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?

Who's a Wounded Warrior

A preventive war, to my mind,
is an impossibility today
--President Eisenhower
___________________

The government is back at the divide and conquer game with veterans.

Back at the Social Security office this week attempting to resolve the ongoing matter of his docked pay resulting from a March 2008 administrative error (see Rodeo Clown and links), Ranger noticed the "Expedited Disability Applications for Wounded Warriors": If your disability was incurred after 1 Oct 01, you qualify for fast-track adjudication by the Social Security Administration, which made Ranger feel like chopped liver.

So much for all the rhetoric about inclusivity amongst all of our nation's veterans. If you're a Vietnam veteran with emergent issues, you're in the back of the bus, behind the Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) vets. The message: You still make us nervous.

Why is it extended to current soldiers, but not wounded or disabled veterans from other wars? Is a soldier's service post October 2001 more valuable than that of his predecessors?

And why are those veterans any different than any other citizen? Shouldn't all citizens be treated fairly by our government? Ironically, one does not need to be either wounded or a warrior to qualify for this preferential SSA program. From the pamphlet: "[W]ho become disable ... regardless of where the disability occurs" -- so a Quartermaster company clerk in a car wreck could be magically transformed into a "Wounded Warrior" ™.

I will be surprised if the SSA clears up my account before my next birthday, eight months from now. 14 April 2011 SSA informed Ranger that they had made a self-admitted error in 2008 and claimed Ranger owes them in excess of $10,000. He filed an appeal form within the month and received his first correspondence on the matter 9 Jul 12 stating that they would remand $8,500 to his account until they make an administrative decision. This over one-year lag time despite appealing the matter through my congressman's office.

No one at the Administration is being held accountable for screwing up my hard-earned benefits. This is doubly irksome in our current political climate which advocates for less rather than more government; the government we have is not doing its job, so why do we think less will be more?

Vis-a-vis the Chicago SSA Regional office handling (or not) his claim, Ranger feels like a rat in a sticky glue trap that some clever marketers call a "home".