Some In Congress Want To Steal From Social Security

A proposed Senate bill could kick 200,000 seniors off Social Security if they have a felony arrest warrant-- "The proposal surfaced in the Senate on Tuesday [07/21/2015] in a package of amendments (page 949, Section 52303) being added to a transportation bill. .. It also sets a precedent of raiding Social Security funds for unrelated purposes, in this case transferring $2.3 billion for a range of transportation expenses."


The Good News is...
In The Senate "McConnell's first attempt at a highway funding bill fails, more fighting to come."

The Maybe Not So Good News is..
In The House a GOP leader said the House won't take up Senate highway funding bill-- "House Republicans will not consider the Senate's bipartisan highway funding bill before it adjourns for the August recess, even if it passes with an overwhelming majority. The Senate remains in session until the end of the first week of August, but with the House out of session, that will leave the upper chamber with the choice of either passing the House short-term bill, or letting funding authorization expire which would bring road construction projects to a halt.

The Bad News is...
The GOP Still Wants To Cut Social Security's Operating Budget--" For anyone who thinks that Social Security is going to be in better shape once it gets its appropriation for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, which begins on October 1, 2015, here's a reality check..."


COMMENTARYAside from possibly legally stealing part of the 12.5% of what workers' pay into Social Security for their retirement there are other things to consider.

     (1) If they are cutoff so would their payments to Medicare since it's taken out of these checks. Thus losing healthcare coverage.

     (2) Many of these warrants are for lack of payments on fines or penalties they maybe already too broke to afford. Cutting them off would make it impossible for them to pay for legal expenses to defend themselves. Especially if they're unaware of them never having been personally served. Perhaps living several states away Thus compounding an already overfilled prison population problem. And this would save taxpayer's money in the long run to house them how?

     (3) It will cost the Social Security additional money for the administration of appeals and so forth. The GOP may be planning to greatly reduce the number of SS's administrative law judges next year even without the additional costs that would be required by this program. See Above: "GOP Still Wants To Cut Social Security's Operating Budget"

     (4) Law enforcement does have access to Social Security records therefore can easily find out where someone lives and receives their checks. So it isn't a matter of smoking them out. Instead it's a matter of who gets stuck paying the bill. Law enforcement or possibly the hapless victim who maybe was unaware there was even a warrant on them.

Now many of you may be saying to yourself how the hell doesn't someone know they have a warrant out on them. YES it does happen!Back in May NYC police commissioner Bratton proposed amnesty for 1.2 Million open warrants in NYC alone!"Sheila Beasley was struggling to clean up after her beloved Rottweiler, Rocky, on a Bronx sidewalk on a December day in 2008 when she briefly put his leash down — a move spotted by a nearby plainclothes police officer who promptly wrote her a summons for having an unleashed dog. Beasley, a 50-year-old mother of two, said she forgot about the ticket and missed a court date to resolve it. That decision triggered a warrant for her arrest, and nearly three years later, police showed up at her door and hauled her off to jail, where she stayed for four days."

Here's another example.."14 years ago I was arrested for possession with intent to sell approx 1 lb of marijuana - I was 19 and terribly naive at the time. I was a college student. I was taken into custody, questioned, and sat in a holding cell for 10 hours. I was released and heard nothing until 2 weeks later when the detective who arrested me called and told me to basically stay straight and that this case was dropped. Now, 14 years later, I applied for a handgun and was denied.

I appealed the denial, submitted my fingerprints and a positive match came back for an outstanding warrant in Minnesota - failure to appear in court for an arrest involving 5th degree intent to sell. I called the Minnesota police for answers, and they did the best they could, but didn't seem to know much about what could happen if I turned myself in. They advised that an attorney would probably have the best advice. They didn't ask for my whereabouts and didn't act as though this was a big deal. I have held numerous professional jobs in 14 years and have traveled internationally numerous times without any problems or mention of this. I didn't even know that I had an outstanding warrant. I didn't even move after the arrest for awhile, they could have easily found me. I received no mail or phone call or anything about missing a court date. I am confused as to what to do."

What if this happened and SS was cutoff?

Yes things turned out well, but what if she then couldn't afford this defense attorney or afford to live a year or more?
Would she get her SS missed payments back?

Depending how this legislation were written a hellva lot more then 200,000 mentioned could be affected.. Felonies vary from state to state. The legislation is said to affect only those with outstanding "felony" warrants, but did you know dollars amounts exceeding $100 in Vermont to a high of $2,500 in Wisconsin are considered felony thefts?


FINAL THOUGHTS
Some may argue these unknown warrants are the exception. I posted only three of the dozens I came across. There are many millions of outstanding warrants at any given time. How many of them are unknown by individuals I can't ascertain with certainty. I believe it could be a great deal more then the stated 200,000.

I'm not advocating felons should get off scot-free. On the other hand I ask what's the difference between them and the government not living up to it's obligations either?

Collecting 12.5% of someone's labor then denying them of what was promised is just plain legal stealing. One may call this an eye for a eye. Yeah as if this makes the government somehow better then they whom they accuse of circumventing responsibilities. I suppose it's government's football to do as they please. It still doesn't make it right.