Yes, I agree that there is a cultural undercurrent of fear around a national ID system, and I also agree that politicians are likely to game their political capital for the greatest return in their career.
What I do NOT believe is that the Social Security number just sort of came about and started being used by government services such as the IRS without anyone being responsible for that huge organizational decision or the initial (current?) lack of security controls around its implementation.
To me, it seems to be an almost certainty that it is both an organizational problem at the government service level AND (as a result) a funding problem.
They didn’t “just sort of come about”, they were created for this exact purpose of tracking government services. Over the years, the number of government services expanded because of the lack of other alternative like I said.
And the lack of security around SSNs is because they weren't intended to be secret. It is generally private sector groups like banks and credit agencies that have turned this into a problem by treating SSNs as if they are a proof of identification. They were created as usernames, but people treated them as passwords.
Fully agree, but I don't see how this refutes what I and the root-level comment (anti-IRS sentiment aside) are saying.
> the lack of security around SSNs is because they weren't intended to be secret.
The lack of security is not BECAUSE they weren't intended to be secret. The lack of security is because numerous organizations (including the IRS, until their introduction of an IP PIN) treated these "usernames" as though they were passwords.
It's not a design problem with original intent of SSNs, it's an implementation problem with any organization using them improperly. Gov't services are just as responsible as banks and credit agencies when they misuse them.
I imagine it's similar in the public sector, where funding is determined by the needs of the public, political considerations, long-term planning, and so on.
That's one of the biggest political fights in the past century: austerity, cutting public spending, and means-testing the fuck out of every social program the government even still offers. This has been the case since the 80s reagan-thatcher year. You can literally look at the budgets of major cities and easily see where the majority of spending goes. Hint: it ain't public schools. Were you not paying attention when people were talking about how much police departments get paid out of the budgets of their cities a couple years back? Have you EVER thought to actually substantiate your beliefs by actually looking up the policies that effect public spending and government budgets?
Is the answer "no"?
And it isn't just a problem with funding, it's a legislative and cultural problem too. But in the short term, without drafting up new laws or changing the culture of society, the best we can do to fix these issues is provide more funding.
except then funding is raised, and it's still a problem of funding. and inevitably, it's the evil side of the government (you know the one) that is to blame, even if there is no money to spend.
how does a public service determine when they have enough funding?