Posts Tagged ‘American Action Forum’

Support or Deport – Which Costs U.S. Taxpayers More?

August 8th, 2017 Comments off

Deportation, Credits Deportation USCIS

Low cost labor.  Human rights.  Given manufactured home communities that have significant numbers of illegals.  The impact on depressing U.S. citizen’s wages caused by the presence of millions from “south of the border.”

With all the talk of President Trump’s plans to deport illegal immigrants, the Center for Immigration Studies research director Dr. Steven A. Camarota researched the comparative cost to support or deport the undocumented, per the Washington Times.

Often one of the arguments against deportation of illegal immigrants has been that it would cost more to deport them than to let them live in the U.S.

However, according to Camarota’s findings, the cost to deport would actually be hundreds of billions less than supporting them over their lifetime.

By taking numbers from a 2016 National Academy of Sciences study, Camarota determined that it would cost $750 billion to support over the cumulative lifetimes of all of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country. On the other hand, he found that it would only cost around $125 billion to deport them.

Sometimes people say look, we couldn’t deport everybody because it’s prohibitively expensive,” Mr. Camarota said. “But if your only concern is fiscal cost, it’s pretty clear that letting them stay is a hell of a lot more expensive.”

Camarota isn’t actually a supporter of mass deportation, but says that since this is such a hot topic this study is meant to spark conversation about the actual costs and benefits of supporting or deporting immigrants.

Based on Camarota’s findings, supporting illegal immigrants would cost around $65,000 per person, according to Newsmax.


Dr, Steven A. Camarota, research director for Center of Immigration Studies. Credit, YouTube

However, this study does not consider additional costs of deportation, such as immigration court fees, which would alter the total cost of deportation, but presumably no where nearly enough to counter the huge cost difference.

Crunching One Set of Numbers May Not Reflect the Complete Picture

This is not the first study done on the costs of immigration.  A 2016 study by American Action Forum (AAF) found the cost of mass deportation to be much higher, per the Washington Times.

A study by the American Action Forum found that it would take about 20 years and $100-300 billion to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants – which could end up much higher than the $125 million estimated by Camarota.  However, that was under Obama Administration guidelines and policies.  The Trump administration is making deportation faster, and easier.


ICE deportations, Credit

However, in order to come to his $125 million estimate, Camarota took the 2016 cost of deportation – $10,854 – and multiplied it by the number if illegal immigrants – about 11 million. So assuming the country continued to deport illegal immigrants without incurring additional costs, his findings would be a useful ball park figure.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

The numbers used to determine the cost of supporting illegal immigrants by Dr. Camarota came from the American Academy of Sciences study.  Illegal immigrants with an education actually are estimated to benefit U.S. taxpayers by $424,000 over the course of their lifetime.

On the other hand, low-skilled illegal immigrants cost tax payers an average of $173,000 over their lifetime, per Opposing Views.  It should be noted that the REACH act proposal would prioritize those better educated immigrants.


MHProNews has tracked the back and forth between stars on the immigration issue, with George and Amal Clooney supporting the policies promoted by Secretary Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, while manufactured home ownership connected stars Matthew McConaughey, and Kid Rock supporting the policies of President Trump. Credit above, Amal’s style blog.

Illegal immigrants under the age of 24 are often able to receive assistance for an education, and end up being successful and productive members of the U.S. economy.  However, this research indicates that the larger number of low-skilled workers who immigrate to the U.S. tip those scales and make it more costly for taxpayers if they stay.

The cost to deport – based on the cost of deportation in 2016 – is far less than the cost of supporting the 11 million illegal immigrants.

In short, illegal immigrants are a large net fiscal drain because of their education levels and this fact drives the results,” Camarota wrote, according to the Washington Examiner. “Deportation, on the other hand, is not that costly relative to the fiscal costs illegal immigrants create.” # #

(Image credits are as shown above, and when provided by third parties, are shared under fair use guidelines.)

JuliaGranowiczManufacturedHomeLivingNewsMHProNews-comSubmitted by Julia Granowicz to Daily Business News for MHProNews.



Dodd-Frank Inspired Regulations Harming the Poor at Bank and Check-out Counters

August 22nd, 2016 Comments off

Dodd_Frank___bloombergbusinessweek___credit postedDailyBusinessNews-MHProNewsWhile Sen. Elizabeth Warren(D-Mass.) sings the praises of the six-year-old Dodd-Frank Act, saying, “If a bank screws up, you have someone to call so you don’t get stuck with the bill,”

in fact, consumers get stuck with the bill whether a bank makes mistakes or not.

The American Action Forum, according to what theblaze tells MHProNews, reports the true costs equate to $112 per individual and $310 per household, a direct result of expanded powers from new regulatory agencies, costs that stem from compliance alone. Based on this data, the Forum estimates the regulations have resulted in consumers and businesses spending 74 hours on paperwork with an impact of $36 billion.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said Dodd-Frank and its offspring, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), has provided “over $11 billion in relief for more than 27 million hardworking Americans,” but in fact, regulations have led to a 14.5 percent decrease in revolving credit.

Under the Durbin amendment, as added to the Dodd-Frank legislation, the Federal Reserve has limited the amount that banks with over $10 billion in assets can charge merchants for debit card purchases (“swipe fees”) to 21-23 cents per event.

Prior to the Durbin amendment merchants would charge one percent per transaction to cushion against the risks of fraud or overdrafts by consumers, and the average swipe fee was $0.44 per transaction. The thinking was consumers would save at the checkout counter by cutting the swipe fee in half. However, a study by the Richmond Federal Reserve reveals big-box retailers did not pass on the savings.

Additionally, the Boston Federal Reserve reports the Durbin amendment has cost large banks at least $14 billion a year or more in order to make up for lost revenue and riskier retail transactions, resulting in higher ATM and overdraft fees, stricter limits on debit card transactions and less free checking. Unfortunately, Americans at the poverty level are the ones hurt the most by restrictions on minimum balance checking and low-cost banking services.

In the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton intends to add to regulations, which would continue to harm consumers and businesses alike, while Donald Trump said he would dismantle Dodd-Frank. ##

(Image credit: bloombergbusiness)

matthew-silver-daily-business-news-mhpronews-comArticle submitted by Matthew J Silver to Daily Business News-MHProNews.

The Dodd-Frank Legacy: Billions Spent, More Designated, Questionable Gains

July 21st, 2016 Comments off

Dodd_Frank___bloombergbusinessweek___credit postedDailyBusinessNewsMHProNewsSix years after passing the Dodd-Frank Act, which was designed to avert another financial crisis, the American Action Forum (AAF) asserts Dodd-Frank has imposed over $36 billion in final rule costs plus 73 million paperwork hours. That is an increase from last year’s $24 billion in final rule costs and 61 million paperwork hours. The costs average out to $112 per person, or $310 per household. Based on agency figures, for purposes of documentation, “It would take 36,950 employees working full-time (2,000 hours annually) to complete a single year of the law’s paperwork,” reports AAF.

Making matters worse, there remain 61 regulations under Dodd-Frank that have yet to be implemented. For an economy still trying to recover from the Great Recession, the law has resulted in a 14.5 percent decline in revolving consumer credit.

On a chart examining costs of imposing Dodd-Frank over the six years since it was first voted in, year one was under $1 billion, but mushroomed to over $4 billion the next year, hitting $8 billion in year three, $6 billion in the fourth year, slipping to about $5 billion the following year, and shooting up to $10.4 billion of economic burdens in the sixth year.


The 533 final rule documents produced by Dodd-Frank have slowly declined since year two, but 61 rulemakings remain to be implemented which could add another $3.3 billion to the cost of Dodd-Frank plus almost a million paperwork hours. The most prominent is the Requirements for Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) at $1.5 billion. Proposed last year by the Federal Reserve, its goal is to improve capital standards at the largest, interconnected financial institutions.

The second rule, and second largest, at $1.3 billion in costs, requiring 242,321 paperwork hours, is the Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers. It requires companies “to provide information on payments to foreign governments and corporations on the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.” Expected to be complete by June 2016, the SEC continues to work on this rule.

The third rule, banning arbitration agreements from particular consumer financial products has created controversy, remains under comment with no date for finalization. Its cost is set at $379.7 million, requiring 500 paperwork hours.

The fourth proposed rule, from the SEC, Security-based Swap Repositories, is estimated to cost some $104 million with over 676,000 paperwork hours notched. The final rule of these five, SEC’s other Swap Repository rule, would mandate new record keeping and reporting requirements on repositories to share specific date with regulators. It would cost an estimated $103.8 million and require 36,120 paperwork hours, involving SEC employees monitoring swap information.

Some of the remaining federal rulemakings related to Dodd-Frank are shown below with their expected completion dates (some are overdue), although many are so complicated it may take years to finalize.

Rule Expected Publication Date
Incentive-Based Compensation Agreements May 2016
Annual Stress Test May 2016
Clearing Requirement May 2016
CFPB’s Arbitration Rule May 2016
Margin Requirements for Swap Entities May 2016
Incentive Compensation May 2016
Resource Extraction Issuers June 2016
Amendments to Regulations X and Z July 2016
Regulatory Capital Rules October 2016
Reporting of Proxy Votes April 2017
End-User Exception April 2017
Stress Tests for Large Investment Firms April 2017
Pay Versus Performance April 2017
Disclosure of Hedging by Officers and Directors May 2017
Covered Broker Dealer Provisions N/A

Finally, one of Dodd-Frank’s main objectives was to prevent the “Too Big to Fail” phenomenon, but as the graph below shows, the five largest commercial banks have enjoyed slow but steady growth in the years since the housing bubble.


However, as MHProNews has learned, it is not the actual growth that matters, but how that growth affects the market’s structure. The top five banks have been responsible for a majority of that market in 13 out of the 23 quarters that Dodd-Frank has been in effect.

While a straight line cannot be drawn that directly connects the six-year-old regulations to increased concentration of the banking industry, the data certainly indicate that Dodd-Frank contributed to what it had intended to prevent at a cost of $36 billion and 73 million paperwork burdensome hours.

AAF concludes: “As time passes, the law becomes more expensive as regulatory agencies like CFPB and FHFA grow with the mission to implement burdensome rules. Meanwhile, small financial services firms continue to struggle as the law restricts the availability of financial products. With dozens of regulations still left to implement, one can only expect the costs to continue to rise.”

As MHProNews knows, Dodd-Frank is directly responsible for impeding the financing of manufactured homes, especially low cost homes. ##

(Graphs and chart credit: American Action Forum;

Dodd-Frank’s breezy banner:bloombergbusinessweek)

matthew-silver-daily-business-news-mhpronews-comArticle submitted by Matthew J Silver to Daily Business News-MHProNews.

Policy Institute says Dodd-Frank is a Bust

February 1st, 2016 Comments off

dodd_frank___bloombergbusinessweek___creditThe American Action Forum (AAF) has determined there has been a 20.5 percent drop in community banks with assets under $1 billion dollar in assets since Dodd-Frank became law five + years ago, according to data supplied MHProNews by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC). That is a substantial increase from the 13.1 percent drop during the five years leading up to Dodd-Frank, reports newsok.

A center-right policy institute, the AAF has also determined that the legislation that was designed to keep large financial institutions from causing a recession has resulted in the “too big to fail” banks are thriving while the smaller ones are not, despite the fact they were not the responsible ones causing the housing downfall. While this is not new information, AAF says D-F has led to a 14.5 percent decrease in consumer revolving credit, such as credit cards, since 2010, and cased mortgages to cost about $350 more.

Dodd-Frank’s regulatory burden must be borne by someone: financial institutions and their employees, shareholders, or consumers in the form of higher prices or less access to credit,” the AAF report states. “It appears the law has affected all three entities.”

While Dodd-Frank was supposed “to generate nothing but good,” according to AAF the rules of Dodd-Frank state creditors might consider adjusting the terms and conditions of loans to pass some or all of the price increase through to consumers. The final rule could increase the cost of credit or curtail access to credit for a small share of … consumers and purchase-money consumers.”

As the MHPro industry knows, Dodd-Frank also put a big crimp in the ability of individuals and retailers to finance the sale of manufactured homes, especially by consumers at the lower end.

The bottom line: consumers have fewer options for financing, less access to credit, and higher costs accessing credit. ##

(Image credit: bloomberbusinessweek)

matthew-silver-daily-business-news-mhpronews-comArticle submitted by Matthew J. Silver to Daily Business News-MHProNews.