Want to get even with those damn AARP members? Easy, just use an existing federal program to suspend thier Social Security checks.
From the LA Times
By Sandy Bergo Special to The Times
WASHINGTON - A law enforcement measure that has had mixed results in hunting down fugitives among the nation's sick and disabled is expanding this year to target the much larger ranks of retired Americans.
What the Times is talking about is a little known program called the "Fugitive Felon Project". It was enacted in the mid 90s in order to keep dangerous fugitives from using government money to evade arrest.
The problem is, the project is only right about half the time. And if your grandmother is on the list, she's guilty until proven innocent.
(more on the flip)
So here is how the Fugitive Felon Project is supposed to work. A large federal database keeps track of warrants issued in all the states. It then matches those against a list of people receiving federal benefits. If there is a match, the person's benefit checks are cut off and state law enforcement authorities are notified as to the fugitive's whereabouts.
Sounds like a fairly good program right? I certainly wouldn't want my tax dollars going to help a criminal evade arrest.
Unfortunately, the program only works that way about half the time, according to the Times article.
During a four-year period ending in September, police reports showed that authorities declined to make arrests or to extradite almost as often as they took fugitives into custody - in about 48% of the cases with solid investigative leads.
Regardless of whether state law enforcement authorities wish to pursue the matter, the benefits are still cut off. This has already happened to almost 80,000 people since the law was enacted. And that number was when the project used only 6.8 million names in the federal disability recipients database. The project is now being expanded to include the 48 million people in the country's Social Security register.
So who are some of these violent felons using our tax dollars to evade the law? According to the Times article they are often people who aren't aware that they even have warrants, and sometimes the people are so disabled that they couldn't possibly be "fleeing" arrest.
Here are some examples from the LA Times;
In one case, an Oregon man with a mental disorder was named on an arrest warrant for entering a rental car without permission at an airport parking lot in 1999. Four years later, computers found the record, and the man's federal disability payments stopped. The man committed suicide last year, before his benefits could be reinstated.
...a troubled Minnesota man wanted in Ohio for stopping rail traffic for two hours while he contemplated jumping to his death from a Toledo bridge.
Police never served a warrant on Eddy Haverstock of Duluth. Once negotiators and emergency crews talked him down from the train trestle, he was hospitalized for psychiatric care. He later moved back to Minnesota, unaware he was wanted in Ohio.
An Oregon woman with lung disease lost her monthly disability check and faced the loss of her government-subsidized oxygen supplies over a Nevada arrest warrant she didn't know existed.
In one case reviewed by The Times, a Georgia man had his disability checks cut off for four months over an unpaid 1978 motel bill in Seattle.
"I was guilty before proven," said James Brassell, a stroke victim now living in a Macon nursing home.
Others regarded as fugitives and denied benefits turned out to have been in nursing homes or wheelchairs and were physically unable to flee.
"They're not fleeing suspects; they're sitting ducks," said Bruce Schweiger, deputy public defender for Los Angeles County and a critic of the project.
The biggest problem is that the benefits are cut automatically. The person then has to prove themselves innocent, or resolve the warrant. They can then apply to have thier federal assistance reinstated.
But without any money coming in, how are these people expected to solve the problem? Where do they get the money to hire a lawyer? How can they afford to travel to another state to clear up a warrant? And while thier benefits are cut off, how are they expected to pay for rent, food, and medicine? This money is the difference between life and death for many of these people.
So why wouldn't the government do some further vetting before cutting off benefits? Couldn't they simply work with state law enforcement to find out the nature of the crime? Couldn't they easily find out if the state wanted pursue prosecuting these people at all? Wouldn't it be an easy matter to notify these people of thier impending loss of benefits and give them a chance to have an administrative hearing before thier benefits are cut off?
It's hard to understand why the government wouldn't do something about this. Hard to understand, that is, until you follow the money.
The expanded screening program is expected to save federal dollars. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected the program would reduce retirement payments by $588 million...
Lets do the math. In the last ten years, the existing system has cut off benefits to approximately 80,000 people out of 6.8 million disability recipients. Nearly half of those are for crimes that the states decline to prosecute. When expanded to the 48 million Social Security recipients, the number of people losing thier benefits can be expected to rise to around 500,000. And the states will decline to prosecute 250,000.
So 250,000 of our nation's most vulnerable people might needlessly lose thier benefits. Poverty, hunger, and homelessness are distinct possibilities for them. All because of an inefficient and unreliable government bureaucracy.
Is this the nation we've become?