Photo Credit: gizmodo.com

Amid fears of travel debacles and administrative nightmares, the federal government gave California a last-minute extension to become compliant with new nationwide ID requirements.

At the mercy of the Department of Homeland Security, California had joined a number of states in dragging its feet on the new rules, meant to make drivers licenses more uniform and secure. “The latest actions by the department granted compliance extensions to California, Alaska, South Carolina and New Jersey until Oct. 10, 2016,” according to Quartz. “With these extensions, 22 states are now exempt until that date from the security requirements, known as Real ID. New Mexico and Washington state have exemptions that last through Jan. 10, and have yet to be granted extensions.”

The grab bag of states reluctant to comply with the regulations revealed two sets of political quirks. Firstly, although DHS actually lacks the legal power to enforce compliance, it has relied on a variety of regulatory carrots and sticks to sway most states. “In October, it began requiring that visitors to military bases, nuclear plants and federal facilities produce a driver’s license from a state that complies with the law, or show another form of government ID, like a passport,” the New York Times reported. “But the biggest leverage the government has over the states is commercial air travel.”

“The Department of Homeland Security said it would provide a schedule by the end of this year for when airport screeners would start accepting only driver’s licenses that complied with federal standards. It said that 120 days’ notice would be given before starting to enforce the law at airports.”

Nationwide pushback

That move confirmed the fears of personal privacy and civil liberty advocates, who have long warned of a federal drive toward an effectual national ID card. Others have focused in on the broader inefficiencies of the Transportation Security Administration, which has endured a string of high-profile scandals and failures in recent years. “We already know that Real ID noncompliance has no effect on airport security, just as we know that TSA body scanners and screening procedures don’t work. Last year, screeners had a 95 percent failure rate when Homeland Security agents tried to sneak weapons and fake explosives through TSA checkpoints at airports around the country,” wrote the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

And some activists and analysts also criticized the sheer cost of compliance. “There is no need for California to spend a dime on Real ID compliance, but the most recent analysis of AB1465 says the California DMV would incur costs of approximately $5.56 million in 2016-17 and $5.4 million each year after that,” argued Cato Institute senior fellow Jim Harper.

But, in California, the changes have impacted a different constituency as well: advocates for mainstreaming unlawful immigrants into civic life. Liberals statewide — and around the country — largely cheered when the Golden State succeeded in its negotiations last year with federal authorities around granting special drivers licenses to the otherwise undocumented. Although officials have said “the new rules are not related to California’s decision to provide drivers’ licenses to immigrants,” according to KCRA, because “[t]hose licenses were never intended to be used for air travel and are marked accordingly,” Washington’s aggressive negotiating stance — it rejected initial California designs for the special license — implied a federal interest in minimizing differences between licenses in different states.

Time running out

Adding to the atmosphere of concern, some states have already had their requests for compliance extensions rejected. “At least 19 other states recently received an extension of their exemptions, but the federal agency rejected requests for extensions from Missouri and Illinois,” KCRA reported separately. “States initially were supposed to comply with the Real ID requirements by the end of 2009. Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation to provide time for states to change their driver’s license procedures and make the necessary technological improvements.” But patience has begun to run out.

Challenging detention

Under the Obama administration, current policy has permitted the detention of mothers and children who claim they immigrated to escape violence in their country of origin; but as the Sacramento Bee reported, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in California has handed down a so-called tentative ruling that would invalidate the practice. Gee held that federal policy “violates parts of an 18-year-old court settlement regarding the detention of migrant children, according to memos that outline the tentative ruling.”

“The tentative court decision could have sweeping implications, forcing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make some difficult choices: release undocumented women and children into the community; release the children but detain the mothers; or completely overhaul the way the agency shelters the migrants until their cases are heard by immigration courts.”

The potential overhaul came amidst growing criticism of federal detention policy in California. “Even as the number of immigrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has fallen to the lowest levels since the 1970s,” the Los Angeles Times reported, “the federal government has increased spending on immigrant detention, filling 14,000 more beds last year than it did in 2006.” According to the Times, civil liberties and activist groups have complained that much of the expansion has involved contracting out detention to private firms. The country’s newest facility, in Bakersfield, came online with Geo Group, an independent prison company, handling operations.

Switching out workers

At the same time, federal immigration rules have come under fire in California from advocates for citizens themselves. One group of plaintiffs recently brought suit against the Department of Homeland Security over its new work permit policy. In addition to visas, the Daily Caller reported, DHS has decided to grant work permits to immigrants’ spouses — an estimated 100,000 of them, if all those eligible apply for the benefit.

“The complaint, filed by the Immigration Reform Law Institute on behalf of the displaced workers, alleges DHS does not have the authority to make the rule, and that the rule violates federal labor protection law. IRLI is asking the judge to halt implementation of the rule until the case is heard.”

A statewide agenda

Despite the turbulent environment, state legislators have tried to build on the protections for unlawful immigrants included in president Obama’s recently implemented executive actions. Earlier this month, Sacramento Democrats unveiled a broad package of legislative proposals designed to provide an interlocking suite of benefits to California residents who immigrated unlawfully.

As the Orange County Register noted, if passed, the new laws would beef up penalties for abuse of the E-Verify system, increase protections against fraudulent immigration attorneys and bar businesses discrimination over immigration status, citizenship or language. What’s more, the legislation would extend Medi-Cal coverage to all Californians, regardless of their legal standing as immigrants.

In an effort to build some internal management of the new proposed measures into California law, state Democrats also pushed to include an “Office of New Americans” within the governor’s office, tasked to smooth the regulatory and social road for beneficiaries.

California’s extension of drivers license privileges to unlawful immigrants was worked out in close consultation with regulators in Washington. But critics warned that the new measures threatened to conflict with known federal law. At the Daily Beast, Reuben Navarette observed that the Immigration Reform and Control Act, passed in 1986, “made it a federal crime to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant. Now California wants to make it a state crime to not hire one? Employers can now pick their poison: They can violate one law or the other.”

Meanwhile, Navarette noted, the Medi-Cal proposal lacks a source of funding, despite likely costs in excess of $1 billion.

By Katy Grimes

The state of California is pushing welfare and food stamps very hard. They constantly advertise on the radio and television, and must have a huge public relations budget… paid for courtesy of taxpayers.

Here’s one ad for the “Women, infants and children” program:

Welcome to the WIC Show!
The show about WIC, for WIC and by WIC!

On our channel you’ll find five half-hour episodes made up of different segments that will interest everyone, especially parents of young children and pregnant women. 

The shows are designed to reinforce California’s Women, Infants and Children (WIC) education programs, highlight WIC service while at the same time entertain WIC clients.

Once you are in these programs, you get hooked into other programs: county health care, housing, school, daycare. Eventually, the government runs everything in the lives of those on government assistance. It’s no wonder President barack Obama got reelected.

CalFresh

The WIC ad says, “the food program is not a welfare program,” but you have a state case worker.

We can’t even call welfare what it is.

Food-stamp benefits usage is at an all time high. 46 million Americans are on welfare and use food stamps. One-third of all welfare recipients are in California.

The name of the California welfare food stamp program was changed to “CalFresh,” to take the stigma out of using welfare benefits. Recipients are given a debit card so they look like every other shopper when purchasing their items.

In Los Angeles County, more than one million people are signed up for the food stamp and welfare benefits, ranging from $200 to $1,500 a month.

In 2011, the federal Department of Food and Agriculture went all out on a national media awareness program. Here is a schedule of media buys in just L.A. County.

This was done because in some areas, welfare agencies believed that communities were “under served.” In Sacramento County, the Board of Supervisors even got involved, allowing the Sacramento Hunger Coalition to drive a campaign to expand the number of recipients.

“The Sacramento Hunger Coalition was founded in 1989 and now resides as a project of the Sacramento Housing Alliance’s Coalition on Regional Equity (CORE)’s food justice work,” the website says.

What a clever way to expand government. But welfare has become a giant ponzi scheme.

Even more interesting, is the list of publications below from the Sacramento Hunger Coalition… the links go nowhere. But this was what the entire hunger in Sacramento campaign was based on.

Hunger Hits Home 2012: Understanding & Combating Hunger in Sacramento County

A Primer on the Restaurant Meals Program in California: Preventing Hunger Among the Elderly, Disabled & Homeless in the Golden State

Homeless Nutrition Education Toolkit: A Resource for Nutrition Educators and Emergency Food Providers

Hunger and Homelessness in Sacramento: 2010 Hunger & Food Insecurity Report

I finally found one of the reports on hunger in Sacramento – I hope no one got paid to produce this.

Other government advertising

I hear government paid radio ads for bullying, FEMA, flood insurance,  Homeland security disaster preparedness,  the CA Earthquake Authority insurance, and ads about housing discrimination, paid for by the federal Housing and Urban Development department.

What a scam, all paid for by taxpayers.

By Katy Grimes

Crooks are breaking into banks and stealing money. But it’s not Baby Face Nelson or Jesse James doing the robberies. Today’s thieves and crooks don’t have cool sounding names. These are nameless, faceless, anonymous cyber thieves.

There is a growing epidemic of online financial transaction theft from American banks and financial institutions.  Just since 2008, cyber thieves have stolen millions of dollars from small businesses, school districts, churches, public libraries, municipalities, water districts and nonprofits.

If your personal bank account is hacked and money is taken, your money is safe from cyber theft. But that’s not the case with commercial accounts as they are not protected from cyber theft by the FDIC.

Corporate Account Takeover

Identity fraud and financial theft via electronic fund transfers by cyber thieves is called “Corporate Account Takeover.” Americans think our banks are safe and our money is protected, but not all banks are equal.

Many banks with authoritative, secure sounding names are not secure, nor are they taking the responsibility for protecting commercial accounts.

According to a recent victims’ survey by cyber security giant Symantec, “Corporate Account Takeover” attacks against small businesses doubled in 2012, reported Krebs on Security. While many financial institutions make good on depositors losses from Corporate Account Takeover fraud and theft, many more disclaim any responsibility for such losses.

While private businesses are the most common targets of cyber theft, counties, towns, municipal governments, schools, water districts, public libraries, churches, colleges and universities, nonprofit organizations, and even the Roman Catholic Diocese of Des Moines, Iowa have all been victims.

Most cyber attacks are launched by foreign cyber criminals based in Ukraine, Bylorussia, Moldova and other Eastern European nations, according to the EU Observer.

Cyber theft is a nasty crime, and unfortunately under the radar of most Americans. But the crime is growing, and will touch nearly everyone at some point.

Oil producer targeted

TRC Operating Company, an independent oil producer located in Taft, Calif., sued its bank to recover $299,600 that very well-organized cyber thieves stole last November from the company accounts.

It wasn’t until three wire transfers, totaling $587,360, were successfully completed, and nine additional transfers were simultaneously attempted, that United Security Bank of Fresno contacted TRC to find out what the payments were for.

Because banks are not required to reimburse commercial accounts for cyber theft, TRC had to turn to the courts and file a lawsuit to get its money back.

Even the federal government has gotten involved legally, filing an official written agreement with United Security Bank, to strengthen bank oversight.

The FBI and cyber theft

In September 2011, FBI Assistant Director Gordon M. Snow testified before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services that the FBI had been investigating more than 400 cases of cyber theft, representing nearly $255 million in losses from small business accounts.

Ukrainian cybercriminals gained access to TRC’s bank account and used the information to attempt to make the unauthorized wire transfers totaling more than $3.4 million to offshore bank accounts in Ukraine.  Unfortunately, because United Security Bank of Fresno allowed more than $500,000 to be transferred out of TRC’s account without the approval of TRC company officials, TRC sued the bank.

Not all of the transfers went through, but the Ukranian cyber thieves still managed to steal nearly $300,000 from TRC’s bank account.

Commercial versus personal banking

According to yourmoneyisnotsafeinthebank.org, federal regulations compel banks to make good on losses to personal accounts, however they occur. But the same is not true of commercial accounts that are accessed online.

Small and medium sized banks do not run online banking systems themselves; they outsource it to one of 13 “processors,” to whom the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council does not directly apply, according to yourmoneyisnotsafeinthebank.org .

Problem Bank List

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation maintains a Problem Bank List, containing the names of banking institutions most likely to have weak capital positions that can lead to failure.

The FDIC does not publicize the list for fear of causing a run on the banks involved. The unofficial Problem Bank List, published by calculatedriskblog.com, contains the names of financial institutions that have been issued federal enforcement actions by banking regulators.

The unofficial Problem Bank List currently lists 898 institutions, as opposed to the 732 on the FDIC Problem Bank List.

Recent legal decisions

Three recent court decisions in Maine, Michigan and California established important precedents in favor of CAT victims, requiring banks to reimburse losses.

In Michigan, a judge ruled in favor of Experi-Metal in a lawsuit against regional banking giant Comerica. The judge determined that Comerica’s negligence had permitted astonishing numbers of unauthorized electronic fund transfers over a period of almost a week before taking action.

In Maine, the lawsuit of Patco Construction Company against Ocean Bank, which a Maine circuit court judge originally determined in favor of Ocean, was over-ruled on appeal.  In overriding the circuit court decision, the appellate judge ruled that Ocean had not implemented adequate security protection for depositors.

In California, a judge’s decision in favor of cyber victim Village View Escrow Company in Redondo Beach required the bank to reimburse all lost deposits and awarded enough damages to cover extensive legal costs.

Professional Business Bank agreed to settle a wire transfer fraud litigation matter relating to a cyber-theft of more than $393,000 from Village View Escrow’s trust account at the bank, according to the Silicon Valley Law Group, which represented Village View Escrow.  The escrow company recovered more than the full amount of the funds taken from the account plus interest.

What’s next?

Congress has done nothing yet to address the growing epidemic of international financial terrorism of cyber theft.

“In 2009, President Obama recognized the need to increase education and dialogue about cybersecurity,” the Department of Homeland Security website states. “Recognizing the importance of cybersecurity, President Obama designated October as National Cyber Security Awareness month,” the Homeland Security agency announced.

Ever the useful agency, the brain trust at Homeland Security reminds us that “being safer and more secure online is a shared responsibility,” and “Together, we can maintain a cyberspace that is safer and more resilient, and that remains a source of tremendous opportunity and growth for years and years to come.”

Put that in your bank account and spend it.