How a Social Security program piled huge fines on the poor and disabled

[mahatmakanejeeves]

WP EXCLUSIVE

How a Social Security program piled huge fines on the poor and disabled

The remarkable penalties led to tumult inside the office of Inspector General Gail Ennis, where a whistleblower was targeted for retaliation, an administrative judge found

By Lisa Rein
May 20, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. EDT

Four years after her longtime partner died of kidney cancer, federal agents knocked on Gail Deckman’s door outside Chicago and told her she was in trouble: She had kept thousands of dollars in Social Security disability benefits that should have stopped when he died. ... Deckman told the agents she thought the $1,400 check deposited each month into an account to which she had access was a payment for land her partner had sold in Michigan. She spent the money on rent and clothes and gifts for her grandchildren, she said.

The inspector general’s office, which investigates disability fraud and tries to recoup money for the government, ultimately charged her $119,392 — nearly three times what she received in error. ... Deckman didn’t have the money. So the Social Security Administration garnished the entire $704 check she was going to receive every month when she retired from her minimum-wage job flipping burgers at the convenience store in her local Rebel gas station. She can apply for retirement in 2032 — when she’s 83. ... “I’m going to be dead by then,” Deckman said. “They’re taking away my Social Security. They’re charging me so much. Do they think I can afford a lawyer to fight this?” At 73, she continues to work, because she says she has to.

The inflated fees were set in motion during the Trump administration, when attorneys in charge of a little-known anti-fraud program run by the inspector general’s office levied unprecedented fines against Deckman and more than 100 other beneficiaries without due process, according to interviews, documents and sworn testimony before an administrative law judge. In doing so, they disregarded regulations and deviated from how the program had recovered money since its inception in 1995, failing to take into account someone’s financial state, their age, their intentions and level of remorse, among other factors.

The sums demanded by the government stunned those accused of fraud. The unusual penalties were not the only break with how the Civil Monetary Penalty program had previously been conducted: Unlike in the past, the chief counsel also directed staff attorneys to charge those affected as much as twice the money they had received in error, on top of the fines, interviews and court testimony show.

{snip}

Alice Crites and Jennifer Jenkins contributed to this report.

Gift Article
https://wapo.st/3wDKHSY

By Lisa Rein
Lisa Rein covers federal agencies and the management of government in the Biden administration. At The Washington Post, she has written about the federal workforce; state politics and government in Annapolis, and in Richmond; local government in Fairfax County, Va.; and the redevelopment of Washington and its neighborhoods. Twitter https://twitter.com/Reinlwapo

[CrispyQ]

1. It's hard not to be in a constant state of outrage.

I am so fucking sick of mean people.

[MichMan]

2. The amount of the fines was authorized by congress in 2015

"Civil fines provide an alternative when fraud is considered too insignificant to warrant criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. The fines act, in theory, as a deterrent to misconduct. Starting in 2015, Congress allowed the office to update the maximum penalties by a small amount each year in line with inflation. By 2018, the cap was $8,250, meaning that someone could be charged that amount for each wrongly received benefit check. But until the Trump administration, the full amount was rarely — if ever — imposed, according to people familiar with the program. Doing so was viewed as excessive punishment for a low-income and disabled population, according to current and former employees."

Why would congress approve these specific fines if they thought they wouldn't be imposed? They should have addressed these concerns when it was passed if that was the consensus.

[Eugene]

5. Power of maximum punishment to deter willful abuse, with the assumption of responsible application

by trustworthy public servants. Lawmakers did not plan for bad actors to bypass institutional controls and act as the Trumpers did everywhere else.

[XanaDUer2]

3. Oh no! A poor person got something! Nt

[Rebl2]

4. Strange

because my experience has been when someone dies the funeral home lets S.S. know of the death and the S.S. payments stop.

[GoldandSilver]

6. I don' t know anything about this particular case

But I do know that Social Security deposits are clearly identified on bank statements as such.

It’s highly unlikely this woman was clueless about the source of the money - she thought she would just claim ignorance and get away with keeping money that didn’t belong to her.

Social Security tries to be reasonable, however, if you’ve defrauded the government, they will not be very sympathetic when you’re caught.

I suspect this woman didn’t think Uncle Sam would catch up to her but they did and she’s expected to pay them back so now she is howling. I”m certain there’s more to this story than what’s being told.