Pablo Manriquez's Blog

Obama/Napolitano Plan Sheds Doubt on Campaign Pledge for "Path to Citizenship"

2009-05-19T15:27:30Z

The effort is likely to significantly reshape immigration enforcement...

The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration plans to continue a policy begun by the Bush Administration to screen people in jail for deportation, if they are found to be undocumented.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has made it "very clear" that her top priority is deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, said David J. Venturella, program director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In short, the program's modus it to fingerprint all detainees in US jails to screen for immigration status. The ideas is that by screening everyone, the program avoids racial profiling.

While this may be true, two figures from the article are worth noting in light of the campaign rhetoric Team Obama promoted regarding undocumented people only last year, during then-Senator Obama's successful presidential campaign, a campaign in which he earned 67% of the Latino vote (as opposed to 31% for Republican Senator John McCain).

The first figure is that "fingerprints from 1 million local jail bookings will be screened under the program...and will expand to nearly all local jails by the end of 2012." The second is that "President Obama asked Congress last week for $200 million for the program, a 30 percent increase that puts it on track to receive $1.1 billion by 2013."

The implication here is that undocumented people will remain undocumented at until at least 2013, after the conclusion of President Obama's first term. After all, a program to deport undocumented people would be unnecessary in the advent of the comprehensive immigration reform advocating a "path to citizenship" that was promised during campaign '08, when then-Senator Obama said that "[illegal immigrants] broke the law and we can't excuse that - but we can't deport 12million people. " But under Napolitano's plan, it seems, we could...at least, in theory. After all, an illegal immigrant has already committed a crime, and all 'criminals' who arrive in U.S. jails will face deportation if they are found to be undocumented, an effort our Homeland Security Secretary is making her "top priority."

Can a federal employee be forced to tweet?

2009-05-14T22:06:16Z

Akin registered an account, kept it private for a week or so, and then shut it down. He should be tweeting every single vote he makes, and at least a 140 character reason for every vote he skips. That's not too much to ask of an employee of his caliber and he knows it. This is unacceptable. I didn't vote for Akin because I disagree with virtually everything he says, does, and is, but I can say he's an honest Christian, which means absolutely nothing to me if he won't answer the simple question of "What are you doing?" while he is representing me to my clients with his co-workers.

Michelle Bachmann "Clarfies" C02's "Negligible" Effect on Earth's Atmosphere

2009-04-25T08:47:57Z

"In other words, human activity is maybe 3% contributing to the 3% of carbon dioxide that's in Earth's atmosphere. It's so negligible. It's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. It can hardly be quantified." -Rep. Bachman (R-MN)

...except to say that it's maybe 3% of 3% or "a fraction of a fraction of a fraction."

How do people like Michelle Bachman get elected? What were the voters in the Minnesota 6th thinking? Was the other candidate really so despicable that they had no choice but to put Michelle Bachman on the podium to lecture the American people on the composition of Earth's atmosphere with all the authority of her credentials as a creationist tax lawyer? Give me a break. Watching this video, I can't help but wonder which scientists are advising Rep. Bachmann on climate change.

Stimulus Spending: "Potential $3 trillion" vs. "Exceeds $4 trillion"

2009-04-23T14:30:07Z

In the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Trouble Asset Relief Program's (SIGTARP) second quarterly report states that spending across the twelve TARP programs "could reach nearly $3 trillion." However, according to the RGE Monitor:

"the total value of all direct spending, loans and guarantees provided to date in conjunction with the federal government's financial stability efforts (including those of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as well as Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board) now exceeds $4 trillion."

Thus, in addition to the $3 trillion in potential TARP spending, the federal government has already accrued $4 trillion in liabilities in its efforts to stabilize the economy.
After burning most of the morning trying to find the intersection of "could reach nearly $3 trillion" and "exceeds $4 trillion," I'm at a loss to definitively answer three questions about federal expenditures in 2009:

How much money has has been spent, loaned, or guaranteed?
How much money will be spent, loaned, or guaranteed?
How much money could be spent, loaned, or guaranteed?

These questions are important, as Barofsky reports that SIGTARP has already initiated 20 criminal investigations into accusations surrounding TARP funds including "large corporate and securities fraud matters affecting TARP investments, tax matters, insider trading, public corruption, and mortgage-modification fraud." Moreover, Barofsky reports that the TARP program remains vulnerable to fraud. So if the RGE is right, how much of that $4 trillion already spent, loaned, or guaranteed is also vulnerable to fraud? What measures are being taken to audit those investments? Is this information publicly available? And if not, why not?

NOTE: Admittedly, I'm pretty new to both blogging and watch-dogging, so please bear with me if I ask a lot of questions. Cheers.