Boss Tweed, Florida-Style

 --Manny Francisco (Phillippines)

"It was not your fault that you
got too much Social security money" 

--Quotation from SSA letter to Ranger

   

Do you think this country
was founded on informed ideas? 
--30 Rock 

_______________________ 

Ranger continues the slog through the Social Security Agency (SSA) behemoth, continuing his 19-month effort to get the matter of a $10,000+ erroneous deduction from his earnings resolved.  It was at his most recent meeting in his local SSA that Ranger was possibly subjected to voter coercion, whether known or unbeknownst to the perpetrating agent.

It was a routine visit to try and decipher wildly conflicting letters from the Great Lakes Program Center office (which sounds suspiciously like a training facility for inner-city youth); some indicated a portion of the funds had been remanded to his account, where others thanked him for discharging his "debt".  Actually, the grammar from that last correspondence deserves to be read by a wider audience (adding credence to the perception of the Program Center-as-training facility):

"We have review [sic] our record [sic] an [sic] found that you already refunded the $10,724 back in 2011.  We have removed the overpayment from your record."

What does this mean ... and why did it take until October 2012 to realize this factually untrue statement?  The trudge through the labarythine bowels of the SSA has been wickedly frustrating, but that is not Ranger's point today.

The point pertains to the upcoming Presidential election.  Local SSA Representative Smith told Ranger that he would not be allowed to read or review SSA regulations in their office nor would they provide him copies of the regs pertinent to his case, "until the presidential election is over."

How does the election equate to Ranger's monetary saga with the SSA?  What is the mystical connection between the two?  Ms. Smith claims it is SSA policy, but could it merely be a field office's effort to influence the election by withholding information from one disgruntled voter?  Inquiring minds want to know.

This appears to be illegal withholding of information to a taxpaying citizen based upon the intent of special interests hoping to influence and election.  Why would the two weeks leading up to an election be different from the time before or after?