:rolleyes: It was a reasonably conclusion for anyone who saw the show, and certainly worth investigating.
I’m curious too, but I realize that this is a private matter between Mr. Thornton and the Social Security Agency, and it is absolutely none of my business.
It was a joke reference to Bill Frist. Try to keep up.
Well, Coburn is an MD but I don’t think I’d want him to be my GP.
Sure I do. I don’t think they should be able to demand an investigation of whether a specific action by a specific private individual violated a law, at least without probable cause.
It’s tantamount to a bill of attainder.
No apologies necessary.
Mr Thornton chose to publicize the way he lives (I’m talking about his capabilities not his lifestyle). Senator Coburn saw this and had reasonable grounds to question whether Thornton was genuinely disabled. As both a private citizen and as an elected official, Coburn was justified in asking to have Thornton’s disability status reviewed. The review was made and Thornton’s status was upheld. That should be the end of it for both parties.
I don’t think you know what a bill of attainder is.
So when Congress called Eric Prince to testify on the conduct of Blackwater private military contractors in Iraq, was that unfair? When members of Congress ask for an investigation of Clarence Thomas’ ethics reports, is that unfair?
Again, if someone in Congress threatens to punish an agency if they don’t come up with their preferred outcome of an agency investigation, that’s wrong. But asking the agency to review something after credible evidence comes up that there might be waste, fraud, or abuse? That seems reasonable.
No a bill of attainder would be if Coburn had demanded Thornton’s social security payments be stopped based on what he had seen on TV. Coburn’s request that Thornton’s social security payments be investigated based on what he had seen on TV was reasonable.
I have to agree with this. If Thornton had not desired such scrutiny of his lifestyle, financial or otherwise, he should not have agreed to publicize it in the way that he did on TV.
Senator Coburn is a public figure too and I have called for him to be audited by the IRS, yet nothing happens. Oh right, I forgot, I’m not a senator.
I know exactly what a bill of attainder is. Do you?
Was there probable cause to believe Blackwater employees had broken the law, based on the results of the DoD’s investigation? Was there probable cause to believe Thomas had failed to disclose financial interests, based on his own financial affidavits?
We can agree that those are a little different than something the Senator caught on TV. Even if we can’t, Blackwater and Thomas are government contractors and a government employee, respectively, not private citizens.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I am perfectly happy for Coburn to demand an investigation of the adult baby guy’s benefits in his capacity as a private citizen. I am not happy for him to do it as a Senator.
I am happy for him to demand an investigation of the Social Security Administration and its disability insurance programs generally in either capacity.
We could argue endlessly about whether Coburn was wise to ask for a review - he probably wasn’t. But he had the right to ask for one - especially since he is a senator. Monitoring the functioning of federal programs is pretty explicitly his job.
It sucks for Mr. Thornton that he had his life interfered with by the federal government to a degree - but since his life was so intertwined with SSI that was inevitable. Ask anyone involved with SSI if you don’t believe that one - generally disability claims are routinely denied on the first application with the expectation that the truly disabled will reapply and see the process through.
The program is a mess - it routinely pries into the private lives of recipients to determine whether they are eligible (even discriminating against married people as a matter of course), makes little effort to steer recipients into vocational retraining with the goal toward eventual reemployment and termination of SSI benefits, and costs far more than it should.
What Mr. Thornton had to endure from Senator Coburn is small potatoes. I encourage everyone to read this article.
I was unaware that building furniture was illegal or immoral. I might even call it good therapy for some. Clearly the guy passed the audit, and so was doing nothing wrong. How odd that someone from a group bemoaning big government power is ready and willing to use that big government power on someone he doesn’t like. No, one hopes a Senator has better things to do than play vigilante, but given that it is Coburn he would do less harm if he were locked into a room with a coloring book and a set of crayons.
As for taxes, none of the protesters say that taxation is theft, as we hear so often here? You are morally justified in lying to prevent the theft of your belongings, might the IRS think that these people would feel justified in lying to minimize the “theft” of their assets?
I’m sorry, but this is a mess of an analysis.
First, a bill of attainder is an act of the legislature that defines a person as guilty of crime without a trial. Nothing remotely similar to that happened in this case.
Second, disability adjudication before the SSA is an Article I tribunal. That is to say, it exercises its power as a creature of Congress in pursuance of Congressional objectives. This has two consequences: one, it is entirely appropriate for a member of Congress to ask the SSA to investigate a matter; two, your objections regarding probable cause are altogether misplaced–this isn’t a criminal matter. Even if Senator Coburn asked the DOJ to investigate potential criminal activity (which did not take place here), that would not represent any constitutional overreach.
Third, as a recipient of government benefits, the claimant may be asked to account for his continued eligibility at any time. There is no right to SSI benefits; they certainly don’t vest permanently after one ALJ hearing.
So, you think it is fine under the First Amendment to have someone expressing unpopular views or living an unpopular lifestyle to be investigated at the request of a member of government in his official capacity?
Richard Nixon is smiling in his grave.
Has Senator Coburn ever done anything in public that would cause you to think he cheats on his taxes?
Stanley Thornton appeared in a documentary about his skills as a furniture maker. As the OP said, if somebody is able to design and build furniture, I think there’s reasonable grounds to question if they need disability payments.
The part where I said “I’m talking about his capabilities not his lifestyle” just went right past you? This has nothing to do with Thornton’s views or lifestyle. It’s a question of whether or not he’s disabled.
Right, Little Nemo. People on the board here are presumably aware that private disability insurers often employ investigators to check up on people collecting benefits and ensure that they are actually disabled, and not cheating the company.
The principle isn’t much different with the government, right? I would assume that people understand that somewhat greater scrutiny is required of people collecting benefits. This is understandably distasteful to a degree.
We should be mindful of whether that scrutiny is effective as well as distasteful - whether the busybodies are actually moving people towards beneficial programs as they pore through their files, or are actually recommending them for appropriate benefits instead of denying an application until they show up again with a lawyer or disability advocate. I hope reforms are made in this area.
In an era where the nature of work has changed dramatically and flexible working arrangements are easier to manage for employees and employers both, there are more people out of work on disability than ever. That is wrong. And however Mr. Thornton’s case goes, this has to change, for everyone’s sake.
Also, note that bit – bolding mine – near the end of the article: “he describes trauma stemming from childhood abuse, combined with other mental and physical problems that he said make it impossible to maintain employment, including the security guard position he held for 1 1/2 years.”
While I would love to see Coburn apologizing for things he’ said in the past this story doesn’t merit it.
Do you have any evidence Thorton was investigated solely on Coburn’s request? Some evidence he abused his power?
It seems to me Coburn publicly calling for an investigation would inspire others to make such a request. I think if enough people call for an investigation its reasonable for SS to do a review. The investigation may have had more to do with Coburn being a public figure then it had to do with him being a Senator.
If you happen to be say secretly Anderson Cooper, go on your show tonight and call for Coburn to be audited. Something might indeed happen and it would have nothing to do with being a Senator.