The New York Times reports that Voter ID laws are back in court again in spite of the Supreme Court having ruled that they're OK.
A federal trial in Milwaukee on Wisconsin's 2011 voter ID law concluded recently, ...
The Wisconsin law, which is now on hold, is among the strictest in the country. It requires a voter to show poll workers government-issued photo identification, like a driver's license or passport.
As many have pointed out, we all have to show IDs to do many kinds of daily activities. Despite that, our political masters contend that requiring voters to prove that they have the right to vote is somehow discriminatory.
For example, a political scientist testified that it is likely that more than 63,000 residents of Milwaukee do not have the required photo ID, and that black residents are 40 percent more likely than whites not to have such ID. In addition, one-third of those without a photo ID do not have the underlying documents, like a birth certificate, needed to get one. [emphasis added]
This political scientist said "it is likely," which is a high-toned academic way of saying he's guessing. Nobody can possibly know how many people don't have IDs because without IDs, it's hard to tell whether any given person has been counted or not, even when voting.
The Times argues that Voter ID laws are designed to keep eligible voters from voting. They argue that the legislature didn't present any evidence of voter fraud having occurred. They didn't point out the secret ballot, which tries hard not to associate a ballot with any individual voter, makes fraud hard to prove once illegal "voters" have left the polling place.
They ignore the fact that Senator Franken, who provided the crucial 60th vote for Obamacare, won the 2010 election after the Democrats demanded recount after recount after recount. This went on long enough for Democrats to round up a bunch of previously "overlooked" ballots and put their man in Washington.
Voting is not the point of this article. Let's ignore the voting aspect and concentrate on what the Times is saying. They make the following points:
Black citizens and poor citizens are also more likely to be on welfare than the non-poor. Let's re-state the Times' observation: Most welfare recipients don't have IDs. That means they can't prove they're entitled to benefits. Our state governments shovel out tax money to people who can't prove they're entitled to our money.
Just how common is identity fraud? One reason Democrats can't find voter fraud is that they commit most of it and don't want to look very hard. Government agencies don't want to find fraud because their budget goes up when they shovel out money. Increased budgets give them more people, and more people boosts their rank and pay. The more fraud they tolerate, the more money they're allowed to spend.
In explaining how "big data" can be used to combat fraud, the Economist reported:
UNCLE SAM is being bilked, big-time. Losses from health-care scams alone are between $70 billion and $240 billion a year, reckons the FBI. ... The self-proclaimed first lady of tax-refund fraud is Rashia Wilson who, along with her eager associates, claimed bogus rebates of more than $11m.
The filters [software that searches through massive databases] caught one woman who was claiming food stamps in all 50 states.
Massachusetts is a famously liberal state with a generous welfare system which attracts takers from all over the country. The Boston Herald reports:
The state's embattled welfare chief was forced to step down yesterday in the wake of a shocking internal report that found that a staggering 47,000 families receiving taxpayer-funded benefits are unaccounted for - and nearly $30 million in food stamp money went to recipients who were not eligible.
The shocking report, released to the Herald last night, found that the Department of Transitional Assistance has lost track of 47,087 households on welfare - or one out of 10 of the total 478,000 who received DTA mailings.
The state of Massachusetts can't identify 47,000 welfare families. If $30 million in food stamp money went to ineligible recipients, how many ineligible people voted? If the Democrats have their way, we'll never know.
We not only need Voter IDs, we need IDs for other government programs as well.
Over the past five years, the editors have been secretly working on a book that summarizes the fundamental viewpoints of Scragged.