Cathy D. Christiansen asked:


Jerry Erickson

Published: July 1, 2009

The U.S. immigration system is “broken and needs fixing.” So confirms President Obama after meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders last Thursday. Although there is no consensus yet in terms of what a restructuring of the immigration system will include, the process has now begun in earnest to adopt a comprehensive plan. President Obama acknowledged that the broken immigration system is “one of the most critical issues” that our nation faces.

In his remarks following the meeting, President Obama said: “My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues . . .”

One of the key issues that must be dealt with early in the immigration discussion concerns border security. At this point the American public is just not persuaded that the borders are secure. Until the borders are secured, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.  Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said “I think the votes in the Senate are a little dicey at the moment. I don’t think it can pass today.” Developing an intelligent plan that clearly articulates the steps to make the border more secure will go a long way in getting the necessary votes.

President Obama is clearly aware that the road ahead will be bumpy. In his statement he said: “We all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it’s a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don’t have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they’re concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.”

It seems that the president has hit the nail on the head. In order to come up with a meaningful immigration policy that will serve our nation long-term, the government must come up with a solution to secure the borders. Assuming this can be accomplished, then the many issues associated with immigration reform can be debated.

On the eve of last week’s bipartisan meeting with the president, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, offered that one of the ideas being considered is a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprint or eye scan. As reported by The Washington Post, Schumer said that a national system to verify work authorization is necessary because Congress hasn’t cracked down hard enough on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents. Schumer shows he gets the key issue when he says: “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.” In a nutshell, that is the issue. Control the borders, and then fix the broken system.

There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Schumer expects legislation to be enacted that will secure the nation’s borders and require those here illegally to register with the government and “submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status,” or face immediate deportation.

Done right, there is the opportunity to achieve some real long-lasting benefits here, not the least of which is the securing of our borders, having millions of non-tax paying people come out of the shadows and onto the tax rolls and developing a process to ensure that the work force is legitimate.

President Obama has conceded that “It’s going to require some heavy lifting; it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short term politics.” Here’s to the effort; let’s hope that all involved have the clarity and foresight to address the obvious first — securing our borders, and then the muscle to see through the remaining challenges.

 

The above information is provided for informational purposes only.  The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys.  An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.

 

 

 

Chad asked:

President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

Blanketing most of the Sunday TV news shows, Obama defended his proposed health care overhaul, including a key point of the various health care bills on Capitol Hill: mandating that people get health insurance to share the cost burden fairly among all. Those who failed to get coverage would face financial penalties.

Obama said other elements of the plan would make insurance affordable for people, from a new comparison-shopping “exchange” to tax credits.

Telling people to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, Obama told ABC’s “This Week.”

“What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore,” said Obama. “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.”

Obama faces an enormous political and communications challenge in selling his health care plan as Congress debates how to pay for it all.

He told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he will keep his pledge not to raise taxes on families earning up to $250,000, and that much of the final bill — hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years — can be achieved from savings within the current system. Coming up with the rest remains a key legislative obstacle.

Obama put his support behind the idea of taxing employers that offer high-cost insurance plans.

“I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don’t make people healthier is part of the way that we’re going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Obama’s network interviews were taped Friday at the White House. He became the first president to appear on five Sunday network shows in the same morning, an extraordinary effort to build public support for his top domestic priority.

The goal is expand and improve health insurance coverage and rein in long-term costs.

Yet despite so many weeks of speeches, town halls and interviews, Obama said he has found it difficult at times to make a complex topic clear and relevant.

“I’ve tried to keep it digestible,” Obama said. “It’s very hard for people to get their arms around it. And that’s been a case where I have been humbled and I just keep on trying harder.”

Obama told Univision’s “Al Punto” (”To the Point”) that the strong opposition to his plan is part of a political strategy.

“Well, part of it is … that the opposition has made a decision,” he said. “They are just not going to support anything, for political reasons.”

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Obama doesn’t understand Republicans’ opposition.

“I don’t know anybody in my Republican conference in the Senate who’s in favor of doing nothing on health care,” McConnell said. “We obviously have a cost problem and we have an access problem.”

But he told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the Democrats’ plan is simply too rushed.

Robert Valentine asked:

The “three-legged stool” is considered the basic model of retirement savings. It’s a metaphor that has been used since the late-1940s as a way to describe saving for your future. No one is quite sure how the concept was started, but it’s one that stuck. While the legs of the stool were different in the past (they relied heavily on other types of retirement options), today those legs have grown and transformed into a completely different kind of stool.

The problem is: most Americans don’t even have a complete stool, let alone a steady one. This can be attributed to many factors. According to the 2005 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), released annually by the Employee Benefits Research Institute, 31% of current retirees believe that Social Security will be enough to sustain them for the rest of their lives. You don’t have to be a government expert to know that Social Security may not last forever. Even if Social Security lasts, most agree that for the system to survive there will have to be some sort of benefits cut for future retirees. Essentially, that means one of the stool’s legs is a bit shorter and a bit weaker. Care to have a seat? Me neither. Those who have only relied on the one leg of retirement planning their whole lives may find that the stool will become a bit difficult to depend on in their later years. But this can all be prevented. After all, there are still two legs left.

The second leg in the modern stool era is a company pension plan. In May of 2005, United Airlines was allowed to default on its employee pension plan. It’s a move that will save the company millions of dollars, but will leave its employees looking for alternative sources of retirement income. Most companies today are switching to 401(k) plans, where the employer has the option to match a percentage of the contributions to the plan. 401(k) plans are more secure than pension plans and they have more rollover options, but employer-sponsored retirement funds are simply one more option in a plan that should contain several strong legs. You should work with a financial professional to craft a specific 401(k) strategy, including rollover options, so that you’re confident the second leg can bear some retirement weight.

The final and increasingly popular leg of the stool is personal savings. Sadly, many people feel they have no major options for future retirement savings. In times of shaky employer provided retirement funds and uncertainty over Social Security’s future, a real personal savings plan remains the strongest of the legs, but ONLY if you plan for your future. You’ve probably heard of IRA’s before, but can you name all the different types and which one suits you best? IRA’s are specific retirement funds set aside for you to save for the future. You can also fund your retirement by investing in mutual funds or any other form of securities you wish. Depending on your current financial situation, you’ll want to consult with a financial expert to decide what plan is best.

There are a few simple steps you can take to start exploring your personal savings retirement options. The first is to contact an independent financial professional who can council you on more options and details regarding your retirement. The second is to calculate your post-retirement income. Calculating your post-retirement income is one quick and easy way to start preparing for retirement. According to the RCS, currently, only 4 in 10 workers have done the simple calculating needed to determine a sufficient post-retirement income. Calculating your post-retirement income is easy and very essential to planning for retirement. Oftentimes, people don’t believe they’ll need a whole lot of savings to retire on. Sometimes, seeing the results can light a fire underneath your retirement plan and cause you to re-think your savings strategy.

One of the biggest mistakes future retirees can make is planning their retirement alone. While something can be said for a “can-do” spirit, trusted financial professionals are more likely to find better ways to help you save money for retirement. When workers were asked about the most helpful tool for saving for retirement in the 2005 Retirement Confidence Survey, the largest percentage of workers surveyed (27%), said they believed advice from a financial professional was the most helpful. Aside from post-retirement income, it’s also important to have some sort of long-term care outlook, in case long-term medical care is needed after you retire.

While Congress debates the future of Social Security, there is always hope the program will be saved and improved. But there are never guarantees in life or politics. Only you can decide what kind of retirement plan you’ll have and how comfortably you’ll be able to live in the future. If you choose to rely solely on Social Security, you may find the going to get rough in the future, especially considering inflation and rising healthcare costs.

If you choose to plan carefully with a financial professional, you have a personal say over your future, instead of leaving your future financial security in the hands of elected officials or employer-sponsored plans. If your retirement is filled with less worry and financial strain, you’ll have more opportunities to live out your days actively, rather than just passing time, sitting on your wobbly stool.