Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Social Security Owes 'Fugitives' Millions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:14 AM
Original message
Social Security Owes 'Fugitives' Millions
SEPTEMBER 26, 2009

Social Security Owes 'Fugitives' Millions

By ELLEN E. SCHULTZ

A federal judge approved a civil-court settlement requiring the Social Security Administration to repay $500 million to 80,000 recipients whose benefits it suspended after deeming them fugitives. The supposed fugitives include a disabled widow with a previously suspended driver's license, a quadriplegic man in a nursing home and a Nevada grandmother mistaken for a rapist. They were among at least 200,000 elderly and disabled people who lost their benefits in recent years under what the agency called the "Fugitive Felon" program. Launched in 1996 and extended to Social Security disability and old-age benefits in 2005, the program aimed to save taxpayers money by barring the payment of Social Security benefits to people "fleeing to avoid prosecution." But some federal courts in recent years have concluded that most people the agency identified as fleeing felons were neither fleeing nor felons. The problem: Social Security employees relied on an operations manual stating that anyone with a warrant outstanding is a fugitive felon, whether the person is actually fleeing or attempting to avoid being captured.

(snip)

The National Senior Citizens Law Center, an advocacy group for the elderly and disabled, sued the Social Security Administration in an Oakland, Calif., federal court last year on behalf of people denied benefits, and asserted that most warrants -- some decades old -- were for minor offenses and most people were unaware they existed. Roberta Dobbs, a 75-year-old widow in Durant, Okla., who uses a wheelchair and is tethered to an oxygen tank, was deemed a fugitive in 2006 because of an outstanding 2001 warrant issued in California following a traffic accident while Mrs. Dobbs was moving from her home. Her benefits were cut off for three years, forcing her to rely on friends, family and charity.

Some "fugitives" were victims of mistaken identity. To identify felons, the agency cross-checked its database with databases of old warrants obtained from various law-enforcement agencies. If a match was found -- of a person's first and last name, and either Social Security number or date of birth -- the person was deemed to be a fugitive and his benefits suspended. The program didn't compare middle initials or gender. Willie Mae Giacanni, 79, a retiree near Reno, Nev., was informed by the Social Security Administration in 2006 that her $350 a month benefit would be suspended because of a warrant outstanding in New York, a state she has never visited.

She said she "called different precincts," trying to find out what she was wanted for. A detective told her the warrant was for Willie Frank Thomas, who was wanted for kidnapping and rape in 1972. Although Mrs. Giacanni's first husband's surname was Thomas, and the suspect shared her birth date, he had a different Social Security number, middle name, gender and race, according to the New York City Police Department's fugitive-enforcement division. The detective sent Mrs. Giacanni a letter to give to the Social Security office, stating that the warrant wasn't for her, but the agency wouldn't accept it. Mrs. Giacanni sought help from a legal-aid attorney, who got the matter resolved. The agency declined to comment.

Even if people succeeded in clearing their warrants, the SSA had maintained they shouldn't have been paid benefits while the warrant was outstanding, and pursued them for the "overpayment." Mrs. Dobbs ultimately got her warrant vacated with the help of a legal-aid lawyer in 2008, but the Social Security Administration said it wouldn't resume her benefits until she repaid $11,802 for benefits she received in 2005. As part of the settlement, the agency agreed to drop its claims for "overpayments."

(snip)


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125392410242542675.html (subscription)

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A3

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
marybourg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. Another stunt to placate the voracious RW appetite for
inflicting punishment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. Social Security was supposed to be an untraceable number
And this is a perfect example of why. They shouldn't even be able to use it to track criminal offenses, let alone stop paid in benefits with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. They swore it would NOT be an national ID. They lied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeep789 Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Exactly, if they want to enforce a national ID then let them
make a law creating it. Using SSN's as a national identifier is ludicrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Interesting. It appears that even my cable company knows my SS #
or, at least, the last four digits which I don't even remember disclosing.

I recently asked one of these companies - don't remember which - how or why it got my SS number and the reply was that they extend credit so they need it.

Even doctors' office want it which I no longer provide.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. They changed the law in the 70s
And extended it to credit. I don't know when they extended it to the police.

There used to be a separate tax number and separate military number. Every federal agency had a separate number. Ask anybody over 70. They'll remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. Another law designed to go after the poor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Agree. With the millions and billions going to Blackwater, AIG
Edited on Sun Sep-27-09 10:50 AM by question everything
and just simply "lost" in Iraq, they are worrying about a $500 million that keep the poor, the sick and the elderly from just die in the ditch?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
6. I am glad this is finally being rectified. $500M adds up to some serious "Change" :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
7. The law should probably include people with warrants as well as fleeing felons


but of course the IRS should pay up with interest if it involved mistaken identity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC