JARED MOSKOWITZ TRIES TO DEFUND ICE! MORE FAIRYTALES FROM THE WHITESHOE MAFIA.

During a House Judiciary Committee markup session, Congressman Moskowitz, alongside Rep. Jamie Raskin, scrutinized this allocation, highlighting that the proposed bonus could amount to approximately $40,000 per ICE employee—significantly higher than the average American worker's annual bonus of $2,500.

This select cut from the hearing, with it's theatrics between Moskowitz and BFF Jamie Raskin, is one of the better examples of Socialist disinformation that the opposition Congress has come up with since the election. The framing and delivery, as well as wide circulation on social media (with no citations again) have had any number of Dems and fairweather Federalists clutching there pearls and thumping the tables asking "How dare they?" "typical TRUMPSTERS".etc. But, as we have known for some time, the truth is not able to leave a Dems mouth.

A major issue that was left out of this conversation was "What was this bonus and what was it for?" One should have been asking "Is it out of line with other federal bonus programs?

If you did that then the information supplied below will not shock you.

If you didn't, then you will be given yet another proof that the Dems think you are a fool and can be easily cowed with fake information.

What Raskin and Moskowitz are trying to do here is to subtley "defund ICE" and the Republicans don't catch on to counter it, then they will be able to start to stop the deportation through lack of funds.

What they can't do through legal channels they will do through back alleys.

FYI, it has been whispered that Moskowitz wants to run for Senate. If you think that this "Squad Member" is bad now, wait until he gets ensconsec in the Senate.

So without further ado..

Strategic Undermining of ICE Through Bonus Rhetoric

Executive Summary: Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) has publicly criticized a Republican proposal to allocate $858 million for signing and retention bonuses within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), suggesting each employee could receive up to $40,000. While positioned as a budgetary concern, this framing may serve as a strategic attempt to weaken ICE operational capacity without directly voting to defund the agency. This memo evaluates the factual basis of his claim, compares it with other federal incentive programs, and examines the potential policy and political implications.

1. Context and Claim: During a House Judiciary Committee session, Rep. Moskowitz ridiculed the proposed ICE bonus allocation by contrasting it with the average American private-sector worker's annual bonus of $2,500. He framed the expenditure as excessive, misleadingly implying that each current ICE employee would receive a $40,000 lump-sum bonus.

Key Detail: The $858 million is intended for both recruitment (10,000 new agents) and retention, not as a universal cash payout.

2. Comparative Analysis: Federal Bonus Structures Federal agencies routinely offer substantial financial incentives:

• U.S. Army: Up to $50,000 in enlistment bonuses; “Quick Ship” bonuses of $10,000; reenlistment bonuses for key roles.

• U.S. Air Force: Selective Retention Bonuses (SRB) up to $180,000 over time, capped at $360,000 lifetime.

• U.S. Navy: Nuclear Field bonuses up to $50,000; Special Warfare up to $35,000.

• VA Medical Professionals: Signing bonuses up to $40,000; loan repayment up to $200,000.

• CBP (Customs and Border Protection): Signing bonuses up to $20,000; hardship station incentives.

• Cybersecurity Staff (DHS, DoD): Retention bonuses exceeding $25,000 annually.

• OPM Standards: Retention bonuses up to 25% of base pay, or 50% for critical need roles.

These structures demonstrate that large bonuses are normative for specialized or high-risk federal roles — and ICE qualifies under both.

3. Political Interpretation: "Defunding Without Defunding" Moskowitz's language may be part of a broader tactic:

• Public Outrage Trigger: Using exaggerated figures ($40,000 bonuses) to stoke fiscal populism.

• False Equivalence: Comparing ICE compensation to private-sector norms rather than military/law enforcement peers.

• Indirect Defunding: Undermining the funding mechanism without directly voting to dismantle ICE.

• Morale and Recruitment Sabotage: Casting ICE bonuses as wasteful reduces agency appeal to potential recruits.

4. Strategic Risk and Recommendations

• Clarify the Allocation: Supporters should emphasize the recruitment and retention context.

• Contrast With Military Norms: Highlight similarities with DOD and CBP bonus structures.

• Expose Political Gamesmanship: Frame opposition as performative rather than policy-driven.

• Reaffirm ICE’s Role: Emphasize ICE as frontline law enforcement dealing with national security-level threats.

Conclusion: Rep. Moskowitz’s critique lacks a contextual understanding of federal compensation systems and may represent a broader strategy to weaken ICE without formally defunding it. Effective response requires both factual correction and reframing.