Halt! Your papers!

"The Wall Street Journal":

"Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain."

This is the latest incarnation of an old idea which has been implemented helter-skelter, primarily through the Social Security system and some immigrant control programs such as the "voluntary" e-Verify.

But now, led by Schumer and Graham, your senators are thinking of making it universal, something like the much-battered Real ID plan.

In the 1950s and 60, progenitors of Schumer-like statists made international reputations at the expense of a South African government which required "passes" of all black persons traveling away from their home village environs. The hysterical proto-Schumers weren't upset at the pass system as such, only that it did not apply also to whites. The Left held then, as it does now, that tyranny is acceptable if universal; only discrimination makes tyranny naughty.

(Secretly, of course, the 60s American Fabians welcomed the African diversion which permitted hours of self-righteous spewing in lieu of those politically dangerous chores of handling crucial domestic problems such as how to make Peter Paul and Mary shut up.)

You might write your senator and ask him if he'll pretty please say no. Or at least promise us the United States Internal Security and Domestic Passport Law of 2010 will not let the cops run your pass book though the health, firearms, and credit rating databases. To do that a vital government object would have to be served, such as satisfying the morbid curiosity of your demented ex-brother-in-law who owes you money and currently has a job as a Department of Homeland Security computer programmer.

The Dog bites Grandma

His Obamaness is so desperate to salvage anything from his foray into the world of socialized medicine that he's now touting bounty hunters to hound your grandma.

Dog and his tattooed offspring will make damned sure Granny didn't claim to be sick when she really was just pissed off because the cable teevee went on the futz and she had to go the hospital so as not to miss any episodes of "All My Rotten Kids" or whateverthehell soap she likes.

Look, folks, keeping people from stealing money, even government money, is something a proper society does. So is getting stolen money back to its rightful owners.

But at what cost? Medicare and Medicaid years ago hung signs along the Yellow Brick Road to the public trough: : "Come and Get It. Quacks and Thieves Welcome." Professional hypochondriacs got engraved personal invitations.

And now electronic posses are to be deputized to wade through your most intimate records. Yeah, Washington says it will be limited to health records for people using Medicaid and Medicare. This is the same Washington that told us to go a-nationbuilding in the Middle East 'cuz there were all those nukes in Iraq.

I bet uttering the word "privacy" in Washington these days draws smirks from across the spectrum of conventional political thought -- and probably gets you a looksee for the no-fly list as a dangerous radical.

Jealousy

The Broad Ripple lady and her roomie are a couple of teases, what with their tropical bicycle riding pictures and all.

We have a certain amount of snow remaining, even in the sun-drenched areas -- about two feet as of Saturday when the old bridge was snapped on canal hike a few hundred yards from my quarters. There's a little less today, but getting across the field from the house to the water is still snow shoe work.

(No, you can't shoot there. It's inside the village limits and a game preserve to boot. I still carry a belt gun in deference to the cougar rumors.)

Write your critter

Okay, so maybe it is futile, but I still believe telling the truth to legislators is worth doing. This morning's contribution goes to a state rep here in the corn fields.

---

Dear _____,

I was taken by a subhead in the Register this morning on the programs labeled "child development."

"Fifty-nine different boards provide oversight of state empowerment efforts. Since 1998, $336 million has been spent, but the number of children helped isn't known."

What on earth does this say about (a) the laws passed by the legislature and (b) the willingness or ability of legislators to pay attention to the results of what they do?

Hiring some people and printing up a new letterhead is not necessarily a good thing, even if everyone screams, "It 's for the children!" A legislator who make this point forcefully is a legislator history will remember kindly.

He could also note that the best child development program is a caring parent with a library card.

----

I forgot to remind him that any law or program using "empowerment" in the title is 100 per cent certain to be a scam .