Noem, Johnson Aim to Prevent Wanted Felons From Receiving Taxpayer-Funded Benefits
Newly introduced CUFF Act could save as much as $4.8 billion
Washington, D.C. – Reps. Kristi Noem (SD-At Large) and Sam Johnson (TX-3) today introduced H.R. 2504, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felon Act of 2015 (CUFF Act), which would prohibit wanted felons from receiving Social Security disability or retirement payments. If passed, the legislation is expected to save taxpayers as much as $4.8 billion over 10 years, according to preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimates.
“It’s almost unbelievable that a wanted felon can evade prosecution for months or even years, but somehow still receive checks from the government every 30 days or so,” said Noem. “I am proud to join Chairman Johnson in introducing legislation that would finally end this practice. Hardworking taxpayers should never be asked to make disability or retirement payments to folks who are running from the law. It has to stop now.”
The CUFF Act discontinues benefits for those who are the subject of an arrest warrant. The legislation only applies to felony charges, or a crime carrying a minimum term of one or more years in prison. Benefits can be restored once the individual resolves any outstanding issues.
“Individuals running from the law or violating their parole or probation shouldn’t be supported with taxpayer dollars,” said Johnson, who serves as Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. “That’s why I’m pleased to join Congresswoman Noem in reintroducing this commonsense Law and Order bill. Not only would it help law enforcement, but it is the right thing to do on behalf of hardworking American taxpayers!”
###
On the surface, it sounds like a good idea but this person is subject to arrest and has not been convinced.
And why does that not make it a good idea? They are evading arrest rather than turning themselves in, so they shouldn’t receive benefits.
However, here is a better plan: make it a condition of receiving benefits that the check or card must be picked up personally at an appointed time; the cops can be there, arrest the person, and they can have their day in court and then go to the gray bar motel.
If they’re on the run, why should they get benefits?
Pat, isn’t that a presumption of guilt? I think it’s a terrible idea. A move toward a totalitarian police state. Want to cut someone off at the knees? Charge them with a felony. What’s next, cancel their credit cards? Drain their bank account? What in the world is Kristi thinking? IS she thinking?
An arrest warrant is issued by a judge after law enforcement have presented evidence. And this pertains to someone who is fleeing police. Why should the federal government send money to someone who is willfully evading law enforcement for a felony crime that a judge has agreed the evidence shows they have likely committed? Once they comply with the warrant they continue receiving benefits. Seems pretty common sense to me
Unfortunately common sense isn’t always available, Anon. I agree with your statements.
Because that’s not the way our constitution works.
Um yes it does. The rules for arrest warrants come directly from the 4th Amendment
I’ll argue that it takes discretion away from the court and places it into the hands of the legislature. And that that’s a bad idea. (i.e. The court would have no discretion as to whether or not to seize property if such seizure was already mandated by law. In other words, it appears to do away with warrant on such a seizure altogether.)
What property is seized? The taxpayer money on which these people are living on? Don’t worry-if they get put in jail they’ll get fed and may be eligible for a sex-change operation.
If one pays into Social Security or a retirement plan, that money is their money (property). Please don’t tell me you don’t understand that.
It’s in the constitution that people are entitled to welfare? Which part? You do understand that these folks have warrants out for them and they are evading those warrants, right?
If a banker is accused of a felony are you really advocating to seize his investment accounts? It’s exactly the same thing. Exactly.
Again, they are evading arrest that was prompted (presumably) by some legitimate information/evidence, so they are guilty of evading arrest. They shouldn’t get anything and when they come crawling, they can then be arrested and get three squares a day while they await their day in court.
bill fleming re: 5/22 8:37am – that’s what i thought the first time i read the press release, but then it seems it would only apply to warrants issued for court action after the trial and conviction – for probation violators, etc. i could be wrong – but i agree, on the face of it it seems to directly violate the presumption of innocence if it applies to all arrest actions.
Bill I’m sniping here but after reading your post on the discretion of our courts being lost in the shuffle my first thought was how the U.S. Supreme Court recently dissected and then voted Aye on a major piece of Congressional legislation when clearly the bill was written to remain whole or be rewritten.
Marty Jackley once jokingly confirmed that you can indict a ham sandwich in SD..
This goes against innocent until proven guilty.
Parole violators? Okay.