Dems see political payback as DREAM Act passes

The US House of Representatives passed a version of the DREAM Act on Thursday, an act to grab political payback for Democrats. Eight Republicans voted for the bill—all but two of those congressmen won’t be there next term.

President Barack Obama’s website carried a blog post that touted the cost-savings in the DREAM Act after the Congressional Budget Office finally scored it. Taking a page from progressive Democrat playbooks past, present and future, the Obama site blog post said the act is “good for the economy” and will reduce the federal deficit.

The CBO scored the Senate bill, S3992, and there are indications the bill will, as fiscal conservatives in both parties believe, cost the taxpayer more:

• CBO estimates that enacting S3992 would increase net direct spending by $912 million over the 2011-2020 period.      

• [T]he eventual conversion of some of the conditional nonimmigrants to legal permanent resident (LPR) status after 2020 would lead to significant increases in spending for the federal health insurance exchanges, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Pursuant to section 311 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (S. Con. Res. 70), CBO estimates that the bill would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2021.

It appears the House actually passed HR6497. The legislative process Democrats have used can be confusing to Main Street.

Michael Hill offers an analysis that illustrates that point: “MicEvHill.Com has posted the text of the House Amendments to the Senate Amendments to H.R. 5281, the legislative vehicle by which the House considered the DREAM Act on Wednesday, December 8, 2010.”

Hill further explains Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) maneuver: “[J]ust before the scheduled cloture vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stopped the Senate from voting [on S3992] , explained that the House was about to vote on the DREAM Act, and asked the Senate to delay its vote until the House had acted.” Hill, a progressive who is a lobbyist on immigration matters among other issues, offers a good explanation of the whole deal from Reid’s standpoint and his post provides great insight into why obscurely written, anti-taxpayer laws often get passed.

As yet no one has explained a child under the age of 16 who has been in the country for 5 years or more without legal status didn’t inspire his or her parents to complete paperwork necessary for citizenship or legal resident status.

The DREAM Act is at heart a welfare bill for citizens of a foreign country who will still have legal rights in their home country, conferred by Obama’s pledge to comply with the Avena decision. No prog has brought this up because I suspect not even Reid is aware of it.

Furthermore, the infrastructure for US immigration policy and procedure is a glutted, complex, bureaucratic mess. I suspect, based on extensive research and email messages, there is also rampant corruption.  Any legislator with the wellbeing of this country in mind would have addressed that infrastructure before creating another entitlement program.

The Center for Immigration Studies provided a memorandum about the DREAM Act, noting, “On average, each illegal immigrant who attends a public institution will receive a tuition subsidy from taxpayers of nearly $6,000 for each year he or she attends, for total cost of $6.2 billion a year, not including other forms of financial assistance they may also receive.”

Michelle Malkin offers a wrapup of comments from conservative bloggers. She notes Allahpundit's designation of the Democrat Party as the Tequila Party.

Meanwhile as progressive Dems and Republicans work on welfare for foreign citizens, the US taxpayer is facing a tax hike of epic proportions. That makes sense to progs—somebody has to pay for all this social theory they’re legislating.

The DREAM Act, actually an amnesty bill, will bring prog Dems and Reid lucrative political payback—millions of voters who will elect them on a single issue: the all-giving central power operating on the ‘Gimme’ factor.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Dec. 9, 2010)