I've testified and written several times about how such things as REAL ID and "electronic employment eligibility verification" are threats to our identity system. Collecting identity information in one place is the creation of new security risks. Now the UK has proven it - so we don't have to!
The sensitive personal details of 25 million Britons could have fallen into the hands of identity fraudsters after a government agency lost the entire child benefit database in the post.A major police investigation is being conducted after Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, admitted yesterday that names, addresses, birth dates, national insurance numbers and bank account details of every child benefit claimant in the country had gone missing.
Most likely, this data is just lost, but in the wrong hands it would provide criminals all they need to impersonate any of these 25 million people.
The persons responsible have been sacked. Specifically, Paul Gray, chairman of HM Revenue & Customs office.
Kudos to Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch for dominating the Washington Post's Sunday Outlook section the way Ron Paul supporters dominate online polls. And kudos to the Post for running an article on the Ron Paul phenomenon by writers who actually sympathize with it. Gillespie and Welch write about "a new and potentially transformative force . . . in American politics":
That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him -- and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.
Paul, who entered Congress in 1976, has been dubbed "Dr. No" by his colleagues because of his consistent nay votes on federal spending, military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere, and virtually all expansions of federal power (he cast one of three GOP votes against the original USA Patriot Act). But his philosophy of principled libertarianism is anything but negative: It's predicated on the fundamental notion that a smaller government allows individuals the freedom to pursue happiness as they see fit. ...
Paul's "freedom message" is the direct descendant of Barry Goldwater's once-dominant GOP philosophy of libertarianism (which Ronald Reagan described in a 1975 Reason magazine interview as "the very heart and soul of conservatism"). But that tradition has been under a decade-long assault by religious-right moralists, neoconservative interventionists and a governing coalition that has learned to love Medicare expansion and appropriations pork.
The Reason editors cite a 2006 Pew Research Center poll that found 9 percent of Americans holding basically libertarian values. I'm sorry that out of all such calculations they picked the one that found the smallest number of libertarians. As David Kirby and I pointed out in "The Libertarian Vote," Gallup found 21 percent. Using somewhat more restrictive criteria, Kirby and I found that libertarians were 13 percent in the Gallup and American National Election Studies surveys, 14 percent in a different Pew survey, 15 percent of actual voters in the ANES survey, and 15 percent in a Zogby survey of 2006 voters.
Of course, some of the Ron Paul supporters wouldn't show up in any of those estimates. They're conservatives who are fed up with Republican spending, liberals who want to stop the war, and previously apolitical folks who are attracted to straight talk. Gillespie and Welch do a good job of describing the quintessentially American spirit that draws them together.
Naomi Wolf has an article in today's Washington Post tied to her new book, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. The essay is actually a lot less leftist than the book. She deplores the civic illiteracy among young people that leaves them feeling "depressed, cynical and powerless." And she blames influences on both left and right: the Bush administration's portrayal of "freedom and checks and balances as threats to national security," of course, and also the No Child Left Behind Act's emphasis on math and reading rather than civics and history. But also, she notes, "When New Left activists of the 1960s started the antiwar and free speech student movements, they didn't get their intellectual framework from Montesquieu or Thomas Paine: They looked to Marx, Lenin and Mao."
Perhaps her most interesting claim is this:
Teenagers and young adults often have no clue why the United States is different from, say, Egypt or Russia; they have little idea what liberty is.
Few young Americans understand that the Second Amendment keeps their homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world; few realize that "due process" means that they can't be locked up in a dungeon by the state and left to languish indefinitely.
I rather suspect that this lefty writer who has written a whole book and launched an organization to "protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President" meant to cite the Fourth Amendment, not the Second Amendment.
But maybe I'm being cynical. Maybe Naomi Wolf knows full well that it is the Second Amendment that "keeps [our] homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world." The Fourth Amendment may promise "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." But without the Second Amendment, and the well-armed citizenry it protects, how secure would our rights be? Certainly there's no Second Amendment in Egypt or Russia, the countries she notes in contrast. The Soviet Constitution guaranteed its citizens freedom from search and seizure. But it did not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.
So welcome, Naomi Wolf. And as the effort moves forward to protect our Fourth Amendment rights and to get Congress to remember its Article I powers, remember that there's also an effort currently underway in the Supreme Court to protect our Second Amendment rights.
No, the title does not refer to possible policy changes if Tories win the next election (after all, that would require a smaller-government agenda). Instead, it is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek reaction to a story in England's Daily Mail about couples who choose sterilization because they think children cause an unacceptable carbon footprint.
It is probably reasonable to assume that these people have a statist orientation. Since voting patterns and ideological orientation tend to be passed from one generation to the next, the electorate presumably will shift over time in a more market-friendly direction (or at least won't shift as quickly in the wrong direction).
From the article:
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers — and a voice calling her Mummy. But the very thought makes her shudder with horror. Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
...At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet". Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card. ..."Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
...Toni is far from alone. When Sarah Irving, 31, was a teenager she sat down and wrote a wish-list for the future. ...Sarah dreamed of helping the environment — and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child. "I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet — and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do." ...[Her husband] Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth."
The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is hardly a hotbed of free-market thought. So it is particularly remarkable that the OECD has just released new figures on per capita gross dometic product and per capita consumption.
The latter data, for AIC ("actual individual consumption"), are especially interesting since they allow comparisons of living standards across nations. For the 30 member nations of the OECD, the United States is second, with per capita consumption that is 152 percent of the OECD average, trailing only the small tax haven of Luxembourg.
Europe's major welfare states, by contrast, do not fare so well. France is at 106, Sweden at 104, and Germany at 103, meaning that their living standards are only about 70 percent of U.S. levels.
The report also has data for both 2002 and 2005. During that period, Iceland enjoyed the biggest increase in living standards, climbing from 113 percent of the OECD average to 128 percent of the average. Not coincidentally, Iceland has been lowering tax rates and reducing the burden of government.
European leaders (and their doubtlessly bloated staffs) plan to fly to Lisbon to sign a treaty and then fly to Brussels for a summit the following day.
This has caused a bit of griping, but not because taxpayer funds are being wasted, but rather because all those private jets will cause a large carbon footprint. So in a hollow gesture, the political heads of three countries are going to share a jet.
Gee, how thoughtful.
The EU Observer reports on the farce:
At the insistence of the Portuguese EU presidency, all 27 EU leaders and their delegations will fly to Lisbon on 13 December for a special signing ceremony of the bloc's new treaty — and then jet on to Brussels for a regular EU summit meeting the next day. The cumbersome travel arrangements allow Portugal to call the new treaty the 'Lisbon Treaty' — but they have also led to criticism that EU leaders are setting a bad example by preaching about green values but then unnecessarily contributing to global warming through the short round trip. To reduce at least part of the summit's carbon footprint, the Benelux leaders will board a Dutch government airplane when flying to and from Lisbon — something suggested by Mr Balkenende.
Farmers' groups would have us believe that without the multi-billion dollar dollops of taxpayers' money that flow to farmers, the abundance of food we will all tuck into tomorrow would be reduced to a few grains of (probably foreign) rice. So, with Thanksgiving upon us, I thought I would provide an update of the Farm Bill debate.
Because of procedural wranglings, the Senate last week suspended consideration of the farm bill, possibly until early next year. The Republicans objected to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's wish to limit the number of amendments that could be offered to the farm bill, meaning that time-honored Republican favorites such as the estate tax could not be considered. So, the bill was pulled. Assuming the Senate can pass a re-introduced bill in December, it will probably not go to conference before January.
In the meantime, our esteemed lawmakers are trading jibes about who is to blame for the current gridlock. Pity the farm-state Senators who have to go back to constituents to explain why the farm bill has been held up. In practice, so long as a bill is passed sometime in early 2008, it will probably not affect many farmers. Just in case though, and to placate farmers who say they are incapable of making planting decisions or securing loans without some sort of guarantee of government support, a bill to extend the current farm bill has been introduced.
What does all this mean for reform? Is the current stasis a positive sign? It would be if it reflected a deep unease about the farm bill and a fundamental, principled objection to the very premise of American farm policy. But, alas, so far the debate has been characterized by differences over the best way to deliver farm welfare (see my previous post) and how to spend any savings from higher commodity prices. Even the "alternative" farm bill, introduced by Sens. Richard Lugar (R, Ind.) and Lautenberg (D, N.J) delivers only modest relief to taxpayers, instead spending money on things such as the "Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program" ($200 million) and $75 million for "socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers."
President Bush's veto threat still looms but, again, I have doubts about how committed he is to vetoing the bill, especially as the presidential election draws near. And, after all, he signed the egregious 2002 Farm Bill.