[FoRK] Newsroom score: American Taliban
sean at conman.org
Wed Aug 29 20:46:40 PDT 2012
It was thus said that the Great B.K. DeLong once stated:
> Agreed. Greg, while in theory it is a common sense solution to stop what
> apparent little overall fraud there is many people in inner cities don't
> drive because they don't have cars, don't have passports because they
> certainly don't travel, and don't presently need a govt-issued id for
> anything else that I'm aware of.
> Do they need it for collecting welfare or disability?
Interesting you bring that up. I did some reasearch earlier, but decided
against posting this, as welfare  isn't a right like voting  and as
such and thus, not really comparable. But since you bring it up ...
I picked two states for this as I didn't feel like doing all your
homework, but I think that the results for Massachusetts and California are
typical for the country (or at least the bluer portions of our country, the
ones most vocal about voter disenfranchisement ).
Onward ... Massachusetts  requires proof of identity (driver's license,
birth certificate or other proof of identity), proof of Massachusetts
residence, income and status of citizenship to apply; I'm not sure about
picking up the assistance. But for application---yes, you need an ID.
California  just states "proof of identification and income." Also,
further down, it mentions the use of your Social Security Number will be
checked as well. So again, you need ID to apply, but it says nothing about
collecting the assistance.
-spc (So in a state without voter ID requirements, like California, what's
to stop someone from walking into a voting center and claiming to be
 I realize this is a loaded word, but I don't remember the
politically correct terminology and for that, I apologize.
 And I don't intend for this to turn into a "welfare is a right" type
argument. I'm just presenting some facts I found.
 Funny story---a friend of mine, a self-described liberal, staunch
Democrat, has, on a few occasions, told me directly (in front of
witnesses) that I should *NOT* be allowed to vote. Yet these days,
he's screaming about voter disenfranchisement from those
eeeeeeeeevil Repuglicans. I think the hypocrisy is lost on him ...
(and believe me, it took longer to find this for California than it
did for Massachusetts---talk about disenfranchisement ... )
More information about the FoRK