U.S. Direct Deposit Authorization: Fill & Download for Free

Hello!Sadly, yes that is true…Donald Trump’s Treasury Department has given U.S. banks the green light to confiscate a portion or all of the one-time $1,200 coronavirus relief payments meant to help Americans cope with financial hardship and instead use the money to pay off individuals’ outstanding debts—a move consumer advocates decried as cruel and unacceptable. “The Treasury Department effectively blessed this activity on a webinar with banking officials last Friday,” The American Prospect‘s David Dayen reported Tuesday. https://prospect.org/coronavirus/banks-can-grab-stimulus-check-pay-debts/In an audio recording from the webinar obtained exclusively by the Prospect, Ronda Kent, chief disbursing officer at the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service, told bankers that “there’s nothing in the law that precludes” financial institutions from seizing a person’s payment and using it to pay off the individual’s debts.“After a third of U.S. renters couldn’t make rent this month, the Treasury Department is pointing out opportunities for banks and debt collectors to steal Americans’ relief checks out from under them,” Jeremy Funk, spokesperson for consumer advocacy group Allied Progress, said in a statement responding to Kent’s comments.“It’s the middle of a pandemic,” said Funk. “This money should be going toward food, rent, and medicine—it’s not the time to hand out favors to debt collection industry donors or pad some big bank’s bottom line,” said Funk. “Secretary Mnuchin needs to ensure that these $1,200 checks go straight into Americans pockets where they belong.”Here’s the link to the recording and listen for yourself: Audio of Ronda Kent, chief disbursing officer with Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal ServiceAmericans with direct deposit information on file with the Internal Revenue Service are expected to begin receiving the $1,200 payments in their bank accounts this week, provided that their banks do not opt to seize the money.Those for whom the government does not have direct deposit information—a group that is disproportionately low-income—could be forced to wait up to five to receive paper checks in the mail.The direct payments were authorized under the CARES Act, a massive coronavirus stimulus package President Donald Trump signed into law last month.Congress explicitly exempted the one-time stimulus payments from collection under the CARES Act “if the debt is owed to federal or state agencies, unless the debt involves a child support payment.” Text - H.R.748 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): CARES ActBut Congress did not extend this exemption to private debt collection. The payments are defined as tax credits and not federal benefits, making them subject to ‘garnishment,’ in which a debt collector that wins a judgment in court can seize anything of value held by the debtor.Congress did give Treasury the authority under Section 2201(h) of the CARES Act to write rules exempting the payments from private debt collectors, but the Treasury Department—headed by former Goldman Sachs executive Steve Mnuchin—has thus far refused to exercise that authority despite pressure from Democratic members of Congress and state attorneys general.I checked with the five largest consumer banks. Only JPMorgan Chase said they would not use CARES Act payments to offset debts. The other four gave no response. https://t.co/by1oQ1cNkL— David Dayen (@ddayen) April 14, 2020On Monday, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey issued guidance stating that the $1,200 payments “are exempt from seizure or garnishment by creditors under Massachusetts law.” Guidance regarding CARES Act payments.pdf“These payments are supposed to help individuals and families put food on the table during this crisis, not enrich debt collectors,” Healey said in a statement. “With this guidance… my office is putting the debt collection industry on notice that these payments are off limits.” AG Healey to Debt Collectors: COVID-19 Stimulus Payments Are Off LimitsHealey on Monday also signed onto a letter (pdf) led by New York Attorney General Letitia James urging Mnuchin to issue “a regulation or guidance designating CARES Act payments as ‘benefit payments’ exempt from garnishment.” The letter was signed by 25 state attorneys general. ag.ny.gov/multistate_letter_to_treasury_re_garnishment_and_cares_act_final.pdf“During this public health and economic crisis, the states do not believe that the billions of dollars appropriated by Congress to help keep hard-working Americans afloat should be subject to garnishment,” the letter states.Needless to say that this is absolutely obscene. This money is for food, medicine, housing. The essentials of life.Dayen noted in his tweet that “legally speaking, banks have the right to ‘offset’ any deposits to pay off delinquent loans, overdraft fees, or other charges.”“Banks have more immediate access to the coronavirus checks by virtue of having them deposited into accounts at their institutions,” Dayen wrote. “They’re also in front of the line for repayment of debts ahead of other private debt collectors.”The possibility that banks could seize individuals’ relief payments as millions of people across our country face layoffs, pay cuts, and reductions in work hours sparked outrage on social media.“This is beyond predatory,” tweeted finance expert and investigative journalist Nomi Prins. She couldn’t have phrased it any better.Jess Scarane, a progressive running to unseat Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), tweeted that “this ‘stimulus’ gets worse and worse for working people every day.”“Even the meager help we thought individuals would get can end up in the hands of banks,” said Scarane, “while people continue to struggle to put food on their tables and survive.” Jess Scarane for Senate (@JessforDelaware)This isn’t owning the libs, team MAGA, this will affect and imperil some of you, your family and/or friends as well. Wake up!!!

Some people have already received an electronic transfer into their own bank accounts. Quite a few, who are set up for electronic transfer — already have — in fact. (I have seen at least ten Facebook posts, from friends who already have their money, right now.) It is an electronic transfer of funds. When they check their bank account, the name on from the sender states ”US TREAS.”These tend to be the Americans who have filed their income taxes electronically, for the year 2019, or in 2018 — and who specifically asked that the IRS send them a refund via direct deposit, and then they entered their own bank account information. Those also tend to be people who did not use a third party such as TurboTax, or H&R Block’s software. The IRS is using that same information, to try to transfer this new stimulus money directly — with no check.Most of those people now have their money. Right now. Many others, are receiving them today (April 15), and others on Friday (April 17). An electronic transfer, right into their own bank account. It is an electronic transfer of funds. The name on from the sender states that the transfer is from ”US TREAS.”[This answer is written on April 15, 2020, and actual results may be different, in couple of days., obviously.]For everybody else — those Americans are waiting, for a good, old-fashioned paper check — which will arrive in the good old-fashioned U.S. Mail. The United States Postal Service. This is the check which could have been mailed already, and which should have been mailed already and was originally scheduled to be mailed already, back on April 13, 2020 and throughout this week — but none have yet been mailed.Those checks are currently being destroyed.(Those checks were originally scheduled to be sent on April 13, and on April 15, and on April 19.) None of those checks were sent, or will be sent, on those dates.[This answer is written on April 15, 2020, and actual results may be different, in couple of days., obviously.]Why not, you ask? — A certain politician has slowed down the process, so those checks have not yet gone out. None of them have gone out. Not one has been mailed out (today is Wednesday, April 15, 2020, 10:44 pm, Central Time.). Nada. Zilch. Zero. None. Not a single check. A large group of Americans — yet most of whom who have been using electronic transfer — have already received their money, right nowNo paper checks have been mailed, though. Not one.Those waiting on their check in the mail — gulp — not so much.That certain politician (I suspect you know his name) is running for office, this November — and he quietly, and secretly — ordered that his name be imprinted on each and every check. That certain politician ordered his Treasury Secretary (a member of his own cabinet) — to re-print those checks. That certain politician is running for office this November, and he wants you to believe that the check is coming from him. Personally. That check is not coming from him.That politician held up the checks. This happened sometime late last week, on last Thursday and last Friday.Legally — That check is not coming from him. That check is coming from the United States Congress — who voted to authorize it. (If you recall, Congress authorizes all $$, and the president does not. The president cannot authorize the money, the president cannot authorize sending you a single penny — that comes from Congress. (That is upper-elementary school stuff, or “SchoolHouse Rock” basics, or the United States Constitution stuff. The basics, of how government works.) —You remember that, right? Congress spends the money, not any president.But, that dude in the White House held up the printed checks, so he could pretend that these checks are coming from him. Not from Congress. From him. He told the Secretary of the Treasury that all of the checks must have his own name on them. That certain politician wanted his own signature imprinted on the check… in the signature line.There was a bit of a legal dispute, when those legal experts in the IRS pointed out that this was not technically legal, since Donald Trump was not literally writing you a check, and that it was actually the US Congress that was doing it… So, Donald Trump then demanded that his name be prominently featured in such a way that it would appear that he was the “Santa Claus” giving out these “gifts.”(That politician also reportedly insisted the his name be featured prominently on the envelope that will be mailed out from the U.S.Congress, via the United States Treasury.)‘Cuz —- he wants you to “associate” that money with him. (Even though it is actually coming from Congress. Schoolhouse Rock. Congress has the purse strings. Remember? From fifth grade? Only Congress can actually spend money.)That politician, has an election coming up.That politician wants you to be naive enough to believe that he is sending you this check. Personally. He wants his name on the envelope. “The hell with the U.S. Treasury, the hell with the U.S. Congress, this is my personal gift to you!”That means, you have to wait awhile longer, since the printing presses at the United States Treasury have never printed a check with the name of a dude in the Oval Office… Never. Templates had to be revamped, even the actual printing presses had to be quickly revamped. Because, the valid checks from the U.S. Treasury have some hidden security features. (Much like your paper currency does, or your passport does.) So, the checks are being modified — to help the dude in the Oval Office try to win the election, this November… Really.[Trump supporter: “C’mere, Beulah! See! Look what a wonderful guy he is! $1200.00! This is better than Jeee-sus!”](Trump supporter — conveniently forgets that both Trump and Mnuchin promised they would have these same checks, 25 days ago.) “Praise Jeee-sus!”It is called “running for election.”And, it is also called “screw you,” and “be thankful for what you get… ya’ dumb rube.”

Hey Joanne!first thing that comes to mind is the word shameful. But it’s beyond that actually. This is absolutely unacceptable.The Treasury Department last week gave U.S. financial institutions the go-ahead to seize coronavirus stimulus payments to pay off individuals’ outstanding debts, and one of the nation’s largest banks is reportedly already taking advantage of the green light. 'Beyond Predatory': Trump Treasury Department Gives Banks Green Light to Seize $1,200 Stimulus Checks to Pay Off Debts“USAA, the veteran-serving financial institution, took $3,400 in CARES Act payments from the family of a disabled veteran to offset an existing debt, denying the family emergency funds during a time of personal economic stress,” David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, reported Thursday. USAA Grabs Coronavirus Checks From Military FamiliesHeadquartered in San Antonio, USAA has a membership of around 13 million that is comprised largely of current and former members of the military and their families. USAA - Wikipedia“Text messages from USAA customers show that this is not an isolated incident,” Dayen noted. “In fact, USAA is using a boilerplate statement to respond to customer complaints about taking their payments.”The New York Times on Thursday also reported that USAA and other institutions are garnishing stimulus payments. As the Times reported:The phenomenon is swiftly becoming a political issue, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin fielding calls from senators urging him to ensure that relief money isn’t garnished. Banks are legally allowed to withhold funds that go into accounts that have negative balances, and no specific provision in the CARES Act, the $2 trillion relief package that authorized the stimulus payments, prevents banks from taking customers’ stimulus money to cover debts. Some Banks Keep Customers’ Stimulus Checks if Accounts Are OverdrawnConsumer advocates warned about this possibility after Dayen revealed Tuesday that Ronda Kent, chief disbursing officer at the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service, told bankers in a webinar last week that “there’s nothing in the law that precludes” financial institutions from seizing stimulus payments to pay off a person’s existing debts.The law Kent referenced was the CARES Act, a multi-trillion-dollar stimulus package President Donald Trump signed last month. The CARES Act authorized one-time $1,200 payments to adults who earn less than $75,000 a year. The law also approved an additional $500 for each child under the age of 17.Carrie, a 22-year-old mother of two from Minnesota whose husband was injured while serving in the military, told the Prospect that she doesn’t “know where rent is going to come from” now that USAA has seized her family’s $3,400 payment.“It was going to help my 18-month-old get her meds,” Carrie said. “I’m at a loss for words, they don’t care.”Common Defense, an advocacy group that represents veterans, called USAA’s seizure of stimulus payments “absolutely unacceptable” and urged Congress to “make it illegal.”The CARES Act explicitly gives Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin the authority to exempt the coronavirus relief payments from debt collection by banks, but Mnuchin—a former Goldman Sachs executive—has yet to exercise that authority despite pressure from Democrats in Congress and state attorneys general..@USAA is confiscating the emergency $1200 Coronavirus checks from veterans & military families who have debt, leaving us struggling to survive during this crisis.This is absolutely unacceptable. @USAA must immediately reverse this practice, & Congress should make it illegal. https://t.co/0ti3Qjeu8U— Common Defense (@commondefense) April 16, 2020Carrie provided the Prospect with a text exchange she had with a representative of USAA, who explained that Carrie’s coronavirus payment “will be used to offset the amount owed” on a USAA account she abandoned last year. Because the IRS still had Carrie’s USAA account on file, the agency sent the direct deposit there rather than to her new bank account at a different institution.Dayen reported that Carrie said “her family did run up some debt and get overdrawn after her husband was injured. But they also experienced fraudulent use of the USAA account. The bank concluded that the family did not have sufficient proof of fraud claims, and would be liable for $8,000 in charges.”Adam Weinstein, a Navy veteran and national security editor at The New Republic, tweeted that he will cancel his USAA membership and urge his friends to do the same if the bank doesn’t reverse its seizure of coronavirus payments.Reverse this now, @USAA, or I'll pull my membership and accounts and encourage my friends to do the same thing https://t.co/MQFXppYL4J— Adam Weinstein (@AdamWeinstein) April 16, 2020In a statement to the Prospect, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called USAA’s behavior “shameful” and urged the Treasury Department to act.“This money was supposed to go to Minnesotans who are struggling and instead the administration is using it to help big banks who don’t need the cash,” said Omar. “I, along with my colleagues in Congress, are doing everything we can to put an end to this. The Treasury Department and the IRS have the authority to prohibit this cruelty, and they should.” USAA Grabs Coronavirus Checks From Military FamiliesOnce again this is all about the fanatic cruelty. A Republican can’t enjoy his dinner unless he knows someone is going without one…However, there’s a happy ending to this story.Following criticism over its handling of federal emergency payouts related to the coronavirus outbreak, the military-focused financial company USAA announced Thursday it will no longer seize customers’ checks to cover existing debts and will refund any past such actions. USAA will stop seizing troops’ coronavirus stimulus checks after public outcryStill, shame on them…