For those who say the government is not getting too big....

I've posted multiple times that Kim Il Sung, the founders of the People's Democratic Republic, believed in punishing three generations of a family for a political crime. Like speaking out against the government. Now put that in perspective, the mother and father, their children and their children's children, aka grandchildren need to stay in the hell whole camps. Kids who have not been born are being punished for their grandchildren's crimes. You would think that could not happen here.

From the Washington Post:

Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts

A few weeks ago, with no notice, the U.S. government intercepted Mary Grice’s tax refunds from both the IRS and the state of Maryland. Grice had no idea that Uncle Sam had seized her money until some days later, when she got a letter saying that her refund had gone to satisfy an old debt to the government — a very old debt.

When Grice was 4, back in 1960, her father died, leaving her mother with five children to raise. Until the kids turned 18, Sadie Grice got survivor benefits from Social Security to help feed and clothe them.

Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family — it’s not sure who — in 1977. After 37 years of silence, four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. Why the feds chose to take Mary’s money, rather than her surviving siblings’, is a mystery.

Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who are expecting refunds this month are instead getting letters like the one Grice got, informing them that because of a debt they never knew about — often a debt incurred by their parents — the government has confiscated their check.

The Treasury Department has intercepted $1.9 billion in tax refunds already this year — $75 million of that on debts delinquent for more than 10 years, said Jeffrey Schramek, assistant commissioner of the department’s debt management service. The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.

No one seems eager to take credit for reopening all these long-closed cases. A Social Security spokeswoman says the agency didn’t seek the change; ask Treasury. Treasury says it wasn’t us; try Congress. Congressional staffers say the request probably came from the bureaucracy.

We will take your money and not tell you why. Does this sound a little third world to you? Last time I checked in a civil society, where you have the rule of law, part of the civil code is a statue of limitation for financial disputes. Memories fade, records get lost or are purged as needed. And if you think I have failed to pay me a debt, I can bring you into a public court, where I will present my evidence, you can challenge it, cross examine me or my witnesses, and the standard used to be preponderance of the evidence. But for some reason, with no notice, our money is being taken without notice, we cannot challenge it, and we can't get answers to simple questions. For debts we did not incur.

And where the hell are the House Republicans on this? This is a disgrace. But I go on.

...“It was a shock,” said Grice, 58. “What incenses me is the way they went about this. They gave me no notice, they can’t prove that I received any overpayment, and they use intimidation tactics, threatening to report this to the credit bureaus.”

Grice filed suit against the Social Security Administration in federal court in Greenbelt this week, alleging that the government violated her right to due process by holding her responsible for a $2,996 debt supposedly incurred under her father’s Social Security number.

Social Security officials told Grice that six people — Grice, her four siblings and her father’s first wife, whom she never knew — had received benefits under her father’s account. The government doesn’t look into exactly who got the overpayment; the policy is to seek compensation from the oldest sibling and work down through the family until the debt is paid.

The Federal Trade Commission, on its Web site, advises Americans that “family members typically are not obligated to pay the debts of a deceased relative from their own assets.” But Social Security officials say that if children indirectly received assistance from public dollars paid to a parent, the children’s money can be taken, no matter how long ago any overpayment occurred....

Social Security, you have heard of something called the Constitution of the United States. The 14th Amendment has an issue with that:

...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

OK, can anyone say taking your money with no notice at all and the feds out and out say you did not incur the debt but you are responsible and have no ability to challenge is due process of law. This is more like a third world dictatorship.

This is the basics but please take a few minutes and read the whole article. I'm not sure to be angry or depressed. But as the federal government sends more armed agents to seize the cows of a ranger in Nevada than it sent to save Americans in the Libyan embassy, here is a good article from Rick Moran:

What Does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Need with 96 Armed Agents?

The proliferation of federal agencies with armed agents is one of the most worrisome aspects of the growth in government. Just last summer the EPA carried out an armed raid on a mine in Alaska to enforce the Clean Water Act — a bit of government intimidation that residents say was totally unnecessary:

It looks like a took a Congressional hearing in Washington, DC to get the ball moving, but Alaska Governor Sean Parnell announced last Thursday, the same day as a hearing on the issue, that a special counsel will investigate the EPA’s armed raid over the summer of the mining town of Chicken, Alaska (population 7 at the last census). The agency sent a heavily armed team eight strong over possible violations of the Clean Water Act, an act the miners said amounted to intimidation. Residents questioned the need for armed agents to participate in what amounted to a water safety check, as well as the public safety threat the action posed.

And who can forget the Gibson Guitar raid by armed agents of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The EPA, the USFWS…the Department of Education? It’s getting ridiculous — and frightening.

Watchdog.Org:

It may come as a surprise to many U.S. taxpayers, but a slew of federal agencies — some whose responsibilities seem to have little to do with combating crime — carry active law enforcement operations.

Here’s a partial list:

The U.S. Department of Education

The Bureau of Land Management (200 uniformed law enforcement rangers and 70 special agents)

The U.S. Department of the Interior

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service (with an armed uniformed division of 1.000)

The National Park Service (made up of NPS protection park rangers and U.S. Park Police officers that operate independently)

The Environmental Protection Agency (200 special agents)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (224 special agents)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

That’s right, NOAA — the folks who forecast the weather, monitor the atmosphere and keep tabs on the oceans and waterways — has its own law enforcement division. It has a budget of $65 million and consists of 191 employees, including 96 special agents and 28 enforcement officers who carry weapons.

“There’s no question there’s been a proliferation of police units at the federal level,” said Tim Lynch, director of the Project On Criminal Justice for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C. “To me, it’s been a never-ending expansion, a natural progression, if you will, of these administrative agencies always asking for bigger budgets and a little bit more power.”

It’s been estimated the U.S. has some 25,000 sworn law enforcement officers in departments not traditionally associated with fighting crime. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and in a tabulation compiled by the Wall Street Journal in 2011, 3,812 criminal investigators are working in areas other than the U.S. departments of Treasury, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security.

...But what does the NOAA need with 96 armed agents? They predict hurricanes and other severe storms, which is very valuable and saves lives, but it’s hard to see a mission for a law enforcement branch of the agency.

“NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement protects marine wildlife and habitat by enforcing domestic laws and international treaty requirements designed to ensure these global resources are available for future generations,” NOAA spokesman David Miller said in an email to New Mexico Watchdog, pointing out that the division has existed since 1970. “Our special agents and enforcement officers ensure compliance with the nation’s marine resource laws and take enforcement action when these laws are violated.”

They may have had an armed division since 1970, but I bet they didn’t have nearly 100 armed agents. This is, in classic terms, mission creep. And it’s especially true for most agencies after 9/11:

But many other federal agencies established their own after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In the aftermath of the attacks, the FBI shifted its attention to tackling terrorism, and Congress gave permanent powers to inspectors general in more than two dozen agencies.

By last count, 25 agencies with law enforcement divisions fall under their respective offices of inspectors general.

With their growth has come criticism that officers are becoming overly militarized.

“The whole notion of police operations these days, that they’re dressed to kill, that they’re up against an enemy, is wrong,” Johnson said. “Citizens are not the enemy.”

We have what amounts to a national police force. The FBI is severely constrained by statute as to what kind of crimes for which they can intervene. The EPA, Education Department, NOAA and most other agencies have few, if any restrictions and can bend and shape the law to interpret a mandate just about any way they wish.

Congress has had hearings on police powers for individual agencies but the broad problem of militarizing the federal government has not been examined. It’s time this worrisome growth in armed federal agencies is brought before the people and Congress get busy reigning the practice in.

OK, you will find no one as supportive of law enforcement as me but why does NOAA need cops? If they are worried about the security of their installations can't they hire rent-a-cops as much lower cost or coordinate with local law enforcement for other support? I guess that's asking questions for some reasons a congressman should ask. Maybe if they get away from holding hearing on if Jeff Bagwell shot steroids up his ass.

Disturbing news on America today.