I do not want to speak of Mr. Thornton’s issues in particular - I took great pains not to do so. I will note that with his particular issues he should not be working as a security guard.
That isn’t to say he should not be working. Based on that article I read, and others, I certainly do not regard the Social Security Administration as necessarily having the best word on that subject.
I’m merely noting that he held the job for a year and a half.
We’re talking about SSDI, not SSI.
It’s not “an analysis”. It’s “things I am uncomfortable with”.
I agree that part of Coburn’s job is to monitor the Social Security Administration and its programs. I simply don’t agree that it’s his job to monitor individual awards.
It’s a law that declares people guilty of a crime. As powerful as he may be, a single request by Senator Coburn does not constitute a law.
What makes you believe that Congress is bound only to act if there is probable cause? Do you think Congress requires probable cause to call a hearing on some matter, like whether tobacco executives lied about the dangers of cigarette smoke?
Furthermore, are administrative agencies prevented from reviewing benefits unless there is probable cause? Are IG investigations only opened if there is probable cause?
I understand what you are saying. I do not understand the logic of why it is unacceptable for a member of Congress to request an investigation as part of their oversight duties.
Sometimes I believe the SDMB is in an alternate universe, where if someone says, “The sky is blue,” there erupts a furor of recriminations of why someone would possibly state that “oranges are pink.” Building furniture is not immoral. Collecting SSI benefits while not being disabled is at least waste, and possibly fraud. Collecting government benefits that one is not eligible for is an administrative issue, and possibly a criminal one. It seems clear that the SSA investigated the situation and the guy did nothing wrong, but that doesn’t mean that the SSA has wronged this individual.
According to the article, it is SSI. Also, if he has only worked for 18 months by age 30, I doubt he has enough quarters of coverage to qualify for SSDI. (Indeed, it may be impossible, but the rule for disability insured status between 21 and 30 is kind of complicated … and of course, I don’t know what his actual earnings or total duration of employment has been. I am, however, comfortable hazarding the guesses “marginal” and “brief,” respectively.)
One way you assess the system is its to assess the system’s ability to process individual claims appropriately. If a member of an oversight committee sees what he suspects may be fraud, based upon a public incident, I believe that member has everyright to ask whether or not that claim was processed correctly.
Stanley Thornton Jr. should be burped and put to bed. No apology necessary for initiating a review of someone who demonstrates job skills publicly. If government agencies don’t monitor their own programs for fraud then they are not being responsible for the money entrusted to them.
And now he is acting like a big baby.
According to Mrs. Cad who has been in the security field for 30 years, 1.5 years is a lifetime as a guard because of the abnormally high turnover.
Because when a private person reports something SSA can evaluate the complaint and see if is worth investigating. When a member of Congress does it, they jump. My daughter interned for a state delegate, and got to make calls for him. People jumped for a college student when she used his name. All legit, of course.
Do you think Coburn was concerned about him versus the other million people really cheating the system because he thought there was serious evidence of fraud or because the guy was a freak? This is why I brought up tax audits. I’m sure audits of all tea party activists would find some fraud. bit it would be abuse of power, just as this is.
Now, if Coburn had been inspired by this case to ask for a general review of SSI fraud, that would be fine. Using his position to bully someone is not.
I’m sure the investigators did that. Coburn, not so much.
We all know that because a person with a handicap placard isn’t in a wheelchair or isn’t missing a limb doesn’t mean they are cheating.
People do cheat on disability. I know some people who are private detectives who have caught people cheating. Targeting an individual is not proper for a Senator.
As cynical as I am about politicians, this doesn’t really seem that bad. It’s almost expected that elected officials will engage in some amount of this. When he sent a letter to the SSA I’m sure it was on his senatorial letterhead, and it got more attention that the average citizens complaint would receive, but at the same time we want that to happen in some cases. As long as he didn’t threaten to use his office to get a desired result from the investigation, this is a case where the system worked. It looks bad for the senator in the end, for picking on someone who is disabled, in some peoples eyes. In the eyes of others he’s a hero for trying to clean up a flawed system. When it comes to people receiving undeserved benefits, the SSA might be the worst offender. I don’t think the percentage of people receiving undeserved benefits is that high, but I’ve seen a few outlandish cases myself, while at the same time some others who are truly need the benefits are denied them. Our system is messy, and this was just one of the cases where you have to hold your nose and move on.
I almost forgot, yeah he should apologize. If there’s a problem here now, it’s at the SSA, not this guy. But he’s not going to do it.
You don’t think it’s proper for a United States Senator to take an interest if he is made aware that the federal government might be making a mistake? If so then we have very different opinions of what’s proper. Who do you feel should be watching over the federal government if you don’t feel a Senator should?
I suppose I can live with that. Look, I’m not saying Coburn should apologize; I think his concern is entirely reasonable, based on what seems to have been shown on TV. I just think this sets a precedent for harassment of individual private citizens by elected officials.
This is not setting a precedent, it’s following one set long ago.