Slashdot Mirror
More States Rebel Against Real ID Act
Spamicles writes with a link to a Lawbean post about more rebellion against the Real ID act. New Hampshire and Oklahoma have joined Montana and Washington state in passing statutes refuting the ID act's guidelines. "However, these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or accessing federal buildings. In addition to these four states, members of the Idaho legislature intentionally left out money in the budget to comply with the Act."
Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Enough of the federal government spitting on the 10th amendment in the name of the WOT...
. . for contacting me about the electronic surveillance of people in the United States by the National Security Agency (NSA). I share your serious concerns about this program.
I am pleased that pressure put on the President by the newly-elected Congress, as well as the American public, made clear that our Constitutional rights aren't negotiable. In January 2007, Attorney General Gonzales announced that after an internal investigation, the administration would end electronic surveillance of American citizens unless it received a warrant. This means that the administration must petition the FISA Court if it wants to electronically monitor U.S. citizens.
It is critical that we relentlessly pursue terrorists who seek to do us harm. However, we must make sure that we do not undermine the very rights and way of life that we are seeking to protect. While I do not sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to relay your concerns to my colleagues. I will continue to support strong congressional oversight and closely monitor any new developments on this issue.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to do so again whenever I can be of assistance to you and your family.
Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator
DS:jm I wonder which Washington she's been spending her time in.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
Not too long after they stop accepting IDs from those states that refuse to take part in Real ID I can see something of a Civil rights thing happening.
Just how long have we got to wait until the Neo conservative ruling class get deposed?
I'm something of a fan of Pulp SF, particularly the early stuff, your EE 'Doc' Smith and the like. His worlds were full of the kind of people who would love this stuff. Fanatically loyal, good clean white folk, ready to believe, and die for, anything a government told them. They were also undeniably Aryan in nature.
When it comes to fiction, especially fiction of such historical importance to the world of SF I am willing to dismiss such concepts as products of a different age and enjoy traversing the early history of SF. However, to see people trying to change America in such a way that only the fictional American Aryans of the 1930's would accept it as is, is a frightening thing indeed.
So, civil services and social security are non-constitutional because they're not run by each state?
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
When the federal government passes laws regarding issues not enumerated in the Constitution, they are ignoring the 10th amendment. Pretty cut and dry, you would think...
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
...at lest in my state. Unfunded mandates, as they are called, are definitely nothing new. And states are no saints in this matter if they are anything like New Jersey. (sorry, have to call out my home state)
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I see what you're saying.
Aside from all the legalities, do you think that having a unified ID across the states is a bad idea?
I'm just saying that rather than fighting it, it should have been something that was done a long time ago.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Why? the delegation of identification is not, constitutionally, the purview of the federal Government and as such it falls under the 10th amendment. Just because something might be a good idea and might be useful does not mean it should be forced on the states despite clear constitutional roles. The more money and or information you give the federal government the more power you hand them.
They didn't say the changes had to be done tomorrow, and the pros outweigh the cons.
I don't think letting the federal government continue to push unfunded and unconstitutional mandates is any small measure of 'bad'.
Passports are the same throughout the states
Passports are not issued by the states
license plates are the same
No they are not EG California has a format of 1ABC234 and Minnesota has ABC-123
social security numbers are the same
Not issued by the states, they are issued by the fed for federal taxing purposes.
What's the big deal? Who is it hurting?
Evidently the states who have to let the federal government make decisions for them and the force the states to pay for it.
Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".
Oh yea cause if you don't have anything to hide why would you be against repealing the unlawful search and seizure provisions of the constitution. I am assuming you mean illegal immigrants who don't want to be tracked and if they are already here illegally why in the heck would this stop them.
Next up: the National Barcode Tattoo Act. Should have been done a long time ago. You have no objections, do you, citizen?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Yes, they are, but at this point it is too late to end those programs at the federal level and replace them with state programs. Which is too bad. I, for one, would like to see some states take a more Canadian approach to public services while other states take a more free-market approach, and compare and contrast the results. States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said. And once a few states work out the initial bugs in their plans, other states can implement the best solutions, and everyone would be better off.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Also, this is a lot more about money. States do not want to foot the bill for a government project. If the feds really wanted "National ID cards", then they should setup the infrastructure and absorb the costs to do it; unfortunately, they do not know how and it would be a disaster, just look at the time it takes to get a passport.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Passports aren't issued by the states... was one of my points. They're universal. License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format such as european plates. As far as illegal immigrants go, they can still get ID's locally and not be tracked throughout the nation, only locally if THAT. They can also board planes after that point.
Pick apart everything I say because of your beliefs on fighting the man. Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea. People are fighting this shit because of politics, not because it's a good or bad idea.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
So far, it is mostly small states that are rebelling but bigger states need to rebel like California, Texas, NY. Unfortunately, CA is looking at going along to get along.
On the unfunded mandate, you will get abused and pay for the privilege thereof !
Separate from this issue is the precedant of states refusing to follow the orders of the Federal Government. What will be REALLY interesting is if these states succeed and then try the same strategy with other federal statutes the states don't like.
Please detail these pro's you are talking about.
We are all very interested, because I have not heard ONE single pro to having a unified ID system.
We're going to find out that our "civil liberties" are going to start costing lives. Because of politics and PC thoughts, we won't be able to do shit to stop what people trying to make a point have caused. It's not about right or wrong... it's about politics and rules that were set back before the country was so fucked up.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Because they are intended for use with foreign entities. Passports are not a required form of ID to have in the US, only if you wish to travel outside the US.
License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format such as european plates.
Again, no they are not!
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_license _plates_in_the_United_States) "For example, the small states Delaware and Rhode Island are able to use formats of 123456 and 123-456, respectively, while California uses the seven-character format 1ABC234, and several other populous states use the seven-character ABC-1234 format." and "In some states, information such as county of registration or month of expiration is incorporated into the number. The last number on a Massachusetts license plates indicates the month the bearer's registration expires (1234 AB would expire in April, the fourth month; zero is used for October expirations"
As far as illegal immigrants go, they can still get ID's locally and not be tracked throughout the nation, only locally if THAT. They can also board planes after that point.
Right because our real problem with illegal immigrants is that they fly!
Pick apart everything I say because of your beliefs on fighting the man.
Has nothing to do with an innate distrust of authority but thanks for bringing your straw man to the chat, he might make for better conversation than you are.
Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea.
Never said it was a bad idea I said it was unconstitutional. We dont jsut do things because they are, at the time, a good idea. I also said granting power to those who in the future might abuse it is not a good idea either. That the kind of thinking that lets you elist in the military at 18 but not celebrate it with a drink until you're 21.
Passports are a federal document, not state. I would hope they were the same.
icense plates are the same..
No they're not. There are a minimum of 500 different license plates for the states. More than likely, double that number due to the specialty plates once can get. I know in PA there are fourteen different license plates one can get not including the generic one.
social security numbers are the same...
Again, that's a federal issue, not a state issue.
What's the big deal? Who is it hurting? . . . those who don't want to be followed by "the man".
You answered your own question. I distinctly remember when I was younger, people would talk about how the folks in the Soviet Union and their satellite states would spy on their own citizens, track their movement, who they talked to, etc. In fact, my dad told me that as a ham radio operator, regardless of where in the Soviet Union you talked to someone, you sent your QSL card to one central box number in Moscow.
Forcing a national ID card on people is nothing less than doing exactly what Reagan and others harped about what was wrong in Russia for over five decades. Why would we want to follow that example?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Actually yes. Please point out where in the Constitution that the Federal goverment has the power to implement such programs. Unlike what Bush would like you to believe there is no such thing as 'implicit' powers. Just the opposite. Unless the Constitution says the Federal government has the right to do something, they expressly DO NOT have that right.
You're right and wrong. *Some* states are not balking at the concept, only the price. Montana and Washington State are treditionally independent. But most states simply don't want to pay for it, "foolishness" has nothing to do with it.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Ah, but then there's Article One, Section 8. Congress has been exploiting this by broadly interpreting "General Welfare", "Interstate Commerce", and "Necessary and Proper" for the past 150 years.
They're sure as hell not going to throw all that extra power away.
More Twoson than Cupertino
standards that apply to government: Once it's made into law, it's very difficult to change it. Once it's written down, getting it taken off is nearly impossible, and that applies to names on lists as well. Once a program is implemented, the inertia is difficult to stop or reverse, for all the political and financial reasons that it is difficult to get rolling in the first place. If there is an opportunity for big business or big government to abuse something, they will, sooner or later. The ONLY way to prevent the inevitable abuses of national IDs is to never have them at all. No matter what minor benefits it might be believed they would bring, the opportunity for abuse is far greater. If that opportunity exists, it WILL be exploited. This program needs to be stomped to death and never repeated.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Passports are not up to the states. States are not allowed to restrict travel.
License plates are up to the states, but the automotive industry makes the cars and they don't want to make 50 different types of license plates mounts.
Social security numbers are assigned by the federal government.
Immigrants are not the only ones who don't want to be followed by "the man". Any freedom-loving individual wants the same.
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
However, regulation of immigration is in the federal governments purview, per Article 1 section 8 paragraph 4.
Coupled with Article 1 section 8 paragraph 18,
Congress has the right to establish laws concerning national standards for ID cards as it would be a means of identifying citizens, immigrants, and aliens, both legal and illegal, which falls under laws concerning naturalizations (USCONS Art1 Sec 8 Para 4).
In fact, using Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the right to create a national ID card, because it would be a law created under paragraph 18 to support paragraph 4.
Perhaps you should learn the Constitution before trying to interpret it.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If your life is the first to be lost, that in turn will save uncounted lives, as well as preserve liberty for the rest of us. Your kind of thought let Hitler implement his policies.
All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing.
States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said
That would be Louis Brandeis, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor had a similar thought process in her dissent in Gonzales v. Raich: "Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
Where are those justices when you need them?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Yes Civil Liberties cost lives, thats the first correct assertion you have put forward. The first lives were in the revolutionary war. Seems to me to be cowardly to give up those hard fought liberties in the name of security.
"However, these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or accessing federal buildings"
Yeah, cause entire states are not going to be able to buy plane tickets or enter federal buildings. I see that happening... I mean after all it's not like the airline industry has any lobbyists in Washington, and it's not as though the federal government will notice if suddenly all their employees in a given state stop showing up for work. I think we'll see that law either repealed or changed before we see entire states being told they can't fly...
We're going to find out that our "civil liberties" are going to start costing lives.
..."
Civil liberties have never cost nearly as much lives as the lack thereof. Could, say, 9/11 have happened in the USSR? Probably not, but I don't think that would have been much comfort to the folks in the gulag.
Because of politics and PC thoughts
Oh, yes, damn those PC thoughts! Dumb politics like "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
it's about politics and rules that were set back before the country was so fucked up.
The rules you're complaining about were set by people who had recently won their independence from the world's largest and most ruthless empire, in a country that was barely sure of its own continued existence, under constant threat of being wiped out by warring imperial powers and/or or thrown back into the sea by local powers, and beset by constant internal violence. The idea that Constitutional rules were created in a naive world where things were less fucked up than they are today is absurd. Americans are safer today than they have ever been, and the only real threat to their continued well-being is their propensity to imagine themselves under some unique threat from outside.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I am from Oklahoma.
One of the reasons we don't want to spend all the $$ to comply with RealID, is that
we just completely redid our driver's licenses in the last 4 years, at a significant cost.
The new ones are much harder to fake, and have both index finger's prints electronically bar coded on them.
Our ID's have plenty of info about us now, no more is necessary.
The Fed, just needs to mind its own broken fences, instead of telling us how to keep ours from falling.
No that I don't notice it, I just don't care. I have nothing to hide, yet the rules protecting me also protect those who want to kill our families. I'm not going to fight the government because of a political view, rather than what I feel is right in ways, ya know?
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
I suspect that the airlines will shortly require Passports to travel with. They will allow for one of the licenses to work as well, but more than 50 states implement the license, then almost certainly, they will again use tax dollars as a wedge. After all, if it is not going to 49 states, then it can go to their state.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Yes that would be why states don't issue green cards. How does that contradict what I said?
"Congress has the right to establish laws concerning national standards for ID cards as it would be a means of identifying citizens, immigrants, and aliens, both legal and illegal, which falls under laws concerning naturalizations (USCONS Art1 Sec 8 Para 4)."
Identify Citizens (Passport), Immigrants (Green Cards), and this license scheme is aimed at citizens not aliens.
Perhaps you should learn the Constitution before trying to interpret it.
Perhaps you should RTA and my opinion before trying to garner what I think about national ID. We have one and its called a passport what section 8 does not say is that the id can be compulsory that is for the courts to decide and it certainly has nothing to do with making states format their ID to match the federal standards.
So the feds are going to tell a few million residents of these states that suddenly as of such and such a date they can no longer fly? Sure, like that's going to happen. We're already at or near the tipping point on this -- if even a few more states say "no thanks" it could hopefully sabotage the whole thing. This could turn into a major federal power vs. states rights battle -- after all, licensing is a function traditionally assigned to the state level.
Realistically, though, I think sooner or later the Real ID monster will be unleashed, but after some additional delays and perhaps a grace period tacked on. At the very least, I want to see this debacle delayed until after July 2010. Cos that's the earliest that *I* can renew my license by mail for another seven and a half years (I can renew 18 months prior to expiration plus 6 full years beyond that). Then I'm set until January 2018, by which time I'll be 60 and too old to give a shit any longer.....
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
So you really are espousing the idea that honest people have nothing to fear from their government. Me, I'm a big fan of the 2nd Amendment, you know, the one where the founders of a country created through revolution against a legal government basically stated that the governors had to rule at the consent of an armed populace.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
This is an excellent point that highlights possibilities provided by the intended spirit of our Constitutionally-limited federal government. We're stuck with a self-perpetuating economic-political machine that has diminished states' rights of self-determinism. The federal government should assess and recommend domestic standards. Not dictate and enforce. I'm glad to see Dr. Paul getting media time to put these ideas out to sheeple who sway with the wind blowing.
How many lives does it take for you to give up freedom?
(IANAL)
Bravo. Beat me to it. Someone give the parent a mod point.
National ID is not at all meant to deal with naturalization. As was said, we've got the green card. Plus, since current citizens would have to get this ID as well, that supercedes any naturalization argument and becomes a generic 'ID' argument, which is not explicitly enumerated.
Thus it falls on Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Their reasoning goes something like this: people sometimes engage in interstate commerce. Therefore, any law that affects people affects interstate commerce.
The next decade is going to get REAL interesting, here in the states, and everywhere else in the world, too.
What a time to be alive!
Fuck the real ID.
The privacy concerns or the fact the the US Government has no right to issue us all "papers". This should be handled at the state level, like it is now.
I hand my current State drivers license for identification. The picture is given a glance and returned to me. I'm on the plane.
I hand my new, Real ID State drivers license for identification. The picture is given a glance, they swipe it. I submit to fingerprint or retinal scan and it matches whats on the card. I'm on the plane.
Also think of going through this on your first day at a new employer.
Seems to me that there are security and citizenship verification reasons behind Real ID. However, its an unfunded mandate. Congress needs to be brought up short on their financial irresponsibility.
Or rather, commercial airplanes. I don't believe such rules apply to private or chartered planes, such as in which them rich peoples fly...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
we already have a federal ID. It's called a passport. ...and nobody is required to have one unless they are entering the country (even then, there are alternate options), and nobody is expected to carry it everywhere and produce it on demand.
By the Constitution, nobody is required to produce ANY paperwork (IDs included) for the feds unless a judge specifically says a specific person has to under specific conditions. "Real ID" grossly violates the Constitution.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
A stupid law that was never debated, that will line up people outside DMV offices is every state, should be killed. I have an aging notarized copy of my birth certificate, but I am not sure that it would be accepted. I dimly suspect that this is intended to screw a lot of people out of their right to vote.
Who might not be able to produce the needed proof of citizenship? Old folks and poor folks. It is like the voter picture ID law on steroids.
Problem is, is that it doesn't add much to security, since professional terrorists will have the document manipulation down pat.
Thanks I had never heard that one but I agree with the concept whole heartedly.. Its why I am against national health care.
I'm quite proud of my home state for rebelling on this. Washington D.C. is lost to the American people as an instrument for sensible government. The state houses are the only avenue left to us if simply by virtue of being within a day's drive, and of our legislators as being mostly people with day jobs who aren't trapped in a beltway bubble.
I once turned the tide for a crucial state reform bill by grabbing four friends and handing out flyers for 3 hours in front of supermarkets in certain legislators' districts. Inside of two days their offices received calls from ~150 constituents demanding to know why they weren't going to require members of the state legislature to show up for work. They usually get 5 calls on any issue, so they were taken aback and promptly decided to support the bill.
You can't do that with Senators and members of the House of Representatives. They don't give a crap what you and I think, unless we can threaten/promise 1000's of $$$/votes.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
So far my state, Texas, has been rather silent on the subject of RealID. Link
But I do hope they do stand against it, not just for privacy or any of the other, but for the concept that the states would stand up for a cause. Against the federal government.
As all of the other pro national ID posts i'm sure this will be flagged as flamebait, but none the less I feel I should say something. What's the problem with having a national ID system? From the programming/database aspect alone all of us (especially on this site) should recognise the need for a better system. All of my information is currently stored in about 15 different state/federal databases already. What's wrong with putting them in one database and giving me a card to access all of my information? Are you worried about the federal government having control of that information? do you think they dont already? of course they can... I actually like the idea of having a social security like ID card that puts all of my state/federal information in one place so our government can keep up with the pace of information these days. But i'm sure that's just flamebait.
yes, without a country. if they have no ID, they can't do business with the feds.
at which point those states can withhold taxes and national cooperation and "go private," which message the bushers can probably understand. they wouldn't catch on if those states "seceded from the Union." but going private, they'd probably get awards.
if anybody from the US was allowed across the borders to present the awards.
it's all totally ridiculous. going to the brink of national bankruptcy to force states out. we once had a war to prevent that kind of idiocy.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Create enough laws and everyone is a criminal. I'm willing to bet that you do have something to hide, you just haven't been investigated yet. When investigation becomes a simple matter of asking a database that has been tracking you your entire whole life, it's easy to investigate everybody. Do you still say you have nothing to hide?
How many laws are there that require you to spend money out of your own pocket? You're required to have car insurance, if you have a car, in every state I know of (strangely enough, most states require you to have uninsured motorist coverage as well). You're usually required to have your home inspected before you sell it, in many states you're required to purchase a helmet if you want to ride a motorcycle. And don't get me started about homeowners associations and municipal zoning laws. They require you to have this many trees in your yard, and that many square feet of grass, etc...
Not that I think all of these laws are a bad idea, or unnecessary, but many of them are just stupid, and the only reason the gov't ever passed them is because they won't be footing the bill (actually, they usually create a new source of income in the form of fines for noncompliance).
There is no new ID to get. Perhaps if you were to read you would understand that. It sets minimum standards for ID cards and minimum standards proving one's identity when getting an ID card.
"National ID is not at all meant to deal with naturalization."
It is called RealID and one of the functions of the standards is to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining ID, thus allowing law enforcement to better identify citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal aliens.
"since current citizens would have to get this ID as well, that supercedes any naturalization argument and becomes a generic 'ID' argument, which is not explicitly enumerated"
Actually, that does not supersede the naturalization argument, nor does the power to create a national ID need to be "explicitly enumerated". That is why Article 1, section 8, paragraph 18 exists. It allows Congress to pass laws on subject not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
And, seeing as ID cards are matters of public record, I will refer to Article 4, section 1:
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Passports are the same throughout the states, license plates are the same.. social security numbers are the same... What's the big deal? Who is it hurting? Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".
People who don't want to be followed by the man might be: gays, non-whites, "dissidents", members of political parties (such as libertarians , communists, NORML), religions (Mormons, non-Protestants, Muslims, cults), political activists, anyone who doesn't like Bush, activists who want to legalize drugs (California) & prostitution (Nevada), whistle-blowers, people who buy violent video games, nosy reporters, and so on.
It's not that a National ID wouldn't be useful. It's just that we do not trust a strong centralized government to do what's right, especially when everyone has a different definition of right. Do you think the people of California, Nevada, and Utah want to keep giving power to the federal government until the feds can one day overturn their state laws?
Good point, sir.
I, myself, am a big fan of the 2nd amendment. I understand where you're coming from.
I guess the only reason I have an issue with the whole ID schpiel is because I think it's a good idea to have a certain set of ID's, or database for that matter, that use certain guidelines. The way it's being pushed and taken care of isn't the greatest, but, you catch my drift.
Thanks for being respectful throughout your posts (unlike my outburst), it's much appreciated.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
My apologies for being irate, I just feel that sometimes some of the set rules hurt us, just as much as help.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
If funding is really the main issue, why don't we just buy a few less Stealth Bombers which cost roughly $2B a piece.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit A secure ID would help keep us much safer than a few extra bombers. Bombers didn't help us much on 9/11 but it is likely that a secure ID would have made it much more difficult for the terrorists and may have prevented the attacks altogether.
/ information/benefits_of_a_secure_license/
"The 9/11 Commission recommended national identification standards for driver's licenses as a way to prevent future terrorism in its report to Congress." http://www.secure-license.org/cms/index.php/plain
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I do have things to hide. I've done a lot of drugs, stole things as well as numerous other college festivities... and 3 days ago I stuck a booger to the bottom of a table. ;) I'm sure they have bigger fish to fry, and google probably has more info on me than they do.
I see the point you're making, and it's a good one. But, if I think that an ID is going to track everything I do, (or think about how many times I show my ID).. I'm not really AS concerned... but, like I said, I see what you're saying.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Good call. Great post, sir.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
It seems to me the idea of liberty and freedom have existed in this country long before today. Our ancestors died defending our liberties in the American Revolution, we fought a Civil War that was largely based on states' rights, and people have fought in wars sense in order to "defend our freedom". Because of politics and PC thoughts, we won't be able to do shit to stop what people trying to make a point have caused. You know something, it is already too late for that. We live in a "fear society". Our "enemy" appears to be always changing, we are policing our neighbors, people are being locked into "secret" (and not-so-secret) prisons and being denied rights afforded by both US and international laws. This has nothing to do with being PC, I am far from PC. I believe before you come back and start posting that everyone is acting "PC" or this is some sort of strictly political opinion that you really go grab a history book (or two) and read up on how America got to be where it is today.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
No it wont it will make it easy for law enforcement to identify people without drivers licenses!
Oh, and another reason this is a bad idea? Congress created it as an unfunded mandate. They're requiring the states to do it, but not providing any of the funding that would make it possible. Our local governments are already strained and citizens on the verge of staging property tax revolts. Where's this extra money going to come from?
Even if I wasn't against this because it violates my rights, I'd fight it because it's fiscally irresponsible. Any conscientious lawmaker will do the same.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
"The public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America."
Dang, so how do they *really* feel about it?
Benjamin and Jefferson had quite a bit to say, and I'm certain it was perfect for their time. I do believe in freedom, as well as civil rights and other rules they fought for. Don't make me out to be a Nazi.
On the other hand, these statements were made before the telephone, cell phones, planes, suicide bombings, school shootings, drug deals, nuclear bombs and other means of instant harm and communication even existed.
If any of the makers of the constitution could even imagine that a single bomb ignited by a person that was a thousand miles away, by a person that hated everything he stood for... was even possible... I'm sure they'd think they would have made a bit more revisions on some of the rules that are being exploited.
Nowadays, anyone will jump the gun at whatever proposition or action is made, is automatically the fault of whatever political side one is against. Though tracing phones or triangulating a cell to find out it's position in an emergency, MAY be good, it just depends on who's trying to use that information. If a law is created by the government, or even a proposition by a different political party... it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. It will be picked apart due to the political side who created it, just to make them look bad.
I understand everyone's uncertainty.. and I know it's easy to pick apart a post and find the weak spots and chomp on them like a wounded baby in the herd... but, we need to start thinking about when the line between security measures and civil rights is out-dated.
Granted, I know there are so many variables in pros and cons of every situation... but there are quite a few problems that could be avoided, given that special-case amendments are made for these special circumstances.
I'm not saying that every spiteful statement against the government is wrong, but, not every one is right.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Passports are the same throughout the states, license plates are the same.. social security numbers are the same... What's the big deal? Who is it hurting? Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".
.. Yeah, right. I got a bridge to sell ya, kid.) The danger is not in the data actually stored in the database, it's in the accessibility of the data for indexing and pattern detection, and other methods of data extraction that are impractical now but become feasible if it's all centralized and standardized. There's such a thing as making personal information *too* easy to search through .. I'd kind of prefer to leave mine in the control of my own state. Some of my opinions aren't real popular with the current administration, and I'd kind of like to remain free to express those opinions ..
The biggest problem I see is it makes data mining, profiling, and related invasions of privacy several orders of magnitude easier. (Oh, no, the government wouldn't tell us that it won't use the data for that and then turn around and do it anyway without telling us!
Someone else pointed that out as well, and I know what you mean. Though I don't think that any of us really use our ID's THAT much.. aside from bars and such. Then again, that wouldn't stop them from making laws to show your ID for everything. It would be nice to have the history of everyone that's showing their ID to buy guns and such.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
(I'm sorry, I moved to the United States recently, and missed the whole REAL ID Act legislation got passed in 2005)
:-))) and nobody in Europe is complaining those passports are used to "track everyone".]
:-)
I for one am definitely against anything "Big Brother". However, as far as I have been able to read up on this (a lot of articles have tons of fluff or otherwise useless information), I don't see the Big Brother angle or why people are so against a sort of national ID...
This is what I (think I) know:
1) all states should put the same information on the ID/license (in fact, there are only minimal guidelines, states could put more, but even if it would be a strict list (-> all of these and nothing but)).
2) all states should have the same (document) requirements to issue an ID/license.
3) states should share their motor vehicle database with the other states.
[Btw, The countries part of the European Union have a "unified" passport, in fact, apart from specification of country of origin (in several ways, some to help prevent counterfeits, most of which were demanded by the US after 9/11 (not meant as a complaint, just giving some "historical" information
I guess my question is: what do people have against a national ID?
Provided it is just that...meaning the 50 different state ID/license designs are replaced with one, uniform ID/license (for example with a map of the US on the background and the issuing state highlighted, as well as noted in writing on the ID/license), the same information is displayed in the same way, optionally additional information each state wishes to add is on the back, etc...
I don't see how just uniforming the information on and look of the ID/license would help or even facilitate "tracking" everyone...seems to be me it would be just as down right easy now, since my RI driver's license identifies me just as uniquely now as would a National driver's license (or my green card for that matter)
My main reason for asking is: as far as I can tell, there are no negative, only positive side-effects to a national ID/license (that assertion is based on what I know about it). Since so many are adamant against it, I feel I must be missing something, since I am at least as anti-Big Brother as the next guy
Chance favors the prepared mind...especially when you Question Authority
Like everything else in this sad republic, the only thing that REALLY motivates anyone is money.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Benjamin and Jefferson had quite a bit to say, and I'm certain it was perfect for their time. I do believe in freedom, as well as civil rights and other rules they fought for. Don't make me out to be a Nazi.
As I recall, I do not think I ever invoked "Godwin's Law" in this discussion. You said that our civil liberties are going to start costing lives. So, how many human lives is freedom x worth? There is the saying, "Freedom isn't free." It is true. People have died for quite some time for our liberties. As I've mentioned, there was the American Revolution. African Americans died for their freedoms during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Being complacent and saying, freedom isn't worth it if it is costing lives is bad. I already fear for a society that cares more about Paris Hilton going to jail then about the foreign and domestic issues facing this nation.
On the other hand, these statements were made before the telephone, cell phones, planes, suicide bombings, school shootings, drug deals, nuclear bombs and other means of instant harm and communication even existed.
So, because we have furthered technology, we deserve less freedoms? We found ways to kill each other 250 years ago; the only difference is, today we are more efficient at doing it. You want to invoke our modern society, let me take a quote from the 9/11 commission report: "Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend." And as much as I dislike the thought of invoking Reagan, "# Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Nowadays, anyone will jump the gun at whatever proposition or action is made, is automatically the fault of whatever political side one is against. Though tracing phones or triangulating a cell to find out it's position in an emergency, MAY be good, it just depends on who's trying to use that information. If a law is created by the government, or even a proposition by a different political party... it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. It will be picked apart due to the political side who created it, just to make them look bad.
Oh, I am perfectly willing to accept every political ideology and group is fucked up. I am libertarian and even I cannot fully subscribe to some of the beliefs of the party (but that is for another discussion). Each group has ideal versions of the world and the country, but the fact is we do not live in an ideal world, we are not ideal beings, and we are never going to have these idealistic fantasies. Some people only see things as black-or-white. I have heard people who were hard-lined Republicans blame laws that were enacted and enabled by Republicans blame it on the Democrats. People are stubborn and changing their views is not easy, especially when they are prone to believing everything they see on CNN (or Fox News) and read in their daily paper.
I understand everyone's uncertainty.. and I know it's easy to pick apart a post and find the weak spots and chomp on them like a wounded baby in the herd... but, we need to start thinking about when the line between security measures and civil rights is out-dated.
It will never be out-dated. I challenge someone to find me a state where you can have absolute security and absolute liberty. It does not exist. There is a line, where people will no longer sacrifice their freedom for security; however, maybe if we turn the temperature up slow enough, people will not realize we are being cooked, so by the time they realize what is happening it will be too late.
As someone who has worked with security and works in the computer security f
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
No. Like a certain king you may recall, King George III. However, these quotes from filthy rebels may ring a bell:
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Good post, man.
I don't want you to get the wrong idea about me, I just think that some laws or amendments could risk being modified for present-day situations. For example, in the case of a missing person, one shouldn't have to go through 2 days of paperwork and warranting to get authorization to commit a vital triangulation. I'm not saying that EVERY phone should be tapped for any reason, but, you catch my drift. I know some people would think that if you give them a foot, they'll take a mile... but in the case of missing children and such, a person can travel 10 states in 2 days.
I hope you see that I'm not against taking freedoms away, but at least changing some of the few that could stand to be a bit more harsh, OR lax in some cases.
I really enjoy your posts.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
I have to show some sort of ID when I get a job, when I go to the hospital, when I do almost anything in a local, state, or gov building, and (more and more) when I buy something with a CC, Debit card, or check.
I'd hope so. And I'm sure that's documented and able to be tracked by SSN as well, without a national ID... so you're not really losing out.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Just ask the former Confederate Union states.
Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.
And what of the Eminient domain cases there? Like the one that took a bunch of people's houses away from them and gave a drug company the property.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I googled "succession clause" and got stuff about who takes the place of a dead or incapacitated office holder...
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
most states require you to have uninsured motorist coverage as well
I've never seen or heard states require uninsured motorists coverage for auto insurance. The only tyme I've seen it required is when a loan is taken out to buy the vehicle, the loan companies require uninsured coverage.
FalconShould there be a Law?
While I support the Free State Project I'd find it hard to live in New Hampshire for that long as I love being on the coast. Now if it were in Vermont, or NH and Vermont were switched around, I could.
"Government is not the solution to our problem; Government *is* the problem" -R. Reagan |
Yet Reagan expanded federal government especially federal law enforcement.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I assume, however, that NH requires and issues drivers licenses? Has restaurant health codes? Anti-monopoly practices? Liquor and pornography laws? A whole slew of laws, rules and regulations, just like every other "nanny" state?
The aim of the Free State Project was to find a state where liberty loving people could move to who would then turn the state around on it's head and eventually get rid of all these laws, rules, and regulations. NH comes as close to this already as most any state, and the project organizers wanted to get thousands to move there who would then tip over politics there.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Really...All the states need to do is... Require people to get a US passport. Pass the burden over to the Federal Government.
Yea, the states need an internal passport like the old Soviet Union. NOT!!! Having a passport is a good idea but it should be voluntary not required.
FalconShould there be a Law?
A State issued ID(sans driving priv.). All states currently issue them as well and will continue to regardless of REAL ID.
So you're saying that nobody should have to implement security standards that the government issues?
Which government? Does it have the Constitutional authority to create those standards or mandates?
What would happen if the airlines or other vulnerable operations refused to follow security standards, or just came up with their own?
The market will decide a winner. If an airline doesn't have a good enough security policy they will be subject to lawsuits and/or will have little if any passengers. Those airlines with a tough security policy will get those passengers while passengers who don't want to fill out application forms and have their background investigated will fly an airline that doesn't do these.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You'd probably get a significant increase in visitors from outside the US as well. I can't speak for terrorists, but I know that I have declined to visit the US on both professional and personal grounds since 9/11 -- and not because I think terrorists are going to fly my plane into a building.
Last night CNN had a report on this. Because of the tightening of airport and airplane security foreigners are coming to the USA less than before 911. Travel industry officials said this reduction in foreigners coming to the USA has hurt them financially.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Very well put.
Why don't states just then make the federal income take unconstitutional in their state.
Because it would take 2/3 of them to get a Constitutional Convention called. And then the herding of cats would begin. Of the two methods for constitutional amendment, only the proposal from Congress method has been used, ever. A single State cannot make something unconstitutional.
Put in a "succession clause" if the fed tries to subvert the state constitution and see what happens.
The Confederate States of America ring any bells? Several states tried secession, they failed. Granted, if meaningful change is going to happen, it's going to have to come from the bottom up; the State governments are not the bottom and are not going to be the source of change. The same political parties which control the Federal Government control the State Governments; and they like a heavily centralized power structure, it makes graft and corruption easier and more profitable (conservativism be damned).
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Perhaps you've forgotten the fact that all US Passports will eventually (within the next few years) contain an RFID chip, so you'll already be tracked wherever you go with that.
Until the passport is dropped in the road then runover.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I can point you to how it came about. Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison gave us the basis for strong judicial review-- that the Supreme Court was really supreme. A bit later, along came McCulloch v. Maryland. This was an argument over whether Maryland could tax a federal bank and turned a lot on whether the feds even had a basis for establishing a federal bank. John Marshall, in a tortured decision, said that Congress may act under explicit or implied powers and that all that stuff that otherwise appears in the constitution about taxes, borrowing and regulating commerce implied that Congress could establish a bank.
Marshall wrote perhaps the single most important sentence in Constitutional literature: "In considering this question we must never forget that this is a Constitution we are expounding." This was a document that gave us the guidelines for a nation and it was meant to live, breath and guide for future generations. It was not specific!
One can only wonder where Marshall got this stuff. It's not in the text of the founding documents. Marshall concluded that Congress has the right to choose any means not prohibited by the Constitution to carry out its broad powers.
It doesn't stop here but this is the beginning of it all.
I don't ever remember an 18 year old drinking age.
I do. When I was 18 I was legally able to drink alcohol for one month before a new law came into effect that raised the age limit to 19. Latter it went to 21. And the thing is is I spent tyme in Germany and there parents could order wine or beer for the children in a restaurant legally. That's a big problem in the US, because parents are no longer legally able to serve teens an occasional alcoholic drink they don't learn to drink responsibly then all of a sudden when they turn 21 they go on a drinking bing.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you're found wandering about as an adult without adequate ID in my state (Florida), that alone is enough to send you to jail until such time as you can produce some documentation confirming who you are
This must be new, less than 10 years old. I grew up in FL and while living there there was no requirement to carry id, you only needed a dl while driving.
I do understand the state's right to require it
I don't, it's only needed if you want a police state. And requiring an id is an assault on anonymity, which some Supreme Court rulings have said is essential to the First Admendment's right to free speech and free assembly. If the state, political entity, can require a person to show id at any tyme this limits their willingness to engage in political actions or protests.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I honestly want to know why we should need an ID to fly anyways? Who cares who you are? You already have been subjected to invasive searches and scanings and x-rays - even with machines that can expose you naked - all in the name of safety, so why concern ourselves with identification? It will be forged easily by those that want to move around desperately enough, regardless. Identity only really matters in a society where reputation matters and in that society I would be allowed to have my pocket knife on a plane.
At first they told us we needed a national ID card for Security. When it came to light that people holding ID cards can STILL commit crimes. Terrorists foregn and national can get legal ID's *then* set off there bombs.
So they changed the story now we need this for illegals.. and ONLY illegals will get this.. what a crock.. they are illegal.. they are breaking the current laws.. why on earth would they follow this one law? Laws are not magic.. they dont make criminals disapear.
I'm so angry at my government I'm frothing at the mouth.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
The Texas Legislature just recessed until January 2009; by the state constitution, the legislature can only meet for 140 days every two years
It used to be like this in many states. Most people elected actually worked for a living and they couldn't afford to be away from work too long. I would fully support a similar admendment to the USA Constitution. Shorter though maybe, say like from January through March. Then require a test to make sure every politician reads each bill before they can vote on it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
[Btw, The countries part of the European Union have a "unified" passport, in fact, apart from specification of country of origin (in several ways, some to help prevent counterfeits, most of which were demanded by the US after 9/11 (not meant as a complaint, just giving some "historical" information :-))) and nobody in Europe is complaining those passports are used to "track everyone".]
Are those passports required for anything other than international travel? I bet not, however there are a number of things the Real ID Act will require this id for. Such as to open a bank account. Then once people get used to it there'll come "Papers please" while just walking down the sidewalk.
I guess my question is: what do people have against a national ID?
Two things, "Papers please" and the Constitution of the USA does not give the government any power to mandate a national id.
I am at least as anti-Big Brother as the next guy :-)
I wouldn't say you're that much anti-Big Brother if you can't see the ramifications of a national id. But then again coming from Europe I'm not supprized the way things are there.
Chance favors the prepared mind...especially when you Question Authority
Why not question why government wants to mandate ids, especially when they haven't proven ids will make anyone safer and more secure. And like Benjamin Franklin said, paraphrasing, "Anyone willing to give up a little freedom for security will neither get nor deserve either."
FalconShould there be a Law?
So, civil services and social security are non-constitutional because they're not run by each state?
It depends on what civil services you're talking about. As for social security, there is no Constitutional authority for it. Nor is it needed. From the tyme people start working fulltime they should be saving and investing. If a person starts saving $2000 a year from the age of 18 until they reach 25 by the tyme they are 65 they will have almost a million dollars invested at 10%. If they delay work to go to college and get a BA or BS they start saving a few years later but then they can invest more once they start working. Of course the sooner they start investing and the more they do the more they will have. When money is taken out of a person's paycheck though for social security they will not have anywhere near the same rate of return. And because more money would be invested without social security the economy woud be better, more money invested means more jobs created at higher pay.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you oppose this, vote for Dr. Ron Paul for President. He is absolutely opposed to ANYTHING of this nature and voted against it.
Libertas in infinitum
Aside from all the legalities, do you think that having a unified ID across the states is a bad idea?
Yes.
I'm just saying that rather than fighting it, it should have been something that was done a long time ago.
I totally disagree!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yep - the government of China has representation in Washington, DC but the government of Texas does not.
This is why our Senators should be delegates from each state legislature.
Libertas in infinitum
"Put in a "succession clause" if the fed tries to subvert the state constitution and see what happens."
p ons-of-war.
Ever hear of the American Civil War? Imagine it only being one state with small arms vs. 49 states with tanks/bombers/fighter-jets/machine-guns/other-wea
I wish they could do that. My state could handel everything better than the feds (my state has botched a few things).
I don't preview or spellcheck.
License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format
Yes different states have different license plates. I have license plates from two different states and though they are basically the same size and shape the design is different.
Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea.
BS! Papers Please!
People are fighting this shit because of politics, not because it's a good or bad idea.
I am against any national id because I believe in the Constitution of the USA and because I believe in liberty and small government, ie I am a Classical Liberal
. FalconShould there be a Law?
Some states might view benefits in that light, but other states might consider that the new residents drawn in by these benefits might increase the tax base enough to offset the bums that come in. Also, don't forget that any benefits will be paid for by taxes on state residents, in addition to federal funds. The bums may like the benefits, but if the state taxes are also higher, that might act as a disincentive for them.
More states might do something if they had more money. If the federal programs were ended or reduced, and the funding for those programs returned to the states or the states' residents, the states might have more discretionary income to devote to such programs of their own.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
go grab a history book (or two) and read up on how America got to be where it is today.
While I generally agree with this post of your's the history book part is tricky. Depending on what books are picked they may say different things.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If a law is created by the government, or even a proposition by a different political party... it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. It will be picked apart due to the political side who created it, just to make them look bad.
One way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad is to imagine your political foes having the same power. If you don't want them having it it probable bad. Some of the laws we have after 911 Clinton asked for as well, they were bad then and they still are.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wouldn't it be kind of cool to be banned from ever entering a Federal Court?
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
So if a almost blind "free" idiot decides to drive a car and kills me, or a dirty restauranteur makes me get thypoid or some other east sickness, there is nothing to defend the innocent, unsuspecting public?
The word "anarchy" is ringing on my head.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... we already need an official photo id for traveling in planes.
I use my passport, but alas, I travel a lot internationally, thus I am disciplined regarding this.
Other people use local (as in country) forms of identification (drivers licenses mostly), which are not centrally linked in any way (although the scumbag Tony Blair and his cronies are working hard to centralize this, starting with us, Johnny Foreigner types, as the obvious soft target. Bastards).
You don't need to wait 12 weeks to travel locally. You just need to make sure you always have a passport that is valid. A bit of discipline should be enough to ensure this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And they do not know state borders (unless you think an Al Quaeda operative will have a GPS on board to ensure they don go astray. Oh wait, their target may be on another state).
Given the situation above, the issue of identifying passengers becomes a Federal one in the US and an international one pretty much elsewhere. If I was in charge of the Fed Gov in the US (ha,ha,ha) I am sure as hell that I would want my own mechanism to ensure people are who they say they are, I have no problem with that.
The problem IMHO is the tool they want to use. They should use passports, they want the Big Brother approach that encroaches in everybody's privacy.
As for "spur of the moment" flights, pulease, give me a frigging brake. I do it regularly, I just make sure I always have a valid passport. If it would take me 12 weeks to renew it then I would start the renewal procedure 12 weeks before expiry date. To do this once every 10 years (or one every 5, as we Mexicans have to do) is a minuscule price to pay frankly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The U.S. border security system should be integrated into a larger network of screening points
The government can't stop "illegal aliens" from crossing the US Mexican border. Yet crossing the US Canadian border is much easier. There are a lot of roads crossing the border between the Great Lakes and Puget Sound in Washington, British Colombia. And many of them don't have any check points. Living in Minneasota I can drive right into Canada and back without seeing any border agent. And there's hundreds if not thousands of miles I can hike across the border.
The President should direct the Department of Homeland Security
BS, the Department of Homeland Security, which sounds like the Department of the Fatherland, or Motherland, Security should be abolished.
Extending those standards among other governments could dramatically strengthen America and the world's collective ability to intercept individuals who pose catastrophic threats.
As well as track political dissidents or those the authorities don't like.
Want further proof?
Proof? That's no proof, all it is is recommnedations. Meanwhile, by all data being in one database it means anybody who cracks the db will have access to all the ifo instead of having to break into a bunch. It also allows the authorities to track political dissidents easier.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't care if someone is focused on this quarter or not, that's up to them and their company investors. It makes no difference to anyone else.
It should matter to everyone, afterall it can potentially affect everyone. Don't think so? It's in a company's short term interest to not clean up toxic waste. But it's in others' interest for it to be cleaned up. What if the company isn't going to survive because of short term interests? It's in the interest for the employees to try to correct what's bad so they can keep their jobs. However if they do lose their jobs then there will be more competition between those with jobs and those without, those without may depress wages.
Simply it's in shareholders, some of whom are also workers, interest as well as most everyone else's interest to think about the long term. Only those who don't care about the future don't need to be concerned.
But if they're achieving financial goals by shortchanging security or maintenance, then that's a problem for people OUTSIDE the company -- it has nothing to do with finances,
I'm guessing you don't understand what I previously stated, it is possible for a comany to have a lawsuit filed again them which could cost more than taking corrective actions, ie only thinking about the short term. That being so I see no reason to keep up with conserving with you, you seem to keep disregarding what I have said or twistingh it around.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Actually, many if not all states have programs to pick up the slack Medicare/Medicaid leaves behind. County hospitals funded by their municipalities which receive state funding, for starters. I would go as far to say that cities and states are picking up the brunt of the healthcare crisis whereas Washington just spends with accountability. Inflation cyclically rises and we're left with an overburdened system. I'd like to see all the money go to States to individually decide how to insure their residents. It would produce more local accountability by not giving state politicians an easyh out to say "Washington DC broke it." As for a race to the bottom: this is more true in our present federal scenario. Having little or no visibility, people get on the welfare train and there's a disconnect between handing off local/state social services and those relying on federal subsistence. Every state has a different outlook and needs- one size rarely fits all in our multiplicitous union. A greater percentage of Americans than not prefer to work hard and succeed in life. Bottom-climbers (what a label) are exceptions rather than the rule. Systemically we already gateway bottom-climbing beyond reasonable amounts. This happens as a result of political survival pandering legislation by the behemoth elements and hawing asses in DC. I quite like Arnold's proposal in California that stipulates employers - even small ones - to either provide a level of health insurance or a marginal percentage will be taken from paychecks to contribute to the catch-all state insurance. While I think government-sponsored insurance programs are bloated self-subsisting entities with no focus on competative quality or care, I think this plan would be greatly improved by creating a renewable, blind bidding process for private insurers every year or two that would: 1. Provide the most benefits for the least cost 2. Have service/accessibility benchmarks weighted in the bidder profiles 3. All pre-existing medical conditions covered 4. Guarantee service acceptance for all at public and private practicioners 5. Limit legal liabilities to gross malpractice That being said, the three contributors to our health care crisis can be summed up as: 1. Lack of pre-existing coverage limitations 2. Health insurance tied to employment 3. Cost of medical care 4. Ability of insurers to deny coverage to individuals Thus sick, poor people between jobs are penalized the most. Address these systemic root-causes, in any way, and universal coverage begins.