posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:16 PM
I'm an accountant and some of the dates on the collections are truly whacked. 33 years? Seriously? Are people going to start getting nailed for
their grandparents and great grandparents' debts as well from 50 to 75 years ago next? There's a point at which it becomes ridiculous and
especially if there is insufficient information for the departments in question to actually back their claims up. If they lack the paper trail to
prove it, they shouldn't be seizing funds. Period.
Another bit of shenanigans that I've witnessed in the last few years was with my mother's social security. Her father died in 2006 and she received
a death benefit. For some reason, just a few years ago, they decided to reconfigure some aspect of her benefits to use, instead of her entire salary
history, that 2006 year where she happened to make $20k more due to her father's death to alter her benefits in a major way. She had to fight tooth
and nail to get it back to the previous assessment because that one year out of her 50 years of work experience was, in fact, a novel year. We
thought that was a little strange and it makes me wonder if there is something else tucked into some bill on that subject.
I think it was a year ago where something was found to be added into a bill after it was passed and nobody could figure out who added it back then
either. These things, called "riders", really should be outlawed. Or, if any part or phrase is changed within a bill, it must be "signed" for it
to be viable. It must be attributable to a member of the House or Senate for it to be a valid insertion. That would be good. Another would be
passing a bill alteration prohibition that disallows altering a bill without prior notice to all members or being done in a time frame that prohibits
being examined and debated before vote. So no last second inserts going into a bill an hour or so before the vote and without each voting Congressman
confirming that they are aware of the change.
Any one of those changes could eliminate this kind of thing. Overall though, riders should be struck down entirely. If it has nothing to do with the
bill its packaged within, then it shouldn't be there.