On February 21, the democratic governor of Maine, Janet Mills, publicly educates Donald Trump because of his transsexual policies.
Here’s what happened afterwards. Outside the Blue, the Trump administration has canceled a contract that allowed parents in the country to apply for the social security number for their newborns by simply checking a box in a hospital form – the way parents in all 50 states have been making for decades, as the social security administration said.
Change meant that new parents would have to bring their babies to one of only eight offices of social security in Maine, sometimes when they travel for hours, exposing the infectious disease to the public.
For me, it makes no sense to do this at all.
Dr. Joe Anderson, American Academy of Pediatrics
It happened on Thursday. The change, which came without explanation, created an immediate disturbance among social security defenders and health service providers in Maine.
Dr. Joe Anderson, chairman of Maine’s advocacy at the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the removal of the program “creates many unnecessary and unfair weights for families.”
“For me, there is absolutely no sense to do this,” Anderson told Portland Press Herald. “I do not see a logical explanation for forcing parents and newborns – with 11,000 babies born in Maine every year – to sit in a crowded waiting room when we have done this easy, safe and effective for decades.”
As it happened so often with the meaningless political decisions of Trump’s White House, this one was turned a day later.
Lee Dudek, the current Social Security Commissioner, issued a press release on Friday, stating that the contract that allows parents to apply for the number of social security of their newborns through the Maine Health Agency, through which the Maine authorities were restored.
Read more: Comment: Trump, GOP and Dog have begun their attack on social security. You have to start worrying now
“In retrospection, I realize that the termination of these contracts creates an unjustified weight for the people of Maine, which is not the intention,” Dyek said. “For that I apologize and I directed both contracts to be restored immediately.”
If the bombing of a bomb in Maine wasn’t the “intention”, what was it? No one in the administration said. I asked the Social Security Administration for further explanation, but I did not receive an answer.
However, for social security defenders, the intention was clear. This move, said Max Richman, President of the National Committee for Social Security and Medicare, “refutes common sense and implies malicious reasons …. Why would the administration make it difficult to register their children for social security, unless the aim is to shrink the size of the program?”
The social security advocacy organization has the same impression. “The cancellation of these contracts has created waste, abuse and at least the potential for fraud,” said Nancy Altman, his executive director. “There is no reason for the policy of canceling them and many political reasons against this. The only explanation is the political revenge against Maine Governor Janet Mills.”
Trump said he “does not touch” social security, but actions speak louder than words.
Several points for listing the birth policy that allowed Maine’s parents, like those of all other countries, to register their newborns through their state agencies almost immediately after birth.
Read more: Column: The largest Americans have finished paying their social security taxes last week. Most of us will pay throughout the year
The Social Security Administration website advises new parents on the simplicity of the process:
“When you fill in the application for your baby’s birth certificate, you will be asked if you want to apply for SSN [Social Security Number] For your baby. If you say yes, you will be asked to provide an SSN to both parents. If you do not know the SSN of both parents, you can still apply for your child’s SSN. “
The procedure has been in force since the 1980s and covers all 50 states since 1997. The Social Security Administration says that 99% of all babies born in the United States receive their social security numbers in this way. Since about 3.5 million babies are born every year, it’s a lot of babies.
The presence of a social security number shortly after birth has only become more important over the years. It is necessary for parents to request a tax credit for children, if they have the right, to request the newborn as dependent, to open a bank account or to buy savings for the child and for the babies to be covered by public health programs, 529 savings plans in college and other services.
Parents’ requirement to take their babies to the field office is, as Dyek admitted, weight – and also dangerous. This is especially true, since the DOG budget discharges that are invaded through the Social Security Administration have said its intention to reduce the budget for service to the clients of the agency, partly by closing the field offices.
The website of the so-called Ministry of Government Efficiency, which lists contracts that have canceled their value, listed contracts for listing in five states-Merland, Arizona, Michigan, New Mexico and Rod Island (but not Maine)-the total value of about $ 8 million. But these cancellation was aimed at withdrawing elements of diversity, equality and inclusion beyond state policies, not to force parents to register their newborns personally.
I reported a few days ago of pure ignorance of attacks against social security by Trump and Elon Musk, his Dog King. Musk called the social security “Ponzi Scheme”, which is extremely incorrect and Trump has trumped allegations that the system is full of fraud – also false.
This last Fiasco emphasizes how little they know about social security and how little they are interested. They strive for the most popular public program in America and the best poverty program in its history.
Their intervention is certain that it will lead to a large -scale political blow. They may have even managed to get out of this last stuntman, but they seem to have read the writing on the wall. Still, the very idea that they tried it was angry, disturbing, and perhaps more importantly – very scary.
Sign up for our wide newsletter to get the most entertainment business news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.