THANKS TO LAURA AND HAYDEE FOR SENDING! / ILLEGAL ALIENS & THEIR EMPLOYERS RECIEVE TAX REFUNDS FROM .E.I.T.C., A FEDERAL SUBSIDY / OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

NOW ILLEGAL ALIENS GET 'EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITS' WELFARE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT! THIS IS A GROSS INSULT TO ALL AMERICAN TAX PAYERS! WHAT NEXT???! What had started as a tax offset for low income workers is now simply another federal welfare program. A welfare program that subsidizes children in families least likely to afford them. A welfare program that benefits corporations more than the poor. A welfare program replete with fraud. A welfare program kinder to immigrants and even to people here illegally than to natives. Today, immigrants receive EITC at nearly twice the rate of natives, and nearly half (49.2%) Mexican immigrants receive it. [Ed Rubenstein’s complete report, The Earned Income Tax Credit and Illegal Immigration: A Study in Fraud, Abuse, and Liberal Activism, [PDF] is available courtesy of The Social Contract.] The Earned Income Tax Credit is the largest anti-poverty program in the United States. In 2007 more than 23 million households received $47 billion EITC payments. That dwarfs traditional welfare and food stamp spending combined. Yet unlike those programs, the EITC is virtually unknown outside of the policy wonks who study it and the low income individuals who receive it. One reason for its relative anonymity: the credit is embedded in the tax code. The tax code is vast; its 80,000 plus pages are full of deductions, allowances and credits. The EITC is just one albeit perhaps the most lavish—and important. Another reason for the low profile: the credit is widely regarded as a success. (Nothing succeeds like failure when it comes to making an impression on public opinion.) Politicians from Ronald Reagan to Michael Bloomberg, Bill Clinton to George W. Bush, have not only supported the credit but have moved to expand it over the years. They regard it as the one poverty program that works. Their enthusiasm reflects the perception that—unlike welfare—the credit is available only to people who work: to the “working poor”, especially families with children. Unlike welfare benefits, which decline as a recipient’s earnings go up, EITC benefits go up as you earn more, thus actually increasing work incentives for low income individuals. EITC is a very generous program. For a household with two children, the credit is equal to 40% of earnings. In effect, taxpayers give these folks a 40% raise if their income is below a certain level. Even if recipients have not paid a single cent in taxes, they are eligible for the full tax credit amount—up to $4,800 in 2008. The credit does phase out—but only when income approaches the poverty level. FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK CONCERNING THE UNITED STATES BANKING SYSTEM AND HOW TO MAKE IT MORE ACCOMMODATING FOR SO-CALLED 'IMMIGRANTS'! REMEMBER THE BANK OF AMERICA BOYCOTT? A to Z Index | Contact Us | Site Map | Subscribe | What's New Home About the Fed Banking Information Services for Financial Institutions Community Development Consumer Information Economic Research & Data News & Events Publications The Atlanta Fed Atlanta Visitors Center Branches Careers Directors Economic Education Federal Reserve System FedFAQ Holidays Officers Tours Business Continuity Check Relay Circular Letters Discount Window Regulations Regulatory & Monetary Reporting Resources & Publications Retail Payments Risk Forum Supervision & Regulation Check Relay Circular Letters National Financial Services Operating Circulars Sixth District Financial Services Introduction Contacts Personal Financial Education Publications Resources Consumer Help and Complaints Frauds & Scams Personal Financial Education Resources Americas Center® Beige Book Economists macroblog Publications Regional Economic Information Network Seminars Statistics Working Papers Conferences Press Kit Press Releases Research Seminars Speakers Bureau Speeches Teacher Workshops About the Publications Annual Reports Books and Brochures Federal Reserve Catalogs Periodicals Working Papers Home > Publications > Partners, Volume 15, Number 2, 2005 Email Print Font Share Partners, Volume 15, Number 2, 2005 BANKING ON REMITTANCES: EXTENDING FINANCIAL SERVICES TO IMMIGRANTS: Immigrants in the United States represent a large and growing market for financial institutions, not only in traditional ports of entry such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami, but also in newly emerging gateway cities across the U.S., including Dalton, Georgia, and Nashville, Tennessee. Banks can tap into this market segment by offering new financial products that cater specifically to immigrants’ needs as well as providing typical banking services. Many immigrants regularly send money back to their families and communities in their home countries. In 2004, over $30 billion in remittances was sent from the U.S. to Latin American countries via formal channels such as wire transfer services, banks, and credit unions. Remittance services are an example of an important new product that banks have begun to offer as an avenue for developing relationships with the immigrant market. Gaining a foothold in this market, however, will require more than just providing remittance services. Recent focus group research exploring Mexican immigrants’ remittance practices in the Sixth District found that the choice of a remittance service provider is based on complex, multiple factors, including cost, exchange rate, speed of transmission, delivery mechanisms in the immigrants’ home country, as well as their family’s personal preferences. While immigrants in this study expressed interest in using remittance products at financial institutions, potential obstacles emerged such as language and cultural barriers, identification requirements, and insufficient information or misinformation about financial institutions. Barriers to using banks To gain a better understanding of Mexican immigrants’ perceptions about remittance products and services available at mainstream financial institutions, the Federal Reserve Board sponsored focus groups in three cities across the Sixth District (see sidebar). The focus groups also explored immigrants’ general perceptions and experiences regarding financial institutions. Although many participants viewed U.S. banks as reliable and secure places to keep their funds, many did not have a bank account. The focus groups revealed several factors that impeded immigrants’ use of banks. Language and cultural barriers Spanish-speaking personnel who can explain financial products and services and relate to a client’s cultural and personal situation were primary in determining where the Mexican immigrants in the focus group conduct their financial transactions. But in addition to Spanish-speaking staff, participants also wanted good customer service and convenient access to financial services. Identification requirements Many participants expressed concern over identification requirements. Immigrants cited problems related to state driver’s license laws, as well as to federal and state laws governing banks’ acceptance of the matrícula consular (an identification document issued by the Mexican government for Mexican nationals) for identification purposes. Even several participants with state licenses reported that they did not plan to open a bank account. Some incorrectly believed that, given their immigration status, they would lose access to funds in their account when the license expired. Others commented that when they tried to open an account using the matrícula, bank employees misinformed them that they were not permitted to use the document, even though the bank’s policy recognized the matrícula as an acceptable form of identification. Insufficient information or misinformation Insufficient information or misinformation about financial products and services were common among the focus group participants. Among those who used banks, several felt they had not been clearly informed about services and fees associated with having a bank account. Most participants confused U.S. credit unions with the Mexican cajas populares and cajas de ahorro and, because of the reputation of these financial institutions and personal negative experiences, many were skeptical about credit unions. Sending money home When participants were queried on how they sent money home to their families in Mexico, most reported using wire transfer companies, postal money orders, and informal channels such as courier services. A few said they sent money with friends and family. Several variables influenced how remitters sent money home. “I have a bank account right now but I don’t like to keep a big amount of money in it because the license I have is about to expire, and I am afraid that I won’t have access to my money if I don’t have any identification.” Local mechanisms Some remittance mechanisms were specific to a particular location. For example, some participants from Dalton, Georgia used “vans” or courier services that collect the remittance from the sender and deliver it (as well as additional packages such as letters or pictures) directly to the recipient. Senders and receivers Many participants indicated that both the remitter and the recipient decide upon the best remittance mechanism for both parties. Some, however, based their method of remittance entirely on their families in Mexico, who were accustomed to receiving funds in a particular manner and perceived one method to be better than another. Market conditions Whether or not a bank exists in the receiving family’s town of residence was another consideration. In fact, about half of the participants in Dalton and Florida City reported that they sent their remittances to rural areas, which are less likely to have banking services to receive the remittance. Choosing a remittance service Participants consistently agreed on these key characteristics for choosing a remittance provider: Reputation of provider; Total cost; Exchange rate; Assurance that the recipient will receive the funds; Speed of service (same day or next day availability); Customer service. Although the availability of Spanish-speaking staff was the most important condition for getting their business, focus group participants stated that service and cost, including front-end fees, exchange rate, and back-end fees were nearly as significant. Many reported that they shopped for the most favorable exchange rate. In addition they said they investigated charges by receiving institutions in Mexico, for example the money service business or bank, and used this information in deciding how to send their money. Using banks for remittances While few participants were aware of banks offering remittance services, they indicated that the availability of remittance products and services through financial institutions could motivate them to open an account in the U.S. Participants were particularly interested in account-to-account remittance products in which money deposited in a U.S. bank account by the remitter could then be transferred to the recipient’s bank account in Mexico. The general perception among participants was that using banks—at both ends of the transaction—would be a safer way to send money to their families. When queried about remittance products with innovative features, some of which to our knowledge have not yet been developed or offered by banks, many participants indicated that they would be interested, for example, in using a remittance product that included a “savings” feature to help accumulate funds to send back home. They also liked the idea of a product that offered the opportunity to pay their family’s bills (say, for utilities) directly. Other participants approved of a remittance product that charged a flat fee irrespective of the value of the remittance, and a few indicated a strong preference for products with no back-end fees for their family members. Conclusions Banks in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Miami have had decades to adjust to immigrant customers, while banks in the new gateway cities have had limited experience working with immigrant communities, especially in providing products and services specifically tailored to this clientele. Banks trying to attract these potential customers will have to be innovative in responding to challenges. Our focus group findings revealed that banks do have an advantage compared with alternative service providers, however. Despite conventional wisdom, which contends that immigrants distrust U.S. banks because they distrust banks in their home countries, our focus group participants indicated a high level of trust in U.S. banks. Furthermore they implied that they may trust banks in Mexico that partner with U.S. banks, so that trust is in essence transferred from the U.S. bank to the Mexican-partner bank. Although banks cannot control the receiving country’s financial services infrastructure, which is often a driving force in the choice of remittance provider, they do have options. For example, banks can now use the FedACH system to transfer money to Mexico. Banks can also reach out to immigrant communities by working with community organizations and mentors to help bridge the language and cultural gaps and ensure access to financial education resources and materials. If possible banks can also partner with appropriate financial institutions in Mexico to offer complementary products and services for both U.S.-based immigrants and their family members in their home country. With a little effort banks have the opportunity to attract the growing, prospering immigrant market. But banks may need to adjust their products, services, policies, and culture to compete with alternative service providers—not just on price, but also on the quality of service and accessibility—if they want to pursue the immigrant market successfully. This article was written by Marianne A. Hilgert and Jeanne M. Hogarth, Federal Reserve Board, Consumer & Community Affairs; Edwin J. Lucio, Federal Reserve Board, Reserve Bank Operations & Payment Systems; Sibyl Howell, Juan Sanchez, and Wayne Smith, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Supervision & Regulation, Community Affairs; Elizabeth McQuerry, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Retail Payments Office; Ana Cruz-Taura, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Miami Branch, Community Affairs; and Jessica LeVeen Farr, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Nashville Branch, Community Affairs. The analysis, comments, and conclusions set forth in this presentation represent the work of the authors and do not indicate concurrence of the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Reserve Banks, or their staff. Mention or display of a trademark, proprietary product, or firm in the text by focus group participants or the authors does not constitute an endorsement or criticism by the Federal Reserve System and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products or firms. *Califstarheart ***

FROM A.P. YAHOO NEWS / THIS IS INSANITY! / OBAMA TOUTS 17 BILLION 'LOT OF MONEY' FOR BUDGET CUTS /

OBAMA 'NEW DEAL' A BAD DEAL!
THIS IS NEO PROGRESSIVISM AT
IT'S WORST.....IT IS A COMBINATION
OF A MARXIST/FASCIST TAKEOVER!

THE ARROGANCE OF THIS MAN LEADS US TO THINK HE WOULD PRINT HIS OWN OBAMA BILLS.....

By TOM RAUM and ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writers Tom Raum And Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writers – Thu May 7, 11:52 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama sent Congress a detailed budget Thursday boasting of cutting or killing 121 federal programs in a belt-tightening he likened to that of most Americans in difficult times. But the trims amounted to a tiny fraction of the new spending he wants, and some have already been nixed by allies on Capitol Hill.

Obama said his cuts would amount to $17 billion — in a budget totaling well over $3 trillion for the fiscal year that begins in October. He's estimating the government's red ink will still be about $1.2 trillion, down only slightly from this year's all-time record.

Republicans scoffed that Obama's cuts were not nearly enough. "They appear to be a diversionary tactic — an effort to change the subject away from the unprecedented debt this budget heaps on future generations," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

On the other hand, some of Obama's proposed trims are recycled from George W. Bush's hit list and won't be popular with some Democrats. For instance, he proposed ending a $400 million-a-year program that pays states and counties for keeping illegal immigrants in their jails — a Bush idea rejected previously by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

The president defended proposed cuts that he portrayed as a mix of some "more painful than others."

"In Washington, I guess that's considered trivial. Outside of Washington, that's still considered a lot of money," he said. "But these savings, large and small, add up."

If there was a theme to Obama's cuts and spending initiatives, it was to continue to provide generous increases to domestic programs that had been squeezed during the eight years of the Bush administration while reviving oft-rejected Bush-era proposals to cut programs that critics say have outlived their usefulness but still have important support on Capitol Hill.

"What we're trying to do is reorient government activity toward things that work," said White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Obama proposed:

• Ending $26 billion in oil and gas industry tax breaks, which he called "unjustifiable loopholes" in the tax system that other industries do not get.

• Slashing almost in half a benefits program for the families of slain police and safety officers from $110 million to $60 million.

• Eliminating federal support for a $35 million-a-year radio-based marine navigation system rendered obsolete by the satellite-based Global Positioning System.

• Doing away with a $142 million program to help states pay to clean up abandoned mines.

• Abolishing an Education Department attache's post in Paris, at a savings of $632,000 per year.

He called for a $3 increase in per-segment air fare taxes starting in 2012, which would raise the maximum fee from $5 to $11 per trip as a way to finance airport security screenings

In over 1,500 pages, Obama sought to flesh out the bare-bones budget outline he submitted in February shortly after taking office. Both the House and Senate last week approved a $3.4 trillion budget blueprint reflecting most of Obama's priorities and clearing the way for new spending on health care, energy and education. More details are due from the White House next week.

On the spending side, Obama's new details emphasized substantial increases for his domestic priorities.

He proposed:

• Plowing $2 billion more into merit-based teacher pay to help failing schools turn around. He would spend $370 million on a successor to the Reading First literacy program, a key element of Bush's No Child Left Behind law.

• Spending an additional $584 million for pandemic flu efforts, on top of the $1.5 billion in emergency money for 2009 that he asked Congress for in the wake of the swine flu outbreak.

• Increasing child nutrition programs by $1 billion, partly to pay for a 20 percent increase in the number of food inspectors.

• Setting up a $1 billion program to develop or rehabilitate housing for the poor.

Obama proposed more money for the Labor Department to hire about 1,000 new employees, including 670 new investigators and other staffers to enforce safety, health, minimum wage, overtime and other laws.

"We'll begin to restore worker protection programs after years of decline," said Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

The relatively modest scope of Obama's proposed cuts — amounting to about one half of one percent of spending — led to a sometimes contentious briefing with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

"I've said this before, and I'll say it again: $17 billion is a lot of money to people in America. I understand that it might not be to some people in this town, but that's probably why we're sitting on a $12 trillion American Express bill," Gibbs said, referring to the $10.7 trillion national debt.

Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's top economic aide, said in an interview that the value of the budget cuts goes beyond their monetary value. "We need to take that kind of close look, that kind of scrutiny, of all the government spending that we're doing," he said.

Fellow Democrats may well reject some of those revisions, including Obama's proposal to stop paying states and counties that keep illegal immigrants in their jails. He also proposed doing away with Even Start, a $66 million program to promote child literacy that the administration argues is not as effective as other early-childhood education programs like Head Start.

Bush had sought to end both programs — only to be rebuffed by the Democratic Congress.

Lawmakers from the potent California, New York and Florida delegations are sure to fight the proposed elimination of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the one that helps states house illegal immigrants in jails.

"None of this will be easy," Obama said, facing cameras at the White House with Orszag standing behind him.

Stanley Collender, a former congressional budget expert, said that $17 billion in cuts was significant in these recessionary times when increased spending is deemed to be more justified than usual. Furthermore, Obama had used the cuts to offset some of his proposed spending increases.

That was a nod to fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, said Collender, now with Qorvis Communications, a Washington consulting firm.

"Are the cuts enough to balance the budget? No, of course not. But that wasn't the point," he said.

Despite redoubling its efforts to portray itself as tough on waste and spending, the administration and Congress have taken the nation on a steady course of higher federal spending. In rapid succession has come passage of a $787 billion economic recovery bill, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill and Congress' $3.4 trillion budget for next year, which calls for increases of almost 10 percent over current funding for non-defense agency budgets.

Even as Obama spoke, a key House panel was adding about $12 billion to his war-spending request.

Many items in the budget are about more than money.

It affirms the administration's prohibition on so-called warrantless wiretapping — the Bush administration electronic surveillance program.

And it would provide $197 million to find an alternative to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada, another setback to the nuclear power industry from the administration — but a welcome gesture to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has long sought to block the project 90 miles from Las Vegas.

Obama said that Americans are tightening their belts in difficult times and want to know if Washington "is prepared to act with the same sense of responsibility."

"I believe we can and must do exactly that," Obama said.

Obama is claiming savings from eliminating a host of accounts typically earmarked by members of Congress such as a $10 million West Virginia highway project obtained by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and $15 million obtained by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for diesel emissions reduction grants.

In fact, some of the cuts, like terminating production of C-17 cargo aircraft and phasing out direct payments to farmers with sales exceeding $500,000 annually, have already been rejected by Obama's allies in Congress.

About half the budget savings would come from an effort by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to curb military programs, including ending production of the F-22 fighter and killing a much-maligned replacement helicopter fleet for the president that's way over budget.

___

Associated Press Writers Sam Hananel, H. Josef Hebert, Libby Quaid, Erica Werner, Pamela Hess, Julie Pace and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Obama proposals:

THIS LINK IS THE ENTIRE PORTION OF: 'TERMINATIONS, REDUCTIONS AND SAVINGS' / 'BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR 2010.' IT IS SUGGESTED THAT EVERYONE READ IT AS IT CONTAINS CUTS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY AMONG OTHER VITAL NEEDS!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010


*Califstarheart ***

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES / OBAMA'S SPEECH IN EGYPT TO REACH OUT TO MUSLIMS / THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!

By Christina Bellantoni and Barbara Slavin THE WASHINGTON TIMES | Saturday, May 9, 2009

President Obama next month will travel to Egypt to address the world's Muslims in a major speech, seeking to strengthen U.S. relations with the Islamic world and fight extremism, the White House said Friday.

Mr. Obama chose Egypt as the venue for the long-promised speech, to be delivered June 4, because the country "in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

He said a city had not been chosen yet.

Mr. Gibbs said the president in his remarks will "extend a hand to those that in many ways are like us, but just simply have a different religion."

"Our hope is not to draw a large crowd, but our hope is to reach a large portion of the world with what we hope is a powerful message," Mr. Gibbs said.

The president's trip will include a visit to the Buchenwald concentration camp near Weimar, Germany, which Mr. Obama's great-uncle helped to liberate during World War II. He also will join world leaders in France to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landing in Normandy, France.

Ziad al-Asali, a prominent Arab-American and president of the American Task Force on Palestine, predicted in December that Mr. Obama would choose Egypt because of its central role in Islam and the Arab world and its status as the first Arab country to make peace with Israel. Mr. al-Asali said the site sends a signal that the Obama administration is committed to an Arab-Israeli peace deal.

Egypt for years has served as a back-channel for the United States to the Palestinian militant group Hamas, and, in a more open capacity, has provided training for Palestinian security services.

Despite the 1979 peace accord, Egypt's relations with Israel have not always been smooth.

From time to time, Egypt has withdrawn its ambassadors from Tel Aviv, and in the past three years, Israeli leaders have charged that Egypt has failed to control weapons and aid smuggled into Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Continue reading 123Next

*Califstarheart ***