No Sosh Scurty crisis? (updated)

The chief counterargument to privatization of the Social Security system seems to be that "there is no crisis."

All well and good, one might conclude, funds are forecast to be plentiful in that lockbox-thingy until, uh, about the year that I might be retiring. Until then, there is no crisis, no reason to be discomfited, no reason to act. Heck, I even think the GOP is floating this idea not to save Sosh Scurty, but to shut it down.

OK, well how about this scenario?

A dummy corporation, in fact a network of dummy corporations, obtains credentials to do business with a major credit reporting agency (HT, Rick Stanley), thus getting access to the vast databases maintained on every person who has or at one time had a loan, credit card, bankruptcy, judgment, or bank account anywhere in the United States in the last 50 years or served in her armed forces since the 1970s. This much has happened.

This part has not happened, for all I know: the dummy corporations meticulously sift through these dossiers and then use dummy individuals to file false unemployment and disability claims against the Social Security "accounts" it has siphoned away numbers for, then wrecking their credit ratings. A company could sell stolen SSN's to third-parties willing to drift from place to place filing claims under multiple identities; the company could make its buck and disappear fast while the marketed identities are bled dry.

The amount of money to be stolen is far less than what could be scored by opening fraudulent credit cards or draining real bank accounts, but this lesser booty is easier to get away with. For anyone looking for it, fraudulent credit activity is easy to spot, by contacting the same credit bureaus in the first place. But how would you find out that someone has filed an unemployment claim as you? How would you know that this "account" you've created for yourself is being depleted, and when? And if you do find out, can you challenge the Social Security Administration so your own legitimate unemployment or disability claim will be honored? What will stop a third-party from holding on to a stolen identity for re-use a few years down the road?

Can't happen, right?

Then convince me there will be no crisis---that millions of retirees-to-be won't insist that Social Security accounts be privatized, one way or another, so an accountable private firm will be responsible for paying out, with stronger protections against fraud than what Social Security provides today. The crisis could be big enough to crater Social Security, if one out of, say, four people expecting SS benefits loses even a part of them because of fraud. That's probably enough for the House to draw the line, deny responsibility, and refuse to appropriate funds to repair the mess. Now who has reduced Grandma to eating dog food and living in a fridge box?

As far as I know, SS isn't even obligated to give you a new account number after an identity theft. Only if you are a victim of domestic abuse and you need to change numbers to hide from your ex. Hey, wait a minute . . . If the Social Security Administration admits that you might need to change your SSAN the better to hide yourself and kids from an abusive domestic partner, aren't they admitting that minor criminals commonly misuse the SSAN? Not to say that domestic abuse is a minor crime, but that it doesn't take Dr Evil's or the Russian mafia's vast worldwide criminal enterprises to exploit the weaknesses of the SSAN; all one needs is a bad temper and a private investigator.

But would he accept? (updated)

I recently posted on the topic of nominating somebody to the National Rifle Association Board of Directors who has his head on straight about gun rights and political strategies the NRA should pursue to secure them. The idea was floated of drafting someone from among the gun bloggers.

While reviewing the NRA BOD candidates' nominations, it occurs to me that I missed mentioning one candidate who carries respectable credentials.

NRA Life Member. Citizen-soldier for 24 years, Operation Enduring Freedom veteran, currently serving the US Air Force in active reserve capacity as an emergency preparedness specialist. Shooting enthusiast, web logger, commentator about the Right to be Left Alone. Second-degree black belt in Taekwon Do. Father of four, homebrewer, reloader, hunter, avid owner and defender of several evil-looking black guns that are not for hunting at all but were purchased expressly to practice shooting bipeds.

Well, nobody else from our crowd is bowling the rest of us over to seek the nomination (are they?). And my offer to serve as Director of TSA on the Lucas ticket just didn't garner enough enthusiasm for me to pursue it any further.

Fer Chrissakes, if bloggers can take down a CNN executive (actually, he took himself down but bloggers held the knife steady for him) or depose a Senator from a key leadership position (he took himself down too, but you get what I mean by now), can't we put a fin on the NRA BOD?

Update: It only took two comments equating me with the fraudulent Libertarian Girl for me to realize that I can't have both pseudonymity as a blogger, and public responsibility as either a United States Senator, or as a Director on the NRA Board. I'm staying pseudonymous for reasons I've made clear elsewhere, and those reasons are incompatible with either of those lofty public goals. I'm not abandoning those goals, merely deferring them until the day I become Fuz N. Pundit, USAF Retired and hang up the uniform for the last time.

Until then, I will ruminate on these pages about what I'd do in that hazy scotch-soaked future, but will not tease or coyly suggest my candidacy. That doesn't stop me from suggesting a draft of blogger or bloggers who proudly go public.

Giving Uncle 3 more years

I reupped some time ago, neglected to post anything about it, until Barbaloot discovered the photo, taken before the memorial wall at our Wing.

If only the Donks would . . .

Bill Bennett mentioned yesterday that he would try his hand at a Twenty-First Century manifesto for the Democrat party. I think Hugh Hewitt would try the same. Doubtless other bloggers and commentators have suggested it too.

"The Democrats could be a resurgent political force in the United States if only they would," [fill in the blank with your favorite killer policy prescription].

If only the Donkeys would embrace genuine tax reform and win back the small businessmen and the widows'n'orphans and the IRS victims. If only they'd pick up and run with Second Amendment rights, and recover their union rank-and-file base. If only they'd drop the pretense at Drug Warrior and stop incarcerating whole generations of black males. If only they'd give up their current infatuation with coastal elites and academics, and return to their roots among blue-collars and farmers.

If only. If only.

Every WUTT! reader has his favorite, the one sure thing that would turn the Donks' fortunes around. And I have mine.

It's not much.

Eminent domain abuse.

How better to reach out to Maw and Paw Heartland than to say "We Donkeys are really really upset, deeply livid in fact, that Big Corporations are suborning local governments into kicking ordinary people out of their houses to make way for condos, shopping malls, parking garages, and so forth. It's nothing but Corporate Welfare, and we Donks don't stand for it."

SayUncle is all over this, and so is the Institute for Justice.

None of the if-only policy proposals I've heard so far is utterly impossible for the Democrats, even an eminent-domain reform platform that runs afoul of the enviros, or a pro-gun platform that would hospitalize Chuck Schumer. Some Party leaders would be alienated, of course, but they'd come around, as they just might in '06 when Tom Daschle makes the rounds like a macabre breathing Marley's ghost and gets them thinking right about the fundamental problem, the only problem really, that of Staying In Office.

My greatest concern from all of this is that with such an opposition, the GOP can make a serious mistake and fail to realize it until it's too late. Like in the Colorado legislature this year, for example. From the point of view of individual rights and the free market, the GOP may be second-rate firemen, but the Donks are first-rate arsonists.





How about a little fire, Scarecrow?

So how come . . .

Bifocal spectacles have the lower portion of the lenses cut to a higher magnification, so someone with weaker muscles in the eye can focus more easily on fine print that is close to the eyes.

All well and good, I suppose, as long as the reader holds his head upright and trains himself to look downward. Then a good portion of his visual field is magnified, even though only the reading material that needs magnification is only a small sub-portion of that portion of the visual field. For other visual tasks at greater distances, the added magnification is useless and even gets in the way.

Bifocals could be made less awkward by limiting them to the field of view that a reader is likely to need. To wit, if the magnification is needed only for materials that are closer, then put the magnification in the area of the lenses that both eyes will be looking through when they are focused on closer objects. Eyes converge---point inward---on nearer material. So move the magnification areas closer to the nose, a little higher, and a lot smaller. They'll be where the eyes need them when reading, and out of the way for distant vision or for tracking moving objects.

If I get time I'll sketch what I mean.

Dr Freud, your slip is showing

A colleague snorted after a news story about another wedding for the British Royals, "I wonder what color of dress she'll wear."

I blurted out off-white colors that indicate less than the expected premarital purity, "Cream? Bone?"

This is virtually a concession

Also seen at VC:

Both opinions [in the DC handgun ban case] acknowledge that the Second Amendment challenge raises an arguable constitutional question

I see this as a major concession of legitimacy by the antigun crowd, tantamount to "You might have a point there." It's that niggling word "arguable" that Eugene used. English 1 students will recognize that adjective. Up to this point, antigunners would not allow that term to be used, meaning that a literal understanding of the Second Amendment would not be allowed on the table.

From here it's a matter of continued pressure. Be of good cheer and unrelenting energy.

Whew

From Volokh Conspiracy:

The New Jersey Appellate Division has just held ... that a federal statute - 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 - makes Web site operators immune from defamation liability based on items posted by users, even when the operator keeps some messages and deletes others, changes some messages, sets ground rules for the discussion, and so on. This would also mean that bloggers are immune from liability based on comments posted by others on their blogs.

This doesn't mean anything for me directly, but it should spare other blogs of any trouble from comments I might post there. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

It's gonna be a good season, Mama. Look at the whiskers on them cats

At my age, and in my current occupation, one quickly understands that one's wisdom is grounded in knowing what one does not know.

By that standard, today is a good day, because not only do I know what I don't know, but I seem to not know less that I thought I didn't.

Should I let anyone else know this?

A new favorite

I'm sure that President Bush would not nominate him, but Andrew Napolitano deserves an appointment to the Federal bench somewhere.

Read his interview in Reason's February issue (not yet online).

So how come . . .

. . . anthropomorphised female dog characters in Disney animations (well, just about anybody's animations, but Disney is in the sights at the moment) don't have six teats?

I'd image a still here but something tells me that would elicit threats of lawsuits.

I've ignored this beast for too long

It's well reviewed by anyone who picks one up or fires it, in spite of its looks and its all-plastic construction.

It's damned light, a minimalist approach to a utility carbine.

It's got the wrong caliber but maybe that can be corrected. Either Grendelization or conversion to a TCU caliber could get me interested.

It's no service rifle but wasn't meant to be. In the Charlie model, the SU-16 looks like a contender.

Alternatives to PayPal?

Who's using what? Who's got critical mass? Is critical mass even necessary for web-transacted minipayments? Is it safe to keep accounts at more than one of them? What features are better than others? I'm leery about having one directly access my bank account, less leery about credit card access. I guess it's a discussion of what I want it for, isn't it? Ease, anonymity, disconnection from credit card, disconnection from social security number, disconnection spender from earner?

Kurt's Kustom Firearms is using YowCow. Never heard of them until looking up alternatives to the AR-15's direct-impingement gas system---Kurt offers one, BTW.

And this, in a nutshell, is why I want something other than PayPal---it's none of their business what I buy using their service. If they want to restrict what I can buy, I won't use them. I still get their emails, and my emailed complaints about that policy go unanswered.

BitPass looks good, eGold looks even better but it's not really meant for micropayments. For cryptanarcholibertarians, eGold must be the shizzle.

Time again for BOD ballots

The ballots arrived again this year for NRA Board of Directors, and this year because of Neal Knox's untimely passing away, we have to evaluate the nominees without his advice.

So I'd like your help in setting criteria for who should receive gunbloggers' votes for the NRA BOD. This is especially so for fellow gunbloggers who have been disappointed (outraged?) with the NRA lately. They aren't the only game in town or even the best, but they still have pull and it's worth it to try to influence them in this new bloggy era of openness and instant communication.

• Should we eschew police officers as members, and support elected sheriffs?
  
• Should current or past elected office matter?
  
• Should Hollywood celebrity matter? John Milius and Tom Selleck are both nominees.
  
• Should nomination by NRA's nominating committee be a plus, a minus, or irrelevant?
  
• I'm embarrassed to even ask this one: do we know or can we get access to the past voting records of existing Directors up for reelection? I don't know that answer and I ought to. No finding it on NRA's website, I can't even find the friggin' bylaws there. So much for blognost.
  
• Should political party matter? Would you rather have a blue-dog Democrat trying to soften the irrational Dem gun control stance, or a lukewarm GOPer? That's an entire other policy debate but its ripples propagate to this issue.
  

Though it's way too late to seriously consider it for this year, it might be time to write-in nominate an überblogger or two to the BOD. I'd be really cool with Glenn Reynolds or Eugene Volokh. Not so cool with Hugh Hewitt.

Update: After some consideration, I think I want Glenn and Eugene right where they are, free to reason and to blog without any appearance of influence over them. Besides, we'd need different skillsets in an NRA director. What are those skillsets?

We've already been here

Strategy Page's Attrition column observes:

The Department of Defense wants a change in the regulations that govern how often reservists can be called when the nation is at war, and war has not officially been declared. Why not just declare war? There are political and practical problems with that. For one thing, there's no country to declare war against.

(Link is not permanent;  scroll if necessary to 19 January 05)

I might be reading a different US Constitution than this person, but mine does not stipulate that only a nation-state may be the recipient of US warmaking. I just don't see this as a problem. Declare it and get on with it.

Quote for the day

Shannon Love at ChicagoBoyz:

Too many people believe that revolutions can and do occur without somebody making a decision to use force if necessary.

Bring out your dead

Arnold Kling at TechCentralStation discusses some policy implications of American health-care quality and the underestimation of American longevity.
I hold up one cautionary finger and intone: all of that will be thrown into the bucket, temporarily, by one strong influenza epidemic. For which we are overdue.

Quick hits

The in-laws made it back to Western New York safely, in spite of heavy snow the day they left.

Toad is now free to eat solid food, put things in his mouth, and otherwise return to normal infant-ness. The palate repair seems to be a success.

Anduril now wears three Millett quick-disconnect sling swivel bases and two matching loops in the Carlos Weidemann 3-point configuration. Now for a sling? Then Cabinet Man and I will see if it can hit anything.

Se permite en Tejas

Colorado and Texas announce CCW reciprocity today. No link, heard on KNUS 710 radio.

Tribute to Barbaloot's Dad

While Barbaloot's folks are staying with us, her Dad gets bored easily. When we mentioned that we wanted to wreck out the carpet in the dining room and replace it with laminate flooring, he offered his experience and his patience. He even brought some tools.

The floor went down in a day and a half, interrupted regularly with having to chase Toad back downstairs and keep Mlle Sklodovska from falling down the cold-air return register.



He is talented at "cutting in," be it paint, roofing, linoleum or tile. The plank at the kitchen door was tricky, but when he had it just as he wanted it, it slipped in like a Garand bolt. Angle it like so, twist it a bit this way, that end first, easy eeeeeeeeaaaasssssyyy, pop.

When my vacation was over and I returned to work, he kept going with the moulding to cover the expansion gap at the edges of the new floor. I tell him how I appreciate and respect his work, and he just looks at me.

Did I mention he knows how to thread blackpipe?