The United States has outsourced the manufacturing of its electronic passports to overseas companies — including one in Thailand that was victimized by Chinese espionage — raising concerns that cost savings are being put ahead of national security, an investigation by The Washington Times has found.

The Government Printing Office's decision to export the work has proved lucrative, allowing the agency to book more than $100 million in recent profits by charging the State Department more money for blank passports than it actually costs to make them, according to interviews with federal officials and documents obtained by The Times.

The profits have raised questions both inside the agency and in Congress because the law that created GPO as the federal government's official printer explicitly requires the agency to break even by charging only enough to recover its costs. - Washington Times

This reminds me of Michigan's outsourcing its unemployment office to India, thus putting some of its own citizens out of work. (In the process, no doubt, making it much more fun to file claims over the phone. "What?" "What?" "Can you spell that?" "What?")

So an operation in Thailand could have my name, address, social security number and photograph? Why didn't they just go for broke and award the contract in Nigeria?

Nigeria turned it down. They are too busy with "other ventures."

The best thing in that scary link is the statement from the Public Printer, Mr Tapella, near the end of page 2. He says they had produced " accelerated revenue recognition". That's real security. The man speaks in code. At a guess, he means " quick profit"

Remember, Fred, this is a country whose president once said that he wasn't raising taxes, just that the government was experiencing "revenue enhancement." This was after he was elected by saying "Read my lips - No New Taxes." He got elected over his opponent who was either more honest or just plain smarter, because he told the American people that taxes would have to be raised.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:

This was after he was elected by saying "Read my lips - No New Taxes."

We took that to be 'special pleading', when the witness says something which is literally true but deceptive.That is, he was saying he would not create new taxes, which would be true.He did not say he would not raise existing taxes. He expected the audience to think he was saying the latter, the audience not consisting of legal draftsmen

Is that how it turned out: he was true to his precise word and had no 'new' taxes (but increased existing ones) ?

Good question, Fred. I believe there was a new 10% excise tax on income for those in the top income tax bracket, for one.

Below from 2 articles in Wikipedia -


Bush had firmly secured the nomination by the time of the convention, but his advisors still worried about the lack of enthusiasm for Bush in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Taxes were one issue that, in the words of Bush advisor James Pinkerton, "unified the right and didn't antagonize anybody else."[3] Thus a firm no-new-tax pledge was included in Bush's acceptance speech at the New Orleans convention. The full section of the speech on tax policy was:


“And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’ ”

The passage was written by leading speechwriter Peggy Noonan, with Jack Kemp having suggested the basic idea.[4] Including the line caused some controversy, as some Bush advisors felt the language was too strong. The most prominent critic was economic advisor Richard Darman, who crossed the phrase out on an initial draft calling it "stupid and dangerous."[5] Darman was one of the architects of Reagan's 1982 tax increase, and expected to have a major policy role in the Bush White House. He felt that such an absolute pledge would handcuff the administration.[6]

Upon the advice of others however, especially Roger Ailes, the line remained in the speech. It was felt the pledge was needed to keep conservative support in a campaign that was trying to be very centrist. It was also hoped it would add an element of toughness to a candidate who was suffering from a perception of being weak and vacillating. At the time Bush was significantly behind Michael Dukakis in the polls, and Darman has argued that the campaign was far more concerned with winning than governing.[7] The phrase, delivered with seemingly great conviction and passion by Bush, became one of the most prominent soundbites played in the media after the speech, as was intended by the campaign team.

At the end of June, Bush released a statement stating that "it is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform." The key element was the reference to "tax revenue increases" now being up for negotiation. An immediate furor followed the release. The headline of the New York Post the next day read "Read my Lips: I Lied." Initially some Republicans argued that "tax revenue increases" did not necessarily mean tax increases. For example, he could mean that the government could work to increase taxable income. However, Bush soon confirmed that tax increases were on the table.[11]
--------

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (or OBRA-90, Pub.L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, enacted 1990-11-05) is a United States statute enacted pursuant to the budget reconciliation process to reduce the United States federal budget deficit.

It included the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 which established the "pay-as-you-go" or "PAYGO" process for discretionary and taxes. It increased income taxes by creating a new 31 percent individual income tax rate, but capped the capital gains rate at 28 percent. Personal exemptions were temporarily phased out through 1995.

The tax limit cap on Medicare taxes was raised from a $53,400 income to $125,000 in income. Itemized deductions were temporarily limited through 1995.

The gasoline tax was temporarily extended and increased through September 30, 1995. Air transportation excise taxes were extended and increased through 1995. The federal telephone excise tax put into place in 1898 as a tax on the rich was permanently extended.

It was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on November 5, 1990, counter to his 1988 campaign promise not to raise taxes. This became an issue in the presidential election of 1992.

He was close: technically speaking there was no new tax, by the look of it . He just increased and extended existing taxes. Pity he said that that's what he wouldn't do, and in the very same speech. Had he just uttered the soundbite, he'd have a defence (of sorts)

Which is stranger? That any politician was stupid or bold enough to say that they wouldn't increase taxes if elected or that some people believed them when they said it?