Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: vaskidmark on December 03, 2014, 07:54:58 PM
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/225753-house-passes-bill-to-end-benefits-for-nazis
The House on Tuesday passed legislation to terminate Social Security benefits for suspected Nazi war criminals.
Passed 420-0, the bill was approved after an October Associated Press report found that dozens of suspected Nazi war criminals forced to leave the U.S. collected millions of dollars in federal benefits.
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), the measure's sponsor, said it would close a loophole that allowed Nazis who skipped the lengthy deportation process to still receive Social Security benefits.
"Social Security is an earned benefit hardworking Americans pay as a portion of their wages for promises of future benefits," Johnson said. "It's a benefit that was never intended for those who participated in horrific acts of the Holocaust."
The Justice Department pressured Nazi war crime suspects to leave the U.S. voluntarily to speed up their departures, according to the AP. However, avoiding the deportation process resulted in the individuals still being eligible for federal payments.
Not that I a in favor of suspected Nazi war criminals, but there seems to be a disconnect here. Rep. Johnson correctly identifies Social Security as an earned (well, up to a point) benefit. Even some illegal aliens contribute in thje expectation that they will receive benefits in their later years. I don't recall anything in the legislation saying that suspected Nazi war criminals cannot contribute, or (till now) cannot collect benefits.
As for "skip[ping] the deportation process" - whose fault was that? Once they became suspected war criminals the legal process should have come into operation, not waiting decades. Yes, I'm aware of the issue of the difficulty finding/unavailability of eyewitnesses. However, lots of other folks suspected of committing various and sundry crimes have been convicted on circumstancial and collateral evidence. I'm also aware of the political expediency of just sort of forgetting about the actions of certain former (as in the party collapsed from military defeat, not that tjey renounced membersip while it was still active) Nazis - Werner Von Braun being possibly the most notorious.
It's not like the AP's story was the first time Congress knew about suspected war criminals (Nazi or otherwise) collecting Social Seurity. My BS meter tells me that this is a set-up to polish a tarnished reputation - "See, we did spomething about a really icky thing."
stay safe.
-
And what's still out there, in the way of Nazi war criminals. Someone age 20 in 1945, would be pushing 90 now. All that's likely left are low level people, at best.
-
And that there's a maybe a handful still left alive. The youngest would be in their late 80's. How about getting all the money back that was paid out?
-
Not that I a in favor of suspected Nazi war criminals, but there seems to be a disconnect here. Rep. Johnson correctly identifies Social Security as an earned (well, up to a point) benefit. Even some illegal aliens contribute in thje expectation that they will receive benefits in their later years. I don't recall anything in the legislation saying that suspected Nazi war criminals cannot contribute, or (till now) cannot collect benefits.
Agreed. In theory, at least, Social Security is nothing more than an annuity plan backed by the federal government. If some suspected Nazi war criminals voluntarily left the U.S. (whether or not under duress), they haven't been convicted of anything so, if they worked in the U.S. and paid into the system, they should collect their pensions. Do we deny Social Security payments to American citizens who are in prison for serious felonies?
As for "skip[ping] the deportation process" - whose fault was that? Once they became suspected war criminals the legal process should have come into operation, not waiting decades. Yes, I'm aware of the issue of the difficulty finding/unavailability of eyewitnesses. However, lots of other folks suspected of committing various and sundry crimes have been convicted on circumstancial and collateral evidence. I'm also aware of the political expediency of just sort of forgetting about the actions of certain former (as in the party collapsed from military defeat, not that tjey renounced membersip while it was still active) Nazis - Werner Von Braun being possibly the most notorious.
It's not like the AP's story was the first time Congress knew about suspected war criminals (Nazi or otherwise) collecting Social Seurity. My BS meter tells me that this is a set-up to polish a tarnished reputation - "See, we did spomething about a really icky thing."
Again -- agreed.
-
And what's still out there, in the way of Nazi war criminals. Someone age 20 in 1945, would be pushing 90 now. All that's likely left are low level people, at best.
Also, in the interests of political expediency, healing, and what not it was decided that they'd go after the high and mid-level types and not the 'peons', though I understand that many of them ended up convicted and executed as well.
I remember on guy who was on trial as a suspected concentration camp for something like the 3rd time. Where I decided that they should just let the guy go:
1. He was suffering from dementia. Unable to properly defend himself.
2. WHO he was being accused of being had changed for the 3rd time, with them saying he was at a DIFFERENT camp than the first, this time, as well as being a completely different person working a different job. I got the distinct impression they were targeting specifically him, with any concentration camp worker not otherwise confirmed.
3. Most of the potential witnesses were either dead or suffering from a level of dementia as well.
4. Do you really expect to recognize somebody when you haven't seen them for 60+ years?
5. Besides political points, what are you really getting? The privilege of providing medical care to a man who doesn't even know where he is anymore, that would have been taken care of by his family back in the states without this?
-
.... Do we deny Social Security payments to American citizens who are in prison for serious felonies?
Well, actually, yes we do. They passed a law to do that - but it only effected those who were incarcerated after the law went into effect. Not that there were a lot of sexta- supta- octagenarians in prison who had paid in enough quarters to qualify anyhow.
They also stop VA disability benefits, SSDI payments, etc. and do not count the prison-based income (such that it is) in computing the famiy's eligibility for welfare nor do they count the inmate as a family member.
stay safe.
-
I have a bit of a problem with punishing suspected - not convicted, not indicted, but suspected criminals. I mean, if Otto Von Gruber was the Nazi dumping Zyklon B into the showers and murdering people by the hundred, AND YOU CAN PROVE IT, I don't care how old he is, he ought to face justice. BUT if you only think some guy maybe was a Nazi, but can't prove it in court, instituting punishment without a trial seems downright un-American. Even more so if a "deal" was made to pay them SS if they left the USA early . . . if we renege on this sort of "deal" why in the world would ANYONE trust a deal with us in the future?
And think a moment . . . WWII ended in 1945, some 69 years ago. Someone who'd just turned 21 then would be 90 today . . . and I doubt he'd have been a decision maker back then. Senior people would have been at least 30 or 40, making them 100-110 today. Not many left. (Think lee n. field made this point.)
Mass murderers shouldn't die peacefully in a comfy bed, but this legislation affects so few it seems like nonsense calculated to distract us from recent stories about extending SS and Medicare to illegal aliens.
-
Just to clarify - there was no deal made to pay them SS if they left the USA early. DoJ wanted to clear its books, so rather than going through the lengthy deportation process and possibly losing they were permitted to leave without loss of passport/visa. As they were not convicted of crimes against humanity or any disqualifying felonies there was no loss of eligibility to receive SS benefits so long as they had the minimum required quarters in the system.
This legislation could have been done in the 60s, 70, 80s, or 90s instead of not acting till now.
stay safe.