JBS Action Alert: Support H.R.220 - Common Sense About Ident
JBS Action Alert: Support H.R.220 - Common Sense About Identity Theft and REAL ID
By JBS Staff
Published: 2008-05-16 18:36 Email this page | printer friendly version
House bill H.R.220, short-titled the "Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2007," was introduced on January 4, 2007 by (2008 presidential candidate) Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). See: [cosponsors], [bill text], [CRS summary]. The bill purportedly would:
* reduce identity theft by prohibiting the use of a Social Security number for any purpose other than for specified Social Security and tax purposes;
* prohibit the federal government from establishing a national ID or uniform identifier system; and
* prevent federal agencies from using federal grants, contracts, or funding (the carrot and stick strategy) to compel or blackmail states into accepting uniform ID standards that would create a de facto national ID system.
Read: Rep. Ron Paul's speech introducing H.R.220
The federalizing of state driver's licenses through title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 has met strong opposition from state governments and activists. Several congressional bills have been introduced that relate to the national ID controversy:
* H.R.1117 and S.717 would merely negotiate about national ID standards and implement who-knows-what, with huge new federal grants. REAL ID was foisted on America and should be ended, not amended.
* H.R.5405 would transform the Social Security card into a de facto national ID card. The Social Security number is already abused as a uniform identifier, but H.R.5405 would facilitate expanding such use and have privacy and security risks similar to that of a federalized RFID drivers license.
* H.R.220 would repeal the federal law that established a driver's license/national ID card and clamp down on both governmental and private sector abuse of Social Security numbers. We favor this bill.
Rep. Paul introduced similar legislation with the same bill number in the 109th Congress*, the 107th Congress*, and the 106th Congress*. (*Check who the cosponsors were.) Those bills died in the committee stage, never to receive an up or down vote by the House. Help bring the latest version of H.R.220 out of committee and to the House floor for a vote. Ask your congressman to cosponsor H.R.220 if he or she has not already done so. [cosponsors] The likelihood that a bill will be voted on increases in proportion to the number of cosponsors a bill has. It is a bonus if your representative is the chairmann, the ranking member, or even just a regular member of any of the following committees to which H.R.220 was referred:
* House Ways and Means Committee (41 members)
* House Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security (13 members)
* House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (41 members)
The establishing of a national ID card has far-reaching ramifications, with the draconian potential that someday every citizen might be required to use a trackable national ID card in order maintain a livelihood or function in society. Furthermore, the REAL ID rebellion among the states over federal requirements to make state driver's licenses serve as a national ID card demands the fullest possible debate by Congress on the entire range of legislative options, including the plan of H.R.220. This bill should not be swept under the rug by a committee.
http://www.jbs.org/node/8068
No REAL ID in South Carolina!
No REAL ID in South Carolina!
First, I want to say I support Gov. Mark Sanford's courageous decision to stand against REAL ID. In his letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff he said, "I am duty bound to comply with the laws of our state." As you may know, South Carolina passed a law last year saying they would not comply with REAL ID. What courage to take a stand when the pressure was turned on from all sides! God give us more people who will take a stand!
Second, I am responding to the April 8th editorial in this paper entitled, "Now let's get the feds to fund REAL ID." The unfunded mandate is really the least of my worries. You can get a copy of Gov. Sanford's letter to Secretary Chertoff from the governor's Web site. In that letter he clearly lays out the reasons why we cannot and should not comply with REAL ID. Did you know that Congress never debated REAL ID? Did you know that terrorists can get a passport from another country and REAL ID won't stop them from entering our country? Did you know illegal immigrants can still walk across the border and REAL ID won't stop them? Yes, it is clear that REAL ID won't make us safer, just more controlled and regulated by the feds. Does that not contrast limited federal government? No REAL ID in SC!
Titus Stracener
Pickens
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pb ... 004/NEWS01
Sensenbrenner's outburst on Real ID sours GOP lovefest
Nichols: Sensenbrenner's outburst on Real ID sours GOP lovefest
John Nichols — 5/18/2008 8:32 pm
The Republican Party of Wisconsin's attempt to make its 2008 convention in Stevens Point a show of unity on the eve of a difficult election campaign fell apart when U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner used his speech to trash Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch.
The state's senior Republican at the federal level was furious with the top state Republican's moves to block implementation of the Real ID Act.
And he suggested that Huebsch had abandoned Republican principles during the recent debate over the state budget repair bill. "We need to act like Republicans and vote like Republicans," the Menomonee Falls Republican declared, in a pointed jab at Huebsch, a West Salem legislator who leads an Assembly chamber that has a narrow Republican majority.
Sensenbrenner has led the push for Real ID, a federal law that demands states implement strict security, authentication and issuance procedures standards to limit access to state driver's licenses and state ID cards. Ostensibly, the program is designed to make state identification documents acceptable by the federal government for what the Department of Homeland Security describes as "official purposes."
But civil libertarians and strict-constructionist readers of the Constitution have objected to what they see as a "big-brother" initiative. And they have sought to stall development of the program.
In Wisconsin, last week, Huebsch and other Republicans joined Democrats in backing a budget repair bill that strips Real ID of funding necessary for its implementation.
A total of $22 million that had been earmarked for Real ID was instead directed to the general fund. Democratic Governor Jim Doyle vetoed the move, earning high praise from the state's senior Republican.
Sensenbrenner had no such kind words for Huebsch on Saturday.
"Unfortunately Speaker Huebsch decided to push it through the Assembly, and he did so in a manner that does not fix the problem of over-taxing and replaces transportation fees with more state borrowing. Exactly the same move that helped destroy the Republican brand nationally," griped Sensenbrenner. "Everyone sees this as a political shell game that simply postpones hard decisions."
Huebsch did not respond directly but instead told delegates that, "We as Republicans do not place our faith in government but in each other."
In a straw poll of delegates regarding their pick as a candidate for governor, Huebsch tied for sixth with former Congressman Mark Neumann, who has been sidelined since he lost a U.S. Senate race to Russ Feingold a decade ago.
The survey, conducted by the WisPolitics crew, asked: "If a 2010 primary for governor were being held today, which Republican would you choose to be the party's nominee?"
Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker was the big winner, with 157 votes. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen got 24. Former Secretary of Commerce Bill McCoshen had 9, Senate Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald got 8 and former Governor Tommy Thompson took 5.
Huebsch had four supporters.
http://www.madison.com/tct/top5/286978
N.C. lawmakers target ID law
N.C. lawmakers target ID law
By Mark Binker
Staff Writer
Monday, May. 19, 2008 3:00 am
RALEIGH — North Carolina would become the latest state to rebel against the federal REAL ID driver's license standards if an atypical mix of lawmakers gets its way.
Do you also oppose it? Join the discussion at the Debatables blog.
Both fiscal conservatives worried about the law's impact on state spending and more liberal members, who express concerns about the potential for invasion of privacy, signed on to a bill this past week that demands, "No State agency shall comply with the requirements of the REAL ID ACT." That 2005 federal law created uniform standards for state driver's licenses in an effort to make identification harder to fake or obtain for those here illegally.
Should the North Carolina proposal pass and the federal government not change the current law, North Carolinians would be unable to use their driver's licenses for boarding airplanes or entering U.S. government buildings.
"The cost is going to equate to what it costs us to pave 20 miles of new road, and we just can't afford to do that," said Rep. Nelson Cole, a Rockingham County Democrat who is chairman of a pair of key committees on transportation. He estimated that compliance with the law this year would cost at least $20 million, largely for computer upgrades.
Cole calls the law an "unfunded mandate," a criticism of federal policies that require costly actions by the states but do not provide money to pay for the actions.
Slowing tax revenues and rising costs equate to little room for new programs in the budget that takes effect July 1. At the same time, road construction and other transportation needs are becoming more pressing.
"There's also a lot of questions from a civil liberties perspective," said Rep. Paul Luebke, a Durham Democrat and the Finance Committee chairman.
The law would assemble a mammoth database of personal information. That has been a major sticking point for those concerned about government keeping too close a watch on its citizens or about security failures that could put individuals at risk for identity theft.
In recent years, North Carolina has been criticized for having licenses that are too easy to obtain, making it a draw for those in the country illegally. Legislators say most of those issues have been taken care of and that the REAL ID requirements do little to increase the security of the state's driver's licenses.
Maine became the first state to formally reject REAL ID requirements last year; now at least seven states have passed laws similar to North Carolina's. Several other states are in the process of passing laws, including Minnesota, where the legislature voted to reject the federal law over the threat of the governor's veto.
In fact, so many legislatures and governors have said they could not or would not comply with REAL ID, that the Department of Homeland Security granted all 50 states an extension for complying with the new rules from May 11 of this year until Dec. 31, 2009.
Congress passed REAL ID in 2005, part of a response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
Amy Kudwa, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the law was aimed at making sure all states had similar and strict regulations in place for issuing identification.
And she cautioned that extensions for compliance eventually will expire, saying that if states don't bring their licenses in line by 2010, "there will be very practical consequences" for residents of those states.
Residents from states that don't comply with REAL ID would need to obtain passports or other documentation that complies with the standards to fly or enter federal buildings, she said.
And opponents are worried about language that says REAL ID-compliant identification could be needed for any "federal purpose," said Matt Sundeen, a transportation analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
"That's the real hammer here," he said. "People have talked about accessing any federal benefits being a concern."
The conference is among a number of groups pushing the federal government to rewrite the REAL ID rules or, failing that, to repeal the law altogether.
"The need for secure documentation was one of the main recommendations of the 9/11 Commission," said U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican.
Coble said it surprises him that the state legislature would consider such a move because he had been told North Carolina was making good progress in complying with the law.
"I'm disappointed because I think there's far more good than bad in complying with it," Coble said.
A spokeswoman for the state Division of Motor Vehicles declined to comment on the pending legislation.
Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker @news-record.com
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /841994059
_________________
Real ID ominous, like papers communists used
Real ID ominous, like papers communists used
Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel 05/20/2008
This Real ID stuff is really ominous.
Are you sure that you can prove that you are who you are? Do you have all of your documents in order? If not, well, who knows?
You may not be able to board a plane, you may not be able to get a driver's license or passport. You may not be able to leave the country. If you discover that Real ID is a bad idea, you may not be able to undo it, because you may not be able to vote!
I have a friend who grew up in a communist country. He told me that the Nazis instituted ID requirements when they took over his country. The communists loved it and kept it on.
Abby Shahn
Solon
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/v ... 63138.html
Huebsch defends budget bill
Published - Tuesday, May 20, 2008
POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (2 comment(s))
Huebsch defends budget bill
By REID MAGNEY / La Crosse Tribune
.
Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch defended himself Monday in the wake of criticism from Wisconsin’s senior Republican congressman at the state GOP convention this weekend. Speaking about the budget repair bill, U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner said:
“Unfortunately Speaker Huebsch decided to push it through the Assembly, and he did so in a manner that does not fix the problem of over-taxing and replaces transportation fees with more state borrowing. Exactly the same move that helped destroy the Republican brand nationally. Everyone sees this as a political shell game that simply postpones hard decisions.â€
Is Gloucester's police 'presence' going too far?
Published: May 20, 2008 05:03 am ShareThisShareThis PrintThis
My View column: Is Gloucester's police 'presence' going too far?
By Inge Berge
Special to the Times
Is it just me, or are things changing around here?
I'm sitting at this local bar a week ago Friday night — just me and a friend, having a martini, shooting the breeze, enjoying life.
There were probably 10 other patrons in the room, plus the restaurant-owner and the barkeep; it is a class joint, by all standards — not the kind of place where any kind of trouble goes down. Just good food, good drinks, civilized company.
I guess it must have been around 10-ish. We'd been half-noticing a police cruiser parked out front the previous hour or so – effectively blocking the entrance to the parking area, so that no more cars could enter. Come to think of it, no new patrons entered the establishment on foot either, the whole time the cruiser sat out front.
Around 10, two uniformed, armed policemen enter the bar. Mind you, there's nothing going on, nobody has called them; nobody would have any reason to. Nevertheless, these two Gloucester officers show up — and more or less start to interrogate the bar owner right in front of us — his patrons, his bread and butter.
"You the owner, sir? Any problems with underage drinking in your place? Ever have any trouble? Fights, excessive drunkenness?" I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.
It seems they were doing random spot-checks on several area bars and restaurants — just sort of letting their presence be known, letting the bar owner know they're there, always ... right near by.
Now, most folks probably think this is a good thing. Many would likely say this is an example of "good community policing" or some such phrase. I happen to see things in a different light.
The whole song-and-dance looked more like posturing to me — if not quite intimidation, then uncouth at least. There's a very fine line between "protect and serve" and "intimidate and harass."
Maybe it's my upbringing. I grew up in Norway in the 1980s — a very different time and place than post-9/11 America, to be sure. No terror threats, real nor imagined, no rampant crime. It seemed very free — and very free of police, too.
As kids, we partied, hung out, did our thing. In the woods, at our friends' houses, at the local lake. In discos and clubs. Nobody ever had occasion for any contact with law enforcement. The police were there; you could call the local constabulary and they would surely send a man to assist, should there ever be trouble. But there never was. To the kids, "The Police" meant a British new-wave band.
Now it's 2008, and I live in Gloucester, Mass., USA. Allegedly, I'm a resident of the freest country in the world. I see, on average, 15 to 20 patrol vehicles a day. If I walk my dog around the block, all probability indicates I'll see an armed officer in a marked cruiser. If I drive anywhere, even just across town, I'm likely to spot at least two or three. In short, police presence is high, folks.
We have highly paid, deadly-force-equipped cops guarding every manhole cover being opened, every tree-branch being sawed, every pothole being filled, every peaceful gathering of anything more than a small handful of citizens.
The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the history of the world. We have in effect done away with habeas corpus, and our federal government is in the process of demanding that all states comply with the Real ID Act, requiring all citizens to be ready to "show their papers" at any and all prompting. Panopticon society is fast becoming a reality, and we simply don't care, as long as there are still cheap flat-screens at Best Buy and juicy gossip about Britney and Paris in the tabloids.
Police are needed in any community, and I applaud and support the fine work of police departments and officers everywhere who fight crime while always keeping in mind what it is they're helping to safeguard: a free and open society.
This little cop-show at the bar, however, made me wonder just how long it will be until it's decreed to be OK for officers to enter people's homes to conduct spot-checks. "Just checking in, ma'am. Just keeping you safe from yourself and making sure everything is up to specs. Not to worry. Anything suspicious to report about your neighbors? We're watching ya."
Now, notice I am not accusing any officer of any kind of wrongdoing under current laws and guidelines. This police visit was in perfect keeping with the present American Zeitgeist; perfectly aligned with our current paradigm of inviting the ever-stronger arm of the law into all forms of social interaction. To me, it was a fitting piece of evidence of a society grown accustomed to forfeiting its civil liberties, piece by piece, in exchange for a perceived increase in order and security.
But there's a postscript: The following Wednesday, after a long day at work, I was heading back home; the last train from Boston.
As I groggily stepped out onto the platform in Gloucester at 1:15 a.m., I and the other passengers are greeted by two policemen — their bright flashlights in our faces, accompanied by a brusque demand for ID. When I asked one of the officers what the story is, he replied "Oh yeah, you wanna get involved, do you? You could be a terrorist, that's what the story is. Let's see some ID ..."
I quickly complied, asking no more questions.
There's a saying: "All those in favor of living in a police state, say nothing."
World history indicates you're very likely to get your wish granted.
Inge Berge is a musician and writer living in Gloucester.
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/puopinio ... 24823.html