From Huffington Post:
With a little over one week left before funding for the nation's transportation infrastructure dries up, the Senate has reached a deal on a multiyear bill, parting ways with the House. ...
[Senator Barbara] Boxer, the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, wouldn’t offer details earlier Tuesday afternoon on all of the offsets that would pay for the bill, but confirmed that some of the money would come from cuts to Social Security benefits for people with outstanding warrants for their arrest, and another measure would prevent Social Security Disability Insurance recipients from simultaneously collecting unemployment insurance. ...I'm telling you now. The unemployment provision is going to be a mess, the outstanding warrants provision will be widely perceived as unfair and the GOP will have shown that Democrats are willing to roll over on Social Security disability.
14 comments:
It's all part of the budget game. the Transportation infrastructure bill costs a certain amount of money and in order to spend that amount of money Congress must come up with an equal amount of savings. But the savings is whatever CBO says the savings is and is merely savings on paper. Whether those savings are actually achieved is totally irrelevant for issue at hand which is passage of the spending bill. Just part of the game which the rubes outside the Beltway don't understand. And one thing Congress likes to do is beat up on prisoners and their ilk. As for the unemployed, with UI in most cases back to 26 weeks this will primarily hurt those on DI who try to return to work but are then laid off. So maybe the impact will be a reduction in DI, unless DI exceeds UI in which case they won't file for UI, or maybe people will just have another reason not to try to return to work. Does the bill also include the provision that people getting DI can't get the EITC?
Hi,
I read this page often, and have been on SSDI for several years. I almost collapsed when I saw the headline "Senate Agrees To Social Security Disability Cuts". I am nervous as all heck about the 2016 shortfall, and I also thing that Social Security is an incredibly successful and much needed program.
That being said, I don't see this as a cut. Please, outstanding warrants for arrest and double dipping UI and SSDI? If you are wanted by the FBI, no you should not get a monthly benefit, and there are enough people struggling as is without collecting 2 government checks. I know SSDI is based on medical conditions and not need like SSI, but if unemployment is subsidized by the government then that should be an exception.
I hope the Senate and House start to seriously consider the shortfall coming in 2016. A 20% reduction would be like paying auto insurance for years and years and then having a total loss of the car and the insurance company saying, well the company is doing so well these days so we will just pay 80% of your claim.
Sorry if I offeneded anyone.
Anon 10:00
You don't know what a huge debacle it was when SSA had the policy of cutting people off just because of a warrant. There are plenty cases of vulnerable people with disabilities who were not even aware of the warrants. Plenty more of errors in the system where people were cut off due to misinformation. 20 year old warrants from a state 1,000 miles away, where the police had no interest in pursuing even when the person called them and there was no way the person could afford to go there in person and resolve it. The list stretches on. It is an absolutely awful policy. It can take years to fix such problems, during which time the person with the disability can become homeless, lose their health insurance, and sicken. When that happens they wind up in the hospitals and emergency rooms for treatment, which is MUCH more expensive than if they had retained their insurance and got preventative care. It ends up costing the system more than any savings. In the process it causes a great deal more human suffering. It's a stupid idea, a proven failure that should not be adopted.
I handled a case for my cousin a couple of years ago in Virginia - she was 60, had multiple problems, but had been trying to work, and after being laid off from Home Depot, was collecting unemployment. She was approved at the initial level, and although there is the 5 month waiting period before she could collect any benefits from SSA, the VA Unemployment Commission made her pay back all of the unemployment benefits she received from the date she said she was disabled, even though she was actively looking for work.
When I finds someone disabled, I will not pay them for the weeks they were receiving unemployment, just to avoid that headache.
As always, the details matter.
There have been two provisions relating to UI and DIB benefits. One, the more draconian, says that if you are receiving UI, you will be deemed to be engaging in SGA. The result would be that you would not be able to be considered disabled until the UI ceases, which may be 26 weeks, or as in recent years, up to 99 weeks after you last worked before your disability can be found to begin.
The other provision treats the UI benefits roughly like WC payments and results in a reduction of T-II benefits based on what was received in UI. Frankly, given that today UI is limited to 26 weeks in most places, that would be mostly in the five month waiting period in most cases. Yes, there are exceptions, but this is not going to be a disaster for most people as the first proposal would be.
I have looked in the Congressional Record and on Thomas to try to find out which proposal has been moved forward in the Senate. If anyone knows the answer, please advise.
As to the warrants, the question is what warrants are we talking about. Contempt warrants based on child support obligations, old traffic offenses in cases from States far away and many years ago, cases of mistaken identity, cases that were cleared years ago but never cleared out of the system, the list goes on an on. There are already provisions in the law dealing with actual felons who are called fleeing felons and that has been a major mess for some time. Adding warrants, where there has been no conviction and, in many cases, no case at all, to a system that is overburdened as it is, is just unworkable.
The SSA is not a police agency. It lacks the resources or ability to check on the validity of warrants and putting that burden on claimants, most of whom have no understanding of what needs to be done to clear old warrants, is absurd.
How about stopping the double dipping for veterans? Some are making more now than when on active duty.
The UI/DI offset won't affect most DI recipients because relatively few of them work and when they do, relatively few get laid off. But when the Ways and Means Committee is holding hearings about how to get DI recipients to work, they shouldn't be introducing measures like this that disincentivize work. Republican plans for UI/DI either eliminate DI altogether in any month where someone is eligible for UI (even if they only get a week or UI, or don't get it at all, just are eligibile for it) or count it as an SGA month (even if the income is below the SGA or even Trial Work Period amount) which could affect eligibility for medical insurance too.
UI often pays less than what someone's insured for in DI, especially if the work they've gone back to is less than full time. Why should SSA leave someone worse off if they get laid off than if they're fired or quit? In the latter scenarios, the individual would go right back to their full benefit amount because of expedited reinstatement.
@ 10:20
I tend not to be a Scrooge when considering a veteran who was severely disabled in service to our country. Those disabled veterans likely have a great deal more expenses and problems than when they were healthy and on active duty. I do not begrudge them both benefits if they qualify, even if they are making more than when on active duty.
@ 10:44 Oh please, do you know how many veterans scam the system. Sorry but 10:20 anon is right.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-01/hard-understand-1000s-veterans-busted-massive-benefits-fraud
So it takes forever for the ALJ to make a decision. After this, it will take forever to process that decision because SSA will be trying to track down UI payments for the first 20 or so months of entitlement. Or there will be a bunch of partially adjudicated claims leaving open the question of UI offset (or suspense). That'll means a bunch of unapproved fee agreements which means a bunch of calls from attorneys.
Didn't the Clark v. Astrue class action suit a few years ago stop SSA from stopping benefits to people with outstanding warrants? I thought the deal was that a warrant was an unsubstantiated allegation of wrongdoing, and therefore it was not fair to terminate benefits because of that.
The Honorable Sam Johnson, Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, is the one who introduced the legislation that equates the receipt of unemployment benefits with substantial gainful activity. Not only could this approach reduce a person's benefit, it could prevent them from being awarded benefits. Feel free to let the Chairman know what you think. I am no Donald Trump, but you can find his contact information at www.house.gov
@11:03
Your reasoning is faulty. If some vets are committing fraud, the solution is to improve decision making, fraud detection and enforcement. It's not to cut benefits for all Vets, including those with legitimate claims. Your proposal only makes sense if the goal is to cut benefits to veterans regardless of the legitimacy of their claims or their needs. I suspect a strong majority of the public would oppose that.
Glad to stumble across this blog.
It is so difficult to have a reasoned conversation regarding 'entitlement reform,' especially at some of the Dem Party-ordained blogs.
Meaning, no matter what proof you present, many bloggers cannot accept the fact that a Democrat would attempt to cut entitlements. That, in spite of this Administration's Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission's proposal and recommendations--many of which have already passed.
(Oh, so it's clear--the only 'reform' that I would endorse, might be progressive premiums for Medicare. And poor and very low income Americans should be required to pay only a nominal out-of-pocket fee/premium. Better that, than subjecting them and their heirs to a MERP, IMHO.)
Post a Comment