them. Mohammadans hold their own women to a code of conduct. They stone them to death if a man rapes them. As well, they keep their women shrouded. Nick Fagge and Sara Malm, propagandists for the Daily Mail UK have gone so far as to claim "the attacks in Cologne ... and other German cities, where dozens of women have reported sexual assaults and robberies, have played into the hands of far-right groups." The spin spun by Fagge and Malm is typical. Rather than hold the rapists responsible, it's the fault of right-wing ideologues. Well, Fagge and Malm ought to tell that to the females brutalized by these Mohammadans whose beliefs justify their raping.
The leader of the German government, Angela Merkel, continues to import Mohammadans into Germany for the express purpose of changing the country of Germany itself. Angela Merkel and her cohort of European puppets leaders are forcing white Europeans to kill themselves by paying taxes for their replacements — Mohammadans of another race.
There won't be a Germany in 20 years at least not one you recognize. Within four years, non-whites in Germany will be in the majority for the 20- to 30-year-old age group thanks to Merkel's idiocy. Merkel has burned Germany for authentic Germans. That is a demographic certainty now.
Deep-down, Merkel is a communist. Her dad moved her as a little girl from the safety of West Germany where they were natural born citizens to communist East Germany. That should tell anyone all he ever needs to know about what Merkel really believes.
Mohammadanism is a totalitarian, collectivist doctrine. Mohammadanism needs to be recognized for what it is, a kind of totalitarianism that organizes people for conquest. It is not an individualist doctrine of self-bettering or enlightenment. Thus it's not religion.
True progress comes from the freeing of the individual. No one can be pro-Mohammadanism (Islam) be a true progressive.
The race is on to turn Europeans back 1406 years. Not until all those living in future Europe are Mohammadans with their European women wearing burkas will liberal European politicians become satisfied.
For me, this picture says it all. Obama's policies are misguided. Islamism is a horrible totalitarian doctrine rooted in pseudo-theology. It's a distorted, perverse, bad plagiarism of Judaism.
As there is no place among a free people of totalitarian doctrines like communism and fascism, so too there is no place among a free people for Islam.
On Sunday, Sun December 6, 2015, between the afternoon and evening NFL games, the mediocre-intellect-in-chief, Barry Obama, commandeered Americans' broadcast airwaves to give his propaganda message to cover up for the horrible devout Muslims who murdered Americans in San Bernardino for the cause of Islam.
Idiotically, Obama said the killers "had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam" rather than acknowledging reality. They were persons who went down the path of becoming devout muslims adhering to Islamism, a badly plagiarized kind of Judaism.
Obama offered up a bit of true gold comedy when he said, "We're working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria." Meanwhile Obama can't even work with the Mexican government to seal the border with Mexico and stop the Central American illegal alien invasion under which Americans have been suffering since the Bill Clinton years.
And then Obama went ahead with false bravado to masquerade his lecturing:
We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear.
No sooner did Obama say that those in charge — because it is never truly about Americans — should not give into fear, Obama proposed giving into fear. Obama said, "To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun."
The existence of a no-fly list reveals fear. Almost everyone who has been named to the no-fly list is a U.S. citizen. Only those living from fear try to deny anyone they dislike from flying. And could there be anything more fearful than trying to take away from Americans their constitutionally-enshrined right of owning guns by violating the Second Amendment?
Bogus constitutional scholars like Obama forever need to be schooled on the Constitution of the United States. The first ten amendments, which are known as the Bill of Rights, describe legal relationships that impose duties upon any congress formed under the Constitution and confers matching rights to every individual living within the territories of the United States.
And then the one-time practitioner of Islam told Americans, "Here's what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam." Meanwhile the war is between the ummah — worldwide muslimry — who adhere to Islam and Islamic law against the Americans, the United States Constitution and our way of life.
And with an amazing display of publicly-expressed stupidity, Obama said, "But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country."
Back on November 21, 1989, then President Bush signed into law the the 1990 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. That bill included the Lautenberg Amendment, named after Frank Lautenberg, the senator from New Jersey who pushed for it, which gave preferential status to refugees from the former Soviet Union and Southeast Asia based on their religions. In short, the law established a religious test for immigration!
The worst bit though is this. With passage of the omnibus spending bill signed into law by President Obama himself on on January 17th, 2014, Obama re-authorized the Lautenberg Amendment to give a religious preference test for Jews, Christians, Baha’is, and other religious minorities seeking to flee Iran.
Obama gave a speech claiming he has a plan. Obama's failure of a plan since Janurary, 2009, has been this:
Import even more hijrah muslims — muslims who practice jihad by immigration
Try to confiscate legal guns from Americans when Congress has a duty not to try to confiscate arms of any kind for any reason, anytime.
On Monday, GOP presidential front-runner, Donald Trump, released a statement to news media:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”
Current Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, the proud cheesehead from Wisconsin, took to the airwaves to denounce Trump's plan. Idiotically, Ryan said "What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it's not what this country stands for."
And yet, this is exactly what Congress does. Not only is the Lautenberg Amendment proof that Congress controls immigration by religious tests, but also long ago Congress passed other immigration law that restricts immigration on grounds of terrorism, criminal activity and other dangers to Americans (see: 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens)
All need to stop parroting idiotic phrases that support the false belief that illegals will take the work that Americans won't do. Those who parrot such idiocy only support those who favor illegal aliens.
Illegals can underbid Americans on wages for the same work done because illegals face a different break even than U.S. citizens and legal residents face. It's really that simple.
The lovers of illegals, whatever their agenda — typically socialist, liberal, progressive, pseudo-libertarian — will claim Americans are lazy. Thus, they will claim illegals will do the work Americans won't do.
Being illegal means illegals don't pay income taxes to anyone. Whether from Mexico or elsewhere, illegals beat Americans at wage auctions precisely because they are illegal.
Income taxes are the biggest expenditure of every American. Even if illegals pay the same living costs as Americans, illegals can accept lower wages for the same work because they don't pay income taxes.
Political supporters of illegals need to show the world they can bend the laws of mathematics. Of course, they cannot do so. The pro-illegals advocates can't beat the math.
The two equations express the same thing. Wages are sales of work for pay through time as Sales are sales of product for payment through time.
So when you compare the break evens for illegals to Americans, you get this:
ƒ (Break even Illegal) = N × Wages - Costs ƒ (Break even American) = (Wages - Taxes) - Costs
where N < 1.0, N × Wages > Wages - Taxes
Because wage-earning Americans must pay income taxes — that is what being legal means — Americans have higher break evens than illegals since illegals don't pay income taxes.
Worse, American workers must pay income taxes on Gross Sales while American businesses pay income taxes on Net Sales, which in itself is a scam on Americans. That means, individuals must pay taxes to Congress and their states before they pay their costs (living expenses).
Americans can't even can buy a loaf of bread to eat until they pay Congress and their state legislators income taxes. However, illegals don't suffer the same penalty.
As taxes are an unearned share of profits swiped by lawgivers, Americans can't get out of their compulsory taxes. Income taxes leave legal Americans with lower wages on higher wage rates than illegals because Congress and state legislators swipe a giant chunk of the wages of legal Americans.
Even when illegals bid at lower wage rates, their wages are higher because they keep all of their wages. And if they have kids in America and collect welfare, their incomes are even higher.
As I have shown you before, no one will work at a loss. Americans won't work at jobs where the pay rate fails to cover costs (i.e., living expenses).
Legal wage-earning Americans are subsidizing illegals and those who hire illegals. Without these subsidies, there would be no advantage to hiring illegals. Illegals simply wouldn't come here.
At 4:02 in this video below, famed monetarist economist, the now-deceased Milton Friedman spews the fallacy of "they take jobs that most residents won't do." Friedman parrots a stupid belief, a mindless mantra that immigrants come to take the work Americans won't do.
Milton Friedman was a theory-reading academic and not a profit-and-loss businessman. So Friedman fell for the "Americans are lazy" big lie.
Easy-to-understand math proves wrong Milton Friedman and proves wrong everyone who believes as Friedman does.
So what should Americans want to happen? There must be three fixes in law:
Firm operators caught employing illegals should have their assets confiscated and sold off at auction.
Even when a child is a U.S. citizen, only U.S. citizens and legal residents should be allowed to file for welfare on a child's behalf. The adult filing for welfare for a child should be forced to prove legal residency status.
Legal immigration should be temporarily stopped during every recession.
Illegal immigration is a boon to anti-capitalists.
For the firm operators who employ illegals, they enjoy unearned profits. Without illegals, many would be forced to exit the field of competition, shrinking supply and raising prices for those who produce efficiently with capital.
Illegals act as an anchor pulling down wages for everyone else on the wage-scale ladder precisely because the swell of working age population negatively effects the return on capital.
Flooding a country with illegals suppresses capital spending because enterprisers can't get suitable returns to capital in the face of cheap labor. With capital spending suppressed, wages are suppressed. All of that causes an economy to go into a death spiral.
Have a look at the chart socialists and politicians don't want you to see and the chart that shows economists don't understand commercial life:
Heed my dictum: Labor makes property. Capital makes property efficiently.
Workers can better themselves only so far before hitting the wall of efficiency gains. For substantive gains in production requires capital. Only when returns to capital are increasing will anyone take his property and put it to production.
Where you find no capital, you find no wages — many Africans live this way. Where you find many workers, even in the face of some capital (per capita capital low) you find low wages — the Chinese and Hindians live this way.
If anyone supports illegals, then why have any laws? Why have any property laws? Why have patent laws? Why have copyright laws?
For those supporting illegals, why not let someone take your car if they want to use it to drive to work? Why should law exist to justify others stopping car thieves on your behalf?
If you're going to have a sovereignty, you cannot have unfettered immigration, illegal or legal. Legal immigration should be restricted so that the foreign-born population never exceeds five percent of the total population in any year.
In my sleuthing of old works, quite often, I come across what I name as the same-as-it-ever-wasphenomena. Here is a clip from New Zealand parliamentary debates of the third session of the Twelfth Parliament held almost 119 years ago between July 8 and 31 of 1896.
In the debate supporting the advance of a bill restricting immigration, a Kiwi parliamentarian puts forth his fear-mongering belief of the Chinese and Japanese becoming the dominate manufacturers and exporters. You can skip to page 467 about midway down the left-hand column.
As I said, this is one of those same-as-it-ever-was things.
Oh, in case you wonder how did I find this, I had been searching the topic of reciprocity, which today, politicians call Free Trade Agreements. That too is another one of those same-as-it-ever-was was things.
Did you notice how these mates called themselves honorable as they tried to justify their fears of Japanese and Chinese?
"I can promise that I will try to do it in the first year of my second term. The challenge we've got on immigration reform is very simple. I've got a majority of Democrats who are prepared to vote for it, and I've got no Republicans who are prepared to vote for it." ~ President Obama
Someone ought to tell the purported constitutional "scholar" that Obama can do something right now. According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, Obama has:
...Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
In short, Obama can pardon — grant official forgiveness for an acknowledged crime — and once he does, Obama waives all punishment for illegal aliens as lawbreakers. In turn, all illegals would need to do is to surrender to a government office and sign a confession for their crime of entering into the U.S.A. illegally. BAM! And then likely, illegals can get non-immigrant visas letting them stay in the USA for up to one year to get their acts together.
That Obama has not done so speaks to his craftiness of using illegal immigration as voting getting stance. Also, that Obama has not done so speaks to his cowardly ways as a purported leader.
"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." ~ Joseph Goebbels, Ph.D., Reich Minister of Propaganda, NAZI Germany
The big lie told Americans at every turn is "We are, after all, a nation of immigrants." Vote hungry politicians tell this whopper of a lie. Unionized public educators spew this lie into the minds of impressionable, defenseless children.
Ellis Island circa early 1900s (left). Illegals storming a wall (right).
Never has America been "a nation of immigrants." Most Americans have been born here. This is true for the entire history of the USA.
During the era of British colonies, the colonies were British territories. In that era, most colonial Americans were Englishmen, overwhelmingly so. Thus, no British living in the colonies were immigrants.
On October 19, 1781, British General Charles Cornwallis formally surrendered at Yorktown, Virginia, thus bringing the War for Independence to a close. The second constitution of the USA, written in 1787, took effect in 1789. In Constitution as it is now known, authorizes a census to be taken every ten years.
Beginning with the 1850 census, census takers asked Americans where they were born, whether in the United States or elsewhere. It is from 1850 that demographers are sure these stats are accurate.
From 1770 onward immigration has been a fraction of population, never exceeding 15% in any decade and having been as low as 0.6%. From the first census authorized by the second constitution to before 1840, immigration population relative to American population never exceeded a scant 1.5%. Between 1790 and 1840, immigrant population averaged a measly 1.0% of Americans.
Between 1850 and 1930, immigrant population averaged 13.1% of Americans. Between 1940 and 1990, immigrant population averaged 6.7% of population. It's only since Billy Clinton that Americans have witnessed an uptick in immigration population relative to Americans, averaging 12% since 1990.
Over the history of the USA, American-born population has averaged 91.7%.
Someone said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Americans are a people born right here in the US of A.
Instead of taxing the rich to help the poor put there by the rich, we should do something different. Raise minimum wages to match inflation, ban tax rebates while employees are on welfare, the list goes on. We must have equal power to negotiate or we will lose every time. Here is an argument for raising minimum wage that does not involve bleeding heart rhetoric. People on minimum wage spend everything they earn to survive. They cannot thrive because the opportunities to improve their lot take capital they don't possess and never will at their wage level. We want the economy to improve. Raising wages will accomplish this goal on a macro economic level. After all, if the majority of your employees don't earn enough to buy your own products you have limited your consumer base. If this wage level is industry standard, then most other companies pay their employees insufficiently to buy your products as well. Pay them enough and they will have the choice to buy your products, go to school for an education, earn even more and buy yet more products. Do it for the economy.
ME
A tad more than 5% of all hourly-paid workers get paid an hourly wage at or below the minimum wage. That is a scant 1% of the total U.S. population! You would have us believe that raising the wages of 1% of all Americans who have the lowest incomes is going to do anything? Do you not see the absurdity of your beliefs, how silly-minded your beliefs are? The Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25. One percent of the U.S. population is 3.139 million (2012). Full-time work amounts to 2,080 hours a year. The 2012 U.S. GDP was $15,680 billion ($15.68 trillion). So if all 1% of Americans who minimum wage earners worked full-time, they would have earned a scant 0.30% of GDP, that is ZERO POINT THREE PERCENT. Said another way, that is three-tenths of one percent. If Congress doubled the minimum wage to $14.50 an hour and all minimum wage earners worked full-time for a whole year, they would only have earned six-tenths of one percent of GDP! If Congress tripled the minimum wage to a whopping $21.75 an hour, the do-you-want-fries-with-that workers would only have earned about 1% of GDP (0.996%)! So rather than calling for minimum wages to rise, people who barely buy anything, why don't you call for the pay of CEOs to be increased one-hundred fold? After all, rich people buy the most stuff. Why are you calling for wages to rise for people who have limited wants rather than calling for wages to rise for those with insatiable wants, those accustomed to spending much and often? By your thinking, giving people more to spend causes more trade and thus creates growth in what most call the economy. So why anoint those least capable of knowing how to spend to do the task? Either way, merely injecting more cash and consumer credit does little more but to raise prices. Scholarly men have known this since the late 1690s at least (John Locke, Sir Dudley North). Why don't you know this? Giving people more cash does not increase production. With a few extra dollars each week, the poor suddenly are not going to call for new Cadillacs and Lincolns to get manufactured. The poor won't eat more pasta nor more bread nor will the poor drink more milk merely because they have a few extra dollars each week to spend. Giving the poor a few more dollars will do nothing but raise prices. More cash chasing the same output results in RAISING PRICES ONLY. All prices conform to the one, true , infrangible law of trade — the Law of Prices, which holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price. If minimum wage were the answer, why hasn't it ever been the answer? In the United States, statutory minimum wages were first introduced nationally in 1938. In a whopping 76-year trial run, minimum wage never has alleviated poverty. SEVENTY SIX YEARS OF MINIMUM WAGE LAWS have done nothing. Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), later renamed AFDC and later still TANF has been around since 1935! In a 79-year trial run, welfare never has alleviated poverty. So, why should 77 and 80 years suddenly be the turning point years for those failed programs, the expression of failed thoughts and false beliefs?
CLUELESS KENNY
But, but, but ... What about the children?!
ME
If you want to see a righteous rise in wages, you should call for an end to minimum wage as well as an end to specific welfare. The combination of minimum wage and welfare amounts to a subsidy to employers whose capital structure gets predicated on using minimum wage workers on the whole. No one would work at a loss (wages - living expenses). It is only because of subsidy of welfare that many choose to be workers at minimum wage. The right move is the end minimum wage laws and all political interference in trade. That idea frightens more businessmen to a greater degree than it does the people as too many businessmen fear authentic, manly competition. Another right move would be to restrict immigration for the next 10 years and perhaps longer as all net population increase in the USA since 1980 or so has come from immigrants and their descendants. In conjunction, if the Congress could evict the 20 million or so illegal aliens residing in the USA, a significant chuck of the pool of low wage bidders would be erased. That would go far to pressure wages upward for no-skill workers.
All should be reminded of that every time the word Obamacare gets mentioned.
There were no problems in the private markets for medical bills paying insurance before Obamacare. The U.S. Congress then led by Pelosi and Reid along with Obama himself have created this crisis.
It should be clear to all that Sebelius is in way too deep, way over her head, beyond her intellectual capacity to lead and to know how to get results. Easily, Sebelius is one of the most incompetent cabinet secretaries in the history of the United States, and perhaps the most incompetent.
The problem of healthcare expense (what Congress pays for Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans) remain. The outlays for these programs shall continue to grow because:
1) growth of immigration, legal or otherwise consists of people mostly lacking skills that would enable them to earn wages above qualifying for Medicaid
2) demographics of baby boomers that sees 10,000 additional Americans a day turn 65 and instantly qualify for Medicare
3) perpetual military adventurism resulting in ever more maimed soldiers
