When Social Security was set up, the oldest American still alive at the time was born around 1825-1835.
Now the question is, should taxpayer dollars go to hunting down the death certificates for people without a death date in the Social Security system who fall into these extreme ages?
When Social Security was set up, the oldest American still alive at the time was born around 1825-1835.
Now the question is, should taxpayer dollars go to hunting down the death certificates for people without a death date in the Social Security system who fall into these extreme ages?
I'd say no.
Yet the database should be cleaned up. I'd argue that this is an opportunity for volunteers, citizen genealogists and archivists, to be recruited by the Social Security Administration (and at the prodding of DOGE) to have some fun and make for a better system. Heck, recruit Henry Louis Gates Jr. as a public advisor! Other agencies such as the National Weather Service have volunteers, so why not?
This I think is the heart of the problem—bureaucratic thinking.
What matters is that the system accurately reflect those who are alive and presumably eligible to receive Social Security checks.
Does that mean a date of death MUST come from a death certificate? Not necessarily.
Perhaps a notification procedure can be used to look for “proof of life”. Presumably the records also have contact details—mailing addresses and perhaps even phone numbers.
Is there a next of kin indicated? Another contact point.
Or perhaps the lack of activity for a numberholder is sufficient to render the individual “presumed dead”.
Point being, just because one approach to cleaning up the data is costly and burdensome does not mean all approaches are costly and burdensome.
When Social Security was set up, the oldest American still alive at the time was born around 1825-1835.
Now the question is, should taxpayer dollars go to hunting down the death certificates for people without a death date in the Social Security system who fall into these extreme ages?
I'd say no.
Yet the database should be cleaned up. I'd argue that this is an opportunity for volunteers, citizen genealogists and archivists, to be recruited by the Social Security Administration (and at the prodding of DOGE) to have some fun and make for a better system. Heck, recruit Henry Louis Gates Jr. as a public advisor! Other agencies such as the National Weather Service have volunteers, so why not?
This I think is the heart of the problem—bureaucratic thinking.
What matters is that the system accurately reflect those who are alive and presumably eligible to receive Social Security checks.
Does that mean a date of death MUST come from a death certificate? Not necessarily.
Perhaps a notification procedure can be used to look for “proof of life”. Presumably the records also have contact details—mailing addresses and perhaps even phone numbers.
Is there a next of kin indicated? Another contact point.
Or perhaps the lack of activity for a numberholder is sufficient to render the individual “presumed dead”.
Point being, just because one approach to cleaning up the data is costly and burdensome does not mean all approaches are costly and burdensome.