March 12th,2010

Health Care Bill Creates National ID Program

Wire Report

smargus_table_space


Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies
Jim Harper, Director of Information Studies

As director of information policy studies, Jim Harper focuses on the difficult problems of adapting law and policy to the unique problems of the information age. Harper is a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. His work has been cited by USA Today, the Associated Press, and Reuters. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CBS, and MSNBC, and other media.

His scholarly articles have appeared in the Administrative Law Review, the Minnesota Law Review, and the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Recently, Harper wrote the book Identity Crisis: How Identification Is Overused and Misunderstood. Harper is the editor of Privacilla.org, a Web-based think tank devoted exclusively to privacy, and he maintains online federal spending resource WashingtonWatch.com. He holds a J.D. from UC Hastings College of Law.

smargus_table_space

CATO- Thanks to the push for a more transparent Congress, we’re getting a better look at what new health care regulations might shape up to be. Alas, not a very good look: with weak justifications, the Senate Finance Committee is working on a strange “plain language” description of the bill, and apparently not planning to read or release the final language1.

I’ve found something worth noting, though, in each of the bill versions I’ve seen. The Senate Finance Committee’s Rube Goldberg plan for health care in America has a provision establishing paragraph talking about “Eligibility Verification.”

If you want to access the “state exchanges” or collect the federal tax credits created by the bill, your eligibility will have to be verified. Here’s what it says:

 

Eligibility Verification. In order to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing the state exchanges or obtaining federal health care tax credits, the Chairman‘s Mark requires verification of the following personal data. Name, social security number, and date of birth will be verified with Social Security Administration (SSA) data. For individuals claiming to be U.S. citizens, if the claim of citizenship is consistent with SSA data then the claim will be considered substantiated. For individuals who do not claim to be U.S. citizens but claim to be lawfully present in the United States, if the claim of lawful presence is consistent with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data then the claim will be considered substantiated. Individuals whose status is expected to expire in less than a year are not allowed to obtain the tax credit. Individuals whose claims of citizenship or lawful status cannot be verified with federal data must be allowed substantial opportunity to provide documentation or correct federal data related to their case that supports their contention.

CHAIRMAN’S MARK
AMERICA’S HEALTHY FUTURE ACT of 2009
Page 27


Translation: Every American who wants to access a “state exchange” or get the tax credits in the bill would have to submit data about themselves to the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security for verification. If you don’t do it, no exchanges or tax credits. If your data doesn’t match, no exchanges or tax credits, unless you can convince SSA or DHS bureaucrats that you are who you say you are.

If you’re one of the millions of people about whom the Social Security Administration has bad data, plan to spend long hours waiting in line to plead with indifferent federal bureaucrats for health care access. When attacks and complications on the verification system break down, they’ll move to “strengthen” the system. Get ready to dig up your birth certificate—they’ll want to scan it into their computers—plan to be photographed and fingerprinted, and get ready to stand in line for your national ID card.

Related Materials
multimedia_icon

Source(s): 1Washington Examiner “Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online” by: Susan Ferrechio, Published Oct. 6, 2009

Would Auditing the FEDERAL RESERVE “Politicize” Monetary Policy?

Allison Bricker

federal_reserve_sealOn Wednesday, we posted the Digg/Wall Street Journal interview of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner along with analysis provided by the Corbett Report. During the approximately twenty-minute interview, Secretary Geithner indicated that both the author of legislation such as H.R. 1207 and its vocal supporters must understand that opening the FEDERAL RESERVE’s books to Sunlight would “politicize the process”.

 

“The FED actually is subject to very comprehensive oversight by the Congress, by a series of external auditors…but you want to keep politics out of monetary policy. There are good reasons for that.”

 

Timothy Geithner
Secretary of the Treasury

 

Yes keeping politics out of monetary policy is important Secretary Geithner, and that is exactly why we need a full audit of the FEDERAL RESERVE.

 

Secretary Geithner is partially correct in his statement that the FEDERAL RESERVE is audited. What he fails to mention however, is that the transactions, which hold the potential to cause the greatest widespread damage; those dealing with foreign governments, other central banks, and international financial institutions, are prohibited from audit, and thus remain cloaked from any oversight whatsoever.

 

Snippet TITLE 31 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 714 > paragraph (b)As such, H.R. 1207 and S. 604, both just barely over two-pages in length, merely seek to remove the aforementioned prohibitions thereby allowing Congress and ‘We the People’ to see the full impact of the FEDERAL RESERVE’s international dealings.

 

 

Thus, the potential for politicization comes not from the act or principle of demanding true transparency and accountability, but possibly from the FED’s own actions. It is not beyond possibility that a full-unabated audit could expose foreign interactions, which resemble those more closely aligned with that of a government unto itself than those of a central bank built for “economic stability”.

 

Foreign policy decisions, ergo the business of allies, enemies, and the subsequent support thereof financially or otherwise is  first and foremost a function of the United States Senate via its Constitutional authority of making and ratifying treaties.

It is most certainly not the purview of a private central bank shrouded in secrecy via a most repugnant unconstitutional regulation.

 

In conclusion, either allow the repeal of the prohibition contained in TITLE 31>SUBTITLE 1>CHAPTER 7> SUBCHAPTER II > § 714 > PARAGRAPH (b) or sell the idea of letting a central bank exist and operate under the cover of darkness as an Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

As there are those of us who are indeed willing to pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to see the FEDERAL RESERVE meet with the same fate as the previous two Central Banks of the United States.

CATO Institute – Policy Forum Rep. Ron Paul (TX): Audit the FEDERAL RESERVE

The Smoking Argus

CATO OFFICIAL STATEMENT – Republican U.S. Representative Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve. At the Cato Institute June 24, 2009, Congressman Paul made his case on behalf of greater transparency in how the Fed makes its decisions. Ron Paul represents the 14th Congressional District in Texas.

—End Official Statement—


Source(s): The CATO Institute Official YouTube Channel