Wednesday, August 08, 2007

 

GOP-insider Ruth Marcus reports

Ruth Marcus has a column today outlining a part of the upcoming electoral strategy for Republicans. Which is convenient because this then allows her to rail against Republicans.

“Here's an emerging line of attack you can expect to hear more of in the 2008 congressional campaigns -- especially if you live near a vulnerable Democratic incumbent: Democrats vote to give welfare benefits to illegal aliens.” Ruth Marcus - Attack Ads You'll Be Seeing - washingtonpost.com

She then goes onto explain how the charges aren’t true because such giveaways are already against the law. She seems appalled at the prospect that Republicans would target vulnerable Democrats by using an emotionally tinged issue like ILLEGAL immigration.

“Paid, fed and sheltered? Federal law already prohibits this. But this debate isn't really about making good use of federal funds. It's about using immigration as a weapon against at-risk Democrats -- and assuming voters won't bother to learn the truth.”

And such voters won’t be learning the truth reading Ruth Marcus. Her first attack focuses on an attempt to “repeal a 2006 requirement that everyone applying for Medicaid provide proof of citizenship -- passports or original birth certificates. That might sound sensible, but it has been a cumbersome, expensive solution to a non-problem.”

Her proof that this was a non-problem was a quote from Mark McClellan (Administrator for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) noting “that an inspector general's investigation did "not find particular problems regarding false allegations of citizenship, nor are we aware of any."

That’s right; states that basically took you at your word that you were eligible for Medicaid reported no particular problems with non-eligibility (and that quote comes from a letter responding to an OIG inspection and in which Mr. McClellan concurs to recommendations for governments to do a better job of verifying eligibility for Medicaid – see Appendix D).

“Honest, Judge – she told me she was 18!”

But even if this was a relative non-problem - so what! Why do we have to wait for it to become a problem before we act? I provided a birth certificate to join the Navy, become a CPA and take the Bar exam; I provide two forms of ID when I take a new job. Yes, it is cumbersome et al. But after awhile you adapt if you want to avail yourself of certain benefits. Medicaid is state-administered – the states are free to not ask for any identification…but that just means they won’t get matching federal funds for those people. States had no problem changing their drinking age to qualify for highway funds nor do they mind throwing the bulk of enforcement costs onto bar owners who must seek certain forms of identification from prospective patrons.

Medicaid is also designed for low-income people – what does it say about the eligible people not signing up because of the effort involved in obtaining the necessary documentation, especially as it effects their children.

Her second focus was on the Agricultural Bill fiasco discussed earlier. Here, she seems to think it mere grandstanding that Republicans sought to explicitly bar – funds spent for the benefit of illegals – what was already barred.

Perhaps, but the federal government’s enforcement of immigration-related laws does little to inspire confidence that federal enforcers understand and/or care about such legal niceties (i.e., coming into this country without permission). And she doesn’t explain the Democrats’ antipathy to that motion – from the outside, it surely appears that they didn’t want such an explicit prohibition on the books.

The grandstanding here is primarily on the part of Ms. Marcus – she sets up the enduring strawman of Republicans against immigration (vice ILLEGAL immigration) and attacks them for ads not yet produced. But then again this is from a woman who finds Ted Kennedy a model of civility, was kind of hoping Nifong was right in the Duke lacrosse case and is so invested in the Democratic party that she is seemingly reduced to near-tears when the President refers to it as the Democrat Party.

Comments:
I hope Ms. Marcus is right. The strategy is sound and should allow us to pick up quite a few seats. Only the liberatti would claim this isn't a problem.

Go to the grocery store and see how that person in front of you (who can't speak English) pays for their groceries. It wouldn't be food stamps would it?

As for Medicaid, you hit it right on the head. There is no doubt that illegals are the new "Welfare Queens".
 
illegal immigration is a legit issue and s/b hammered when applicable.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Preview on Feedage: maryland-conservatarian
Add to Windows Live iPing-it