War Update

This will be really quick (I’m playing catch up). Yon has a good post up. I’ve been meaning to highlight it here, but never found the time until now. It is actually written by LTC. Jame Crider:

Commander’s Update #9 JAN 08

Yon also has a short post up worth checking out:

News Flash: Al Qaeda is on the run

Finally, here’s another good post by Michael where he raises the concern that while things are looking up in Iraq,  we ought not forget about Afghanistan where we (NATO) may be faltering:

News Flash: General Reassignment

It is also worth checking out Michael Totten and The Long War Journal.

Baby Steps to ID Theft Protection? (Update: In-state tuition for illegal immigrants)

This is a quick post. A very limited ID theft provision has passed the House. It is limited because it only requires State and local governments to use the joint Social Security Admin - Immigration and Customs Enforcement E-Verify Program (see links in “blogroll”). While it doesn’t require government contractors to use the program it is, nevertheless, at least a step in the right direction.

However, even such a limited program is too hard for some legislators to swallow. Some are planning to try to put any such bill into a “one year study bill” and others are trying to entirely stop the subject from being considered at all. This would essentially kill the issue for yet another year, and put everything back to square one. Evidently, even the State thinks it more important to hire identity thieves (fugitives, deadbeat moms/dads, illegal immigrants etc etc) for labor than to prevent identity theft. This is particularly disheartening since children are a major target of identity thieves.

Senator Jenkins has the bill (SB 97) that would push these issues into a study and Senator Stephenson has the resolution (SCR 5) that neither the State nor Governor should act on any issue which involves illegal immigration (this would include any ID verification bill as illegal immigrants are known to be a large market for false/stolen social security numbers).

Recommended action: Contact your Representative and Senator (click here if you don’t know who they are). Politely ask them to support identity theft prevention and identity verification bills and tell them that you expect them to oppose any attempts to place such measures in studies or under the purview of Sen. Stephenson’s SCR 5.

UPDATE: It is also worth contacting your legislators regarding the bill to repeal in-state tuition (which was passed by a House Committee) for illegal immigrants (note: those currently enrolled are grandfathered in and unaffected if/when this passes).  I’ve discussed this before.  To be brief: First, it is unfair to allow those here illegally be granted benefits denied to US Citizens and legal immigrants.  Either you give the benefit to all or to none (other than State residents).  Second, illegal immigrants who graduate can not legally work UNLESS they steal or falsify a social security number (ie commit identity theft and several felonies).  Essentially we’re subsidizing University graduates who can’t work.  Further, a news report I head on the matter stated that some currently enrolled are working jobs to get through school.  Who’s social security number are they using?  Do they understand that they have committed several felonies in falsifying information on Federal forms etc?

I would, again suggest contacting your legislator on this with a similar message in the recommendation.  Frankly, I would ask them to support the identity theft prevention, repeal in-state tuition and entirely oppose both Jenkins and Stephenson’s bills.  It is time for some action on this matter.

Chiming in on the DC Court Case (Second Amendment)

The Supreme Court will soon hear the DC Court Case dealing with the Second Amendment.   A few months ago, Washington DC’s gun ban was overturned by the DC court of appeals which affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to individuals.  Washington DC has since appealed to the Supreme Court.  This is my take on the Second Amendment.

First here is the text of the Second Amendment (with emphasis added):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Is it the right of the people?  My answer is yes; and this personal right was the intent of the framers of the constitution.

The following from Federalist 46 (written by James Madison under the pseudonym “Publius”). Federalist 46 “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared” was written to counter the opposition that the proposed Constitution provided for a standing army. Those opposed felt that such a force could be used by the government to oppress citizens (as had been seen in Europe etc) or enforce an oligarchy/despot.  One way Madison addressed the objection was to note the ultimate trump card that citizens carried.  That is, the ability to provide sufficient defense to prevent any tyrant and/or rogue army from infringing our citizen’s rights:

…Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors…

The above clearly shows the framers believed firearm possession (and the ability of credible defense) was a basic right.  Further, the Second Amendment explicitly states that it pertains to “the people”.  The State or states are to be the organizer of citizens (such as into units or formations), designate unit leaders, and provide training (”well regulated”) should a situation warrant such a militia be formed, however, “the people” are to comprise that militia.  Fortunately, we have never come to the point of needing such an ad hoc military force.

Additionally, the right to bear arms as an  inherent individual right is bolstered by the fact that Hamilton (in Federalist 84) argued against incorporating a Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) into the Constitution, which appertains to all levels of government.  He argued that “the Constitution itself, in ever rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights.”  Hamilton was concerned that enumerating those rights would allow government or deceitful motives to argue that non enumerated, but inherent rights, were not protected by the Constitution.  As a result, we have the Ninth Amendment to address this concern.  That the right of the people to bear arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights (which, according to Hamilton, was unnecessary), again shows essentially how important, and ‘unalienable’ the right was considered.

The Constitution serves as much to limit government as to establish it.  The Bill of Rights specifies some of those limits (one of which is arms).  If you the Second Amendment only pertains to government, it makes no sense.  Why protect the right to arms if the government already retains that right with standing armed forces?  It would be redundant and pointless. The only reason to enumerate the right is if it were one which could be infringed upon by government or nefarious authorities.  An authoritative government will certainly not infringe upon itself, especially one which intends to suppress the populace (as described by Madison above).

Finally, the crux of the matter, in my opinion, is who’s rights the Bill of Rights was written to protect.  It is not called the “Bill of State Rights” or the “Bill of Governmental Rights” for a reason.  The focus is “the people”.  Hopefully, that will not change when the Supreme Court rules on this issue.

For further reading see also:   History of the militia in the United States - Constitution and Bill of Rights

Social Security Admin and ICE Team Up (E-Verify)

This slipped by me. I was unaware that the SSA and ICE had teamed up to provide this service to employers. As I’ve noted before, E-Verify is a free web-based program employers can use to better ensure they are hiring legal employees and allows them to prevent identity thieves from gaining employment at their business.

More information can be found at:

SSA’s Additional Verification Options page and

ICE’s E-Verify page:

E-Verify (formerly known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is an Internet based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA) that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees.

E-Verify is free and voluntary and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security Numbers.

What’s New
Photo Tool
E-Verify’s new Photo Screening Tool is the beginning of biometric verification within the E-Verify system. This additional feature will be the first step in giving employers the tools they need to detect identity theft in the employment eligibility process.

The Photo Screening Tool feature allows an employer to check the photo on his or her new hire’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) or Permanent Resident Card (”Green Card”) against the 14.8 million images stored in DHS immigration databases.

Senator Eastman: Helping or Interdicting ID Theft Prevention?

State Senator Dan Eastman was recently spotlighted in a local paper. The article includes information on some of the things Eastman wants to accomplish. This drew my interest:

Another one of Eastman’s bills will focus on illegal immigration. The bill proposes that the state create a database of legal immigrants, so that local employers can check on the status of any potential employees and clear them before hiring.

“It’s like the driving privilege card,” he said. “Only the people who are legally allowed to be here would show up on the database.”

Though Eastman expects mostly contractors to use the database, it would be open to all kinds of employers.

“More and more people have been showing up with counterfeit papers these days,” he said. “It’s really hard to tell the difference between a real green card and a counterfeit green card.”

My first inclination was to have some hope of progress. However, as I thought about it more, the measure he’s proposing is, essentially, totally ineffective unless it is coupled with employer identity verification requirements (such as ICE’s E-Verify etc). Even then, his proposal has very limited use. So why propose it?

My feeling is this may be a veiled attempt to kill or prevent bills dealing with identity verification by employers (thereby protecting identity theieves of all stripes, including illegal immigrants) . This bill, if passed, would allow legislators to insulate certain businesses from loosing sources of cheap labor (such as fugitives, illegal immigrants, deadbeat moms/dads etc).

By passing the bill, legislators could claim they have done something about illegal immigration and ID theft with a totally ineffective, ‘feel good with no results’ measure. Here’s why:

The bill would only track known legal immigrants in Utah. First, what employer is going to risk serious legal liability by assuming someone is an immigrant and should be ‘checked out’. The provision appears to be voluntary and any semi-smart employer is going to opt not to use the database out of valid legal concerns.

Second, the bill provides an exemption for citizen fugitives and identity thieves (it is limited to immigrants).

Third, who is going to add in the legal immigrants into the database? I’m unaware of any ICE program to do so (it would also then be ICE’s database and the State would not need to create one). So who in the State would have the authority to determine immigration status? Further, if the State is, indeed, in charge of the database it will be totally lacking as only Utah legal immigrants would be added/tracked. That leaves a massive data gap as legal immigrants are found nationwide. The database would never keep up with those entering or leaving from other States. Ultimately, for such a database to be effective, it would need to be administered on a national level. The measure would probably encroach on Federal authority (unless specifically delegated to the state) and be unconstitutional.

Finally, there would be a significant cost to such a database. It is silly to create such when free, effective programs (like ICE’s E-Verify) exist.

Methinks this bill is a red herring.

Davis County Commision Going Wobbly on UTA Tax?

On January 2nd I updated a previous post noting that the County Commission had decided to stand up to UTA, “for now”. That time may be coming to an end:

Davis County commissioners are still mulling whether to implement a 0.05 percent sales tax increase to fund the Utah Transit Authority, but feel they now have more information than they had.

They must decide by Jan. 31.

UTA continues to threaten to cut service:

…if the tax isn’t approved, they say they will have to start cutting services possibly to express bus routes, some paratransit routes and perhaps on the FrontRunner commuter rail when it begins operating.

Sorry UTA, but spin it as you will, you are not fooling me. UTA does not have to cut service. They, without a doubt, have the option to increase user fees to cover their decreased subsidy. Let’s face it, everyone is paying for UTA rider’s tickets, like it or not - the system is not fiscally self-sufficient, hence the tax subsidy they feel entitled to.

UTA is threating to cut service simply because it carries more political ‘fear’ weight and can be more effectively spun in their favor. If UTA said ‘yeah, we can raise user prices (like a business would) to maintain the current service’, most people (except for some of the tax subsidized riders) would not have a problem with that. UTA, instead, is employing the “Washington Monument strategy“.

Finally, UTA is also running the ‘tax increase, isn’t an increase’ spin:

UTA officials have said that imposing the sales tax wouldn’t be a tax increase, since the tax on food had been cut.

Sorry, I’m not buying that line. Food taxes were, finally, cut. This is a separate tax. The idea that when we cut a tax we should increase another or create a new tax is absurd. This is, ultimately, a tax increase benefiting an interest group.

Rap Tax and Pet Projects (Centerville Mayor)

The Davis County Clipper has a spotlight on Mayor Ron Russell. I had been told that Russell’s support of the Rap Tax may be partially tied to his involvement in Rogers Memorial Theatre. I, admittedly, didn’t do the work to confirm/deny the information (and, thus, didn’t say anything about it) but the Clipper inadvertently did so for me:

…Russell’s now-married daughter Taryn introduced her father to Rodgers Memorial Theatre, and Russell utilized his sudden free time to appear in a few RMT plays. He encouraged another son to appear in a play with him and continues to be involved with RMT as the theater’s photographer.

Though that free time dried up after he was elected as mayor, the love of the theater RMT inspired has fueled Russell’s efforts to establish a larger theater that would serve all of south Davis.

I assume that Russell is still the RMT’s photographer (I think the following paragraph refers to his acting carreer). Nevertheless, it appears my source was right. I’ve stated, numerous times before, that the Rap Tax is the type of tax ripe for use for politician’s pet projects, it appears that is the case from the start. That also begs the question: are any other council members or mayors involved with RMT?

Centerville is also planning on using your tax dollars to tell you how great government is.

Ending on the positive: I need to say a “thank you” to the Centerville City Council and the Mayor for this: Centerville to increase military utility waiver

The Cost of Public Service (Weber-Davis City Councils, Bountiful Tops List)(Correction)

The Standard Examiner put up an editorial entitled “‘Public service’, for a price” based on a compensation survey their correspondent, Katie Ellis, conducted on Weber and Davis city councils. Excerpt follows:

The extremes are Huntsville and Bountiful. It’s often said — but rarely with sincerity — by people who run for city council that all they want to do is help their community. Huntsville makes sure there’s no debate about that claim, since it pays members of its city council $1 per year. As Councilman Jim Truett told Ellis, “Everyone who serves loves Huntsville. It’s like it’s your turn.”

The people serving on the Bountiful City Council may be doing so for altruistic reasons, as well, but the blow to their bank accounts is somewhat softened by $1,454 per month in return for their time and efforts. For most people — not necessarily those serving on the council — that would be a good part-time job.

Every other city falls somewhere in between. The averages, according to Ellis, are $419 per month for each council member in Weber County cities, and $643 for their counterparts in Davis County municipalities.

For most cities, the salaries have inched up bit by bit over decades. Other city councils have voted themselves huge increases all at once — like West Haven: City council members there just voted themselves raises from $450 per month to $1,260 per month, with retirement benefits. That’s a 280 percent bump.

<snip>

Sadly, it is the custom among many politicians to beg voters for the job, then grumble about inadequate compensation after being elected until they’ve convinced their colleagues and the public to support an increase in compensation.

I tried to find Ellis’ story on the Standard’s site but was unable to find it. If I do, I’ll update this post with a link to the original article.

Bountiful council members come out with $17,448/year, West Haven went from $5,400/year to $15,120/year, while the Davis county average is $7,716/year (Weber is $5,028/year - I assume that includes the Ogden City Council). I like Huntsville’s $1.

Correction (1/17/08 ): I managed to get the original article (not available on the web). Bountiful is not at the top, Clearfield is at ($1,540/month). However, that figure may factor in health insurance which many council members do not accept. If Bountiful doesn’t offer health insurance or all council members accepted the benefit, then it would top the ‘compensation list’ (unfortunately, the article does not specify). Since the editorial alluded to Bountiful being the high, I wonder if that is not, indeed, the case (Bountiful being the top for liquid pay) otherwise, I think the editorial would have highlighted Clearfield.