Mark Wohlander writes for Kentucky Today about his struggles trying to deal with Social Security, both online and by telephone. I would say that the poor service he received is proof that the Social Security Administration is underfunded and understaffed. Mr. Wohlander, however, sees it as proof that it’s a good thing there is a government shutdown, because, well, if the government can’t do a better job than this, who needs it?
There are signs in this piece that Mr. Wohlander is a bit confused. First, he thinks that the Social Security Administration has been shut down. Not so. It’s only a part of government that’s been shut down and that part doesn’t include Social Security. He also thinks that the government shutdown has occurred because there isn’t enough money to pay for government operations. Again, not so. The money is there but there is a dispute between President Trump and Congress over how to spend it, specifically over about $5 billion that the President wants for his wall. Congress doesn’t want the wall and it’s not just Democrats in Congress who don’t want the wall. Republicans aren’t too interested in it either. Mr. Wohlander also swallows age old Republican propaganda about how he’ll never receive his Social Security benefits because the money has been “stolen.” This is what passes for a thoughtful piece in a red state.
Same cluelessness that defined his "representation" of the greedy whistleblowers in the Conn suit. What a bumbling idiot.
ReplyDeleteWow! This guy is an attorney? You would think that he was better informed.
ReplyDelete@2:29
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by, “Greedy whistleblowers in the Conn case?”
The reason I ask is because these whistleblowers should be is shamed. To the contrary, they must be considered heroes, and praised for what they accomplished against all odds by recalcitrant, numbers obsessed, Senior Management Officials who did nothing but turn a deaf ear to the situation for years, until they were forced to deal with it after the Wall Street Journal article.
Seriously, are you trying to shame these whistleblowers?
While I don't believe the money has been stolen, I do not have faith that I will get my benefits from SSA for retirement. If I do get them they will be lower than promised and my retirement age for full retirement will be adjusted to somewhere around 6 months after I die. I figure my early retirement age will be moved to at least 65 and my Medicare eligibility to at least 67. Such a deal!!!! I also expect to pay more taxes to support the generation that had no foresight. Such a deal!!!!
ReplyDeleteWe need a mechanism to allow appropriations to automatically renew if not changed, so that the government cannot shut down. Otherwise, fed employees become political footballs every time someone wants a wall...
ReplyDeleteWho represented the Conn whistle blowers as 'greedy'? I never read that and I did read about this case. The accurate reporting started here.
ReplyDelete@9:58, we should all work to strengthen Social Security and not continue to make it harder to get, extending ages, making disability harder to get, etc. We shouldn't have the cap we have now on taxable social security earnings. I depend on mine and have to continue to work to make it.
@9:58 That's exactly what McConnell and all the other pick pocket politicians out there want you to expect. Let us all say instead, I expect that we will vote out of office and treat as a pariah any politician who dares to try reduce our Social Security benefits. When they try it, publicly shame them in your local opinion columns and point out what they tried to do to as many other voters as possible. Then donate (and organize others to donate) to their political opponents who will pledge to preserve Social Security benefits.
ReplyDelete@9:56
ReplyDeleteI mean that they're greedy people. They filed a qui tam suit hoping to line their pockets with Conn's ill-gotten gains. They're little better than him. Having worked closely with many of former Huntington OHO employees, I can say from personal experience that they ruined many lives while ostensibly campaigning for "justice" (read: self-righteousness). Conn was no saint, but neither were they.
@11:44
ReplyDelete9:56 here. You could not anymore off base by suggesting the whistleblowers in the Conn case were “greedy.” They were heroes who never started out for financial gain. To the contrary, they initially went through the chain of command to no avail, and ALL Management turned a deaf ear to what they reported. They were subsequently and repeatedly harassed and retaliated against by Management, and put through utter hell. All this because they did the right thing and reported fraud, waste and abuse on a huge scale. No one deserves to be treated in such a manner; no one.
As a long time OHO employee in another part of the country who does not know any of these whistleblowers personally, I can firmly attest there continue to be Managers at every level in this Agency who turn a deaf ear to abusive Management Practices, such as harassment, retaliation, and abuse on an unbelievable scale, by Managers down the chain of command, and bend over backwards to support said Managers should the employees seek any legal recourse for the illegal conduct these Managers engaged. After numerous years with OHO, I maintain this type of conduct is the norm, not the exception, and it is systemic throughout OHO. This must be stopped, and those Managers, including re-employed Annuitants who had a known history of such illegal conduct, and were removed from previous Management positions because of such conduct, but either returned to other high level Management positions, or re-employed as Annuitants to these very Management positions, held fully accountable.
Really 11:44? I think you are full of it or you have never been the subject of a smear campaign. Conn et al. tried to portray the whistle blowers as not working at home when they were supposed to and a whole lot of other untrue actions for which they could have been brought up on serious charges up to an including removal all for trumped up charges. Unless you have been the victim of such actions (and it happens quite a bit at OHOHO) you have no idea what it does to someone. Good for those whistleblowers, I hope they get every dime that they seek and more. No matter how much they get, it will not compensate them for what they went through.
ReplyDeleteSenator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who spearheaded this investigation, commented “[s]ome in Congress refuse to acknowledge that the disability programs are broken and in dire need of significant oversight. People who are truly disabled will pay the price of our dithering.”
ReplyDeleteBlowing the Whistle Protects Those Who Truly Need the Resources.
11:44 PM Interesting. It was nowhere near as bwidely reported that the whistleblowers could get money... as the Fraud in the Conn case. The agency and Congress (with the willing help of the media) have used this case to smear claimants and to justify denying people like me who have little to no ability to work, all in the name of protecting the "truly disabled."
1:15 PM, you sound like Carver or Griffith. Maybe both. If so, hope you enjoyed your 15 minutes of fame. They will never see a dime of the money. The claimants are the only ones deserving of it.
ReplyDeleteWhat Conn did was wrong. I'll say it again. But he was crucified for SSA's sins. Daugherty gets 4 years!?! He initiated the entire scheme. SSA wanted to avoid a black eye so they crushed Eric Conn.
Tim - According to the False Claims Act, whistleblowers may receive a reward of 15 percent to 25 percent of what the government recovers, if the government joins the qui tam case (which they did here).
ReplyDelete255, 115 here. No I am not connected to that investigation at all, but I have worked on many, many others and I know how the game is played.
ReplyDeleteI could say that you sound like Conn, but I don't think he can access the website where he is.
To be honest, I am not so sure that what Doherty and Conn were doing was that awful, they were getting disabled people paid by a system that has been increasingly gamed to go against them. The old ends justifies the means argument, if you will. But they got greedy and went over the top. The real problem is piss poor management at all levels. But in reality, those girls exposed a corrupt ALJ and lawyer, they did nothing wrong and they should be compensated to the fullest extent of the law. They should be commended for going up against a thin black line of stuffed robes. Further, any award they get has nothing to do with how much the claimant's get or do not get.
I agree that Doherty should have shouldered more of the blame, but the one constant I can tell you is that OHO/ODAR/OHA/BHA protects its managers and its ALJs when there are allegations of misconduct. The stories I could tell you would make your hair curl.
@6:10: Why do you say, "Doherty and Conn were . . . getting disabled people paid?" This sounds an awful lot like a claim that anyone who applies is disabled. I'm sure most of these claimants believe themselves to be disabled, and that many of them are disabled under SSA's standards. Many others are not. Bypassing the process of supporting a claim with evidence by submitting fraudulently procured documentation is not simply expediting the inevitable. So the reality is that these players were getting some disabled people paid, and they were getting some not-disabled people paid, and they were doing all of these people, along with the entire system, a huge disservice.
ReplyDelete9:33 PM. Why do some ALJs have 20% approval rates while others have an 80%? Conn wanted Daugherty because of his 98% approval rate. Paying the ALJ wasn't really different than paying the mob its "protection" money. They say pain is subjective, but, when strong enough, it is impossible to ignore. I think ALJ decisions are subjective, because they are based upon interpretations of records that aren't designed to be used the way SSA wants to use them. Therefore, a "reasonable" person can interpret them however they wish to. How else can you explain a 60% difference in approval rates between 2 judges seeing "similar" cases? Have you watched a football game lately? Do you know a "catch" when you see one? What about targeting? Often the same crews are inconsistent in their decisions. Now, try to apply that to 1000 page records of one claimant with a very limited (by SSA's admission) amount of time to read and make a decision... Are you telling me the ALJ ALWAYS gets it right. 80% of the time? 60%? Just because SSA claims the claimant is "not disabled by our rules" doesn't make it so! By the way, what is an "acceptable" error rate to the Agency? As I claimant, I know the answer should be zero. The consequences for false negatives is too great.
ReplyDelete6:10 - Now there's something we can agree on. SSA covered its ass big-time I the Daugherty/Conn mess. I still believe the whistleblowers were motivated primarily by greed and self-righteousness, but I will concede that they likely have damning information on SSA that they wanted to silence. It's unfortunate all around.
ReplyDeleteYou said "any award they get has nothing to do with how much the claimant's get or do not get" - that is not true. The statute provides that qui tam relators are paid out of the recovery (if any).
Finally, no, I am not Eric Conn. I am just someone who doesn't believe everything the media/government tells them.
I have read about this case and I saw NOTHING suggesting that these whistle blowers were motivated by money. One of them had to leave the job for health reasons and the other went through hell and was denied promotions, was followed, and generally mistreated. They did try to go through the chain of command. Unfortunately, they didn't get justice until they got to an anti-social security senator. They deserve what compensation they get.
ReplyDeleteI was hoping that the office manager and the chief ALJ in that office would get in some trouble or more than they did. They were informed of what was happening and chose to mistreat the whistleblowers. Conn got greedy and made it harder for all of us.
Didn't Daugherty get greedy and make it harder for all of us?
ReplyDeleteReplying to @7:56
ReplyDeleteYes.