Thread: Support H.R.220 - Common Sense About Identity Theft & RE

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

An SSN is a federal franchise number. It subjects you to an admiralty jurisdiction that does not recognize your rights. It presumes your being a party to the "common debt" identified within the UCC, making you party to a massive bankruptcy and therefore possessing rights to no property that the "tax court" (a bankruptcy resolution forum) does not allow you to retain. The SSN is a federal charagma, which is a registration of chattel. The "mark" warned against in John's Revelation is in fact a mistranslation of charagma. In exchange for your acceptance of the federal charagma, you receive paltry benefits that don't come close to offsetting the liabilities you incur.

In short, there is nothing good about the SSN (including the pathetic excuse for a retirement plan that is the ostensible purpose for its existence), but there is plenty that is bad about trying to force conscientious objectors to take it.

The pathetic excuse for a retirement plan works for me and millions of others. All Americans are not be as fortunate as you are and SS is the only thing they have to fall back on. I raised three children on my own and if not for social security I would be in deep you know what. I could not save for retirement. I lived from paycheck to paycheck and assisted all my children in college. You appear to be one of the fortunate ones.

Dyehard, it has been PROVEN that the pathetic Social Security program is a rip-off. How was it PROVEN? Back in the late '70s and early '80s, municipalities and other governments were given the option of creating their own alternate plans and opting out of Social Security. Galveston, Texas chose to opt out. The result?

Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]

Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return — $1,500 instead of $853.

Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security — $4,540 instead of $1,645.

Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County’s disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.



Source: National Center for Policy Analysis

Don't get all huffy with me when I am just stating demonstrable FACTS. Oh, and yeah - my own personal retirement plan will vastly outperform the legalized theft of Social Security, given that my return with SS would be less than 1% per year while I earn an average return of between 6% and 10%. What that all adds up to is that the government is using that return to pad federal coffers (by reducing its debt load by placing the SS revenues in the general fund). Nevermind that SS KEEPS ALL YOUR MONEY if you die before retirement, while my fund that of the Galveston employees passes to heirs.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost[quote

]Dyehard, it has been PROVEN that the pathetic Social Security program is a rip-off. How was it PROVEN? Back in the late '70s and early '80s, municipalities and other governments were given the option of creating their own alternate plans and opting out of Social Security. Galveston, Texas chose to opt out. The result?

Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]

Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return — $1,500 instead of $853.

Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security — $4,540 instead of $1,645.

Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County’s disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.



Source: National Center for Policy Analysis

Don't get all huffy with me when I am just stating demonstrable FACTS. Oh, and yeah - my own personal retirement plan will vastly outperform the legalized theft of Social Security, given that my return with SS would be less than 1% per year while I earn an average return of between 6% and 10%. What that all adds up to is that the government is using that return to pad federal coffers (by reducing its debt load by placing the SS revenues in the general fund). Nevermind that SS KEEPS ALL YOUR MONEY if you die before retirement, while my fund that of the Galveston employees passes to heirs.

[/quote]

That all sounds good to me, but this isthe first I've heard of such a plan. Is it availible in all states? if so, then why don't more people take advantage of it?

No, it is no longer available to states and municipalities, but it was until the early '80s. I don't know why more of them did not take advantage of the option other than the effect of socialist indoctrination imposed on our citizenry since the days of FDR. That doesn't change the fact that any individual may choose the route of personal accountability rather than becoming a ward of the state. I offered the info on the Galveston plan as proof of what an even moderately well-managed plan produces versus the scam that the federal government runs. A privately managed account funded by one's own discretionary withholding is capable of even better performance but hey, if you want to get shafted by the federal government and call it tender loving care, that's your prerogative.

I do not think I have been shafted at all. Social Security works for me. Maybe I could have done better. With my SS, I am able to save a couple of hundred each month. And with a SS number, I am able to receive benefits that I would not be otherwise.
I better understand what you are saying. Now I've got to get back to Illegal Immigration.

Americans must resist Real ID Act
Advertisement


The Real ID Act was signed by Bush in 2005 after being tacked on to another bill and did not have congressional discussion for an up-or-down vote.

These ID cards have to be digital and readable in all 50 states.

The United Nations was the force behind this as they asked that all nations conform to their standards and now all passports are embedded with a RFID Chip.

Eric Peters (``We shouldn't surrender freedom for a costly scam,'' Viewpoint, April 1) said that the states must conform to a standard-one that includes a requirement that each of us be tagged with those so-called biometric identifiers - digitized fingerprints, retina scans - with the data linked to a single federal database that would be continuously fed information about us and what we do and where we go.

Trudy Rubin (``Peek at what happens when `Big Brother' is watching,'' Viewpoint, April referring to the German movie, ``The Lives of Others,'' says ``No, I don't think we are headed toward a Stasi regime in our country. But East German history reminds of what happens when there are no checks on government power. ... The secret police invaded every aspect of people's lives.''

Having all your personal information in a single database gives potential for all kinds of abuse.

Private companies track down your information and sell, trade or rent now. They will find a way to get to this bonanza.

Further, there is no proof that having people's personal information will stop even one terrorist act. Patriot Act gave government the excuse they needed for this intrusion.

Enter ``mass surveillance'' or ``personal privacy'' into your computer search machine and see what government can do. Get the real reason to resist. Then write or call your federal and state legislators.

Pat Cline

Normal

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2...ers/125691.txt

A plea for freedom in the age of oversight
By Simon Waxman
Issue date: 4/26/07


This being the last article I will write for this newspaper, I'd like to share my thoughts on a topic a bit more philosophical than one typically finds in the pages of the News-Letter. My space is too limited to fully explain my position, but I hope you will bear with me, and perhaps even come to consider a different perspective on the very core of what it means to live in modern times.

One would think that in the era of the 24-hour news cycle there would be time enough to air all the most important stories. But for the past few weeks, while we've been inundated with Imus and the endless, unnecessary pop-psychoanalysis of the Virginia Tech killer, what no one has paid much attention to is that the White House is taking steps to further erode our civil liberties in the interest of the total surveillance state.

On April 13, the administration proposed changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would induce telecommunications companies to cooperate with federal investigations while providing immunity from lawsuits - the common person's recourse against corporate abuse. The president also wants to extend surveillance under FISA - surveillance that does not need to be justified to a judge until after it has been completed - to 360 days.

Perhaps most disturbingly, Bush wants investigators to be able to keep data collected unintentionally. That is akin to a police officer entering a home without a warrant or probable cause, discovering illegal activity, and using that discovery to bring charges. In a typical situation, that charge would be dead on arrival. FISA is supposedly a tool for protecting against foreign menaces, but in a world in which information knows no national boundaries, none of us can feel protected.

But the surveilled life does not end there. From DNA databases to searchable national police camera footage archives (as reported by NPR on April 20) to traffic cameras, and the de facto national ID system known as REAL ID, the hand of the state is reaching ever deeper into our private lives. Citizen, show me your papers!

In defense of these invasions of privacy - to the point where states even collect extensive information on all prescription medications we take - government officials claim that surveillance is necessary to protect national security and, in any case, if you do nothing illegal, you have nothing to fear.

But the ceaseless and usually unpublicized promulgation of surveillance systems is not so benign. It contributes to what is known as "surveillance creep" - the notion that as more surveillance is introduced we become more accustomed to its presence and more likely to acquiesce to ever-greater government oversight. We risk becoming inured to further violations of our rights.

An environment of surveillance is a dangerous thing because it militates against the individual. It leaves one forever in a position to be regulated and propagandized. Corporate surveillance, which may be even more nefarious than its government counterpart, relies on similar profiling techniques in order to more effectively assault us with advertising messages. We allow companies to dupe us and corral us into generic categories that are themselves an assault against individuality.

The undermining of the individual in American society, however, extends beyond surveillance and its collectivizing results. The increasing standardization of education under No Child Left Behind could ensure generations of similarly standardized modes of thought. Increasing encroachment of the state on lifestyle and morality choices - such as bans in New York on trans fats and Chicago on foie gras, and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ban on intact dilation and extraction abortion - indicates just how little space there is for the individual to live the unfettered life.

The nexus of government, capitalism, moral crusade and a complicit media is priming us for a society of complete discipline, the sort that Orwell feared and fascists envisioned, but that is only recently becoming possible thanks to technological advancement. Already there exists software that can detect anger in video. Facial recognition technologies are the holy grail of many an order-and-discipline advocate.

We are too complacent about our dwindling liberties, too willing to cede not merely freedom, but the essence of our personhood to coercive entities in the halls of power, be they legislative assemblies, the Oval Office or the corporate boardroom.

What we need in order to combat the advancing forces allied against the individual is the pursuit of humanity. What I mean is that we must come to more fully recognize that the place of humanity is not one of obeying authority and ought, therefore, to live as though constantly opposed to those that would see us do so. A human life does not seek the security to relentlessly consume itself to distraction. Rather it seeks to learn, to struggle toward knowledge, to love, to explore, to appreciate fellowship, art and the wonders of the universe, both explained and unexplainable.

For that kind of human, the more completely formed representative of the species, to exist, imposition of social order must be checked. We need to think big and wide, not within the regimented confines of power and profit.

- Simon Waxman is the departing News-Letter Opinions editor. He is a senior international studies major from Newton, Mass.


http://link.toolbot.com/jhunewsletter.com/75985

Federal requirements for driver's licenses a costly headache for states
by Katherine Glover
Apr 26, 2007

The countdown is on. As of Thursday afternoon the states had just 380 days, 9 hours and 22 minutes to get their driver's licenses in compliance with the Real ID Act of 2005, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures Web site.

That means there's just over a year to issue new driver's licenses and state IDs before the May 11, 2008 federal deadline -- even though the specifics of the new security standards have not been established yet.

To put it mildly, the states are not happy about it.

"It's a headache in many respects," said David Druker, press secretary for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.

Druker said the program will cost Illinois an estimated $150 million over five years, and so far the federal government has not offered a cent of help.

The Real ID Act sets minimum security standards for state IDs, a response to the fact that several Sept. 11 hijackers had U.S. driver's licenses, some of them fraudulent. But the act was tacked onto a military appropriations bill, and critics say it was passed with little debate by Congress and no input from the states, which will wind up footing 99 percent of a very big bill.

The Iowa Department of Transportation estimates costs of $22 million a year, plus start-up costs. Wisconsin has budgeted $22 million over two years, but that was before the Department of Homeland Security released preliminary standards on March 1. "There were a number of things in those rules that we had not planned for in our budget," said Patrick Fernan, director of driver services for the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles. "It's going to raise the costs."

Furthermore, everyone with a driver's license or state ID will have to renew it in person by May 11, 2013.

Illinois has about 8.5 million licensed drivers plus 3 million with non-driver's license photo IDs. The in-person renewal will strain the state's approximately 130 service centers. Druker said Illinois has worked hard to shorten lines and wait times at the state's approximately 130 driver service centers by offering license renewal online or by phone, but now these efforts will be undermined by the federal requirements.

Illinois is ahead of most states in tackling the Real ID changes, according to Druker, but there are still problems outside the state's control. "One of the requirements is to have us confirm documents like birth certificates," Druker said. "But there's no national database of birth certificates, so how would you do that if someone comes from Alabama?"

The Illinois House of Representatives passed a resolution this month calling upon Congress to repeal the Real ID Act. At least 25 other states have passed or are considering similar bills. U.S. Senators Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and John Sununu (R-N.H.) have introduced a bill repealing Real ID, and Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine) introduced a companion bill in the House.

The states will have to spend about $11 billion on Real ID, according to a September study by the National Conference on State Legislatures, the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, all of which have expressed opposition to the requirements. The federal government has appropriated only $40 million to help the states, and a proposed bill would allocate $300 million more over three years.

Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff acknowledged in a March 1 press conference that the bulk of the cost will fall on the states, but said, "It's going to cost money because security does cost money. And I dare say that it's money well spent."

In addition to cost, many Real ID critics have expressed concerns about data security and privacy.

Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said Real ID would create "one-stop shopping" for identity thieves.

"All of our data from every single motor vehicle jurisdiction will be stored in the same way, in the same format, and it will all be accessible by all the other motor vehicle agencies," Yohnka said. "What that means in practice is someone who is able to hack into the system in Utah will be able to get at our information in Illinois."

Yohnka also said Real ID will threaten privacy and eliminate current state protections against using the electronic data stored in Illinois driver's licenses for marketing or other non-government purposes.

On the issue of data privacy, Chertoff said, "Right now when you hand your license to somebody in a bar, they already have the capability to read the license. It's called your eyes."

Jeremy Meadows, transportation policy director with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said states don't oppose the goals of Real ID; in fact, many states had already started improving ID security after Sept. 11, 2001. When the Real ID Act was passed, however, "a lot of the forward momentum the states had came to a halt. They didn't want to make investments... without the regulations, because the regulations could go in a completely different direction."

The specific security requirements are still undetermined. The Department of Homeland Security released preliminary standards on March 1. States would have to upgrade the security of not only the cards themselves, but also service centers, computer systems and databases, and buildings where licenses are produced or stored, and run criminal background checks on all employees handling the licenses.

The standards are open to public comment for 60 days.

In response to complaints about the May 2008 deadline, the department also said states could apply for an extension to Dec. 31, 2009 to fully upgrade their systems. Druker said Illinois is strongly considering applying, but the extension would apply only to the initial implementation of the program. All state IDs would still have to be upgraded by May 11, 2013.

Meadows said without extending the final deadline the change merely "compressed" the process, giving states an even shorter period of time to renew millions of driver's licenses, straining resources and increasing costs even more. Worse, Meadows said, the cycle would repeat itself every eight years as people's licenses consistently came up for renewal within the same three-year period.

Chertoff acknowledged these concerns at the March 1 press conference, but said the Department of Homeland Security wanted the program fully implemented as soon as possible. "Every year we don't have [Real ID] is a year of vulnerability, so we've got to close that window," he said.

The Real ID Act would not allow states to give driver's licenses to immigrants without documents proving legal residency. But, said Mehrdad Azemun of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, "a state can issue a driver certificate as long as it has printed on the face of the certificate, 'not valid for identification purposes.'"

Illinois is one of a number of states considering bills that would grant non-ID driver's certificates to immigrants. The certificate would allow those without legal status in the U.S. to obtain auto insurance and would make sure these immigrants understand local driving safety laws, but it would not be considered legal identification.

See the countdown to the deadline: http://www.ncsl.org/realid/

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chi ... x?id=35059

Senate panel calls for not complying with Real ID Act
Posted by The Oregonian April 26, 2007 17:43PM
SALEM - A Senate committee approved a bill Thursday that would prohibit state agencies from implementing the federal Real ID Act of 2005 unless several conditions were met. The federal act, which was passed as an anti-terrorism measure, requires states to verify that drivers are in the country legally and to store supporting documents in a database.

The Senate Business, Transportation and Workforce Development Committee voted 3-2 send Senate Bill 424 to the full Senate. Committee chairman Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Welches, said other states have passed similar bills, including Washington, Idaho and Montana.

The committee first amended the bill to say state money could not be spent on the Real ID Act unless federal money is provided to cover Oregon's estimated costs of implementing the federal legislation. Those costs are estimated to be $65 million.

Other conditions for state spending would include insuring that procedures are in place to safeguard personal privacy and protect against unauthorized disclosure of data. The legislation also would require a report to be prepared that compares the costs of implementing the Real ID Act with the costs of providing each Oregon citizen with money to apply for a passport.

In March, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security extended the implementation deadline from May 2008 to Dec. 31, 2009, but states must apply by this October for an extension and come up with a compliance plan. If Oregon isn't in compliance with the Real ID Act, Oregonians would not be able to use their drivers' licenses as identification to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings.

-- Dave Hogan (davehogan@news.oregonian.com)


http://blog.oregonlive.com/politics/200 ... ncomp.html

Friday April 27, 2007


Davis center stage in federal ID debate


By Enterprise staff

Published Apr 26, 2007 - 18:49:07 CDT.



Local residents will have an opportunity to influence the implementation of a controversial federal program when the Department of Homeland Security conducts a town hall meeting next week in Davis.

The hearing, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Tuesday in Freeborn Hall at UC Davis, is the nation's only open meeting on REAL ID, which sets national standards for driver's licenses and identification cards. It is being run by the state Department of Motor Vehicles at the Department of Homeland Security's request.

Signed by President Bush in 2005, the act is scheduled to take effect May 11, 2008. Homeland Security released the proposed REAL ID regulations March 9, which began a 60-day public comment period that concludes May 8. Final regulations could be released at any time after August of this year.

Tuesday's forum is designed to seek input from a wide range of public and private constituencies from California and other states on issues and perspectives about the proposed REAL ID regulations, in particular California's motoring public, who are most affected by the act's licensing requirements.

The act, as proposed, would require every California driver's license and identification card holder to appear in a DMV field office in person to be recertified. Individuals would be required to bring documents, including a certified birth certificate, an unexpired U.S. passport, proof of Social Security numbers or proof of address.


California DMV has raised numerous questions about the proposed regulations, which can be found at www.dmv.ca.gov/about/real_id/real_id.htm. Additional information on the REAL ID Act can be found on the Department of Homeland Security Web site at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID number: DHS-2006-0030-0001).

“This event will allow us to look at REAL ID with fresh eyes and suggest a strategic approach toward implementation,” DMV Director George Valverde said in a news release. “Most recently, we asked the federal government to take a second look at the proposed regulations respective to recertification and electronic verification.”

Following introductory remarks by Valverde and Richard Barth, assistant secretary of the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security, public comment will be taken in five specific areas: consumer/personal impact; privacy/security; electronic verification systems; funding/implementation/time frames and cost; and law enforcement.

Valverde noted that while California sees merit in the intent of the REAL ID Act, the proposed regulations raise numerous concerns relative to timing, security and privacy, verification systems and costs.

“We want DHS to consider the most effective approach so that California can comply with the law while ensuring the utmost safety of our citizens,” Valverde said in the news release. “We look forward to working with DHS to ensure California's concerns are addressed and to reach a positive resolution that is suitable to all parties.”



At a glance

What: The nation's only open meeting on ID standards

Why: To set criteria for driver's licenses and identification cards

When: 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Tuesday

Where: Freeborn Hall at UC Davis

Who: Put on by state Department of Motor Vehicles at the Department of Homeland Security's request

Thursday, April 26, 2007

http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles ... 49new1.txt