Claim: Musk got the 150 yr old SS recipients figure from COBOL's default date of 1875

[JMartJr]

All we can point to at this time is what DOGE has stated. They said they have assessed that ~40% of calls to SSA are fraudulent calls. How did they assess that? I don't know.

Nor do I nor anybody else, as far as I can find.

But I have no reason not to trust this.

I would refer you to Mr. Musk's career, Mr. Trump's career and the long history of politicians and governments making statements.

Yes, I'd rather see the data but my default position is not going to be that they are lying.

I'd argue that nor should it be "They are not lying." Or, of course, it is possible that the DOGE group of total neophytes at government and how government works are not lying, but are just honestly wrong. There is some circumstantial evidence for that, looking at firings that had to be reversed when somebody figured out who it was they'd actually fired, and the revisions of claimed savings as how much (or little) they'd actually saved became more clear.

I don't know if they are lying, but I do know that between the propensity of Mr. Trump to lie, Mr. Musk to over-sell what he is accomplishing, and the inexperience and ignorance of the DOGE folks in how government works there is ample reason to be suspicious about what they report being true and accurate.

Hopefully, at some point, when the DOGE initiative has ran its course, each department will present their findings, changes, etc.

To me, a period of finding out what the departments were doing, how they worked, what was necessary expenditure, what was desirable but expendable in a pinch, what was undesirable, etc. should have come BEFORE making changes. But that takes a bit of time as a whole new crop of cabinet officials come in, most of them knowing little about how their departments work, and with a team of inexperienced DOGE operatives -- and taking a bit of time to know what you are doing and doing it right was not consistent with the sort of shock and awe the President and Mr. Musk wanted. Waving a chainsaw around is more fun -- but not as effective in accomplishing supportable and reasoned reductions.

Until then, I'm not going to be cynical about it for no reason.

See, to me, there is so much and obvious reason to be cynical, it's fascinating that we live here on the same planet and are talking about the same operations! ^_^

I don't know how old you are (I'm in the "codger" category") but I remember President Reagan's "Trust, but verify" mantra in attempting arms reductions negotiations with the Soviets (I recently found a reference to that same phrase in a biography of Kennedy I just finished, so the phrase, and certainly the concept, predates Reagan.) To me that would seem applicable here: I'd like to trust them, but they need to verify what they are doing and show us the numbers, not just make claims as the what the numbers are.

And perhaps at least ACT like responsible people trying to do a difficult job properly... with fewer chainsaws!

 

[fizzBuzz]

I would refer you to Mr. Musk's career, Mr. Trump's career and the long history of politicians and governments making statements.

Specifically to what we're talking about, a member of the DOGE team referenced the 40% figure, not Musk or Trump. But I agree with what you're saying about Musk and Trump, I do not depend on them to always be accurate.

Or, of course, it is possible that the DOGE group of total neophytes at government and how government works are not lying, but are just honestly wrong.

So, there seems to be a misconception about how DOGE works, even though they've stated/implied/alluded to it several times. DOGE isn't one group that goes from department to department taking over and making changes. DOGE is an initiative, essentially. Each department hires their own "DOGE" employees. Musk assists in that hiring by getting "top of the line" (and what seems to be overqualified in some cases) people for the positions in need. These new employees search for inefficiencies/enhancements/etc within that department. If that department's systems talk to other department's systems, then there might be cross-department DOGE collaboration. These new employees have to go through the same hiring process as any other gov't employee at the various departments. So, basically, what I'm saying is it seems the DOGE employees are being held to some higher/different standard by the public/media than other gov't employees. Why? How do you know they are neophytes at government? And why aren't you saying this in regards to all the other hundreds of thousands of gov't employees? How do you know they are/aren't neophytes at gov't?

It just seems to me they are being unfairly represented in this way. Sure, they've gotten some things wrong, but do you think all the other hundreds of thousands of gov't employees are infallible? We just so happen to see DOGE's mistakes, because they show it to us via the website. Other gov't employees' mistakes aren't reported, unless, obviously it's something newsworthy. For example, if last year an employee at the IRS made a simple reporting error on its website that has virtually no effect on anything, it wouldn't have made national news. On the other hand, DOGE makes a reporting error on its website that has virtually no effect on anything, and it makes national news - even though the error was corrected...

To me, a period of finding out what the departments were doing, how they worked, what was necessary expenditure, what was desirable but expendable in a pinch, what was undesirable, etc. should have come BEFORE making changes.

But what makes you think they aren't doing this? I would agree with you if we have been flooded with nothing but mistakes from DOGE over the last few months, but I don't see that.

See, to me, there is so much and obvious reason to be cynical, it's fascinating that we live here on the same planet and are talking about the same operations! ^_^

I don't know how old you are (I'm in the "codger" category") but I remember President Reagan's "Trust, but verify" mantra in attempting arms reductions negotiations with the Soviets

I'm 40. I agree with "trust but verify", but that's different from being cynical. In my previous post, I basically said I trust them but I'd rather see the data. Cynical would be assuming they are lying or assuming they are doing things purely out of self-interest, etc. Right? To me, that's a lot different that "trust but verify". But I don't know, I'm not the best with words lol

And perhaps at least ACT like responsible people trying to do a difficult job properly... with fewer chainsaws!

I agree with this 100%. I can't stand Musk's public behavior and I've never liked Trump's either. But I am also careful to realize that just because they may have a childish, sometimes repulsive, and non-standard politician public persona, doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing.

 

[JMartJr]

But what makes you think they aren't doing this?

("This" being "To me, a period of finding out what the departments were doing, how they worked, what was necessary expenditure, what was desirable but expendable in a pinch, what was undesirable, etc. should have come BEFORE making changes.")
I don't think they did that for reasons I explained...

But that takes a bit of time as a whole new crop of cabinet officials come in, most of them knowing little about how their departments work, and with a team of inexperienced DOGE operatives -- and taking a bit of time to know what you are doing and doing it right was not consistent with the sort of shock and awe the President and Mr. Musk wanted. Waving a chainsaw around is more fun -- but not as effective in accomplishing supportable and reasoned reductions.

They did not take the time to do it that way -- to do it properly. They jumped right into firing people, sending goofy "justify yourself or you are fired" emails and generally grandstanding (eg -- chainsaw waving.)

Nor did they take the time to research and understand how you go about reducing the size of the federal workforce -- so they did not follow procedure and courts are throwing out much of what they did. There are procedures for this that stand up to legal scrutiny, such as the much-dreaded-by-federal-employees R.I.F. -- but either nobody at DOGE took the time to learn what they are, or they decided to ignore them.

To be plain: I am an old Reagan era economic conservative who is into smaller government, and I am extremely concerned about what the increasing debt will mean for us down the road, especially as we're getting to be "down the road" more every day. But showboating, grandstanding and doing the job the wrong way so that much of it has to be undone pretty much immediately is not going to accomplish what I (and I assume you) want! It looks good to the base on sympathetic media outlets, but does not accomplish much, and risks poisoning the well for a future more serious attempt to control the cost of government. (It also creates a false impression that some sort of magic-wand painless-for-us-good-guys fix exists just from firing all the dead weight and chopping off the welfare cheats.)

I agree with this 100%. I can't stand Musk's public behavior and I've never liked Trump's either. But I am also careful to realize that just because they may have a childish, sometimes repulsive, and non-standard politician public persona, doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing.

Ha, I guess I'd agree if that's supposed to indicate an arrow of causality. ^_^ Them not knowing what they are doing is not (in my opinion) a product of their childish and repulsive behavior, and it would be possible for someone who is childish and repulsive to also be knowledgeable and competent, I'd think. I just see no evidence that this is the case in this instance.

These new employees have to go through the same hiring process as any other gov't employee at the various departments.

The pay some of them are drawing would indicate that this is incorrect.

So, basically, what I'm saying is it seems the DOGE employees are being held to some higher/different standard by the public/media than other gov't employees. Why? How do you know they are neophytes at government?

The 20-something tech bros coming from Musk's various tech companies are almost surely government neophytes, unless we assume they held important government jobs while in high school!

And why aren't you saying this in regards to all the other hundreds of thousands of gov't employees? How do you know they are/aren't neophytes at gov't?

They are not the subject of this thread. If you want to talk about the dangers of new hires in government generally, I suppose you could start a thread and make a case as to why you think this is (or isen;t) an issue. I'll read it, if you do! ^_^

 

[fizzBuzz]

courts are throwing out much of what they did

"much"? They've had injunctions that paused some of things they're doing, and they've won some of those. What actions have they taken that have been overruled/reversed?

They did not take the time to do it that way -- to do it properly. They jumped right into firing people, sending goofy "justify yourself or you are fired" emails and generally grandstanding (eg -- chainsaw waving.)

Nor did they take the time to research and understand how you go about reducing the size of the federal workforce -- so they did not follow procedure and courts are throwing out much of what they did. There are procedures for this that stand up to legal scrutiny, such as the much-dreaded-by-federal-employees R.I.F. -- but either nobody at DOGE took the time to learn what they are, or they decided to ignore them.

To be plain: I am an old Reagan era economic conservative who is into smaller government, and I am extremely concerned about what the increasing debt will mean for us down the road, especially as we're getting to be "down the road" more every day. But showboating, grandstanding and doing the job the wrong way so that much of it has to be undone pretty much immediately is not going to accomplish what I (and I assume you) want! It looks good to the base on sympathetic media outlets, but does not accomplish much, and risks poisoning the well for a future more serious attempt to control the cost of government. (It also creates a false impression that some sort of magic-wand painless-for-us-good-guys fix exists just from firing all the dead weight and chopping off the welfare cheats.)

I just think this is a lot of conjecture, unless you're qualified to determine whether they are doing it properly or not. Of course, you can have your opinions, but you're accusing them of being government neophytes. I don't think it's fair for you to essentially say "I can know these things, but they don't". I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but that's how it comes off. But again, maybe you're qualified - I don't know.

The pay some of them are drawing would indicate that this is incorrect.

Can you give examples? I haven't seen their salaries or pay scale.

The 20-something tech bros coming from Musk's various tech companies are almost surely government neophytes, unless we assume they held important government jobs while in high school!

From the lists I've seen, there's only like 3 or 4 people under the age of 24. Most of them are in their 30s and 40s.

They are not the subject of this thread. If you want to talk about the dangers of new hires in government generally, I suppose you could start a thread and make a case as to why you think this is (or isen;t) an issue. I'll read it, if you do!

I'm not interested in that lol my point was that I see a double standard being applied here. Some of these people are tech CEOs of successful companies. In terms of upgrading government systems and making them more efficient, I trust they know what they're doing over any random government employee.

 

[JMartJr]

I don't think it's fair for you to essentially say "I can know these things, but they don't".

I am 65 years old, having had a career that included serving on the staff of Sen. Lauch Faircloth and working with a number of political clients as a consultant, including members of both houses of Congress. My father was a member of Congress for 12 years, governor of NC for 8, while my father in law was a career government civil servant as a civilian employee of the Navy and DOD, so the topic of government as seen from the inside, where the work is done, has been "in the family" most of my life.

At the risk of sounding pompous, I think I'm qualified to have an informed opinion on how to work inside government and how to do things properly in government, and to be able to say when people with no known prior government experience are (put most charitably) making mistakes and doing things the wrong way.

 

[NoParty]

Nor do I nor anybody else, as far as I can find.


I would refer you to Mr. Musk's career, Mr. Trump's career and the long history of politicians and governments making statements.


I'd argue that nor should it be "They are not lying." Or, of course, it is possible that the DOGE group of total neophytes at government and how government works are not lying, but are just honestly wrong. There is some circumstantial evidence for that, looking at firings that had to be reversed when somebody figured out who it was they'd actually fired, and the revisions of claimed savings as how much (or little) they'd actually saved became more clear.

I don't know if they are lying, but I do know that between the propensity of Mr. Trump to lie, Mr. Musk to over-sell what he is accomplishing, and the inexperience and ignorance of the DOGE folks in how government works there is ample reason to be suspicious about what they report being true and accurate.


To me, a period of finding out what the departments were doing, how they worked, what was necessary expenditure, what was desirable but expendable in a pinch, what was undesirable, etc. should have come BEFORE making changes. But that takes a bit of time as a whole new crop of cabinet officials come in, most of them knowing little about how their departments work, and with a team of inexperienced DOGE operatives -- and taking a bit of time to know what you are doing and doing it right was not consistent with the sort of shock and awe the President and Mr. Musk wanted. Waving a chainsaw around is more fun -- but not as effective in accomplishing supportable and reasoned reductions.


See, to me, there is so much and obvious reason to be cynical, it's fascinating that we live here on the same planet and are talking about the same operations! ^_^

I don't know how old you are (I'm in the "codger" category") but I remember President Reagan's "Trust, but verify" mantra in attempting arms reductions negotiations with the Soviets (I recently found a reference to that same phrase in a biography of Kennedy I just finished, so the phrase, and certainly the concept, predates Reagan.) To me that would seem applicable here: I'd like to trust them, but they need to verify what they are doing and show us the numbers, not just make claims as the what the numbers are.

And perhaps at least ACT like responsible people trying to do a difficult job properly... with fewer chainsaws!

Thank you so much for contributing all this.
I didn't want to take the time (I'm slow at typing) & knew I'd honesty be forced to rub up against the Politeness Policy.
I would just add that not trusting Elon Musk at this point requires ZERO cynicism. Just paying attention & fairness.

 

[elvenwear]

So, it sounds like fraudsters may be aware of this flaw and they call Medicare, SBA, etc. impersonating dead people and then... evil stuff.

I was dubious about this claim, as I could not believe that a government would be so incompetent as to leave such an unforgiveable and gaping hole. It appears, however, I have underestimated the incompetence of the US government. Why I would do such a thing I have no idea. Clearly, there's no excuse.

Source (Emphasis: mine):
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fiel...and-their-grieving-families-bereavement-scams

FBI El Paso Warns About Scams That Are Targeting the Deceased and Their Grieving Families: Bereavement Scams

...
There are many versions of these types of scams to include: outstanding debt, funeral scams, Medicare scams, tax fraud, romance/compassion scams, delinquent Life Insurance ploys, credit card scams, and possibly specially engraved trinkets.

So how do you protect your family after the loved one has passed?
...
Obtain a credit report for the deceased person right after death and a few months afterwards. This will help you to identify any otherwise unknown accounts and to watch out for any attempted fraudulent activity after death.

Make sure to also notify any current banks, credit unions, or financial institutions that the deceased person used so that all checking, savings, investment, or credit card accounts can be flagged appropriately. The same thing for insurance companies holding auto, home, or life insurance policies. Check with the financial institution to see what access survivors' are entitled to and what protections will be put in place to keep scammers out.

Send a copy of the death certificate to the IRS so that the person's tax account can be flagged as well. Send the death certificate to the mailing address that the deceased individual would normally use to submit tax returns. You may also submit a copy of the death certificate when you file the person's final tax return.

Sometimes your funeral home will notify the Social Security Administration—but if not, you should do so right away.

And, according to DOGE, the SSA system is the source of this information and all other gov't entities that need to verify individuals talk to SSA for that verification.

From the above evidence, this appears this may be the case, although it's not necessarily the only source people might look at.

There is one example of a person who assumed the identity of a person he knew who died and used the identity for over 40 years. I was pretty shocked to find this was even possible. Interestingly, he did actually obtain government benefits but this was a retirement benefit decades after he stole the identity. The purpose of the theft was to evade arrest.
Source:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/...ig-charge-decades-long-fugitive-fraud-charges

U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI and SSA OIG Charge Decades-Long Fugitive with Fraud Charges

ALBUQUERQUE – A fugitive wanted for over four decades on attempted first-degree murder charges was apprehended in Weed, New Mexico, on February 19, 2025, following an investigation that uncovered his decades-long use of a deceased man's identity to evade authorities and fraudulently obtain government benefits.

According to court documents, Stephen Craig Campbell, 76, allegedly assumed the identity of Walter Lee Coffman, who died in 1975 at the age of 22. Coffman had graduated from the University of Arkansas just two months before his death. University records showed Campbell attended the same institution during that period, where both he and Coffman pursued engineering degrees, suggesting a likely connection between the two.

It is alleged that Campbell first applied for a passport under Coffman's name in 1984 and renewed it multiple times, always providing a photograph of himself and his current address.
...
The resulting investigation revealed that Campbell allegedly applied for and was awarded Social Security Title II Retirement Insurance Benefits under Coffman's identity. As a result of the alleged scheme, Campbell is suspected of receiving approximately $140,000 in U.S. government funds administered by the Social Security Administration in Coffman's name.

[DOGE] said they have assessed that ~40% of calls to SSA are fraudulent calls.

I can't find anything to support the claim 40% of calls to SSA are fraudulent calls. I'm not sure how they would be able to glean this information from a database. I was able to find examples of the use of deceased people's identity information to obtain tax refunds as shown below.

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fiel...ties-to-gain-2.3-million-in-state-tax-refunds

Georgia Man Pleads Guilty to Stealing Deceased Persons' Identities to Gain $2.3 Million in State Tax Refunds

JEFFERSON CITY, MO—Tammy Dickinson, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, announced that a Georgia man pleaded guilty in federal court today to a wire fraud scheme in which he used the identity information of deceased persons to obtain more than $2.3 million in tax refunds from several states.

Sirhon Rivers, also known as "Ron," 40, of Georgia, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matt J. Whitworth to one count of wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

The crime of stealing people's identity and collecting their tax refund is so common they even have an acronym for it - SIRF - Stolen Identity Refund Fraud.

Source:
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/s...than-50-people-indicted-in-massive-fraud-ring

Tax refund fraud involving the use of stolen identities has emerged as such a fast-growing crime category that it has earned an acronym—SIRF—for stolen identity refund fraud. The Department of Justice issued a new directive last year to coordinate, expedite, and streamline the prosecutorial efforts of the Tax Division and U.S. Attorneys offices nationwide.

This has no doubt worsened as a result of the Equifax breach, which exposed the Social Security Numbers of nearly a third of Americans. The press release above was made in 2013, meaning SIRF was common enough to warrant an acronym long before the biggest theft of SSNs in 2017.

Source:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-hackers-charged-in-equifax-breach-021020

February 10, 2020

Chinese Military Hackers Charged in Equifax Breach

Intrusion Affected Nearly Half of All Americans
....
Today, the U.S. Department of Justice announced charges against four Chinese military-backed hackers in connection with carrying out the 2017 cyberattack against Equifax, a consumer credit reporting agency. The intrusion led to the largest known theft of personally identifiable information ever carried out by state-sponsored actors.

Investigators had previously discovered and announced the type of malware that allowed the hackers to harvest addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and other data on approximately 145 million Americans. Today's indictment charges that members of the People's Liberation Army—the armed forces of the People's Republic of China—were behind that malware attack.

Although I am disgusted with the incompetence that allows the theft of deceased identities, where I find the claims of DOGE fall down is Social Security Fraud really isn't that lucrative. From the above, you can see Sirhon Rivers made $2.3 million with four identities in a very short space of time. If you can do this, why would you waste time with Social Security fraud? Ron could have used those four fake accounts to draw four pensions. It would have taken him decades to make $2.3 million this way and he would have been exposed to capture and arrest for the entire time he was collecting. It doesn't make sense to do this.

Apart from the first example, where Social Security was drawn as an afterthought, I cannot find any other examples of Social Security fraud involving the theft of dead people's identity. When I search for it on the fbi website, all I find is SIRF, which makes sense as it is far more lucrative. It is noted that the victims of SIRF are taxpayers, not the government.

Given that at least 145 million American's SSNs have been exposed and around 3 million Americans die each year, it follows that most victims of SIRF are living.

Source:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Data are for the U.S.

• Number of deaths: 3,279,857
• Death rate: 984.1 deaths per 100,000 population

 

[fizzBuzz]

I am 65 years old, having had a career that included serving on the staff of Sen. Lauch Faircloth and working with a number of political clients as a consultant, including members of both houses of Congress. My father was a member of Congress for 12 years, governor of NC for 8, while my father in law was a career government civil servant as a civilian employee of the Navy and DOD, so the topic of government as seen from the inside, where the work is done, has been "in the family" most of my life.

At the risk of sounding pompous, I think I'm qualified to have an informed opinion on how to work inside government and how to do things properly in government, and to be able to say when people with no known prior government experience are (put most charitably) making mistakes and doing things the wrong way.

Ok, nice. I would say your opinion on this should float above most, then. So, now, I'd like your opinion on something. Both Obama and Clinton tried to do what DOGE is doing. Albeit, not as loud and fast, but they had roughly the same goals. Obama even signed an EO specifically to circumvent Congress so he could make cuts faster. My question is: What is wrong with fast? (or faster than normal?) I've heard quite a few people (political voices) in opposition to DOGE say things like "these tactics may work in the private space, but they don't work in government", but they don't explain themselves, they just assert it. Where do they get this from and why is it so bad?

We all know gov't moves like a snail. I have first hand experience with this because I've done state and federal contract work and it's probably 5 times slower than doing work with the private sector. Why is it such a bad thing to try to speed some of this stuff up?

Take the federal retirement process as example. DOGE has talked about this. They said it can take up to 5 months for people to retire. And they have to fill out a stack of papers. Then that gets filed in the mine in Pennsylvania. This is INSANE! Back in 2023 there were efforts to begin writing a digital retirement program. But snail mode took over and it hasn't gone anywhere. DOGE got this stood up in 3 months and it will go live on June 2nd.

Starting June 2, DOGE and the Office for Personnel Management (OPM) will be rolling out its new Online Retirement Application (ORA) system for federal departments served by the National Finance Center and Interior Business Center, which are two federal shared services providers administering HR support.
...
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, DOGE said the new system "will reduce the average time people wait to receive their retirement check from 3-5 months to less than 1 month."

https://www.newsweek.com/doge-major-retirement-change-2070002

 

[fizzBuzz]

I was dubious about this claim, as I could not believe that a government would be so incompetent as to leave such an unforgiveable and gaping hole. It appears, however, I have underestimated the incompetence of the US government. Why I would do such a thing I have no idea. Clearly, there's no excuse.

Source (Emphasis: mine):
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fiel...and-their-grieving-families-bereavement-scams

FBI El Paso Warns About Scams That Are Targeting the Deceased and Their Grieving Families: Bereavement Scams

...
There are many versions of these types of scams to include: outstanding debt, funeral scams, Medicare scams, tax fraud, romance/compassion scams, delinquent Life Insurance ploys, credit card scams, and possibly specially engraved trinkets.

So how do you protect your family after the loved one has passed?
...
Obtain a credit report for the deceased person right after death and a few months afterwards. This will help you to identify any otherwise unknown accounts and to watch out for any attempted fraudulent activity after death.

Make sure to also notify any current banks, credit unions, or financial institutions that the deceased person used so that all checking, savings, investment, or credit card accounts can be flagged appropriately. The same thing for insurance companies holding auto, home, or life insurance policies. Check with the financial institution to see what access survivors' are entitled to and what protections will be put in place to keep scammers out.

Send a copy of the death certificate to the IRS so that the person's tax account can be flagged as well. Send the death certificate to the mailing address that the deceased individual would normally use to submit tax returns. You may also submit a copy of the death certificate when you file the person's final tax return.

Sometimes your funeral home will notify the Social Security Administration—but if not, you should do so right away.

From the above evidence, this appears this may be the case, although it's not necessarily the only source people might look at.

There is one example of a person who assumed the identity of a person he knew who died and used the identity for over 40 years. I was pretty shocked to find this was even possible. Interestingly, he did actually obtain government benefits but this was a retirement benefit decades after he stole the identity. The purpose of the theft was to evade arrest.
Source:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/...ig-charge-decades-long-fugitive-fraud-charges

U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI and SSA OIG Charge Decades-Long Fugitive with Fraud Charges

ALBUQUERQUE – A fugitive wanted for over four decades on attempted first-degree murder charges was apprehended in Weed, New Mexico, on February 19, 2025, following an investigation that uncovered his decades-long use of a deceased man's identity to evade authorities and fraudulently obtain government benefits.

According to court documents, Stephen Craig Campbell, 76, allegedly assumed the identity of Walter Lee Coffman, who died in 1975 at the age of 22. Coffman had graduated from the University of Arkansas just two months before his death. University records showed Campbell attended the same institution during that period, where both he and Coffman pursued engineering degrees, suggesting a likely connection between the two.

It is alleged that Campbell first applied for a passport under Coffman's name in 1984 and renewed it multiple times, always providing a photograph of himself and his current address.
...
The resulting investigation revealed that Campbell allegedly applied for and was awarded Social Security Title II Retirement Insurance Benefits under Coffman's identity. As a result of the alleged scheme, Campbell is suspected of receiving approximately $140,000 in U.S. government funds administered by the Social Security Administration in Coffman's name.

I can't find anything to support the claim 40% of calls to SSA are fraudulent calls. I'm not sure how they would be able to glean this information from a database. I was able to find examples of the use of deceased people's identity information to obtain tax refunds as shown below.

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fiel...ties-to-gain-2.3-million-in-state-tax-refunds

Georgia Man Pleads Guilty to Stealing Deceased Persons' Identities to Gain $2.3 Million in State Tax Refunds

JEFFERSON CITY, MO—Tammy Dickinson, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, announced that a Georgia man pleaded guilty in federal court today to a wire fraud scheme in which he used the identity information of deceased persons to obtain more than $2.3 million in tax refunds from several states.

Sirhon Rivers, also known as "Ron," 40, of Georgia, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matt J. Whitworth to one count of wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

The crime of stealing people's identity and collecting their tax refund is so common they even have an acronym for it - SIRF - Stolen Identity Refund Fraud.

Source:
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/s...than-50-people-indicted-in-massive-fraud-ring

Tax refund fraud involving the use of stolen identities has emerged as such a fast-growing crime category that it has earned an acronym—SIRF—for stolen identity refund fraud. The Department of Justice issued a new directive last year to coordinate, expedite, and streamline the prosecutorial efforts of the Tax Division and U.S. Attorneys offices nationwide.

This has no doubt worsened as a result of the Equifax breach, which exposed the Social Security Numbers of nearly a third of Americans. The press release above was made in 2013, meaning SIRF was common enough to warrant an acronym long before the biggest theft of SSNs in 2017.

Source:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-hackers-charged-in-equifax-breach-021020

February 10, 2020

Chinese Military Hackers Charged in Equifax Breach

Intrusion Affected Nearly Half of All Americans
....
Today, the U.S. Department of Justice announced charges against four Chinese military-backed hackers in connection with carrying out the 2017 cyberattack against Equifax, a consumer credit reporting agency. The intrusion led to the largest known theft of personally identifiable information ever carried out by state-sponsored actors.

Investigators had previously discovered and announced the type of malware that allowed the hackers to harvest addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and other data on approximately 145 million Americans. Today's indictment charges that members of the People's Liberation Army—the armed forces of the People's Republic of China—were behind that malware attack.

Although I am disgusted with the incompetence that allows the theft of deceased identities, where I find the claims of DOGE fall down is Social Security Fraud really isn't that lucrative. From the above, you can see Sirhon Rivers made $2.3 million with four identities in a very short space of time. If you can do this, why would you waste time with Social Security fraud? Ron could have used those four fake accounts to draw four pensions. It would have taken him decades to make $2.3 million this way and he would have been exposed to capture and arrest for the entire time he was collecting. It doesn't make sense to do this.

Apart from the first example, where Social Security was drawn as an afterthought, I cannot find any other examples of Social Security fraud involving the theft of dead people's identity. When I search for it on the fbi website, all I find is SIRF, which makes sense as it is far more lucrative. It is noted that the victims of SIRF are taxpayers, not the government.

Given that at least 145 million American's SSNs have been exposed and around 3 million Americans die each year, it follows that most victims of SIRF are living.

Source:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Data are for the U.S.

• Number of deaths: 3,279,857
• Death rate: 984.1 deaths per 100,000 population

These are great finds and, perhaps, I should have helped you with some of this. My apologies. It's amazes me how many evil people are out there. To me, protection of SS should be a primary focus because of its importance. It's not just a small, supplemental check that goes out. Many of the people who receive this check couldn't survive without it. My own grandmother is one of those. So, I understand when you say it's not lucrative for fraudsters so it probably doesn't happen that often, but to me even one case of SS fraud is too much. And I appreciate DOGE trying to end it.

 

[elvenwear]

Both Obama and Clinton tried to do what DOGE is doing. Albeit, not as loud and fast, but they had roughly the same goals. Obama even signed an EO specifically to circumvent Congress so he could make cuts faster.

That is very interesting. Are you talking about this?

Source:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/goodgovernment/actions/campaign-cut-waste

The President signed an Executive Order on June 13, 2011 establishing the Campaign to Cut Government Waste which includes two key initiatives:

1. New Oversight and Accountability Board: Building on the successful execution of the Recovery Act, the Vice President announced the establishment of a new oversight and accountability board to help federal agencies improve their performance and reduce waste, fraud and abuse across government.

The Recovery Act's use of unprecedented transparency to drive accountability and prevent fraud is a success story that needs to be replicated across federal government spending. The mission of the new Board is to allow taxpayers the sam eability to track where their dollars are going and to have the same confidence that the dollars are not being lost to waste, fraud, or abuse, not just for Recovery Act dollars, but more broadly.

The Board will be composed of 11 members, including agency Inspectors General, agency Chief Financial Officers or Deputy Secretaries, an official from the Office of Management & Budget, and other such members the President may designate. The new Board will work closely with Chairman Devaney and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to expand the benefits of this new, more effective way of doing business.

2. Regular Cabinet Meetings to Report Progress to the Vice President: The Executive Order also strengthens accountability, directing Cabinet members to report progress cutting waste and delivering results directly to the Vice President. Just as he did with the Recovery Act, the Vice President will be holding regular meetings with Cabinet members to make sure that we are doing all we can to eliminate government waste, save taxpayer dollars and make government work better. The order also requires agency Chief Operating Officers, generally Deputy Secretaries, and Chief Financial Officers to report progress regularly to the Office of Management and Budget.

As one of the campaign's first steps, the Administration will be targeting duplication and waste among federal websites. There are almost 2,000 separate websites across the Federal Government. With so many separate sites, Americans often do not know where to turn for information. The Administration will immediately put a halt to the creation of new websites. The Administration will also shutdown or consolidate 25% of the 2000 sites over the next few months and set a goal of cutting the number of separate, stand alone sites in half over the next year.

In this link, I cannot see anywhere about him bypassing Congress. He's stipulating they can't create new websites while the web review is underway, but that isn't cutting their budgets without congressional approval. Is there evidence of Obama cutting the budgets of departments or otherwise how is he circumventing Congress? I'm not from the US, so I don't really understand the ins and outs of the separation of powers if it is non budgetary.

My question is: What is wrong with fast? (or faster than normal?) I've heard quite a few people (political voices) in opposition to DOGE say things like "these tactics may work in the private space, but they don't work in government", but they don't explain themselves, they just assert it. Where do they get this from and why is it so bad?

If you're asking for an opinion....
- If you have rookies making decisions in government, they will be unaware of historical legal precedent and changes in law going back decades. This will open up a government organization to serious legal exposure.
- Firing experienced people can make you more susceptible to fraud. A good nose for fraud comes from experience. I've seen rookies miss obvious signs of fraud and uncovered hundreds of thousands in fraud fixing their mistakes.
- I've personally saved many times my wages every year while I was working in government, just due to experience and intellect. The point at which I left was the point where stupid people 'reformed' our organization (ie tripled the staff while halving productivity). They were all new. They all moved fast. Some of them have been fired already. IMHO, which has been right on most of the predictions I've made thus far, the rest will be fired over the next 12 months. Regardless, the damage has already been done. The department is now haemorrhaging cash.
- Smart people with a lot of experience in government can see problems before they happen and circumvent them. You are not going to be able to distinguish people like that from people who are incompetent by scouring a database or otherwise moving fast.
- When DOGE fired people working on nuclear safety, many of these people were unable to be rehired due to contactability issues, new jobs etc. That is avoidable permanent damage.
- When DOGE destroyed USAID, they opened the door to China and Russia further infiltrating Africa. America's strong position of influence has been eroded. That cannot easily be undone.
- You can easily break things in a Corporation and go bankrupt or another Corporation can take over. In government, you cannot afford to bankrupt the country. You do that, you are living in the third world.

It is possible to reform governments, but you need very intelligent people working for a very long time. If you want a more thorough answer to your question, I recommend the television serious Yes Minister. You may see it referred to as satire, however it is most certainly a documentary series.

Yes Minister

• TV Series
• 1980–1984
• PG
• 30m

Source:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080306/

We all know gov't moves like a snail. I have first hand experience with this because I've done state and federal contract work and it's probably 5 times slower than doing work with the private sector. Why is it such a bad thing to try to speed some of this stuff up?

There is nothing wrong with it. I've seen government operations that are incredibly efficient. The key thing is to have very good vetting of inbound staff (for intelligence and psychological screening).

These are great finds and, perhaps, I should have helped you with some of this. My apologies. It's amazes me how many evil people are out there. To me, protection of SS should be a primary focus because of its importance. It's not just a small, supplemental check that goes out. Many of the people who receive this check couldn't survive without it. My own grandmother is one of those. So, I understand when you say it's not lucrative for fraudsters so it probably doesn't happen that often, but to me even one case of SS fraud is too much. And I appreciate DOGE trying to end it.

Closing the loop on identity theft of deceased people is possible. Australia does it automatically (see below). The interesting thing for me is if DOGE is cutting government staff overall, new initiatives like the one below are very hard to get off the ground. There are two sides to the push toward small government. On one hand you have the problem of government waste. On the other hand, if you reduce government spending on Social Security and law enforcement, you lose some of you ability to govern and to enforce the law.

Source:https://www.australiandeathcheck.gov.au/

The Australian Death Check allows businesses to cleanse customer data against over 3 million official government death records for the first time.

By keeping accurate customer data, the Australian Death Check helps businesses to adhere to privacy legislation, verify identity and protect against identity fraud.

It also reduces the burden on bereaved families, who will no longer have to notify a business when a loved one passes.

For me the takeaway is that DOGE made a few claims:
- Deceased people >150 years of age were claiming <disproved>
- People stealing ID to steal social security checks of deceased people is common and a big problem <It appears to be very rare>
- 40% of people calling Social Security are doing so fraudulently <There appears to be no evidence to support this>

What we do know is:-
- The statement about many people getting Social Security when >150 years of age is an accusation directed at Social Security recipients.
- The statement about people stealing deceased people's ID to obtain Social Security is an accusation directed at Social Security recipients.
- The statement about 40% of people calling Social Security trying to be fraudulent is an accusation directed at Social Security recipients.

That's the concern I have. Each statement has the effect of demonizing recipients of Social Security and the truth of the statement is questionable. Given DOGE's record of making mistakes and worrying later (eg the nuclear regulator teams), I'd be more worried about DOGE cutting your grandmother's check by accident than protecting it. She's got much more chance of a criminal stealing her income tax refund than stealing her check.

The other thing that worries me is that Equifax has not been punished, but rather rewarded for their incompetence and the government has done nothing to fix the problem of the Equifax hack and generally protecting taxpayers from tax refund fraud. On one hand, you wonder how the US government can have a multitrillion dollar budget and not be on top of this and on the other hand, if you cut funding, they will do even worse. I don't know what the solution is.

 

[FatPhil]

That is very interesting. Are you talking about this?

Source:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/goodgovernment/actions/campaign-cut-waste

The President signed an Executive Order on June 13, 2011 establishing the Campaign to Cut Government Waste which includes two key initiatives:

1. New Oversight and Accountability Board: Building on the successful execution of the Recovery Act, the Vice President announced the establishment of a new oversight and accountability board to help federal agencies improve their performance and reduce waste, fraud and abuse across government.

In this link, I cannot see anywhere about him bypassing Congress. He's stipulating they can't create new websites while the web review is underway, but that isn't cutting their budgets without congressional approval. Is there evidence of Obama cutting the budgets of departments or otherwise how is he circumventing Congress? I'm not from the US, so I don't really understand the ins and outs of the separation of powers if it is non budgetary.

Indeed. And just look at the wording: "to help federal agencies improve their perfomance and reduce waste, ...". Not "to barge in with chainsaws and do things that they couldn't be bothered to do themselves". And, like many documents, you can also pick that up from his verbal pre-amble, the context within which that document was signed:

As part of this campaign, I've also asked federal employees to do their part and share their ideas on making government more efficient and more effective. And two of them are here today, so I want to introduce them. [...]
So we've received nearly 20,000 suggestions from federal employees. I just completed a videoconference with the four finalists of our annual SAVE award -- 20,000 submissions of ideas from federal employees about how we can reduce waste, eliminate duplication, redundancy, paperwork. And these four finalists have some terrific ideas: putting books that have been ordered every year online instead of continuing to incur the shipping costs, to having a tool library over at NASA so that instead of buying very specialized tools over and over again for different projects, we actually keep an inventory of those tools.

That's working *with* them, not *against* them. Quite a telling contrast.

Video: https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/executive-order-on-waste-and-efficiency/264816
Transcript: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/node/95131

 

[enilc]

Specifically to what we're talking about, a member of the DOGE team referenced the 40% figure, not Musk or Trump. But I agree with what you're saying about Musk and Trump, I do not depend on them to always be accurate.

More lies from DOGE.
Turns out the actual figure is 0.0018%

https://www.fingerlakes1.com/2025/05/16/social-security-phone-fraud-rate-2025/

 

[deirdre]

That's working *with* them, not *against* them.

no offense, but "them"s are the ones who are allowing the continuation of rampant waste and quite a bit of fraud to go on and on for decade after decade despite the Government Accountability Office putting out reports every year of the problems. Doge began with a known already reported list of problem areas. Does the slash and burn method come with its own set of problems? Of course. But does the slow, methodical method produce real progress? Apparently not, because we've been trying that for decades.

was doges initial approach particularly pleasant to watch? No.
But europeans of all people should know that severe austerity measures aren't really pleasant to watch either.

 

[fizzBuzz]

In this link, I cannot see anywhere about him bypassing Congress. He's stipulating they can't create new websites while the web review is underway, but that isn't cutting their budgets without congressional approval. Is there evidence of Obama cutting the budgets of departments or otherwise how is he circumventing Congress? I'm not from the US, so I don't really understand the ins and outs of the separation of powers if it is non budgetary.

Sure, look at this post

If you're asking for an opinion....
- If you have rookies making decisions in government, they will be unaware of historical legal precedent and changes in law going back decades. This will open up a government organization to serious legal exposure.
- Firing experienced people can make you more susceptible to fraud. A good nose for fraud comes from experience. I've seen rookies miss obvious signs of fraud and uncovered hundreds of thousands in fraud fixing their mistakes.
- I've personally saved many times my wages every year while I was working in government, just due to experience and intellect. The point at which I left was the point where stupid people 'reformed' our organization (ie tripled the staff while halving productivity). They were all new. They all moved fast. Some of them have been fired already. IMHO, which has been right on most of the predictions I've made thus far, the rest will be fired over the next 12 months. Regardless, the damage has already been done. The department is now haemorrhaging cash.
- Smart people with a lot of experience in government can see problems before they happen and circumvent them. You are not going to be able to distinguish people like that from people who are incompetent by scouring a database or otherwise moving fast.
- When DOGE fired people working on nuclear safety, many of these people were unable to be rehired due to contactability issues, new jobs etc. That is avoidable permanent damage.
- When DOGE destroyed USAID, they opened the door to China and Russia further infiltrating Africa. America's strong position of influence has been eroded. That cannot easily be undone.
- You can easily break things in a Corporation and go bankrupt or another Corporation can take over. In government, you cannot afford to bankrupt the country. You do that, you are living in the third world.

It is possible to reform governments, but you need very intelligent people working for a very long time. If you want a more thorough answer to your question, I recommend the television serious Yes Minister. You may see it referred to as satire, however it is most certainly a documentary series.

This is mostly competency vs incompetency. I'm specifically talking about speed and efficiency. I understand some things need time to materialize organically - like the passing of new bills. But other things shouldn't be so difficult - like the retirement program. As a web systems developer, there is no reason for that retirement program to take two years to develop. DOGE did it in 3 months, which sounds about right.

For me the takeaway is that DOGE made a few claims:
- Deceased people >150 years of age were claiming <disproved>
- People stealing ID to steal social security checks of deceased people is common and a big problem <It appears to be very rare>
- 40% of people calling Social Security are doing so fraudulently <There appears to be no evidence to support this>

What we do know is:-
- The statement about many people getting Social Security when >150 years of age is an accusation directed at Social Security recipients.
- The statement about people stealing deceased people's ID to obtain Social Security is an accusation directed at Social Security recipients.
- The statement about 40% of people calling Social Security trying to be fraudulent is an accusation directed at Social Security recipients.

These aren't the only claims they've made relative to this topic. How are these accusations against SS recipients??? They are clearly blaming fraudsters, not valid SS recipients.

 

[RTM]

no offense, but "them"s are the ones who are allowing the continuation of rampant waste and quite a bit of fraud to go on and on for decade after decade despite the Government Accountability Office putting out reports every year of the problems. Doge began with a known already reported list of problem areas. Does the slash and burn method come with its own set of problems? Of course. But does the slow, methodical method produce real progress? Apparently not, because we've been trying that for decades.

was doges initial approach particularly pleasant to watch? No.
But europeans of all people should know that severe austerity measures aren't really pleasant to watch either.

I seem to remember DOGE starting with a promise of cutting $2 Trillion, what started with a bang has ended with a whimper. His starting with USAID seemed to indicate he based his targets on personal dislikes.
Based on Musk's past promises and tendency to see himself as a savior I will take everything he says with a massive grain of salt until we see any balanced budget.

 

[elvenwear]

Sure, look at this post

I've read the post and what seems to be in common is that they are both about government efficiency. What I don't see is evidence of Obama circumventing Congress. It appears he was working with the agencies to cut waste. If Obama cut or even held up funding, I could see that as bypassing Congress, but I see no evidence of that in your post. Am I missing someting?

This is mostly competency vs incompetency. I'm specifically talking about speed and efficiency. I understand some things need time to materialize organically - like the passing of new bills. But other things shouldn't be so difficult - like the retirement program. As a web systems developer, there is no reason for that retirement program to take two years to develop. DOGE did it in 3 months, which sounds about right.

That's a fair point. I did focus more on competency. Let me be more clear. The agency I worked for had an annual cycle (being a financial department). Data was obtained by the end of fiscal year. There was a cleanup on that data and the information became available for the public as soon as possible after the data was cleaned. After that, there would be dispersal of funds. After the dispersal, there were several rounds of housekeeping for each quarter of the financial year including purging of unused records. Each quarter had a different type of cleanup. After this, the cycle would start again.

In this case, a person looking for only 3 months would miss most of the 12 month cycle. They could make decisions and not understand the implications. Also, if you screw up at a particular quarter, it will have different knock on effects that wouldn't exist if you did the same thing in another quarter as each quarter was different. The effects may not show up for twelve months. If they then made changes twelve months later to fix the initial problem, the effects of the fix would take at least 12 months to confirm. So that's 2 years and 3 months to fix a problem someone created after looking for only three months.

If you wanted to make changes to an organization like this, it would be best to study the cycle over twelve months minimum and only then make minor changes and then verify data over twelve months. So that's a two year time frame. Also, the more radical the change, the more likely the problems that emerge will be harder to fix so maybe the twelve month fix will prove ineffective at month 24. So ideally, this is a process of refinement over many years.

Once you start getting into complex issues of law, the time frames get extended. Rare legal issues don't occur often by definition. People with 20 years in an agency will be aware of most legal issues that are likely to arise just be being a bystander. If someone makes a policy change after three months of exposure to an organization, they will be unaware of any of the legal implications of their decisions. These sort of screwups are very, very expensive to fix. Also, if you are taken to court, your own incompetence is part of the public record.

In government, competence is impossible to acquire in the short term.

These aren't the only claims they've made relative to this topic. How are these accusations against SS recipients??? They are clearly blaming fraudsters, not valid SS recipients.

If they are saying 40% of phone calls are fraudulent, and talking about massive SS fraud and dead people taking payments, then one is left with the sense 40% of Social Security recipients are fraudulent. Since from the above quotes, the actual fraud is a fraction of a percent, I would say this is tarnishing a massive minority of valid SS recipients. This may not be the intended meaning, but many would read it that way. The other gruesome though occurs that it may actually be the intended message. A horrible thought, but the cynic in me can't ignore it. If my actual plan was cut or reduce SS payments to legitimate recipients, that would be the way I would prepare the public for it.

Doge began with a known already reported list of problem areas. Does the slash and burn method come with its own set of problems? Of course. But does the slow, methodical method produce real progress? Apparently not, because we've been trying that for decades.

This is really the crux of the problem. It is very difficult to surgically remove waste and fraud in a hurry. It's worth pointing out that the earliest surgeons worked very fast but they often killed the patient, and they didn't even have chainsaws at the time. The slow methodical approach would require bipartisan cooperation over multiple presidencies. Unfortunately, at the moment, this appears to be politically impossible. They also would have needed to start around 15 years ago. Oh wait they did. Hmm. I guess it must really just be the bipartisan thing.

 

[fizzBuzz]

His starting with USAID seemed to indicate he based his targets on personal dislikes.

This is not true according to Rubio and others.

Here, Rubio explains that USAID was being uncooperative to inquiry and was breaking executive orders. Watch from 2:18 to 6:45ish

Source: https://youtu.be/yoje2FAqZMk?si=D6siK0Oyiqr7Cpi8&t=138


Senator Joni Ernst has been trying to do a full audit of the agency for several years now and she had to open a congressional investigation into the agency because they were uncooperative.

Source: https://x.com/SenJoniErnst/status/1886802194000691436

 

[fizzBuzz]

I've read the post and what seems to be in common is that they are both about government efficiency. What I don't see is evidence of Obama circumventing Congress. It appears he was working with the agencies to cut waste. If Obama cut or even held up funding, I could see that as bypassing Congress, but I see no evidence of that in your post. Am I missing someting?

It's in the quote from the post:

We thought it was appropriate for our governments and agencies to try to root out waste, large and small, in a systematic way. Obviously, this is more important given the deficits we've inherited, that have grown as a consequence of this recession. This makes these efforts even more imperative. Now this does mean making some tough choices. It means cutting some programs that I think are worthy, but we may not be able to afford right now. A lot of the action is in Congress, and Legislative, and in budget... But in the meantime, we don't need to wait for Congress in order to do something about wasteful spending that's out there.

I take this as him saying we could go the Congress route to cut some of the wasteful spending that's out there, but we don't have to, hence, executive order. And I totally agree with him.

 

[yoshy]

What is wrong with fast?

Fast and competent = good.

Fast and incompetent = Trump administration fires and then tries to rehire nuclear weapons workers in DOGE reversal

 

[elvenwear]

It's in the quote from the post:

We thought it was appropriate for our governments and agencies to try to root out waste, large and small, in a systematic way. Obviously, this is more important given the deficits we've inherited, that have grown as a consequence of this recession. This makes these efforts even more imperative. Now this does mean making some tough choices. It means cutting some programs that I think are worthy, but we may not be able to afford right now. A lot of the action is in Congress, and Legislative, and in budget... But in the meantime, we don't need to wait for Congress in order to do something about wasteful spending that's out there.

I take this as him saying we could go the Congress route to cut some of the wasteful spending that's out there, but we don't have to, hence, executive order. And I totally agree with him.

Ah OK. I read that as a lot of the action will be taking place in Congress, meaning Congress will be the one performing the action. The next bit, 'we don't need to wait for Congress' I read as his team will identify waste in conjunction with the different admins. I don't think he actually bypassed Congress to cut funding, I think he was using his team to investigate and then passing the information on to Congress to action the information provided.

I did a search for 'Obama holds up congressional funds' and I couldn't find anything that explicitly fit that bill. I think if Obama bypassed Congress, it would have made headlines.

 

[deirdre]

I guess it must really just be the bipartisan thing.

yea if the Dems would just get on board the Trump train a huge chunk of our waste and fraud issues would be fixed. it's a shame. but since that is not gonna happen (and vice versa somewhat)...what's the answer?

 

[elvenwear]

yea if the Dems would just get on board the Trump train a huge chunk of our waste and fraud issues would be fixed. it's a shame. but since that is not gonna happen (and vice versa somewhat)...what's the answer?

I don't think the Democrats are going to get on board with the guy with the chainsaw, but it was Trump that essentially disbanded Obama's initiative. If he'd continued it, Biden would have continued it and it would be done by now.

 

[obiwanbenobi]

But it's not the purpose of the database.
The database needs a field "receives benefits (y/n)" and related information like reason, amount, end date etc. When a person dies, set "receives benefits" to "no", done.

It may make sense to keep "dead" people in the database. For example, if a person has been missing and declared dead, but later turns up, it'd be good if their social security records were still there.

The reason for the database is to keep track of Social Security Numbers and those who have paid into the program. Once a number is issued then it has to be kept track of so that nobody else can use it (or abuse it). This means that you pretty much can't ever delete records (and shouldn't) from it.