The price for GOP nativism and racism: $30+ billion wasted dollars

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tea-Publicans love to rail against government spending, the federal deficit, and the national debt, and loudly proclaim that they are fiscally conservative. Bullshit.

Ronald Reagan quadrupled the national debt in eight years. George W. Bush doubled it again during his eight years, and left office with the economy cratered from the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression.

These "deficit peacocks" like to preen that they are against wasteful government spending, except when they are not.

The latest example: the border security "surge" proposed by Tea-Publican Senators Bob Corker and John Hoeven to secure more votes in the U.S. Senate for the "Gang of Eight" comprehensive immigration bill. They propose to waste $30 billion dollars or more to buy off nativists and racists in the anti-immigrant wing of the GOP -- a dubious proposition -- hatred is priceless; it defines who they are, and is their only reason for living.

MSNBC host Chris Hayes did an impressive job laying out the particulars on his program All In on Thursday evening. Transcript Thursday, June 20:

in order to stabilize and further build support from their side of the
aisle, Republican Senators Bob Corker and John Hoeven struck a deal with
the gang of eight, a deal that suddenly makes comprehensive immigration
reform seem more possible, more likely to actually happen than it has in
weeks.

That is the progress. That`s progress. It`s excellent news. And it`s
also infuriating because of how they are luring Republicans into the fold.
Corker and Hoeven have an amendment where they are calling for a border,
quote, "surge."

Here`s what we know about it: it would require an additional 20,000 border
agents on the U.S./Mexico border, doubling the number that are there right
now -- 700 miles of fencing at the U.S. border, 350 miles more than we have
right now. And full implementation of electronic entry and exit system, of
international entry points, complete with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection officers.

The price tag? Well, it`s all for a cool $30 billion, or more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: So it`s about $30 billion total?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct. Maybe slightly higher.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It will be more than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: You know, another bill or so. Yes, probably more than $30 billion.

Now when you were evaluating -- you right now watching this -- the American
voter, the American citizen, the American taxpayer, you`re thinking: is
this a smart way to spend money?

I would like you to keep in mind these two important things. The Migration
Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, found that in 2012 we spent $18
billion on immigration enforcement agencies, a 43 percent increase from
2006. Here`s the kicker. That $18 billion, that`s more than we spent on
all other law enforcement agencies combined by 24 percent.

And do you happen to know what the net migration between Mexico and the
United States currently is? It is zero. Zero.

The most recent numbers show that from 2005 to 2010, the net migration is
zero. A huge change from 1995 to 2000, the net migration from Mexico to
the U.S. was more than 2 million people. But from 2005 to 2010, the number
of people coming here from Mexico was about the same as the number of
people going to Mexico from the U.S.

So we`re already spending almost $18 billion a year on a problem that does
not exist. And Republicans in the Senate are poised to add $30 billion to
that all over a handshake deal to win votes. And remember, these are the
exact same people who say they care about spending and the deficit.

* * *

HAYES: If you listen to Bob Corker, you`d think he`s interested in
lowering the debt. But two days ago, when the CBO came out with an
estimate saying the Senate immigration bill before they added the
amendment, would save almost $200 billion over 10 years, we heard from not
one Republican, Bob Corker or anyone else, who was rushing to switch their
vote and support this money-saving legislation.

No, instead Senator Corker struck a deal to spend over $30 billion more.
And his supposedly deficit conscious colleagues came rushing to his side to
switch their votes and support the bill once $30 billion was added to the
price tag.

This is the party that won`t stop talking about debt and deficit. This is
the party that would have you believe their number one concern is that
we`re spending our children into oblivion. And yet, they do not appear to
have been persuaded to support immigration reform because it saves $200
million. No, no, quite the opposite. They`re being persuaded to support
immigration now that Republicans have tacked on tens of billions of dollars
in additional spending to the bill.

And here`s why and this is the way to understand everything that`s
happening with Republicans and immigration. This is the deal, this
amendment. It isn`t about stopping people at the border. It`s not about
policy and it`s obviously not about the deficit. It`s about paying a price
to appease the deep fears of the Republican base, fears that were so
eloquently described yesterday on the lawn of the Capitol.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DENNIS MICHAEL LYNCH, DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER: There are people who are
coming here who want to come to cut your lawn and have a better life. But
there are people who want to cut your throat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The cost of keeping people like that quiet is $30 billion, courtesy
of the U.S. taxpayer.

Video segment begins around :50 mark.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE: Talking Points Memo reports, Leahy: GOP Border Security Amendment ‘A Christmas Wish List For Haliburton’:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said Friday that the new border security amendment added to the immigration reform bill in the Senate is nothing more than a gift to defense contractors.

"I am sure there are federal contracting firms high-fiving at the prospect of all of the spending demanded by Senate Republicans in this amendment," Leahy said.

"So while I do not agree with the Republicans’ border demands, I will support this modification of my amendment because it is one of many tough choices necessary to continue making progress toward passage of this crucial bill," Leahy said in a statement (posted below).