Bender's Immigration Bulletin has obtained a Program Operations Manual Series (POMS) issuance on Social Security's implementation of the Ensign Amendment, concerning the crediting of earnings when a person was working under a false Social Security number with intent to deceive. The issuance is marked "Sensitive -- Not To Be Shared With The Public."
This POMS issuance is small potatoes. The larger issue is the preposterous secretiveness. What is truly "sensitive" about this? This is the public's business that Social Security is transacting. Those of us who do business with the agency deserve to know the policies the agency is applying. Trying to keep this sort of thing secret indicates an improper desire to avoid public scrutiny. I am appalled.
This POMS issuance is small potatoes. The larger issue is the preposterous secretiveness. What is truly "sensitive" about this? This is the public's business that Social Security is transacting. Those of us who do business with the agency deserve to know the policies the agency is applying. Trying to keep this sort of thing secret indicates an improper desire to avoid public scrutiny. I am appalled.
5 comments:
I don't propose to attempt more than a tentative partial explanation. This partial explanation is based only on a brief survey,
If you use "fraud" as a keyword, SSA's internal search engine for POMS gives you 640 hits. Skimming through the first 30 with substantive content (skipping hits for tables of contents), I found an even split: 15 POMS sections that were classed sensitive, and 15 that were not.
If we take as a premise that far, far less than half of all POMS is sensitive, then we can argue that SSA tends to favor classifying operational procedures involving fraud as sensitive.
BTW, all or essentially all instructions having to do with secure databases are sensitive. That's one entire large section of POMS.
I repeat: this is an attempt at a tentative partial explanation.
I believe the primary reason this transmittal is considered sensitive is because knowing the content could help someone perpare for the interview when an SSA employee is trying to determine if the individual had an attempt to deceive. Once they know the questions, people can come up with some incredibly creative answers.
Excuse me. I meant "intent to deceive".
This one slipped by me. Don't remember it coming out in Policy Net in the Daily Updates, but I'm happy as can be that the loophole in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 that allow someone to use illegal earnings if they are later assigned a valid work authorized SSN has been closed.
A lot of times I disagree with POMS sections that are made Sensitive, especially the SSN alien verification sections, that just allow field offices to treat applicants like mushrooms, i.e. keep them in the dark and feed them a lot of s**t, but this time I think it makes sense to not tip off people that have already shown they have no problem with breaking the law.
This is not what I first thought. The amendment only stops SSA for using 2008 budget money. Looks like there has to be a reauthorizarion for 2009 or we are back to people that have worked illegally getting credit for those earnings if they are assigned a work authorized SSN based on the 2004 Social Security Protection Act (some protection).
Post a Comment