Without addressing questions regarding the apparent assignment of a Connecticut-based Social Security number to President Barack Obama, who reportedly spent his growing-up years in Hawaii and Indonesia, the federal agency now is moving quickly to make certain such questions never come up again about political figures.
The administration is starting down a path that is intended to randomize all future Social Security numbers – a move critics allege is designed to make it impossible to tell where any future Social Security number is issued.
In a notice currently published on the Social Security Administration website, the SSA announces Social Security numbers issued in the future will be randomized starting on or about June 25, 2011.
A spokeswoman in the Social Security press office confirmed to WND the plan is moving forward.
“In an effort to increase the number of Social Security numbers (SSNs) available for use by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and in order to help reduce identity theft, SSA plans to change the methodology by which SSNs are issued. In June 2011, we will begin to issue SSNs randomly, regardless of the address on the application. As a result, we will have the ability to continue to issue SSNs in all areas of the country for many more years without having to make additional changes,” said Trish Nicasio.
Obama’s Social Security number issued in Connecticut
WND previously reported that Obama currently is using a Social Security number that was issued in Connecticut sometime between 1977 to 1979, even though Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.
And there is no evidence Obama, his father or his mother ever had a mailing address in Connecticut.
Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels says the government policy change is an attempt to cover up in retrospect the controversy over Obama’s Social Security number by making it impossible in the future to trace where a Social Security applicant lived at the time the person applied for a Social Security number.
“Now all the Social Security Administration has to say is that they have been experimenting with randomized numbers for some time,” Daniels said. “How would anybody prove differently?”
She continued, “With Obama, there is obviously a case of fraud going on here. In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”
So far the White House has refused to answer WND questions about Obama’s Social Security number.
In a White House press conference on June 10, 2010, WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about Obama’s Social Security number.
“Birth certificates,” interrupted another reporter.
“He [WND correspondent Jerome Corsi] reports – no, I did not bring up the birth certificate – he reports that investigators Susan Daniels and John Sampson are asking why the Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants. And my question, did you know …” Kinsolving said.
“Hold on, that’s two sentences, Lester. That … I …” Gibbs said.
“That’s two sentences, and my question – do you know of any record that the president ever had a mailing address in Connecticut?” Kinsolving asked.
As WND reported at the time, Gibbs never answered the question about Obama’s Social Security number, choosing instead to divert the discussion into a consideration of the president’s birth certificate, before ending the press conference abruptly.
Randomizing Social Security numbers represents a fundamental change of a Social Security Administration policy dating back to the first issuance of nine-digit SSNs in 1936, in which the first three digits always have been used to designate the geographical location from which an applicant has applied for a SSN.
Since 1972, the SSA started issuing Social Security cards centrally and the area number has been used to reflect the state from which a person has applied for a SSN, as determined by the ZIP code in the mailing address of the application.
“By randomizing Social Security numbers in the future, the Social Security administration is facilitating identity theft,” Daniels said.
“When one considers that Social Security numbers today are pretty much assigned at birth, or at least prior to the next tax return in which parents claim a child as a deduction, the Social Security number tells you immediately at least what state the person was born in, or the first state in which the child lived immediately following birth,” she continued. “With randomization, we lose access to this information.”
Maryland licensed private investigator George Fox agrees.
“I frequently use the first three digits of a Social Security number as a lead to begin an investigation,” Fox told WND. “With randomization, I will have a much harder time tracing subjects under investigation back to their place of birth. With place of birth information, I can frequently identify an address for the parents and begin the process of constructing a timeline for the family.”
Running out of numbers?
The Social Security Administration readily admits on its website that randomization “will eliminate the geographical significance of the first three digits of the SSN, currently referred to as the area number, by no longer allocating the area numbers for assignment to individuals in specific states.”
The rationale for the change offered by the SSA is that the current numbering scheme with the first three digits designating area of issuance “limits the number of SSNs that are available for issuance to individuals by each state, such that changing the number assignment methodology ‘will extend the longevity of the nine digit SSN in all states.'”
Still there is no demonstration on the SSA website that any particular state is in danger of running out of Social Security numbers.
Instead, the SSA website notes in a “Frequently Asked” question-answer factsheet that there still are 435 million numbers available for assignment, without having to issue duplicate numbers to Social Security applicants.
The SSA also states that since Social Security numbers first were issued in November 1936, a total of 420 million different numbers have been issued.
Acknowledging that about 5.5 million new Social Security numbers are issued each year, the Social Security Administration admits in its FAQ page that, “the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.”
In other words, with 5.5 million numbers issued annually and 435 million numbers yet to be issued, the Social Security Administration could continue issuing numbers under the current numbering code for another 79-80 years.
Randomization will aid illegal immigrants
Daniels and Fox both stressed that randomization of Social Security numbers also would assist illegal immigrants with the type of identity theft needed to obtain employment illegally.
A study published by Ronald Mortensen at the Center for Immigration Studies in June 2009 argued that illegal immigrants typically are not “undocumented.”
“They [illegal immigrants] have fraudulent documents such as counterfeit Social Security cards, forged drivers licenses, fake ‘green cards,’ and phony birth certificates,” he wrote.
Mortensen concluded that 75 percent of working-age illegal immigrants use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment; further, approximately 98 percent of Social Security number thieves use their own names with stolen numbers.
Mortensen noted that illegal immigrants frequently commit identity theft by obtaining fraudulent Social Security cards in their own names, with random numbers made up by dealers, even though there is a 50-50 chance the Social Security number already belongs to another person.
“And even if the number hasn’t been issued, the Social Security Administration may later assign it to an infant, thereby giving a newborn an instant credit history, arrest record, and liability for back taxes,” he wrote.
“Randomizing Social Security numbers appears to be a diabolical plot to hide illegal immigrants,” Daniels says. “With most illegal immigrants simply making up random Social Security numbers to use, it will be impossible for employers or law enforcement to eyeball a Social Security number and tell if it is legitimate or fraudulent because even legitimately issued Social Security numbers will have no bearing to the state where a person may have once lived.”
Even worse, Daniels points out is that every member of a family will have a different random Social Security number, eliminating the ability to trace back Social Security identity theft by tracking family history.
“Once Social Security numbers are randomized, you have no idea from the person’s Social Security number where an immigrant settled into the United States, even if they got here legally,” she pointed out.
Obama records remain sealed
WND further confirmed the Social Security number Obama uses in the online records maintained by the Selective Service system. Inserting the Social Security number Obama currently is using, his birth date and his last name produced a valid Selective Service number identified with Obama.
Here is a screen capture that shows the Selective Service cross-verification of the Social Security Number that President Obama is currently using:
And to take it to the next level to verify that the Social Security Administration issued the Social Security number in question for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the two Social Security numbers immediately before and immediately after the Social Security number Obama is currently using were issued in Connecticut between the years 1977 and 1979.
As WND has reported previously, Obama’s history of Social Security number use and his Selective Service records remain among a long list of documents that remain concealed.
Obama reported earlier this year that Daniels said it appears the number Obama is using previously was issued by the SSA.
WND further reported later when Internet behemoth Google apparently began clamping down on consumers’ access to a report about Obama’s Social Security number, which pointed out the number was designated for a Connecticut applicant, by warning that some sites carrying information on the situation “may harm your computer.”