The government reportedly paid more than $1 billion to dead people over the past 10 years. Read the full story from Politico Share this:FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintGoogle 13 Responses to "Report: Feds paid dead $1 billion-plus" Carl Nemo October 29, 2010 at 4:40 am Makes sense to me coming from our “dead broke” government. Frugality and accountability mean nothing to our now rogue, crimpol leadership. Congress is composed of madmen and women all partying hearty in the grand salon of the USS Amerika as it steams full ahead towards an iceberg field of national insolvency. Carl Nemo **== Guardhouse Lawyer October 29, 2010 at 5:27 am “Frugality and accountability mean nothing to our now rogue, crimpol leadership.” Yep. crimpol leadership. From the article: “While we haven’t seen the report, we recognized in the early days of the administration, the longstanding problem of improper government payments – including payments of benefits to the deceased – and have moved aggressively to address it,” said Kenneth Baer, communications director at the Office of Management and Budget. For instance, Obama signed an executive order in November to punish agencies for making improper payments, established a government-wide “Do Not Pay List” that created a single database so agencies can check the status of a potential contractor, and signed a law in July aimed at strengthening efforts to cut out money going to the deceased and others who shouldn’t be getting money. “The president has put us on pace to realize his goal of reducing wasteful, improper payments by $50 billion between now and 2012,” Baer said. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44349.html#ixzz13jpXBDmR Executive order to stop agencies from making such payments. A bill signed in July to crack down on such payments. Certainly more examples of crimpol leadership. Mr. Nemo, your knee is jerking again. griff October 29, 2010 at 7:01 am The President also signed an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay torture center within a year. That was twenty-one months ago, and Gitmo is still open for business. Guardhouse Lawyer October 29, 2010 at 1:02 pm And now, the rest of the story: On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. We are a government of laws, griff. If the holders of the purse strings don’t give the funds needed to accomplish a task it is not the fault of the person who has, in writing, expressed a sincere desire to accomplish said task. The failure to complete the task lies with those who closed the purse. Of course, it serves your purpose to blame Obama rather than the Congress, but the truth speaks for itself. griff October 29, 2010 at 3:30 pm Of course it also serves the purpose (partisan) of blaming, or praising, past presidents for economic successes or failures when indeed the Congress controls the purse strings. I of course have tried to make that point many times here, but the popular perception is what it is. For instance, Clinton gets the nod for the economic “boom” in the nineties when the Republicans “controlled the purse strings” from 2005 until the end of his term. Will you acknowledge the Republicans being responsible for that? Yeah, we’re a nation of selectively enforced laws, to say the least. But let’s not forget that the Congress is also in the control of the President’s party. Closing Gitmo was a major campaign issue that swept the Democrats to power starting in 2006 and culminating in 2008. Carl Nemo October 29, 2010 at 5:36 am Hi GHL… Hey if you really believe the article content as having merit and that it will eventually bear fruit in terms of efficacy, then I can possibly sell you some oceanfront property in “Death Valley”…no? Nemo **== Guardhouse Lawyer October 29, 2010 at 12:53 pm You mean they lied? Obama did not sign an executive order? He did not sign a bill in July as they said he did? The criminals are actually not the government people, Mr. Nemo. Rather, people who knowingly take money from the government or anyone else which is not theirs to take are guilty of criminal fraud. Why aren’t you calling them crimcits? They are the ones who are profiting, not the “crimpols” who most probably made the payments because they had absolutely no inkling that the check recipient was deceased. griff October 29, 2010 at 3:31 pm Of course Obama could have threatened to veto the bill unless the blocking of funds was removed. Guardhouse Lawyer October 29, 2010 at 4:06 pm That is an absolutely fatuous statement. Are there any depths to which you will not sink to trash Obama? griff October 29, 2010 at 4:44 pm Correct me if I’m wrong, but a bill can’t become law without the President’s signature. I learned that as a wee lad on Saturday morning. What’s so fatuous about that, in this “nation of laws?” Schoolhouse Rock Guardhouse Lawyer October 29, 2010 at 6:30 pm For starters a bill need not be signed by the President to become law. In fact there are two different ways that can happen. As you well know, the point I was making is that the President had to grit his teeth and sign that bill because it was the supplemental funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts. Without it there would have been sheer chaos in the Pentagon and elsewhere. griff October 29, 2010 at 8:14 pm Funny you should mention that the supplemental funding was for continuing the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, another campaign “promise” from the Democrats dating back to the 2006 midterms. I guess what I was getting at is that ending the wars and closing Gitmo were nothing more than empty campaign slogans that never had any real chance of happening, unless of course we be plunged into “sheer chaos.” But of course that didn’t stop millions of sheeple from believing it. And now that it isn’t happening, all the faithful believe – and parrot – every apologist talking point that comes down the pike. As far as the President having to grit his teeth, the threat of veto is a long-standing tool employed by the president as leverage to get legislation passed. Obama and the Democrats never meant to close Gitmo or end the wars because they work for the same people that the Republicans work for. Coincidentally, it doesn’t happen to be us. Guardhouse Lawyer October 29, 2010 at 8:41 pm Obama did not promise to end the war in Afghanistan. He promised to send more troops. He did that. Obama promised to end US involvement in combat operations in Iraq. He did that. YCLIU Your saying something else is NOT going to change history. It may alter your grasp on reality if you repeat it over and over to yourself, but it will not change the facts as far as the rest of the world is concerned. As to “Obama and the Democrats never meant to close Gitmo” I wonder what you base that statement on. It is certainly at odds with what most rational people think of that situation. Comments are closed.