Paperwork

  • |

    DOJ’s “Rule of Law” Stretch Goal (Please Submit Proof in Writing)

    ByMike Rotch

    I love the “rule of law” crowd. I also love when grown-ups claim they’re being careful and then treat paperwork like it’s optional seasoning. DOJ, via Acting AG Todd Blanche, has been selling a plan/fund that won’t move forward “as stated” like it’s a mature compliance move.

    But a federal judge’s record says the underlying IRS settlement process was improper enough to trigger penalties for attorneys. And when the government’s “trust us” needs to be translated into something boring and enforceable—like a pledge actually in writing—reporting says Blanche wouldn’t commit the promise on paper when asked.

    So here’s my kitchen-table rule: if it’s really off the table “as stated,” then sign the statement that proves it. Otherwise you don’t have rule of law—you have improv with a tie, where the only receipts are vibes.

    The consequence isn’t just legal theater. It’s the public being asked to accept “following the court” as a brand promise, while the court, the record, and the lawmakers all keep demanding the one thing government spokespeople can’t seem to stand—documentation. Paper matters. And apparently, so does dodging it.

  • |

    SSA Deletes the Wrong Death, Forgets the Why

    ByHugh Jass

    I’m Hugh Jass, serious investigative reporter with absurd gravitas, and I have bad news and good news—both in the same envelope. The SSA “deletes the wrong death,” the beneficiary gets unfrozen, and everyone claps because the calendar finally stops yelling. Then the contradiction kicks in—because the system often deletes the outcome without keeping the reason, so the Evidence Screen (EVID) doesn’t explain itself. The document coughed; Exhibit A had a pulse; the fix still can’t prove how it learned.

    A reader seeing the article title will immediately understand why this article accompanies the piece because the phrase “deletes the wrong death” points to the correction, while “forgets the why” points to the missing documentation that makes the correction un-auditable.

    In an OIG review of incorrect-death corrections in a sample spanning Jan. 2020 through Dec. 2024, SSA corrected cases at a fairly healthy clip: 54% of the time, technicians made changes in line with policy. So the part that “works” definitely works. The part that doesn’t is the part that lets anyone else verify what happened next time.

    Here’s where the haunted paperwork starts: for 45% of the cases where the record was corrected, the technician didn’t document the reason the death was recorded/removed on EVID. Worse, in 61 of 78 cases within the review sample, there wasn’t even an EVID entry present—meaning the system’s own evidence door is left wide open, and then everyone acts surprised when accountability walks right through.

    And because government fixes love a sequel, the OIG also noted payment follow-through problems. In at least two cases, payment records weren’t updated to reinstate benefits for beneficiaries whose incorrect-death status had been corrected. That’s not a philosophical glitch—it’s the difference between “we changed the record” and “we fixed the life attached to it.”

    So yes: the SSA can correct an incorrect death posting. But if the “why” doesn’t live in EVID, the agency can’t show its work, future mistakes can’t be filtered, and the public is left with a transcript edit where the exhibits are missing. If you’re alive but the government’s records say you aren’t, you don’t just deserve a correction—you deserve receipts that stay filed after the clerical smoke clears.

End of content

End of content