Did You Know You Also Have a Uniform Birth Number?

Did You Know You Also Have a Uniform Birth Number?

By Aaron and Melissa Dykes

In Carroll Quigley’s 1966 book Tragedy & Hope, he discusses bluntly how our freedom [would] continuously dwindle throughout the remainder of the 20th century and beyond under a type of neofeudalism imposed by the burgeoning scientific dictatorship:

Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.

When we first read this statement, besides the oily revulsion we felt at how true his future predictions turned out to be, we couldn’t believe how accurate he was right down to our social security numbers.

But wait… was what Quigley meant by “numbered from birth” and followed “as a number” specifically referring to our SSN?

If you were not otherwise aware, there is another number assigned to each baby born in the U.S. under a separate  program that came about sometime in 1948 (not too long after the National Security Act was passed). It was known at the time as the “Uniform Birth Numbering System.” It’s not a number you are openly informed about as a parent filling out a birth certificate for your baby, a certificate you are told is just “for the record.”

In fact, the most in-depth information we could find on the Uniform Birth Numbering System came from an interesting source… the March 1951 edition of Eugenical News (Vol. 36, No. 1), published by the American Eugenics Society.

Here’s the editor’s note:

Some advocates of family eugenics who have had experience in tracing pedigrees of registered animals and also know the difficulties in trying to trace many relationships in human genealogy see in the uniform birth numbering system described below some ideas which may be interesting in the future to those who want to know more about their family lines… The suggestion of eugenic use of uniform birth registration is supplementary to the uses indicated in the third paragraph of the letter printed below.

The third paragraph:

The principal innovation introduced by the uniform numbering system is the fact that each certificate will have a unique number which cannot be duplicated until one hundred years have passed [note: the year 2051]. This makes the birth certificate number a potential identity number, a positive name, which may some day make it usable not only in birth record files but in all other file and record systems which keep track of persons, their rights or their documents.

 “Their rights?”

Note, the social security number had already been around at this point since 1936.

The article goes on to say, “the possibility of its use to simplify all sorts of identification problems is very interesting to all sorts of people…”

Very interesting, indeed.

The Uniform Birth Number is made up of 11 digits in three groups, a lot like the social security number: 000 – 00 – 000000. Each state has its own three digit “birth number area code” which comprises the first number; the middle section is the last two digits of the year the person is born; and the last portion is “a simple serial number” we all receive when our birth certificate is issued in relation to the year and place we are born.

The article discusses linking this number to our birth, death, marriage and/or divorce and for its invaluable use in the future in tabulating statistics for those in the fields of health, welfare, and population. The author, Herbert P. Dunning, writing from the National Office of Vital Statistics, Public Health Service, Federal Security Agency, laments that it will be awhile before the numbers will become really useful in these fields, since it will be awhile before a large enough portion of the population is assigned their birth number. He also notes, “It may be longer still before the individual citizen finds reason to inform himself of his birth number and use it in other records.”

Hm. Have you ever found a reason to inform yourself of your “birth number”?

We didn’t, until today.

Dunning ends the article by saying he hopes it answers the questions of the person with whom he corresponded at the American Eugenics Society, and he mentions that, “So few citizens have taken the trouble to inquire about the plan that we have not yet had reason to prepare any informational leaflets on the subject.”

How would anyone back in the late ’40s even have heard about “the plan” enough to inquire about it in the first place? It doesn’t seem like something the government was very forthcoming about. Turns out, they still aren’t.

That was 64 years ago and there still aren’t any informational leaflets on the subject that we can find. An Internet search for “Uniform Birth Numbering System” yields very little on the topic. A 1952 issue of “The Rotarian” mentions briefly that the whole system actually went into full swing January 1, 1949.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a page for its Program Operations Manual System (POMS) that includes the birth area codes chart and explains that state registrars use this number when issuing birth certificates. The birth number is double checked when issuing social security cards. The site doesn’t expand any further on other possible government uses for the birth number.

Again, according to the agency’s official webpage on the history of social security numbers, “The best we can say with certainty is that the first SSN was issued sometime in mid-November 1936.” (The best they can say with certainty? Sounds pretty sloppy…)

That means the Uniform Birth Numbering System, while obviously used in conjunction with SSNs later as an afterthought, was not required for someone to receive one because SSNs were around for well over a decade before the birth number ever existed.

So why exactly are we assigned two different identification numbers by the federal government?

Note that most hospitals these days absolutely will not allow new parents to leave the hospital with their babies without filling out a birth certificate form first.

SSNs, however, can be put off a bit until it’s required on one form or another sometime down the line.

It has been suggested this birth number is actually traded on the stock exchange…. that our birth certificates are a contract that creates a fictitious legal entity otherwise known as our strawmen (and women) for the government… that we really are slaves to the central bankers. (You can find out more about your strawman at the aptly named site yourstrawman.com.)

But others have reported that a federal DNA database is quietly being kept on all Americans born (and has been for decades now) without their express permission, a system we get added to when our blood is taken at birth during the “routine” newborn screening examination hospitals give all newborn babies.

During this exam, the baby’s heel is pricked and the blood droplets are placed on a special card that is sent to a state government lab for testing. Parents are told this is being done to detect rare, life-threatening genetic disorders (if they are even explicitly told it is being done at all). The government authorizes millions of dollars to states for these screening programs (current legislation has authorized $20 million through 2019).

This screening is mandatory in 48 states (meaning parental permission is not required). As U.S. News reported,

While some states allow parents to opt out of government storage and use, this is not parental consent. It’s dissent. It gives government first dibs to the baby’s DNA. Consent requires a form with a signature before the sample can be stored or used for research. Surrounded by the ‘fog’ of a birth, most parents won’t opt out because they don’t even know their child’s DNA has been stored. [emphasis added]

As a parent, you aren’t asked for your consent before this sample is drawn. You can dissent, meaning after it is drawn you can opt out of the storage and use of your baby’s blood that has already been drawn by government mandate. You apparently aren’t allowed to opt out from the collecting and screening process itself.

One’s birth (serial) number would certainly help with identification for a DNA database system like that, now wouldn’t it?

(Cue that episode of The X-Files where Mulder and Scully come across a mine shaft lined with hundreds of filing cabinets filled with a secret file on every American which apparently started early in the Cold War and which held a DNA sample taken from everyone without their knowledge during routine vaccinations…)

So in case you weren’t sure, you absolutely are numbered directly from birth just as Quigley said we all are (and it isn’t just by your social security number).

We have been forced onto a collectivist system under the banner of a scientific dictatorship that numbers, tracks, and traces us from the moment we are born in what we are still somehow told (sold?) is the land of the “free.”

And quite clearly the eugenicists of the day were pretty darn excited about all of the “potentials” of the new Uniform Birth Numbering System.

By the way, did you know that when the Eugenics Record Office was officially shut down, it wasn’t entirely closed?

No, they just changed the name… to the Genetics Record Office.


Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton Dykes created TruthstreamMedia.com as an outlet to examine the news, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free…

From Activist Post @ www.activistpost.com/2015/10/did-you-know-you-also-have-a-uniform-birth-number.html

For more information about space migration see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/smi2le

- Scroll down through ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section

Hope you like this not for profit site -

It takes hours of work every day by a genuinely incapacitated invalid to maintain, write, edit, research, illustrate and publish this website from a tiny cabin in a remote forest

Like what we do? Please give anything you can -  

Contribute any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

(You can use a card securely if you don’t use Paypal)

Please click below -

Spare Bitcoin change?

Xtra Image by R. Ayana – https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7319/11602800996_d90eeb59e4_k.jpg

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ the top left of http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel -  https://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/playlists

New Illuminati’s OWN Youtube Videos -  

https://www.youtube.com/user/new1lluminati/videos

New Illuminati on Google+ @ For New Illuminati posts - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RamAyana0/posts

and see https://plus.google.com/115562482213600937809/posts

and google.com/+newilluminati-channel

New Illuminati on Twitter @ www.twitter.com/new_illuminati

New Illuminati on Google Follow - http://www.google.com/friendconnect/settings/edit?smpl=true&st=e%3DAOG8GaCFDeBRZ1yDY2DjCaq61tFDiwO07s%252Fwv3x8%252B%252FJgZJTLx5igbMomJIu3796Ja6n05WaS8qnJ0DLyeGk1q49tLD8m%252FhV1K%252Bq%252BQIOGOwLeWznnm5IGhzjfWzVnq5I4UJr3fw8yk%252B8W2OqwlCbL7BNsW32uouSc79Br%252BkOZQ1Fpzg6J3KMIZkzmg0%252FcPHsWUPqZv845VKS31S%252FbCm8NpINhlK1kDxUdRmcCkT37dIc4RB6PNurjCcd2%252BVkNBveCm4kAgeb8A3Q5hNj6%252FHplvQxKFI%252BW1TYBJVYqHHTKsnBPGcL6wlZdxTUwtfxWU2ZvANJQ%252F%252FUrolBwP7ovb92SZqSWMFJRnN2rsQ%253D%253D%26c%3Dpeoplesense

New Illuminations –Art(icles) by R. Ayana @ http://newilluminations.blogspot.com

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –

We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further!

This site is published under Creative Commons (Attribution) CopyRIGHT (unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged - if you give attribution to the work & author and include all links in the original (along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution!

If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

A guaranteed income for everyone would eliminate poverty — and it wouldn't destroy the economy

A guaranteed income for everyone would eliminate poverty — and it wouldn't destroy the economy

 

Not how an ideal basic income would be distributed. (Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images)

 by Dylan Matthews

 

 Eliminating poverty seems like an impossibly utopian goal, but it's actually pretty easy: we can just give people enough money that they're above the poverty line. That idea, known as a basic income, has been around forever, but it's made a comeback in recent years.

And it's a sign of how far it's come that opponents of the idea are beginning to feel the need to make arguments against it. Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, in The Week, is the latest to present a case against, and grounds it almost entirely in the findings of a series of experiments on a variant of the basic income known as a "negative income tax" conducted in the 1970s, which he says show the idea is doomed to failure.

Not so fast — the experiments raise valid worries, but they hardly herald doom, and still suggest that a negative income tax could eliminate poverty at a manageable cost.

 

The 1970s experiments

 

President Nixon and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who designed his negative income tax plan. (Nixon Foundation)

A negative income tax isn't precisely the same thing as a basic income, but it's related: after giving everyone a cash grant, an NIT rapidly taxes it away, such that the vast majority of taxpayers get no money back at all. For example, Richard Nixon, during his first year as president, proposed a negative income tax that would pay around $10,000 in 2014 dollars to a family of four, and then tax it away at a 50 percent rate until families earning above $20,000 or so stopped getting anything at all.

The four experiments Gobry cites — conducted in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Seattle, Denver, and Gary, Indiana, with samples totaling about 7,500 people — are, along with a similar experiment done around the same time in Manitoba, the most comprehensive tests to date of negative income taxes. They tried various cash grant sizes (from 50 percent of the poverty line to 148 percent) and phaseout rates (from 30 percent to 75 percent), enabling a more detailed look at how the plan's components interacted with each other.

The studies found that the policy was beneficial to those getting the money, but tended to modestly reduce the number of hours they worked, and the amount they earned. The latter is a potential cost worth weighing against the policy's benefits. But to Gobry, it's definitive proof the plan is defective. "Millions of people who could work won't, just listing away in socially destructive idleness (with the consequences of this lost productivity reverberating throughout the society in lower growth and, probably, lower employment, in a UBI-enabled vicious cycle)," Gobry concludes.

 

The problems with concluding too much

 

The Old Miller School in Gary, Indiana, one of the sites of the negative income tax experiment. (Chris Light/Wikimedia)

Gobry is right that the negative income tax experiments are the best test we have of this policy to date. But "best" does not equal perfect. My concern is that Gobry reads the experiments to be saying more than they are in fact saying, given both flaws and limitations in their methodologies and other conclusions they came to that Gobry failed to mention. Here are a few concerns worth raising.

1. "Worked less" sometimes means "the results were underreported."

 

This is the big one. Brookings' Gary Burtless, writing up the results, noted that the Gary and Seattle/Denver experiments relied on self-reported earnings information, rather than using official government records. When the findings were cross-referenced with actual earnings data, the labor force effects in Gary disappeared entirely, and the Seattle/Denver ones were diminished considerably.

As Princeton's Orley Ashenfelter noted in a response to Burtless, this throws the entire conclusion that negative income taxes reduce labor supply into jeopardy. "Who is to say whether there would be any labor supply response, further income underreporting, or neither, if an experiment with conventional administrative procedures were implemented?" he asks. "Only an experiment fully informed at the design stage about the possibility for income underreporting, and that tested for its effect, would shed any light on this critical issue. Sadly, the design of none of these experiments was so informed."

2. "Worked less" does not necessarily mean "dropped out of the labor force forever"

 

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that underreporting doesn't invalidate all these results. That still doesn't mean the experiments are the slam-dunk case against basic income Gobry takes them to be.

For one thing, it's worth differentiating different ways that labor supply can fall. The most obvious way is that people will drop out of the labor force entirely. But as Georgetown philosopher Karl Widerquist, a vocal advocate for a basic income, noted in his write-up of the experiments, researchers didn't find any evidence that happened. "Would a large number of people respond to an NIT by withdrawing entirely from the labor force?" he asked. "The experiments found no evidence of such behavior. Some of the experimenters said that they were unable to find even a single instance of labor-market withdrawal."

So what happened, then? Burtless reported that the apparent decline in labor supply didn't come primarily from a reduction in hours worked either. It's not that people who had previously been working 60 hour weeks waiting tables cut back to 40 hours.

The remaining explanation, once we've ruled out reduced hours and permanent labor force drop-outs as major factors, is longer spells of unemployment. That has obvious costs; unemployment is generally bad for one's well-being. But the key here is that the negative income tax resulted in people choosing to remain unemployed for a longer stint; presumably, this is more pleasant than involuntarily elongated unemployment.

Further, the most obvious interpretation is that people are waiting longer to find a good job match, or are quitting bad jobs in favor of searching for better ones. Those responses have efficiency advantages and, in the long-run, connecting people with more pleasurable and rewarding work should increase well-being, something worth weighing against the well-being cost of increased unemployment.

3. "Worked less" sometimes means "got more education"

 

Another factor is people withdrawing from the labor force to pursue more education. Stanford's Eric Hanushek, evaluating the non-labor force effects of the experiments, found that "for youth the reduction in labor supply brought about by the negative income tax is almost perfectly offset by increased school attendance."

That's not the only positive education finding. One study looking at the New Jersey experiment found that a negative income tax of mid-range generosity increased odds of completing high school by 25 to 30 percent; a similar analysis of the Seattle-Denver experiments put the number at 11 percent. While the evidence on academic performance was more limited, there was some evidence that children in NIT households did better at standardized tests in lower grades.

4. "Worked less" is sometimes a good thing

 

Apart from the special case of education, it's worth asking, in general, whether maximizing labor force participation is actually a good thing, or whether there's more to human flourishing than just that. This is not to say that work is unimportant. Gobry notes research suggesting that unemployment comes at a significant well-being cost, and while some of that is probably due to financial stress more than a lack of psychic fulfillment from work, the latter factor is part of the picture.

But especially in cases where people are choosing not to work, it's worth asking whether they're being irrational, and setting themselves up for unhappiness, or whether they've actually identified something besides work that create even more value in their lives. The whole point of Social Security, for instance, is that at some point in one's life having a leisurely retirement is better for well-being than continuing to work. Social Security and private retirement savings almost certainly have a much more negative effect on labor force participation than a negative income tax would, and yet we all, correctly, have decided that's besides the point.

So it's worth considering whether some of the decrease in labor force participation hypothetically caused by a negative income tax would be desirable. What if a household uses the money to quit a part-time job in favor of caring for a chronically ill child? What if they use it to retire a few years early? What if they use it to finance a long vacation between jobs? I don't actually think any of those phenomena are big problems policymakers should be eager to avoid.

5. You can only know so much from short experiments

 

The final caveat is that extrapolating from short-term, small-scale experiments like these to determine the effect of a national or state-wide policy would have is fraught with peril. The experiments didn't apply to everyone in the municipalities in question; they were targeted at small, low-income subsets of the population. Would the same results hold if everyone were getting the check? You could imagine a permanent plan either having a more positive impact, by triggering macro effects like employers bidding up wages to convince people to stay in the labor market, or a more negative one, by assuring people that staying out of work longer is going to be viable long-term. We don't know which of those would actually occur.

Scaling an idea like this up from pilot to actual program introduces a wide array of confounding factors. When you find big effects, then it's plausible those confounding factors won't be enough to make them go away. But with results as small as the experiments' findings on labor supply (or the findings on education, to be fair), it's likely they'll be overwhelmed by these new complications, and the impact of a national program will look significantly different from what was found at the hyper-local level. As Gobry says, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) like these experiments are among the best tools policymakers have. But what they give us in scientific validity, they lose in scope.

 

What we should be debating

 

Lyndon Johnson on his "poverty tour" of Appalachia, pegged to the start of the War on Poverty. (LBJ Presidential Library)

When researchers come to small and somewhat sensitive-to-error conclusions about a policy's effects, the findings become a bit of a Rorschach test, with interpretations reflecting the policy preferences of those doing the interpreting (myself very much included) more than they do the underlying facts.

"The prevalence of small effects opens the way to alternative interpretations of the research findings," Nobel economist Robert Solow, commenting on the results, wrote. "The interpretation adopted will depend a lot on the interpreter's ideological and doctrinal preconceptions and only a little on the detailed experimental results themselves.

But one finding we can rely on, with some degree of confidence, is the conclusion of Burtless and others who have evaluated the negative income tax experiments that a national NIT big enough to eliminate poverty isn't budgetarily unviable.

Widerquist notes that studies estimating the cost of compensating for lost earnings could increase the cost of the program  5 percent (at the low end) or nearly triple it (at the high end). Burtless, who produced the high-end estimate, concluded that a generous plan set to 100 percent of the poverty line would all the same only cost about 1.5 percent of GNP (which is basically the same as GDP where the US is concerned) a year on top of existing welfare programs. That's a rough estimate, especially give how much welfare programs have changed since Burtless was writing — Demos's Matt Bruenig has more current numbers here — but going from the federal government being 21.1 percent of GDP to 22.6 percent or thereabouts is hardly a sea change. And yet that's, roughly, all it would take to eliminate poverty in America.

So here's my takeaway: a negative income tax or basic income of sufficient size would, by definition, eliminate poverty. We still don't know if there'd be much of a cost in terms of people working and earning less. If there is, the effect is almost certainly small enough that a negative income tax can offset the lost earnings and remain affordable. The worst case scenario is that we eliminate poverty but see a modest decline in employment. The best case scenario is we eliminate poverty at even lower cost and don't see much of an effect on employment. That's a gamble I'm willing to take.


From Vox @ http://www.vox.com/2014/7/23/5925041/guaranteed-income-basic-poverty-gobry-labor-supply


For more information about the obvious and simple solution known as guaranteed income see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/guaranteed%20income
- Scroll down through ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section

Hope you like this not for profit site -

It takes hours of work every day to maintain, write, edit, research, illustrate and publish this website from a tiny cabin in a remote forest

Like what we do? Please give enough for a meal or drink if you can -  

Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

Please click below -

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed

New Illuminati on Google+ @ https://plus.google.com/115562482213600937809/posts

New Illuminati on Twitter @ www.twitter.com/new_illuminati

New Illuminati on Google Follow - http://www.google.com/friendconnect/settings/edit?smpl=true&st=e%3DAOG8GaCFDeBRZ1yDY2DjCaq61tFDiwO07s%252Fwv3x8%252B%252FJgZJTLx5igbMomJIu3796Ja6n05WaS8qnJ0DLyeGk1q49tLD8m%252FhV1K%252Bq%252BQIOGOwLeWznnm5IGhzjfWzVnq5I4UJr3fw8yk%252B8W2OqwlCbL7BNsW32uouSc79Br%252BkOZQ1Fpzg6J3KMIZkzmg0%252FcPHsWUPqZv845VKS31S%252FbCm8NpINhlK1kDxUdRmcCkT37dIc4RB6PNurjCcd2%252BVkNBveCm4kAgeb8A3Q5hNj6%252FHplvQxKFI%252BW1TYBJVYqHHTKsnBPGcL6wlZdxTUwtfxWU2ZvANJQ%252F%252FUrolBwP7ovb92SZqSWMFJRnN2rsQ%253D%253D%26c%3Dpeoplesense

New Illuminations –Art(icles) by R. Ayana @ http://newilluminations.blogspot.com

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)

DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –

We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further! This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com