Why is this Information Not Offered?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Back in July, I posted a video a woman took while trying to get her son a voting ID in Wisconsin. At the time what I emphasized was the fact that the DMV apparently considered “bank activity” a requirement for voting. But there was more to the conversation. Given information that’s recently linked about about DMV employees being instructed NOT to offer certain information, it’s worth seeing again. The pertinent part of the conversation begins at about the 4.30 mark:

Woman: If someone were to just say thet needed a state ID card, would they know it was free, if it was for voting?

Man at DMV: Uhhh, unless they tell us it was for voting, we charge ‘em. Cause it’s….

Woman: Why is that, because with the new law, the Voter ID bill…

Man at DMV: It’s going to discourage them.

Woman: They’re…It’s supposed to be free.

Man at DMV: If it’s for…

Woman: So why wouldn’t you tell them that, right from the start, “Voter ID is free.”

Man at DMV: They’re the same card, so, unless you come in and specifically request it, we charge you for it. Like, let’s say you’re 20 and you’re going on a trip. You may not vote, so we’re still going to charge them for that card.

Woman: But would you ask them? Would you say “is this for voting, or…

Man at DMV: If they check the box, so…um, it’s, you know, one of them where… They shouldn’t even be doing any of it, but it’s one of them where they wanted to make this law, and now it’s going to affect a lot of people, so if it’s for voting, we do it for free, but we don’t know that they’re going to use it for voting.

Woman: Why don’t you have that as a, you know, I would like to ask your supervisor, why don’t you ask people, “Is this for voting? Is this ID for voting or is it for something else?”

Man at DMV: They put it on here and that satisifies the state statute so, um you know I can’t really answer that question.

Woman: I would like to ask your supervisor that question.

Man at DMV: Okay, I’ll go get him...

Supervisor: They need to ask for it. It’s something that is available but they should ask for it.

Woman: But why not ask them, “Is this a voter ID card or a regular ID card?”

Supervisor: Because… the, the, pol… (seems at a loss)

Woman: I mean, have you been given instructions?

Supervisor: Yeah, the problem, the instruction is that if someone comes in and says “I need an ID card to go and vote,” that it’s free. If it is an original issuance or a renewal. But if someone comes in and they’ve lost their ID, it’s not within its renewal period and they need a replacement, then we have to charge for it. So a replacement, a duplicate...

Woman: But couldn’t you ask them, “Is this a renewal or a replacement or is this for a Voter ID?"

Supervisor: Our instruction is to let them ask.

Woman: And so who gave you that direction?

Supervisor: Well, it’s from the powers-that-be.

Woman: Who would that be?

Supervisor: Well, that would be, the next step in my chain of command would be Tracy Howard…

In fact, it was recently revealed that the instructions came from a top Department of Transportation official Steve Kreaiser:

While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it.

If the DMV officials in the video seem a wee bit ambivalent to you, it’s probably not your imagination. Recently a Wisconsin state employee was fired for sending out an email calling people so spread the word about the free IDs.

An interview with the employee can be heard here.

Whether or not the employee was wise to do what he did, this raises questions about the motives behind this voter ID law. Why would specific instructions go out for DMV officials not to offer information that would prevent applicants from essentially paying for the right to vote?

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The insurance will be means tested. No money means no paying.

Look, you seem to be insisting that you be able to make money — a collectively recognized marker of value produced through debts sanctioned by society's laws — without being subject to any of the laws or conditions governing the participants in the money society.

What do you think would happen if you stroll onto a soccer pitch, kick everyone in the nuts, grab the ball with your hands and throw it at the opposing net, then claim victory? Would you accuse the refs of totalitarianism or slavery or oppression or being big ol' bad bullies when security comes to haul your ass away?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'...without being subject to any of the laws or conditions governing the participants in the money society.'

Isn't this like saying a slave is unjustified in being upset at his servitude while still demanding he be allowed to participate in society? I mean, society has rules and we all need to follow them.

'What do you think would happen if you stroll onto a soccer pitch, kick everyone in the nuts, grab the ball with your hands and throw it at the opposing net, then claim victory? Would you accuse the refs of totalitarianism or slavery or oppression or being big ol' bad bullies when security comes to haul your ass away?'

You violated their rights by assaulting them. You don't violate someone's rights by living.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

No, it's not about slavery, not at all. The rules governing money are (hopefully) based upon best practices verses no rules. Best practices create a sustainable and stable media of exchange (money) that can better the lives of the exchangers. No rules will quickly — as past experience demonstrates — lead to collapse of one sort or another.

People have rules that govern soccer and money. If you want to play, you need to observe those rules. That's not slavery. You are not obligated to participate. You can still lead a productive life without money. There are communities within the US that do just this.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'People have rules that govern soccer and money. If you want to play, you need to observe those rules. That's not slavery. You are not obligated to participate. You can still lead a productive life without money. There are communities within the US that do just this.'

'Best practices create a sustainable and stable media of exchange (money) that can better the lives of the exchangers.'

SS and Medicare have no connection to monetary stability.

You know that it's not cash that's taxed but value exchanged. If someone gave me something valued at $50k due to my laboring for them then it's taxed as if it were money. So yea, the only solution you have is don't do anything.

But why you would think that rules for money and rules for society are one in the same is baffling. There's no reason why SS and Medicare or any other forced scheme the gov't has should be tied to commerce. It exists only because of popularity. Which is why I think any dismissal of complaints about it due to "societal law" is akin to dismissing slavery concerns due to the same.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

SS and Medicare have no connection to monetary stability.

I would strongly disagree. Explaining why would be a post in and of itself.

You know that it's not cash that's taxed but value exchanged.

Only if the value has been monetized. Your example of exchanging labor for $50K of value proves a perfect example. I can think of several examples of barter, gift, and other exchange types in my own life that, should I expand their practice, would reduce my use of money without overtly impacting my lifestyle.

Would I be able to completely negate my money impact and thus avoid taxation? Probably not, but then I'm not the one who falsely equates taxation with slavery, so there you go. In fact, I like voting in higher taxes, provided the service to society the taxes provide seem worth the investment.

That said, I think this thread has strayed far enough from the OP.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"Only if the value has been monetized"

The problem is that this only works if it's a straight trade of services, that the IRS cannot show any actual money being involved, example I repair your roof leak and you fix my plumbing problem (I hate doing plumbing). However even this is iffy, at least in California, since, as I understand it, in construction trading, a value must be assessed, so that it CAN be counted as income.

As a mod, I have to say I really enjoyed this exchange between you an Bogey :D

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

*bows*

I'm happy to have entertained!

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Well TBH I was referring to the overall "tone" and quality ......for "entertainment" purposes the comments we have to delete are generally much more so :D

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Only if the value has been monetized.'

The IRS disagrees.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/yankees-fan-caught-derek-jeter-ball-pickle-irs/story?id=14054473

http://www.taxabletalk.com/2007/07/25/so-you-catch-barry-bonds-756th-homer-did-you-just-lose-100000/

The IRS can proceed on any value exchanged if they feel they're not receiving their cut.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the links....it's nice to know I know what I'm talking about sometimes :D