Ron Paul’s
FREEDOM REPORT
A publication of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education.
VOLUME 16, NO.7 – JULY 2013
VOLUME 16, NO.7 – JULY 2013
If You Like The Surveillance State, You’ll Love E-Verify
Texas Straight Talk, 7/1/13
base. The database will contain photographs taken from
passport files and state driver’s licenses. The law gives
federal bureaucrats broad discretion in adding other
“biometric” identifiers to the database. It also gives the
bureaucracy broad authority to determine what features
the “tamper proof” card should contain.
Regardless of one’s views on immigration, the idea that we should have to ask permission from the federal government before taking a job ought to be offensive to all Americans. Under this system, many Americans will be denied the opportunity for work. The E-Verify database will falsely identify thousands as “ineligible,” forcing many to lose job opportunities while challeng- ing government computer inaccuracies. E-Verify will also impose additional compliance costs on American businesses, at a time when they are struggling with Obamacare implementation and other regulations.
According to David Bier of Competitive Enterprise Institute, there is nothing stopping the use of E-Verify for purposes unrelated to work verification, and these expanded uses could be authorized by agency rule-mak- ing or executive order. So it is not inconceivable that, should this bill pass, the day may come when you are not be able to board an airplane or exercise your second amendment rights without being run through the E-Ver- ify database. It is not outside the realm of possibility that the personal health care information that will soon be collected by the IRS and shared with other federal agencies as part of Obamacare will also be linked to the E-Verify system.
Those who dismiss these concerns as paranoid should consider that the same charges were leveled at those who warned that the PATRIOT Act could lead to the government collecting our phone records and spy-
Regardless of one’s views on immigration, the idea that we should have to ask permission from the federal government before taking a job ought to be offensive to all Americans. Under this system, many Americans will be denied the opportunity for work. The E-Verify database will falsely identify thousands as “ineligible,” forcing many to lose job opportunities while challeng- ing government computer inaccuracies. E-Verify will also impose additional compliance costs on American businesses, at a time when they are struggling with Obamacare implementation and other regulations.
According to David Bier of Competitive Enterprise Institute, there is nothing stopping the use of E-Verify for purposes unrelated to work verification, and these expanded uses could be authorized by agency rule-mak- ing or executive order. So it is not inconceivable that, should this bill pass, the day may come when you are not be able to board an airplane or exercise your second amendment rights without being run through the E-Ver- ify database. It is not outside the realm of possibility that the personal health care information that will soon be collected by the IRS and shared with other federal agencies as part of Obamacare will also be linked to the E-Verify system.
Those who dismiss these concerns as paranoid should consider that the same charges were leveled at those who warned that the PATRIOT Act could lead to the government collecting our phone records and spy-
photo: Gage Skidmore
From massive NSA
spying, to IRS targeting
of the administration’s
political opponents,
to collection and shar-
ing of our health care
information as part of
Obamacare, it seems
every day we learn of
another assault on our
privacy. Sadly, this
week the Senate took
another significant, if little-noticed, step toward creat-
ing an authoritarian surveillance state. Buried in the im-
migration bill is a national identification system called
mandatory E-Verify.
The Senate did not spend much time discussing E-Verify, and what little discussion took place was mostly bipartisan praise for its effectiveness as a tool for preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining em- ployment. It is a tragedy that mandatory E-Verify is not receiving more attention, as it will impact nearly every American’s privacy and liberty.
The mandatory E-Verify system requires Ameri- cans to carry a “tamper-proof” social security card. Be- fore they can legally begin a job, American citizens will have to show the card to their prospective employer, who will then have to verify their identity and eligi- bility to hold a job in the US by running the informa- tion through the newly-created federal E-Verify data-
The Senate did not spend much time discussing E-Verify, and what little discussion took place was mostly bipartisan praise for its effectiveness as a tool for preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining em- ployment. It is a tragedy that mandatory E-Verify is not receiving more attention, as it will impact nearly every American’s privacy and liberty.
The mandatory E-Verify system requires Ameri- cans to carry a “tamper-proof” social security card. Be- fore they can legally begin a job, American citizens will have to show the card to their prospective employer, who will then have to verify their identity and eligi- bility to hold a job in the US by running the informa- tion through the newly-created federal E-Verify data-
1
ing on our Internet usage. Just as the PATRIOT Act was
only supposed to be used against terrorists but is now
used to bypass constitutional protections in matters
having noting to do with terrorism or national security,
the national ID/mandatory E-Verify database will not
only be used to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining
employment. Instead, it will eventually be used as an-
other tool to monitor and control the American people.
The recent revelations of the extent of National Se- curity Agency (NSA) spying on Americans, plus recent stories of IRS targeting Tea Party and similar groups for special scrutiny, demonstrates the dangers of trust- ing government with this type of power. Creation of a federal database with photos and possibly other “bio- metric” information about American citizens is a great leap forward for the surveillance state. All Americans who still care about limited government and individual liberty should strongly oppose E-Verify.
Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk, 7/8/13
New Egyptian War: Americans Lose, Again
Looking at the banners in the massive Egyptian protests last week, we saw many anti-American slo- gans. Likewise, the Muslim Brotherhood-led govern- ment that was deposed by the military last week was very critical of what it saw as US support for the coup. Why is it that all sides in this Egyptian civil war seem so angry with the United States? Because the United States has at one point or another supported each side, which means also that at some point the US has also opposed each side. It is the constant meddling in Egyp- tian affairs that has turned Egyptians against us, as we would resent foreign intervention in our own affairs.
For more than 30 years, since the US-brokered Camp David Accord between Israel and Egypt, the US supported Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. Over that period the US sent more than $60 billion to prop up Mubarak and, importantly, to train and seek control over the Egyptian military. Those who opposed Mubarak’s unelected reign became more and more resentful of the US, which they rightly saw as aiding and abetting a dic- tator and denying them their political aspirations.
Then the US began providing assistance to groups
The recent revelations of the extent of National Se- curity Agency (NSA) spying on Americans, plus recent stories of IRS targeting Tea Party and similar groups for special scrutiny, demonstrates the dangers of trust- ing government with this type of power. Creation of a federal database with photos and possibly other “bio- metric” information about American citizens is a great leap forward for the surveillance state. All Americans who still care about limited government and individual liberty should strongly oppose E-Verify.
Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk, 7/8/13
New Egyptian War: Americans Lose, Again
Looking at the banners in the massive Egyptian protests last week, we saw many anti-American slo- gans. Likewise, the Muslim Brotherhood-led govern- ment that was deposed by the military last week was very critical of what it saw as US support for the coup. Why is it that all sides in this Egyptian civil war seem so angry with the United States? Because the United States has at one point or another supported each side, which means also that at some point the US has also opposed each side. It is the constant meddling in Egyp- tian affairs that has turned Egyptians against us, as we would resent foreign intervention in our own affairs.
For more than 30 years, since the US-brokered Camp David Accord between Israel and Egypt, the US supported Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. Over that period the US sent more than $60 billion to prop up Mubarak and, importantly, to train and seek control over the Egyptian military. Those who opposed Mubarak’s unelected reign became more and more resentful of the US, which they rightly saw as aiding and abetting a dic- tator and denying them their political aspirations.
Then the US began providing assistance to groups
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, 7/15/13
The Government’s ‘Passion’ to Protect Us
In a recent Washington Post profile, we read that NSA Director Keith Alexander’s “passion” to protect us from terrorist threats led him to “collect it all,” meaning to intercept and store our every electronic interaction. According to the Post, Alex- ander used the “collect it all” approach in Iraq to help make it a safer place in the mid-2000s, and his success there led him to use it against the rest of us at home. Was Iraq really a success? Does Iraq seem like a safe place?
Alexander is quoted in the article arguing in fa- vor of NSA’s domestic spying, stating, “if we give up a capability that is critical to the defense of this nation, people will die.” There is no guarantee that people will not die, regardless of what the govern- ment claims to be doing to protect us. One thing is certain, however: if we give up our Constitution and its protections against a power-hungry govern- ment, the United States as we know it will die.
The article repeats the justification we have heard earlier for the “collect it all” approach: if you want to find a needle in a haystack you need the haystack. But this makes no sense. How can arti- ficially manufacturing an infinitely larger haystack make it easier to find the needle? Shouldn’t the hay- stack be as small as possible so that the needle can be located?
What “collecting it all” does mean is that our every electronic human interaction is stored in- definitely by the federal government for possible future use against us should we ever fall out of government favor by, for example, joining a pro- peace organization, joining a pro-gun organiza- tion, posting statements critical of government spying on our Facebook pages or elsewhere. This massive database will be used – and perhaps has already been used – to keep us in line. The absence of meaningful Congressional oversight — unless cheerleading counts as oversight – means that no one will put the brakes on people like Keith Alex- ander, whose “passion” to “protect” us is leading us into totalitarianism.
The Government’s ‘Passion’ to Protect Us
In a recent Washington Post profile, we read that NSA Director Keith Alexander’s “passion” to protect us from terrorist threats led him to “collect it all,” meaning to intercept and store our every electronic interaction. According to the Post, Alex- ander used the “collect it all” approach in Iraq to help make it a safer place in the mid-2000s, and his success there led him to use it against the rest of us at home. Was Iraq really a success? Does Iraq seem like a safe place?
Alexander is quoted in the article arguing in fa- vor of NSA’s domestic spying, stating, “if we give up a capability that is critical to the defense of this nation, people will die.” There is no guarantee that people will not die, regardless of what the govern- ment claims to be doing to protect us. One thing is certain, however: if we give up our Constitution and its protections against a power-hungry govern- ment, the United States as we know it will die.
The article repeats the justification we have heard earlier for the “collect it all” approach: if you want to find a needle in a haystack you need the haystack. But this makes no sense. How can arti- ficially manufacturing an infinitely larger haystack make it easier to find the needle? Shouldn’t the hay- stack be as small as possible so that the needle can be located?
What “collecting it all” does mean is that our every electronic human interaction is stored in- definitely by the federal government for possible future use against us should we ever fall out of government favor by, for example, joining a pro- peace organization, joining a pro-gun organiza- tion, posting statements critical of government spying on our Facebook pages or elsewhere. This massive database will be used – and perhaps has already been used – to keep us in line. The absence of meaningful Congressional oversight — unless cheerleading counts as oversight – means that no one will put the brakes on people like Keith Alex- ander, whose “passion” to “protect” us is leading us into totalitarianism.
2
seeking to overthrow Mubarak, which they did in 2011.
The US continued funding the Egyptian military at that
time, arguing that US aid was more critical than ever if
we are to maintain influence. The US Administration
demanded an election in Egypt after Mubarak’s over-
throw and an election was held. Mohamed Morsi of the
Muslim Brotherhood won a narrow victory. The US
supported Morsi but kept funding the Egyptian military.
After a year of Morsi’s rule, Egyptians who did not approve of his government took to the streets to de- mand his removal from power. The US signaled to the Egyptian military that it would not oppose the removal of Morsi from power, and he was removed on July 3rd. With the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood-led government came the arrest of many politicians and the closure of many media outlets sympathetic to them. Then the US government warned the same Egyptian military that undermined democracy that it needed to restore democracy! Is it any wonder why Egyptians from all walks of life are united in their irritation with the United States?
Despite the Egyptian government being overthrown by a military coup, the Obama Administration will not utter the word “coup” because acknowledging reality would mean an end to US assistance to the Egyptian government and military. That cannot be allowed.
Instead, we see the same Obama administration that is on a worldwide manhunt for pro-transparen- cy whistle-blower Edward Snowden demand that the Egyptian military exercise “political transparency” in its dealings with the ousted Muslim Brotherhood-led government.
So, successive US administrations over the de- cades have supported all sides in Egypt, from dictator to demonstrator to military. There is only one side that the US government has never supported: our side. The American side. It has never supported the side of the US taxpayers who resent being forced to fund a foreign dictatorship, a foreign military, and foreign protestors. It has never supported the side of the majority of Amer- icans who do not wish to get involved in the confusing internal affairs of countries thousands of miles away. It has never supported the side of those of us concerned about blowback, which is the real threat to our national security. Unfortunately, US administrations continue to follow the same old failed policies and Obama is no different. More intervention, more foreign aid, more bullying, more empire.
After a year of Morsi’s rule, Egyptians who did not approve of his government took to the streets to de- mand his removal from power. The US signaled to the Egyptian military that it would not oppose the removal of Morsi from power, and he was removed on July 3rd. With the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood-led government came the arrest of many politicians and the closure of many media outlets sympathetic to them. Then the US government warned the same Egyptian military that undermined democracy that it needed to restore democracy! Is it any wonder why Egyptians from all walks of life are united in their irritation with the United States?
Despite the Egyptian government being overthrown by a military coup, the Obama Administration will not utter the word “coup” because acknowledging reality would mean an end to US assistance to the Egyptian government and military. That cannot be allowed.
Instead, we see the same Obama administration that is on a worldwide manhunt for pro-transparen- cy whistle-blower Edward Snowden demand that the Egyptian military exercise “political transparency” in its dealings with the ousted Muslim Brotherhood-led government.
So, successive US administrations over the de- cades have supported all sides in Egypt, from dictator to demonstrator to military. There is only one side that the US government has never supported: our side. The American side. It has never supported the side of the US taxpayers who resent being forced to fund a foreign dictatorship, a foreign military, and foreign protestors. It has never supported the side of the majority of Amer- icans who do not wish to get involved in the confusing internal affairs of countries thousands of miles away. It has never supported the side of those of us concerned about blowback, which is the real threat to our national security. Unfortunately, US administrations continue to follow the same old failed policies and Obama is no different. More intervention, more foreign aid, more bullying, more empire.
Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk, 7/15/13
Let Market Forces Solve Organ Transplant Crisis
Ten-year old cystic fibrosis patient Sarah Mur- naghan captured the nation’s attention when federal bureaucrats imposed a de facto death sentence on her by refusing to modify the rules governing organ trans- plants. The rules in question forbid children under 12 from receiving transplants of adult organs. Even though Sarah’s own physician said she was an excellent candi- date to receive an adult organ transplant, government officials refused to even consider modifying their rules.
Fortunately, a federal judge intervened so Sarah re- ceived the lung transplant. But the welcome decision in this case does not change the need to end government control of organ donations and repeal the federal ban on compensating organ donors.
Supporters of the current system claim that organ donation is too important to be left to the marketplace. But this is nonsensical: if we trust the market to deliver
Let Market Forces Solve Organ Transplant Crisis
Ten-year old cystic fibrosis patient Sarah Mur- naghan captured the nation’s attention when federal bureaucrats imposed a de facto death sentence on her by refusing to modify the rules governing organ trans- plants. The rules in question forbid children under 12 from receiving transplants of adult organs. Even though Sarah’s own physician said she was an excellent candi- date to receive an adult organ transplant, government officials refused to even consider modifying their rules.
Fortunately, a federal judge intervened so Sarah re- ceived the lung transplant. But the welcome decision in this case does not change the need to end government control of organ donations and repeal the federal ban on compensating organ donors.
Supporters of the current system claim that organ donation is too important to be left to the marketplace. But this is nonsensical: if we trust the market to deliver
We know that TV news never
gives the full story.
So what can we do?
How about starting our own revolution!
Check out the Ron Paul Channel, launching this Summer:
www.ronpaulchannel.com
So what can we do?
How about starting our own revolution!
Check out the Ron Paul Channel, launching this Summer:
www.ronpaulchannel.com
3
food, shelter, and all other necessities, why should we
not trust it to deliver healthcare—including organs?
It is also argued that it is “uncompassionate” or “immoral” to allow patients or insurance companies to provide compensation to donors. But one of the rea- sons the waiting lists for transplants is so long, with many Americans dying before receiving a transplant, is because of a shortage of organs. If organ donors, or their heirs, were compensated for donating, more peo- ple would have an incentive to become organ donors.
Those who oppose allowing patients to purchase organs should ask themselves how compassionate is it to allow those people to die on the transplant waiting list who might otherwise have lived if they were able to obtain organs though private contracts.
Some are concerned that if organ donations were supplied via the market instead of through government regulation, those with lower incomes would be effec- tively denied access to donated organs. This ignores our current two-tier system for allocating organs, as the wealthy can travel overseas for transplants if they can- not receive a transplant in America. Allowing the free market to alleviate the shortage of organs and reduce the costs of medial procedures like transplants would benefit the middle class and the poor, not the wealthy.
The costs of obtaining organs would likely be cov- ered by most health insurance plans, thus reducing the costs directly borne by individual patients. Further- more, if current federal laws distorting the health care market are repealed, procedures such as transplants would be much more affordable. Expanded access to health savings accounts and flexible savings accounts, combined with generous individual tax deductions and credits, would also make it easier for people to afford health care procedures such as transplants.
There is also some hypocrisy in the argument against allowing market forces in organ transplants. Everyone else involved in organ transplantation procedures, in- cluding doctors, nurses, and even the hospital janitor, receives compensation. Not even the most extreme pro- ponent of government-provided health care advocates forcing medical professionals to provide care without compensation. Hospitals and other private institutions provide compensation for blood and plasma donations, and men and women are compensated for donations to fertility clinics, so why not allow compensation for or- gan donation?
Sarah Murnaghan’s case shows the fallacy in think-
It is also argued that it is “uncompassionate” or “immoral” to allow patients or insurance companies to provide compensation to donors. But one of the rea- sons the waiting lists for transplants is so long, with many Americans dying before receiving a transplant, is because of a shortage of organs. If organ donors, or their heirs, were compensated for donating, more peo- ple would have an incentive to become organ donors.
Those who oppose allowing patients to purchase organs should ask themselves how compassionate is it to allow those people to die on the transplant waiting list who might otherwise have lived if they were able to obtain organs though private contracts.
Some are concerned that if organ donations were supplied via the market instead of through government regulation, those with lower incomes would be effec- tively denied access to donated organs. This ignores our current two-tier system for allocating organs, as the wealthy can travel overseas for transplants if they can- not receive a transplant in America. Allowing the free market to alleviate the shortage of organs and reduce the costs of medial procedures like transplants would benefit the middle class and the poor, not the wealthy.
The costs of obtaining organs would likely be cov- ered by most health insurance plans, thus reducing the costs directly borne by individual patients. Further- more, if current federal laws distorting the health care market are repealed, procedures such as transplants would be much more affordable. Expanded access to health savings accounts and flexible savings accounts, combined with generous individual tax deductions and credits, would also make it easier for people to afford health care procedures such as transplants.
There is also some hypocrisy in the argument against allowing market forces in organ transplants. Everyone else involved in organ transplantation procedures, in- cluding doctors, nurses, and even the hospital janitor, receives compensation. Not even the most extreme pro- ponent of government-provided health care advocates forcing medical professionals to provide care without compensation. Hospitals and other private institutions provide compensation for blood and plasma donations, and men and women are compensated for donations to fertility clinics, so why not allow compensation for or- gan donation?
Sarah Murnaghan’s case shows the fallacy in think-
ing that a free-market system for organ donations is less
moral or less effective than a government-controlled
system. It is only the bureaucrats who put adherence to
arbitrary rules ahead of the life of a ten-year old child.
It is time for Congress to wake up and see that markets
work better in all aspects of health care, including organ
donation, just as“they work better in providing all other
goods and services.
Congress spent just a few short hours last week
voting to create the biggest new federal bureaucracy
since World War II, not that the media or even most
members of Congress paid much attention to the
process. Yet our most basic freedoms as Americans
– privacy in our homes, persons, and possessions;
confidentiality in our financial and medical affairs;
openness in our conversations, telephone, and inter-
net use; unfettered travel; indeed the basic freedom
not to be monitored as we go through our daily lives
– have been dramatically changed...
The list of dangerous and unconstitutional powers
granted to the new Homeland Security department is
lengthy. Warrantless searches, forced vaccinations of
whole communities, federal neighborhood snitch pro-
grams, federal information databases, and a sinister
new “Information Awareness Office” at the Pentagon
that uses military intelligence to spy on domestic
citizens are just a few of the troubling aspects of the
new legislation.
”
-Ron Paul, in 2002 on the “Homeland
Security Monstrosity”
Nothing in this publication is intended to aid or hinder the
passage of legislation before Congress.
About the F.R.E.E. Foundation
The Foundation for Rational Economics and Educa- tion, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public foundation dedicated to individual liberty and free-market eco- nomics. It was founded by Congressman Ron Paul of Texas and publishes his Freedom Report. For more information, or to make a tax-deductible donation write: F.R.E.E., Inc., P.O. Box 1776, Lake Jackson, Texas 77566, or call 979-265-3034.
The Foundation for Rational Economics and Educa- tion, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public foundation dedicated to individual liberty and free-market eco- nomics. It was founded by Congressman Ron Paul of Texas and publishes his Freedom Report. For more information, or to make a tax-deductible donation write: F.R.E.E., Inc., P.O. Box 1776, Lake Jackson, Texas 77566, or call 979-265-3034.
4
No comments:
Post a Comment