FED'S NEW HUMAN CAPITAL
By Jon Christian Ryter
May 16, 2007
The latest Zogby Poll of self-identified Democrats (April 21, 2007) claims 51% favor amnesty for illegal aliens, with 29% opposing any form of guest worker program that would lead to citizenship. A Washington Post poll taken in mid-April, 2007 found that 81% of those polled said the federal government was not doing enough to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration. With the media siding with the amnesty crowd, the Post survey found that 62% of those polled believed that the illegals already in the country should be allowed to apply for legal immigration status. Thirty-five percent said the illegals should be deported. The same Zogby Poll—on the views of all Americans—indicated that 59% of those polled want the federal government must crack down on illegals by toughening the enforcement of existing immigration enforcement laws, deporting illegal immigrants and prosecuting employers who illegally hire undocumented workers.
Fifty-four percent of Americans questioned in a Bloomberg Poll believe illegal aliens harm the US economy. Fifty-three percent of California voters—one of the three most liberal States in the country—favor rounding up and deporting illegals. Sixty-four percent of registered US voters questioned in a Polling Company survey taken on Oct. 2, 2006 said Congress needs to reduce the number of aliens allowed to enter the United States. To a majority of American citizens—both white and black—illegal aliens are the number one problem facing this nation. Sixty-six percent of those questioned in the Oct. 2, 2006 poll agreed that the population increases caused by the current level of immigration—both legal and illegal—will negatively impact the quality of life in the United States by causing more congestion, overcrowding, pollution—and lower income levels as more people compete for fewer available jobs.
A Pittsburgh Tribune-Review poll taken between July 11-18, 2006 indicated that 71% of US citizens polled are convinced that illegal aliens pose a significant threat to the United States. Sixty-seven percent of those polled want the federal government to deport illegal immigrants back to the country they came from—with 77% of those polled expressing concern that the federal government is not doing enough to keep illegal aliens from getting into this country.
In my opinion, if we want to stop illegal immigration, we need to make examples of the illegals who come here. Not just by sending them back where they came from, but sending them to even more undesirable places around the world. We could deport them to the Mideast—or, better yet, send them to Antarctica. When the illegals realize they are going to end up in a slightly different, much colder version, of Paradise—minus the free medical and welfare benefits they thought they would get—they would think twice about coming. In the Mideast they could end up as cannon fodder for Al Qaeda's roadside bombs. Deportation destinations like that might make them realize they didn't really have it all that bad in the Central or South American country they came from. Particularly since most of America's jobs (those that didn't ended up in China) are safely polluting the skies over the countries they are leaving. If jobs are what they want, there are more opportunities for work in the emerging nations than in the United States.
Most of the illegals that sneak across our borders aren't looking for work, they are looking for the fabled American "free ride"—a country with a government that has so much money it gives it away just for showing up to claim it.
Of course, nobody's really all that interested in my opinion—least of all Uncle Sam.
Why? Because Congress has its own problems with the issue of illegal immigration—how to grant amnesty to 15 million illegal aliens and create a path to citizenship for yet another 100 million western hemisphere aliens (many of whom are not even born yet) over the next two decades without losing their jobs for selling out the American people. Congress is indebted to the transnational bankers, industrialists and merchant princes for the political contributions that have kept them in office. The transnationalists who are behind the scheme to create world government desperately need the human capital of the third world to replace the 67 million taxpayer-consumers we callously aborted between 1973 and 2006. It should now come as a surprise to no one that—contrary to the views of the Rockefeller Foundation that almost single-handedly engineered the legalization of the abortion industry—it appears that we really did need all of those aborted babies after all.
Redefining wealth in terms of human capital
In 1994 the World Bank began the tedious process of redefining the nature of wealth and, with it, the very nature of government. Change was needed to accommodate the evolving needs of the emerging global society. The money barons of the world are now successfully recasting the role of national government in the development of a utopian global zollverein—or world economic commonwealth that will bond all of the world's nations together into a global super state. Key to this transformation is human capital—the equitable distribution of educated and/or skilled workers and potential tax payers throughout the world (i.e., human capital management) from the human capital-rich poverty-stricken third world nations to the asset-based industrial nations.
The global debate about the fair distribution of human capital throughout the world has waged for the past four decades as the third world demanded both new loans and the recusal from old debt from the industrialized nations to educate their illiterate masses in order to elevate them from the squalor of poverty and prepare them for their entrance into the industrial world of the 21st century. In the past, the human capital of the industrialized nations was deemed to be more valuable since they were educated and skilled workers.
Why a debate at all? Because with all the talk from environmentalists who have insisted since the 1962 publication of The Population Bomb by ecoalarmist Stanford economics instructor Paul Ehrlich that the planet was so overpopulated that by 2000 half of the world would be starving and the other half would be killing each other for what little morsels of food were left, the Rockefeller Foundation—which fanned the population fever—pushed for the legalization of abortion in the industrialized nations, and the use of UN funds to reduce the populations of the undeveloped nations of the world that were people rich and capital-asset poor.
As a result, the industrialized nations have seen a devastating decline in human capital since 1973. Abortion, and the consequences of abortion, have claimed 67,000,000 potential taxpayers and consumers in the United States. (The total includes both those babies which were actually aborted and the offspring they did not have because they were not allowed to be born, grow up, marry and have children of their own.) What that means is that the United States has a population replenishment level of .7—which means for every 10 people who die, we are producing only 7 new babies. We can't sustain our economy because we aren't creating enough taxpayers to keep the government afloat, nor are we creating enough consumers to make the industrial plants that are now leaving the United States, profitable. It is even worse in Europe, which legalized abortion long before the United States. The population replenishment level in the European Union is .6, while nations like Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands have replenishment levels of about 50%.
What that means is that if those countries can't find a way to expedite the importation of a substantial amount of human capital, they will soon be able to lock the doors and shut down the country since there won't be enough human capital and real capital left to sustain them. The younger generations of Europe who survived a prenatal saline bath or the abortionist's scalpel are fleeing the uncertain opportunities of life in what is fast becoming an Islamic Europe. Many of them are migrating to the United States in search of jobs that escaped America before they arrived. Why the jobs drain? NAFTA provided the swinging door, but not the impetus.
Declining productivity and tax generation
Industrialists, bankers, and societal planners have been watching the decay of our core urban industrial centers for decades. With it, they've struggled with the dysfunctionalism of fiscally destabilizing urban-suburban and rural-suburban sprawl, the ghettoization of class and race in the urban and urban-suburban centers, and the rapid erosion of both the tax base and consumer productivity nationwide.
What that means is that, since 1974, we have not been creating enough people to buy the products our factories could manufacture if those factories were churning out goods at 100% of capacity. Nor are we creating enough taxpayers to carry the growing tax load of a nation that wants to give its poorest citizens the great American dream at the expense of the middle class. That's why the Social Security system will be totally bankrupt in 2039 as a result of when the baby boomers (who were born at the end of World War II) drain what's left of the Social Security Trust Fund.
How could that happen? Because the money was stolen by Lyndon Johnson's Great Society to fund the welfare revolution that deliberately shackled four generations of poor Americans to the feeding troughs of the bureaucracy. Sadly, money squandered is money gone. Drawers full of IOUs can't be cashed when the Federal Reserve can't sell the debt bond issues needed to generate the currency that will keep those Social Security from bouncing. Why can't the Fed cover the checks? Not enough taxpayers to pay the bill. What is the solution? Find more taxpayers—quickly. For part 2 click below.
© 2007 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights
[Read "Whatever Happened to America?"]
Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.
Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.