/PRNewswire/ -- Simultaneous studies, released this week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), show soaring costs of illegal immigration in Florida and demonstrate strong voter objections to the burdens placed on them by illegal immigration. A new Zogby International poll of 801 likely voters across the state found that, by an overwhelming margin, Floridians believe that illegal immigration is harming their state. Their perceptions are rooted in reality. A separate FAIR study, the Costs of Illegal Immigration to Floridians found that providing education and health care to illegal aliens and their families, and incarcerating criminal illegal aliens, costs state taxpayers more than $3.8 billion annually, more than double the costs measured in 2005.
The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Floridians found that taxpayers spend:
-- $3.4 billion a year to educate illegal immigrant children and the U.S.
born children of illegal immigrants.
-- $290 million a year on unreimbursed health care for illegal aliens.
-- $90 million a year to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens.
-- The total represents an annual cost to each of Florida's native-born
headed households of $678.
The cost study also determined that the illegal alien population in Florida is now 950,000 persons. This represents 7.3 percent of the national total illegal alien population, and it is the nation's fourth largest concentration of illegal aliens after California, Texas and New York. It is also about 5.2 percent of Florida's overall population.
The Zogby poll found that:
-- 71.3% of Florida voters say illegal immigration has a negative impact
on the state. Only 14.4% believe it has a positive impact on Florida.
-- 83.5% of Florida voters believe illegal aliens have a negative impact
on the state budget, versus only 7.9% who believe their impact is
positive.
-- 57.5% believe illegal immigration should be reduced through better
enforcement of immigration laws. Only 36% of Florida voters favor
amnesty or legalization for current illegal aliens.
-- 68.6% of Florida voters want worksite immigration enforcement to
continue. Only 21.1% support the Obama administration's decision to
curtail worksite enforcement.
"Voters in Florida, like voters everywhere, want their elected officials in Washington and Tallahassee to protect their interests, their jobs, and their tax dollars from the impact of mass illegal immigration," said Stein. "At a time when the Obama administration is intent on systematically dismantling immigration enforcement, and congressional leaders are considering a new round of amnesty legislation, voters in this key state are saying unequivocally that it is time political leaders stopped pandering to the illegal immigration lobby, and started enforcing laws that serve the interests of ordinary Americans."
Showing posts with label taxpayers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxpayers. Show all posts
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Consumer Group Wants Public to Share Profits From Federally Funded Stem Cell and Medical Research
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog today praised President Obama for lifting Bush era restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research and called on him to implement further policy changes that would allow taxpayers to share in any profits from research they have funded.
In a letter to President Obama, the nonpartisan nonprofit Consumer Watchdog said policies developed by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which runs the state's $6 billion stem cell research program, could be a model for federal policy.
"Your action will undoubtedly spur new gains in this vital area of medical research," wrote John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Stem Cell Project director. "Celebrating the change in policy is not enough, however. It is now necessary, more than ever, to examine the regulations governing the way federal funds are distributed to researchers. A change in those rules is needed and we call on you to work with Congress to implement reform of the Bayh-Dole Act."
Most of the federal funding for biomedical research is funneled through the National Institutes of Health. Basic scientific research is usually done at universities and non-profit research institutions, most of it with federal funds. Under the Bayh-Dole Act discoveries that are made at these institutions can be patented by them. They then license the patents to industry. The royalties go only to the universities and research institutions. Nothing is returned to the taxpaying public who funded the research.
"Under Bayh-Dole, the public pays twice for medical discoveries," said Simpson, "First we fund the research; then we are faced with high drug prices protected by the monopoly that the patent guarantees."
Consumer Watchdog said federal policies for public funding of scientific research should incorporate these four principles:
--When a discovery has been funded by the public, the public should share in any profits.
--If the public has paid for key discoveries, then government policies should guarantee affordable access to cures and treatments resulting from those discoveries.
--If the government has funded an invention, but the patent holder does not commercialize it, the government should be able to license the invention to someone who will.
--The results of all federally funded research should be available to all U.S. researchers for further research without a licensing fee. Once taxpayers pay to develop a technology, all researchers should have free access to it for further non-commercial research.
"When venture capitalists provide money to companies they require clearly spelled out conditions and expectations," said Simpson. "There is no reason it should be any different when taxpayers put their hard-earned dollars on the line to fund research."
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) was created by the voters of California under Proposition 71 to partially fill the void created when President Bush imposed the stem cell funding restrictions. Its $6 billion program makes it the world's largest funder of stem cell research.
Key elements of its Intellectual Property Policy regulations are provisions for a payback to the state. For example, if there is revenue to a research institution as the result of publicly funded research, 25 percent goes back to the state's general fund. The IP policy also has provisions to help ensure affordability and access by uninsured people to cures and treatments that were developed with public money.
In a letter to President Obama, the nonpartisan nonprofit Consumer Watchdog said policies developed by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which runs the state's $6 billion stem cell research program, could be a model for federal policy.
"Your action will undoubtedly spur new gains in this vital area of medical research," wrote John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Stem Cell Project director. "Celebrating the change in policy is not enough, however. It is now necessary, more than ever, to examine the regulations governing the way federal funds are distributed to researchers. A change in those rules is needed and we call on you to work with Congress to implement reform of the Bayh-Dole Act."
Most of the federal funding for biomedical research is funneled through the National Institutes of Health. Basic scientific research is usually done at universities and non-profit research institutions, most of it with federal funds. Under the Bayh-Dole Act discoveries that are made at these institutions can be patented by them. They then license the patents to industry. The royalties go only to the universities and research institutions. Nothing is returned to the taxpaying public who funded the research.
"Under Bayh-Dole, the public pays twice for medical discoveries," said Simpson, "First we fund the research; then we are faced with high drug prices protected by the monopoly that the patent guarantees."
Consumer Watchdog said federal policies for public funding of scientific research should incorporate these four principles:
--When a discovery has been funded by the public, the public should share in any profits.
--If the public has paid for key discoveries, then government policies should guarantee affordable access to cures and treatments resulting from those discoveries.
--If the government has funded an invention, but the patent holder does not commercialize it, the government should be able to license the invention to someone who will.
--The results of all federally funded research should be available to all U.S. researchers for further research without a licensing fee. Once taxpayers pay to develop a technology, all researchers should have free access to it for further non-commercial research.
"When venture capitalists provide money to companies they require clearly spelled out conditions and expectations," said Simpson. "There is no reason it should be any different when taxpayers put their hard-earned dollars on the line to fund research."
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) was created by the voters of California under Proposition 71 to partially fill the void created when President Bush imposed the stem cell funding restrictions. Its $6 billion program makes it the world's largest funder of stem cell research.
Key elements of its Intellectual Property Policy regulations are provisions for a payback to the state. For example, if there is revenue to a research institution as the result of publicly funded research, 25 percent goes back to the state's general fund. The IP policy also has provisions to help ensure affordability and access by uninsured people to cures and treatments that were developed with public money.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
FRC Action Questions President Obama's Choice of Gov. Sebelius for HHS
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- This weekend President Obama decided on Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) to be his pick to be the new Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Tony Perkins, President of FRC Action, the legislative arm of Family Research Council, had this to say:
"President Obama is now zero for two in attempting to pick qualified people to head up his Health and Human Services Department (HHS) and zero for four in defending proven methods that contribute to his stated goal of reducing abortions.
"In a little over a month President Obama has reinstated taxpayer funding of abortionists overseas, been complicit in both the increased taxpayer funding of abortionists in the United States and in the overturning of a long-standing policy that prevented taxpayer dollars from going toward international coercive abortion programs. This weekend the cause for life was struck a double blow by first the halting of conscience protections for health care professionals who might otherwise be forced to perform or assist in abortions and the naming of the extremely pro-abortion Gov. Sebelius to HHS.
"In her time as an elected official in Kansas, Mrs. Sebelius has fought against popular pro-life measures such as parental consent and efforts to curb late-term abortions. Additionally she has had a close personal and financial association with the nation's most infamous abortion doctor, George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions and, by his own count, has performed over 60,000 abortions.
"FRC Action will work to oppose Gov. Sebelius' appointment and continue to work with those who truly wish to stop the blight of abortion. Our nation's need for health care reform that is family-centered, life-affirming and available to all Americans in a free market is great, and these goals are ill-served by this unfortunate and objectionable nomination."
Tony Perkins, President of FRC Action, the legislative arm of Family Research Council, had this to say:
"President Obama is now zero for two in attempting to pick qualified people to head up his Health and Human Services Department (HHS) and zero for four in defending proven methods that contribute to his stated goal of reducing abortions.
"In a little over a month President Obama has reinstated taxpayer funding of abortionists overseas, been complicit in both the increased taxpayer funding of abortionists in the United States and in the overturning of a long-standing policy that prevented taxpayer dollars from going toward international coercive abortion programs. This weekend the cause for life was struck a double blow by first the halting of conscience protections for health care professionals who might otherwise be forced to perform or assist in abortions and the naming of the extremely pro-abortion Gov. Sebelius to HHS.
"In her time as an elected official in Kansas, Mrs. Sebelius has fought against popular pro-life measures such as parental consent and efforts to curb late-term abortions. Additionally she has had a close personal and financial association with the nation's most infamous abortion doctor, George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions and, by his own count, has performed over 60,000 abortions.
"FRC Action will work to oppose Gov. Sebelius' appointment and continue to work with those who truly wish to stop the blight of abortion. Our nation's need for health care reform that is family-centered, life-affirming and available to all Americans in a free market is great, and these goals are ill-served by this unfortunate and objectionable nomination."
Saturday, January 24, 2009
FRC Condemns President Obama's $441 Million Bailout of International Abortions
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On the day after millions of Americans solemnly marked the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that has led to the loss of an estimated 50 million lives, President Barack Obama took unilateral steps to expand abortion at taxpayers' expense.
In one of his first official acts as President of the United States, President Barack Obama rescinded the "Mexico City Policy." This policy prohibits taxpayer funds from going to foreign non-governmental organizations that use other funds to promote and perform abortions. Under the Mexico City Policy, funding for family planning is not reduced by one penny but recipient agencies must decide whether or not to engage in abortion promotion or provision. A policy against promoting abortion is only "anti-family planning" if one assumes that abortion itself is a method of "family planning."
Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, had this to say:
"Yesterday, President Obama issued executive orders banning the torture of terrorists but today signed an order that exports the torture of unborn children around the world. At a debate last year at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, then-candidate Barack Obama vowed to find 'common ground' on the issue of abortion and that he, as President, would work to 'reduce the number of abortions.' His action today flies in the face of that vow and probably sets a record as the most quickly broken campaign promise ever leaving the question, how many more broken promises to families lie ahead?
"Both sides of the abortion debate, from Planned Parenthood to Family Research Council, agree on a simple economic point: when you subsidize abortion, abortions will increase. Thanks to his actions today, U.S. taxpayers will be forced to take part in exporting a culture of death. We have a responsibility to respect the policies and traditions of the other countries, which have laws recognizing the right to life of the unborn, and it is an insult to fund organizations that are intent on overturning those laws by promoting an elite ideology of abortion on demand.
"One of President Obama's first acts is to rescind this vital government policy and reward pro-abortion groups. This should serve as a bitter pill for those who campaigned for him, all the while proclaiming their belief in the cause of life and family."
In one of his first official acts as President of the United States, President Barack Obama rescinded the "Mexico City Policy." This policy prohibits taxpayer funds from going to foreign non-governmental organizations that use other funds to promote and perform abortions. Under the Mexico City Policy, funding for family planning is not reduced by one penny but recipient agencies must decide whether or not to engage in abortion promotion or provision. A policy against promoting abortion is only "anti-family planning" if one assumes that abortion itself is a method of "family planning."
Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, had this to say:
"Yesterday, President Obama issued executive orders banning the torture of terrorists but today signed an order that exports the torture of unborn children around the world. At a debate last year at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, then-candidate Barack Obama vowed to find 'common ground' on the issue of abortion and that he, as President, would work to 'reduce the number of abortions.' His action today flies in the face of that vow and probably sets a record as the most quickly broken campaign promise ever leaving the question, how many more broken promises to families lie ahead?
"Both sides of the abortion debate, from Planned Parenthood to Family Research Council, agree on a simple economic point: when you subsidize abortion, abortions will increase. Thanks to his actions today, U.S. taxpayers will be forced to take part in exporting a culture of death. We have a responsibility to respect the policies and traditions of the other countries, which have laws recognizing the right to life of the unborn, and it is an insult to fund organizations that are intent on overturning those laws by promoting an elite ideology of abortion on demand.
"One of President Obama's first acts is to rescind this vital government policy and reward pro-abortion groups. This should serve as a bitter pill for those who campaigned for him, all the while proclaiming their belief in the cause of life and family."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
TARP Inspector General Asked to Investigate Citigroup and Bank of America Donations to Rainbow/PUSH; Bailout Recipients Headline Jackson Fundraiser
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) asked Neil M. Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), for a formal review of the sponsorship by Bank of America and Citigroup of the Rainbow/PUSH Wall Street Conference currently taking place in New York City. The January 13-16 event is one of two of Jesse Jackson's annual fundraisers.
According to official conference materials, Citigroup is a "Gold Sponsor," a designation costing $50,000. Bank of America is identified as a "Silver Sponsor," a designation costing $30,000.
Both Citigroup and Bank of America are major recipients of TARP funds. Taxpayers are now Citigroup's largest shareholder after infusions of $45 billion. Bank of America has already received $25 billion. According to today's Wall Street Journal, it is seeking billions more in order to make possible its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
NLPC's Complaint reads, in part:
"When the TARP was presented to Congress, Secretary Henry Paulson and others argued that the situation was dire, and that the failure of major financial institutions posed a systemic risk to our economy. The stated goal was to unfreeze credit so that banks can make loans to businesses and individuals. It was never contemplated that banks use their capital to make donations to organizations founded by a controversial figure like Jesse Jackson.
It should be noted that shareholders have made objections to corporate donations to Rainbow/PUSH and the so-called Citizenship Education Fund (CEF) even before the onset of the financial crisis. CEF is a 501(c)(3) organization founded by Jesse Jackson that co-sponsors the Wall Street Conference. In recognition of these objections, the New York Stock Exchange itself ended its financial sponsorship of the event in 2005.
Citigroup's management and board of directors cannot claim that it is unaware of the donations to Jesse Jackson's groups, or that they have not sparked controversy. Indeed, in remarks at the company's annual meetings in 2006 and 2007, I vigorously raised the issue in connection to our shareholder proposals asking for disclosure of Citigroup's charitable contributions, a resolution management opposed.
It should be further noted that Citigroup's relationship with Jesse Jackson began under questionable circumstances that have contributed in part to Citigroup's present problems and its need to seek taxpayer support. When Travelers and Citicorp sought to merge in 1998, Jesse Jackson said he would oppose the merger. Citigroup initiated financial support to his organizations. Jesse Jackson changed his position and supported the merger. It was speculated in the media that Citigroup's 'charitable' giving to Jesse Jackson's groups did have a business purpose.
As shareholders, we have protested corporate support for Jesse Jackson's organizations. Now that all taxpayers are shareholders in both Citigroup and Bank of America, these donations are completely objectionable, and should not be allowed. Unless you undertake a swift review of this matter, and take appropriate action, public cynicism about the use of TARP funds for their intended purpose will only increase."
According to official conference materials, Citigroup is a "Gold Sponsor," a designation costing $50,000. Bank of America is identified as a "Silver Sponsor," a designation costing $30,000.
Both Citigroup and Bank of America are major recipients of TARP funds. Taxpayers are now Citigroup's largest shareholder after infusions of $45 billion. Bank of America has already received $25 billion. According to today's Wall Street Journal, it is seeking billions more in order to make possible its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
NLPC's Complaint reads, in part:
"When the TARP was presented to Congress, Secretary Henry Paulson and others argued that the situation was dire, and that the failure of major financial institutions posed a systemic risk to our economy. The stated goal was to unfreeze credit so that banks can make loans to businesses and individuals. It was never contemplated that banks use their capital to make donations to organizations founded by a controversial figure like Jesse Jackson.
It should be noted that shareholders have made objections to corporate donations to Rainbow/PUSH and the so-called Citizenship Education Fund (CEF) even before the onset of the financial crisis. CEF is a 501(c)(3) organization founded by Jesse Jackson that co-sponsors the Wall Street Conference. In recognition of these objections, the New York Stock Exchange itself ended its financial sponsorship of the event in 2005.
Citigroup's management and board of directors cannot claim that it is unaware of the donations to Jesse Jackson's groups, or that they have not sparked controversy. Indeed, in remarks at the company's annual meetings in 2006 and 2007, I vigorously raised the issue in connection to our shareholder proposals asking for disclosure of Citigroup's charitable contributions, a resolution management opposed.
It should be further noted that Citigroup's relationship with Jesse Jackson began under questionable circumstances that have contributed in part to Citigroup's present problems and its need to seek taxpayer support. When Travelers and Citicorp sought to merge in 1998, Jesse Jackson said he would oppose the merger. Citigroup initiated financial support to his organizations. Jesse Jackson changed his position and supported the merger. It was speculated in the media that Citigroup's 'charitable' giving to Jesse Jackson's groups did have a business purpose.
As shareholders, we have protested corporate support for Jesse Jackson's organizations. Now that all taxpayers are shareholders in both Citigroup and Bank of America, these donations are completely objectionable, and should not be allowed. Unless you undertake a swift review of this matter, and take appropriate action, public cynicism about the use of TARP funds for their intended purpose will only increase."
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Taxpayer Watchdogs Offer List of 'Ax-Ready' Programs as Alternative to Mayors' Pork Projects
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The U.S. Conference of Mayors has sent Congress a $96.6 billion wish list of "shovel-ready" projects to allegedly create jobs and improve the nation's infrastructure, but the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) are offering a different solution to stimulate the economy: an updated list of "ax-ready" programs and legislation that would reduce wasteful spending. Last October, NTU and CCAGW sent a letter to then-Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama outlining ways to reduce federal outlays.
"Before Election Day, NTU and CCAGW answered the Presidential hopefuls' calls for going through the budget 'line by line' to root out waste and inefficiency," NTU President Duane Parde said. "Now, we're highlighting more 'ready-to-cut' areas of the federal government for Congress to act on instead of stuffing states full of pork." CCAGW President Tom Schatz added, "Congress must cut wasteful spending now, at the same time the stimulus package is being considered. Promising to address the mounting fiscal burden on taxpayers at a later date means that nothing will ever happen."
Among the mayors' "'Ready to Go' Jobs and Infrastructure Projects" are well over $1 billion in projects involving sidewalks; $1 million for annual sewer rehabilitation in Casper, WY; $6.1 million for corporate hangars, parking lots, and a business apron at the Fayetteville, AR airport; 28 projects with the term "stadium" in them; and 117 projects mentioning landscaping and/or beautification efforts. The taxpayers should be most teed off at the 20 golf courses included in the list.
Some alternatives to the mayors' list could be found through NTU's research arm, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which through its BillTally program has compiled a list of legislation that would reduce federal spending. NTUF also maintains a roster of 2,150 spending-cut bills introduced in the last nine Congresses that totaled over $9.5 trillion, only 69 of which were eventually signed into law (for a savings of $89.6 billion). Finally, NTU reviews data from the Bush Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool, which found nearly 220 programs in 2007 that were ineffective or did not demonstrate results.
CCAGW's research arm, Citizens Against Government Waste, has just issued the "2009 Prime Cuts," which has 700 cut recommendations totaling $1.9 trillion over five years. It includes the elimination of duplicative and inefficient programs such as the Market Access Program, which costs $231 million over five years to help large and profitable American companies advertise abroad.
"The mayors have billed their projects as 'shovel-ready,' but the only shoveling going on would be out of taxpayers' pockets," Parde concluded. Schatz added, "The best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs is to cut wasteful spending and keep money in the private sector."
"Before Election Day, NTU and CCAGW answered the Presidential hopefuls' calls for going through the budget 'line by line' to root out waste and inefficiency," NTU President Duane Parde said. "Now, we're highlighting more 'ready-to-cut' areas of the federal government for Congress to act on instead of stuffing states full of pork." CCAGW President Tom Schatz added, "Congress must cut wasteful spending now, at the same time the stimulus package is being considered. Promising to address the mounting fiscal burden on taxpayers at a later date means that nothing will ever happen."
Among the mayors' "'Ready to Go' Jobs and Infrastructure Projects" are well over $1 billion in projects involving sidewalks; $1 million for annual sewer rehabilitation in Casper, WY; $6.1 million for corporate hangars, parking lots, and a business apron at the Fayetteville, AR airport; 28 projects with the term "stadium" in them; and 117 projects mentioning landscaping and/or beautification efforts. The taxpayers should be most teed off at the 20 golf courses included in the list.
Some alternatives to the mayors' list could be found through NTU's research arm, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which through its BillTally program has compiled a list of legislation that would reduce federal spending. NTUF also maintains a roster of 2,150 spending-cut bills introduced in the last nine Congresses that totaled over $9.5 trillion, only 69 of which were eventually signed into law (for a savings of $89.6 billion). Finally, NTU reviews data from the Bush Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool, which found nearly 220 programs in 2007 that were ineffective or did not demonstrate results.
CCAGW's research arm, Citizens Against Government Waste, has just issued the "2009 Prime Cuts," which has 700 cut recommendations totaling $1.9 trillion over five years. It includes the elimination of duplicative and inefficient programs such as the Market Access Program, which costs $231 million over five years to help large and profitable American companies advertise abroad.
"The mayors have billed their projects as 'shovel-ready,' but the only shoveling going on would be out of taxpayers' pockets," Parde concluded. Schatz added, "The best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs is to cut wasteful spending and keep money in the private sector."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
