Vegas Shooter Had Benefits Dispute With Social Security

The sad news that a shooter had killed one federal employee and wounded another at a Las Vegas courthouse yesterday got a bit of clarification today as the Las Vegas Sun reported that the gunman had been in a protracted dispute with the Social Security Administration over his benefits, which were being reduced after he moved from California to Nevada, where rates are lower.

I want to say first that obviously frustration with a government agency is no excuse for homicide. Murder is never the answer to anything. And government procedures obviously aren't responsible for the violent actions of a deranged individual. Johnny Lee Wicks and no one else is responsible for the murder he committed yesterday.

But the story of Johnny Lee Wicks' dispute with the Social Security Administration does illustrate how confusing agency procedures can be--and perhaps some areas for all federal agencies that provide benefits to focus on. First, if you aren't already a federal employee, fluctuating benefits payments based on locality may be unfamiliar and confusing--and definitely upsetting if you learn that moving is going to cut the amount you receive each month, $974, by $317. Making those potential fluctuations clear to new benefits recipients seems like an absolutely critical thing to do to avoid later misunderstandings. Second, Wicks was informed that he had to repay funds that he in fact did not owe the government. Obviously mistakes happen, but it's an important reminder that, especially when dealing with low-income recipients, mistakes like that may be devastating, and double-checking is just good practice. And finally, Wicks filed a lawsuit against SSA, only to see it dismissed because he hadn't exhausted his administrative appeals. For someone who doesn't have extensive experience with the federal system, administrative appeals may seem confusing and unfamiliar, especially in comparison to a lawsuit. Of course, it's not in an agency's interest to see judgments against it. But in the public interest, it does make sense to make appeals processes as open and as navigable as is humanely possible.