From the Washington Post:
An independent watchdog this week opened a broad investigation into Social Security Inspector General Gail Ennis and her office following a Washington Post report that revealed how an anti-fraud program has imposed massive penalties on disabled and elderly people.
The inquiry by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), a group that investigates misconduct allegations against inspectors general, comes as Ennis has been directed by the acting Social Security commissioner to suspend the program amid mounting political pressure. In a letter, a senior White House official urged a quick response from the chairwoman of the inspectors general council, Allison Lerner, who took the unusual step of notifying Congress and the White House that she had opened the probe. On Thursday, congressional staffers will question Ennis’s deputies about the program. …
9 comments:
I still do not think people get this.
These are ALL fraud cases that were investigated and developed by OIG. Every one of these penalties needs a declination letter from the U.S. Assistant Attorney before it can even be imposed. The USAA will not even give one of these letters all the time unless it met their standard criteria varying by region (e.g. loss thresholds of $15,000+, etc.).
These are not random folks who misunderstood SSA's rules or got conflicting information. These claimants are people, who for lack of funding at the federal level and court backlog, would have been tried for potential fraud. Considering how few actually make it to trial, OIG is not maliciously pursuing these.
Now if the penalties exceed the amount allowed by statute ($9,000 currently and considering claimant's financial situation), that is different, but more of these are good. If this because publicly accepted, then maybe people will start timely reporting their pensions, workers' compensation, etc. instead of playing word games.
Good. It sounds like Gail Ennis (or someone beneath her) has ruined SSA's OIG:
"Audits have also plummeted. So has morale, which has taken a nosedive in successive surveys of the federal workforce since Ennis took over. New data for 2021 collected by the Office of Personnel Management for the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) and released internally Tuesday shows 28 percent of those who responded consider the inspector general’s office a good place to work, with 13 percent agreeing that their senior leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment."
For SSA overall, 42% agree or strongly agree that senior leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment, compared to the 13% at OIG. That's huge (assuming the Post is using the same categories).
@8:31
Stop trying to justify imposing punitive fines against the disabled or retired. Cases don't go to trial because the disabled and retired, even fraudsters, don't have a lot of resources to fund a case to trial, and the statutes are heavily slanted in SSA's favor. Also, this whole investigation started because the OIG was charging in excess of $120,000 in fines on average, which is historically many multiples of the average fines charged. I'm not about to take the time to read the statutes, but if $9,000 is the cap as you say, absolutely it appears the penalties are exceeding that amount by a factor of more than 10.
Many if not most of these are people would not have been tried for fraud. There are multiple reasons for declining to prosecute a case, (and until a verdict is rendered, these folks are technically not guilty). My experience with OIG referrals being refused for prosecution more often than not was because they'd likely lose, either in court or in the court of public opinion.
And just because the law/regs allows one to impose penalties such as these doesn't make it appropriate. It's kind of analogous to civil forfeiture, a process that does make sense but which became the go to because of external factors, not justice.
8:31 gets this. 11:46 does not. SSA is one of the only agencies that doesn't attach interest to a debt (which they truly should). The fact these people somehow think they can defraud the government, avoid trial and prison time, and end up with a CMP and then have the gall to complain about it is beyond me.
8:31
Facts and details get in the way of a narrative that these people are innocent and SSA is bad guy. It is a shame when people commit fraud by lying and the agency that holds them to accountable is the one to blame.
@4:35
11:46 here. SSA doesn't attach interest to delayed payments or overpayments because it is contrary to the purpose of the program, as are the punitive fines imposed on the disabled/retired. I would support actual prison over punitive fines because imposing financial hardship on the disabled/retired is nonsense, even if they made fraudulent statements. It's absurd and all it does is directly conflict with the purpose of the program. Imprisonment is actually more reasonable as it would in theory discourage fraud, while not imposing financial hardship on individuals who have limited financial means. CMP should be abolished.
It’s funny that you don’t think prison would cause a financial hardship.
Had a case where a woman obtained a paper copy of a Texas birth certificate (not her own), found the SSN of the real person, and managed to get a US Passport issued to her and filed an SSI claim and was approved. When the wages were posted to the earnings record, she kept denying they were hers (it was true, they belonged to the right person) and SSI continued. Then the real person turned 62 and filed a retirement claim and the Texas office detemined she was the right person. They actually contacted the living parent.
We got a request for assistance in California because the woman was in our city. Called her in for an interview with a native Spanish speaker. Asked her questions about her family history and marital history to see if we could match up her story with the computer records. I asked if she had siblings. I was going to try to look up their numidents to see if they had the same parents. She could not remember the names of her siblings. Could not recall any names of brothers or sisters or whether they were older or younger than her.
OIG sent an agent to interview her in our office in Spanish. She called to cancel. He called her back and said we can come to your house. She didn't answer the door. Case was referred to OIG to see if they could prosecute her, but in the meantime, we had to keep paying SSI to her while retirement Social Security was being paid to someone ele. Eventually, OIG said that unless she confesses, they cannot prosecute her and asked if we could do anything administratively. We did. We stopped her payments and sent her a bill for $70,000. Which she ignored, whoever she was. Regional office would also not allow us to just write off this debt as uncollectable since we had no idea who she really was and no idea of how much money she really had. The computer record was smart enough to recognize that retirement benefits were still being paid, so the computer started cross program recovery by itself. I finally convinced regional office that we would never see this money again.
So a case of deliberate fraud, large overpayment, but no prosecution. We did impoverish her though. Whoever she was.
Post a Comment