The Social Security Administration (SSA) spent $30 million in stimulus money in 2009 to hire 585 new bureaucrats who will be responsible for certifying whether people are eligible for disability so they can be paid by the taxpayers not to work.' ...
Sandra Fabry, director for the Center for Fiscal Accountability at Americans for Tax Reform, called SSA’s use of stimulus funds for ODAR a “bad deal for taxpayers on both ends.”
“You’re paying money on the front end to make these hires and are obligating taxpayers at the same time to pay millions and millions more on the recipients’ side,” she said.
Bottom line, Fabry said, the move by SSA grows the scope of government in both spending and “dependency.” ...
Fabry acknowledged the claims back-log, but questioned whether or not this is a good use of taxpayer dollars ...
Jan 24, 2010
Understaffing Social Security Makes Sense If You Start With This Premise
From CNS News:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Understaffing was a specific technique used by the Reagan administration under the budgetary guidance of "Tin Woodman" David Stockman. As I recall, the staffing was reduced by 17% at a time when the workload was starting to rise significantly. That was the real start, and a principal cause of the backlog, IMHO.
Makes me want to throw up--the claims are already pending, and people are in need--what is SSA supposed to do, dismiss all of the backlogged hearings so that that the taxpayers are saving money? Let me remind them--this is disability INSURANCE--paid for from the wage earners tax dollars, and is due them when they meet the requirements. This is like HMO's denying claims just to save money after the people have paid their insurance premiums. Disgusting.
This person,from the excerpt,in my opinion,presumes no-one is truly disabled from gainful work(40 hrs a week,ongoing). Thats a wrong presumption.
Secondly,i agree,it's a waste of money to pay alj's and other adjudicating employees to continue to lack logical decisions.Evidence of these decisions sometimes appear in articles as fraud.All decisions should be based on logic and factual findings not what an alj or other ssa employee desire.
"Security Administration (SSA) spent $30 million in stimulus money in 2009 to hire 585 new bureaucrats who will be responsible for certifying whether people are eligible for disability so they can be paid by the taxpayers not to work."
That is incorrect in that the money comes from the Trust Funds and unless we are talking about SSI, the people found disabled paid their FICA taxes while working.
That being said, the Stimulus bill should not have had money in it for things like SSA staff hiring. No wonder if was a bloated bill and hasn't brought unemployment down.
Plus SSA could hire a million ALJs and nothing is going to go any faster if you don't hire more people in PCs to put people in pay status.
Charles,love your blog, but don't give these knuckleheads a voice. If you are going to stray far and wide for your sources, why not try the Kabul Sun-Times, the Tehran Morning Call or the Goebbels Gazette.
The story all but says, "If they are going to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population".
It's a great blog.Very critical but very nice information man. Keep up the good work and keep posting the cool information.Very clear and useful for a newbie like me.Thanks a lot.Keep blogging.
Shame on you, Charles Hall! This article *is* laughably terrible, but doesn't really merit re-posting. It's more on the level of, "send-to-friends-on-GChat-with-ironic-emoticon."
Starting with the loaded word, "bureaucrat," this article quickly devolves into little more than a mouthpiece for a conservative tax reform lobbyist.
I *did* learn that conservatives still hate government. (That's not "news," though.) And, I *have* been humming the delightful little ditty, "When the Saints Go Marching In," since seeing the new hires count and thinking, "Lord, I'm glad to be in that number."
But it's truly a shame that conservative hack journalists like Karen Schuberg don't stick to topics like her usual pro-life prattle.
One of her recent headlines sounds like a 4th grader's current affairs report:
"Since April, 114 Children Have Died from H1N1 -- but 700,000 Have Died from Abortion"
(I'm speechless.)
Standard should not be 40hrs/week.
If someone can do sedentary work 35 hrs/wk, why should he be found "disabled" and paid?
@ Anonymous 1.25.10
The standard isn't really 40hours/week, its substantial gainful activity. So if you make SGA be it at 40 or 35 hours per week, that is the standard
SGA is presently $ 1000.00/month. That works out to a little over 32 hours/week at minimum wage($ 7.15/hr.) So anyone working 35 hours/week would automatically be performing SGA, unless there are special conditions or subsidy. It doesn't always work out that way, but for now it does. If you can work 25 hours/week at $ 10.00/hour, that is also SGA. Seems like a pretty tough standard.
Fantastic post.Really interesting post.Thanks for an insightful post. These tips are really helpful. Again thanks for sharing your knowledge with us.Keep blogging.
Who the hell is Reputation Management and Camera Surveillance? They're making troll bots now. Nerds go jump off a cliff please!
Post a Comment